Re: Full time? : Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:39 pm  

Sumbody wrote:

I honestly believe that we'll see the playing field level out & calm down over next few seasons.
Fev, Leigh & Bradford have gone poop or bust. We've heard Fev rumours, Bradford have gone public about trimming their squad. It'll be interesting what Leigh do if they don't succeed.
Then you have London. They're not gonna survive on crowds of a few hundred unless they go part time.
Potentially, coming down we have permantly skint Wakefield or the mess that is Salford who with Koukash will stay full time but have his interference + mystery illnesses + contract disputes + 3 coaches a season or without him will have to cut costs drastically.
Nothing to fear part time, build the commercial side & go Full time when we're ready

I agree.

Re: Full time? : Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:13 pm  

Sumbody wrote:

I honestly believe that we'll see the playing field level out & calm down over next few seasons.
Fev, Leigh & Bradford have gone poop or bust. We've heard Fev rumours, Bradford have gone public qabout trimming their squad. It'll be interesting what Leigh do if they don't succeed.
Then you have London. They're not gonna survive on crowds of a few hundred unless they go part time.
Potentially, coming down we have permantly skint Wakefield or the mess that is Salford who with Koukash will stay full time but have his interference + mystery illnesses + contract disputes + 3 coaches a season or without him will have to cut costs drastically.
Nothing to fear part time, build the commercial side & go Full time when we're ready

Bit you neglected to mention is that Bradford are reducing the size of the squad whilst still spending full cap. Not a cost cutting exercise more a case of increasing the quality at expense of quantity.

Re: Full time? : Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:12 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

You're welcome. However, your tag line suggests you're under a misapprehension that Deakin 'stole' Halifax fans. What in actual fact he did was he looked at the new scenario - pin up star + summer rugby and saw a massive untapped demographic in the 6 to 14 year olds who had previously found RL cold and miserable. The vast majority had never watched RL before EVER but as awful as we have been and all the negative headlines etc we can still take 3000 to Blackpool and draw 9k to a dead rubber against Leigh.

Much like your period with Eadie and Anderson it was built on a very good team on the park and trips to Wembley. If a David Brook arrived, invested in a full time squad who topped the table and pushed for promotion you'd play to 5/6/7k again. Leigh have proved this and their crowd has a lot of teenagers in it who relate to the players in a way that football no longer allows.

As much as I hate what Bradford did, and they did steal our support, the second half of your post is correct. Grove, shudds.Salopian Kashmir 5.5 % Mmm!

Re: Full time? : Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:59 pm  

Some interesting views.

The Board have a long term costed plan, I applaud them for this approach.

I would imagine if funds became available sooner then the plans could be brought forward.

But.... I'm pretty certain more players will in effect be offered full time contracts going forward so this notion that part time means everyone is part time is probably not correct and is slightly misleading.

I seem to remember a previous full time only policy cost us the services of Mark Preston, so we should remember full time for the sake of it may not necessarily produce a stronger team over night, and may not suit some of our players at this moment in time.

I think Halifaxjohn (who I don't always agree with) correctly said the board and RM had chosen this path, and they have got us this far, so I am inclined to trust their judgement as they will be privy to income, costs and the circumstances of the players, do we really want to push out (for instance) players like Ross Divorty (a teacher) because it may not be financially viable at our current financial status to go full time.

If however 12 months down the line, sponsorship, crowds and income continues to increase then it may make more sense, and we may be in a better position to help players go full time and keep and attract the right players.

To Mr Jagger, don't be so hasty

Re: Full time? : Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:32 pm  

Agreed with the above, I also believe Miles is in the teacher boat as well though I'd also think that some of our squad are effectively full time, though I have no evidence to back that up.
Also, we may actually pick up some quality part-timers from some off the FT clubs, if they fit RM's plans.

Re: Full time? : Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:01 pm  

Sumbody wrote:

I honestly believe that we'll see the playing field level out & calm down over next few seasons.
Fev, Leigh & Bradford have gone poop or bust. We've heard Fev rumours, Bradford have gone public about trimming their squad. It'll be interesting what Leigh do if they don't succeed.
Then you have London. They're not gonna survive on crowds of a few hundred unless they go part time.
Potentially, coming down we have permantly skint Wakefield or the mess that is Salford who with Koukash will stay full time but have his interference + mystery illnesses + contract disputes + 3 coaches a season or without him will have to cut costs drastically.
Nothing to fear part time, build the commercial side & go Full time when we're ready

Re: Full time? : Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:33 am  

justthebasicfax wrote:

Some interesting views.

The Board have a long term costed plan, I applaud them for this approach.

I would imagine if funds became available sooner then the plans could be brought forward.

But.... I'm pretty certain more players will in effect be offered full time contracts going forward so this notion that part time means everyone is part time is probably not correct and is slightly misleading.

I seem to remember a previous full time only policy cost us the services of Mark Preston, so we should remember full time for the sake of it may not necessarily produce a stronger team over night, and may not suit some of our players at this moment in time.

I think Halifaxjohn (who I don't always agree with) correctly said the board and RM had chosen this path, and they have got us this far, so I am inclined to trust their judgement as they will be privy to income, costs and the circumstances of the players, do we really want to push out (for instance) players like Ross Divorty (a teacher) because it may not be financially viable at our current financial status to go full time.

If however 12 months down the line, sponsorship, crowds and income continues to increase then it may make more sense, and we may be in a better position to help players go full time and keep and attract the right players.

To Mr Jagger, don't be so hasty

"Halifaxjohn (who I don't always agree with)"
And that's what a forum is about, opinions delivered in an open and honest way.
Your comment about Mark Preston is spot on, I believe he had a far more lucrative job outside of Rugby League.
So it seems on his subject we agree.

Re: Full time? : Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:00 pm  

I think if we pick up a few gems that do not wish to, or cannot afford to go full time then great. Shame isn't it when the decision regarding whether or not you can pursue your dream to become full time / top flight in your chosen sport is driven by economics.

I was thinking earlier, I wonder what say Kevin Sinfield gets paid versus someone like Wayne Rooney, or even Jamie Vardy!!!

Re: Full time? : Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:39 pm  

I'm just glad we have remained somewhere nearer the top of the division over the last few years and to be in with a shout of staying there for the next few whether that be part time, full time or a mixture of both.

Sometimes it just doesn't work out like with KH.

Sometimes it does and with RM there just seems something "right" about him and Fax to make it happen.

Re: Full time? : Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:19 pm  

Norman Bates wrote:

Agreed with the above, I also believe Miles is in the teacher boat as well though I'd also think that some of our squad are effectively full time, though I have no evidence to back that up.
Also, we may actually pick up some quality part-timers from some off the FT clubs, if they fit RM's plans.

I would think that those who are full time are employed by the club to do other things. I wouldn't think that means full time in the true sense.