FORUMS > The Virtual Terrace > Old Jamie's at it again |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1002 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2012 | 13 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2015 | Feb 2015 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: Nothus "In an ideal world, when the current Sky contract runs out, the RFL will begin a shrewd renegotioation process, offering the broadcasting rights of their fantastic competition to anyone who is interested. They will use the impressive Sky viewing figures - along with a positive public reaction to the 2013 World Cup - to begin a bidding war between Sky and BT's recently created sports channels.
This will lead to a far more lucrative outcome, providing the funding which will allow the RFL to increase the salary cap for all teams in the competition and also improve other facets of the sport, such as marketing and grass roots development.
But of course, the reality is that our sport is run by a set of dimwits who have STILL yet to find a main league sponsor after almost half of the season is complete, thanks in part to them giving away said sponsorship for free last year.'"
The current RFL executive leadership is so out of its depth it would be funny if not so tragic. With any luck Barwick and club chairpersons with a proper understanding of business will working behind the scenes to get rid of the idiots. Prediction: Wood won't be here this time next year.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Who do you think appointed Nigel Wood to his position?
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1155 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jul 2011 | 13 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Oct 2023 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| There seems to be quite alot of opposition to a 10 team league because it would mean "9 home games only" "repeat fixtures" "playing same teams 3 times".
Surely this opens up the opportunity for a bit of mid-season representative action without any SL games and the question of backing up??
Start in March
10 teams = 18 weekly rounds
In addition - The magic weekend as an extra fixture (Derby day or Based on last seasons standings 1v2 etc) making 19 weekly rounds
Challenge Cup = rds 5, 1/4's, Semi's, Final
2 or 3 England (Hopefully GB) vs Exiles representative games played on a standalone weekend with no SL matches
Playoffs (dont know what would be best for a 10 team league) Perhaps top 4?
End of season International series (3 matches?)
Thats 31 weeks of RL between March and October (not including any friendlies played in a 4 month Off season)
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 394 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2011 | 13 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2024 | Jun 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| We had a two tier SL with p+r it was called SL & Div 1 and it did not work, infact it almost killed off several clubs
Franchising is the best of a bad bunch at the moment and we should stick with it.
P&R only works in football, even in the "richer" code RU p+r doesn't work. One club wins every game in the championship gets promoted and loses every game in the premiership and gets relegated whats the use in that?
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 10530 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2005 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| I posted this on the Wigan board in response to this...
I read it last night, and I've read it again now, and I see a few problems with it.
Firstly, how are we going to sustain 20 full time teams when we can't sustain 14 at the moment? Is full-time profesional RL really sustainable in places like Cas, Fev, or even Cumbria? And, how are they expected to increase attendances enough to remain sutainable? How are we going to replace the revenue lost by the reduced number of league and play off games and at the same time creating enough income to be able to spend the full 2m cap? I actually think the cap should be increased but only if it doesn't have a negative long term effect on club finances. Another question I would ask is why the clubs continue to vote against increasing the cap?
As for P & R, how is the promoted club suspose to just magic another £1m out of nowhere to be able to spend the full cap, and at the same time remaining competative on field when chances are the only players they'll be able to sign are the players from the relegated team none of the other clubs wanted?
I think the RFL should be working with clubs like Sheffield and Toulouse to try and improve their infastructure to get them into a position to be able to apply for an SL license. I know some will say why would anyone want to invest their hard earned cash into a project like Sheffield, Wales or Toulouse when there's no guarantee of getting into SL but I think the added security of no relegation could also make the investment more attractive.
The 'player drain' at this point is being over stated. Who have we actually lost to RU in the last decade? Lee Smith, Chev Walker, Joel Tomkins, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, Vainakolo, and Farrell? None of those are exactaly irreplacable are they? Hall replaced Smith, Watkins has replaced Walker, Farrell has replaced Tomkins, and Tomkins has replaced Ashton. It would be great if we could keep everyone in SL, but do we honestly think raising the cap by 200k is going to enable clubs to match some of the contracts RU and the NRL will be able to offer? The NRL can offer a profile and lifestyle that we simply can't compete with at this stage. To me one of the better solutions is to improve the games infastructure, and get a better standard of coaches, development officers, scouts, marketing officers and CEO's involved in our game. To simply increase the salary cap and change the structure of the league to a system that isn't sustainable and didn't work before isn't going to solve anything.
There's no quick fix here unfortunately.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: Charlie Sheen "I posted this on the Wigan board in response to this...
I read it last night, and I've read it again now, and I see a few problems with it.
Firstly, how are we going to sustain 20 full time teams when we can't sustain 14 at the moment? Is full-time profesional RL really sustainable in places like Cas, Fev, or even Cumbria? And, how are they expected to increase attendances enough to remain sutainable? How are we going to replace the revenue lost by the reduced number of league and play off games and at the same time creating enough income to be able to spend the full 2m cap? I actually think the cap should be increased but only if it doesn't have a negative long term effect on club finances. Another question I would ask is why the clubs continue to vote against increasing the cap?
As for P & R, how is the promoted club suspose to just magic another £1m out of nowhere to be able to spend the full cap, and at the same time remaining competative on field when chances are the only players they'll be able to sign are the players from the relegated team none of the other clubs wanted?
I think the RFL should be working with clubs like Sheffield and Toulouse to try and improve their infastructure to get them into a position to be able to apply for an SL license. I know some will say why would anyone want to invest their hard earned cash into a project like Sheffield, Wales or Toulouse when there's no guarantee of getting into SL but I think the added security of no relegation could also make the investment more attractive.
The 'player drain' at this point is being over stated. Who have we actually lost to RU in the last decade? Lee Smith, Chev Walker, Joel Tomkins, Chris Ashton, Stephen Myler, Vainakolo, and Farrell? None of those are exactaly irreplacable are they? Hall replaced Smith, Watkins has replaced Walker, Farrell has replaced Tomkins, and Tomkins has replaced Ashton. It would be great if we could keep everyone in SL, but do we honestly think raising the cap by 200k is going to enable clubs to match some of the contracts RU and the NRL will be able to offer? The NRL can offer a profile and lifestyle that we simply can't compete with at this stage. To me one of the better solutions is to improve the games infastructure, and get a better standard of coaches, development officers, scouts, marketing officers and CEO's involved in our game. To simply increase the salary cap and change the structure of the league to a system that isn't sustainable and didn't work before isn't going to solve anything.
There's no quick fix here unfortunately.'"
In the main I agree with what you are saying, but the game cannot on one hand be arguing over whether or not we have the player pool to support 14 franchises, and on the other hand be sanguine about losing players like Watkins.
If the game can afford to lose the likes of Tomkins and Watkins, we shouldn’t be talking about cutting the size of the league, we should be making it bigger. If those players are disposable and losing them isn’t such a big issue, then we have enough players to be bringing more teams to the top table.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 168 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2015 | Sep 2015 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| You forgot Eastmond. I think there are probably more, just not high profile ones.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1002 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2012 | 13 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2015 | Feb 2015 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| First up, a club-based democracy on the size of the cap is a terrible way to run the game. Churchill may have said that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time", but for issues like the salary cap I'd prefer a dictator ( e.g. Sky ).
I'm convinced we need to be smarter than just focusing on the absolute size of the cap. Free clubs to spend what they like, but protect everyone else with incredibly tight squad limits ( I mean no more than 13 'stars') ... after which you have to dig into your U19s)
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1002 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2012 | 13 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2015 | Feb 2015 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "In the main I agree with what you are saying, but the game cannot on one hand be arguing over whether or not we have the player pool to support 14 franchises, and on the other hand be sanguine about losing players like Watkins.
If the game can afford to lose the likes of, Tomkins and Watkins, we shouldn’t be talking about cutting the size of the league, we should be making it bigger. If those players are disposable and losing them isn’t such a big issue, then we have enough players to be bringing more teams to the top table.'"
There's an even bigger - but more hidden - problem than when we obviously lose a high-profile player. It's the 'loss' of players way before they even pick RL as an interesting sport in which athletic prowess could be translated into a high-earning career. This seems to get forgotten with the focus on Tomkins, etc.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 3648 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2010 | 15 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2018 | Apr 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: headhunter "I'm dreading the thought that Peacock might try to pursue a career at the RFL when he retires and end up with some sort of influence. Pretty much everything he suggests is the exact opposite of what should actually be done.'"
I feel the same, yet keep hearing what a wonderful administrator he would be. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 6766 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2007 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2022 | Dec 2015 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| I'm sick of hearing off him and his coach!
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 17982 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2011 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: Rhinoshaund III "There seems to be quite alot of opposition to a 10 team league because it would mean "9 home games only" "repeat fixtures" "playing same teams 3 times".
Surely this opens up the opportunity for a bit of mid-season representative action without any SL games and the question of backing up??
Start in March
10 teams
One problem Rhino,
The loss of income from fewer league matches with the added cost of an increased cap will have nails coming at the coffin lid faster than ever before.
The only viable solution is to allow the wealthier clubs to have 1 or 2 players that can be exempt from the cap.
Unless there is a miracle with British sponsorship, then we simply can not compete with the Aussie game.
However, there are a limited number of teams in Britain and Australia combined and the most likely scenario is that the number of top British players down under will increase and this may cause a small drop in standards in Britain.
As mentioned by other posters, Peacock is doing nothing to look after RL players interests in the UK.
By calling for a cut in the number of teams in the top tier of competition he is deliberately limiting the number of opportunities for young lads to make a career from professional RL, which in turn will reduce quality still further.
We need to accept where we are in the grand scheme of things and to a certain extent, realise that its "just a phase" and if there is a player drain to Australia, take the chance to give some younger lads a chance.
You never know, we might even find the next Ellery Hanley of Neil Fox !
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7152 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "The 2 leagues of 10 seems to catch support because it offers solutions to things people have invented as our problems. It doesn’t actually address any of our actual real issues.
2 leagues of ten well not help produce more quality players, it will not get us a wider support base, it will not get us higher visibility as a game, it will not bring in better sponsors, it will not help spread the game, it will not help clubs challenge at the very top of SL, and it will not bring more money in to the game.
The league and the game needs to stop looking for a silver bullet, Franchising gives clubs the time and space to grow, they should get on with doing that. Get on with selling tickets, get on with selling a spectacle, get on with improving youth development, get on with improving their corporate departments. When we do that pretty much everything else will follow .'"
Holy camel poo Batman. I agree with Smokey.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Owner | 33944 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2004 | 21 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Mar 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: Him "I don't think a 10 team league would work. It means either 9 home games or repeat fixtures.
I'd do something along these linesSome way of rewarding the Championship GF winner, be it financial or maybe a bye to the Challenge Cup Quarter Final next season?
I'd also increase the amount paid to Championship clubs from the SL TV deal, maybe into a central pot to be used for marketing Championship clubs and certain games?'"
Something many of us has suggested in the past
Yes , but what ? , a Challenge cup ' bye ' ? , no
Desperatley needed , possibly an RFL ' marketing team ' moving from club to club focusing on 1 match similar to what wigan do with ' The Big one ' , that is of course if the sports administration actually believe the lower tiers do have a future that can be ' Vibrant ' and worth winning
Licencing has removed the fear factor , but has also created an apathy factor , what is needed is something in between to focus the minds of the SL club owners , having a growing 2 nd tier would no doubt achieve that
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1421 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2014 | Nov 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "The 2 leagues of 10 seems to catch support because it offers solutions to things people have invented as our problems. It doesn’t actually address any of our actual real issues.
2 leagues of ten well not help produce more quality players, it will not get us a wider support base, it will not get us higher visibility as a game, it will not bring in better sponsors, it will not help spread the game, it will not help clubs challenge at the very top of SL, and it will not bring more money in to the game.
The league and the game needs to stop looking for a silver bullet, Franchising gives clubs the time and space to grow, they should get on with doing that. Get on with selling tickets, get on with selling a spectacle, get on with improving youth development, get on with improving their corporate departments. When we do that pretty much everything else will follow .'"
Smokey's nailed that
What concerns me is that Jamie Peacock has been used as a mouthpiece in recents seasons to voice / promote ideas that became reality shortly afterwards. I wonder if these proposals are further advanced than we realise?
|
|
|
|
|
|