Quote: Magic Superbeetle "But why are we insisting the tail should wag the dog? Surely we would want Wakefield to spend the same amount as Wigan and Saints for a decade?'"
That’d work too, and would be less mean spirited.
I am quite bitter, in a light-hearted kind of way.
A couple of questions that makes me think about…
What’d be the timeline of decline for a rich club that started to struggle financially? I think the success of Saints and Wigan is sufficiently embedded/entrenched that they could continue to glide if the engines shut down for 3 or 4 years before starting to dip. I guess Bradford would be the best example, but Wigan and Saints have now had another 15 years at the top and there’s a greater sense of exhaustion and hopelessness… on my part at least.
I’ve learned to take pleasures in small mercies and consolation in the misery of others. Wigan winning 60-0 is ignorable background noise. Hull losing 60-0 is the music that soothes my withered soul.
Conversely, how long would it take Wakefield (or it could be Rovers) to start competing? That feels like a two-step process. Change the perception of the club and ‘put the roof’ by strengthening the first-team immediately. You’re looking at 5 years to see the first fruits of a revamped, optimised and well-funded development pathway, and 10 years before the full benefits are felt - if all goes well. So they could get most of the way fairly quickly (2 or 3 recruitment cycles)… but it’d take a long time to catch-up fully.
The other point is the threshold at which it all stops being fun or interesting as a sporting entertainment, and when is unreasonable or not sensible to expect more ‘patience’. For me it is around winning less than one game in three for an extended period, with not much prospect of improvement. Below that nothing is sustainable, imo, and you can’t build anything.
