Re: Featherstone Granted Planning Permission..... : Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:08 pm  

Stooper wrote:

Reduce the gap.

In 2006, SL was 1.6m, NL1 was 400k.

The step up meant clubs releasing a lot of the players who'd got them promoted to fill them with 'SL' calibre players who cost more. Conversely clubs who'd go down would release the whole squad and buy in NL players who'd accept the wage structure.

The gulf needs to be reduced, but to a standard that SL & the (now) Championship can afford if we are to bring back P&R

Yes the gap needs to be reduced, how is the problem , the Championship/NL1 SC is now 250 K, and most clubs arent operating at that , so how?

Re: Featherstone Granted Planning Permission..... : Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:15 pm  

I don't know.

A big paying sponsor (chortle) and the RFL distribute it evenly between SL & CH (guffaw).

We need to bridge the gap in terms of quality & revenue between the first and second divisions. But top end CH team can't pay SL wages. Much as I hate to bring it up, look at football. Swansea, Norwich, Reading, Stoke, Wigan....came up and hardly floundered without changing the structure.

Crusaders and Salford were given the first 'licences' and Crusaders have since fallen by the wayside, poor attendances/planning being their downfall. Salford are barely populating their shiny new stadium and Widnes sit bottom of the league, bringing in run of the mill SL/CH players who haven't made it elsewhere and hoping for the best.

Licensing isn't the answer, clearly, but P&R has so many variables that we can't change the system overnight and make it work

Re: Featherstone Granted Planning Permission..... : Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:25 pm  

Stooper wrote:

I don't know.
We need to bridge the gap in terms of quality & revenue between the first and second divisions. But top end CH team can't pay SL wages. Much as I hate to bring it up, look at football. Swansea, Norwich, Reading, Stoke, Wigan....came up and hardly floundered without changing the structure.

Crusaders and Salford were given the first 'licences' and Crusaders have since fallen by the wayside, poor attendances/planning being their downfall. Salford are barely populating their shiny new stadium and Widnes sit bottom of the league, bringing in run of the mill SL/CH players who haven't made it elsewhere and hoping for the best.

Licensing isn't the answer, clearly, but P&R has so many variables that we can't change the system overnight and make it work

The RFL dont know either

It wasnt poor attendances and planning, they were nowhere near ready even in the NL s

Re: Featherstone Granted Planning Permission..... : Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:10 am  

Stooper wrote:

I don't know.

A big paying sponsor (chortle) and the RFL distribute it evenly between SL & CH (guffaw).

We need to bridge the gap in terms of quality & revenue between the first and second divisions. But top end CH team can't pay SL wages. Much as I hate to bring it up, look at football. Swansea, Norwich, Reading, Stoke, Wigan....came up and hardly floundered without changing the structure.

Crusaders and Salford were given the first 'licences' and Crusaders have since fallen by the wayside, poor attendances/planning being their downfall. Salford are barely populating their shiny new stadium and Widnes sit bottom of the league, bringing in run of the mill SL/CH players who haven't made it elsewhere and hoping for the best.

Licensing isn't the answer, clearly, but P&R has so many variables that we can't change the system overnight and make it work

Widnes have progressed as the season has gone on and are now giving play off sides a run for their money and in a few cases a beating so far from being a negative for Licensing I think they are showing it works but that the step up can not be overcome quickly and with P&R the panic buttons would be pressed much sooner and Betts could well have gone long before his hard work came to fruition.

All things being equal I'd prefer P&R but it would be a conveyorbelt of the side coming up spending a fortune to in all likelihood go straight back down and as you say we can not change the system over night and in reality over the next dozen years would be pushing it unless we lower the SL standards to such an extent it is little better than the Championship.

Re: Featherstone Granted Planning Permission..... : Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:15 am  

Starbug wrote:

The RFL dont know either

It wasnt poor attendances and planning, they were nowhere near ready even in the NL s

Not sure that is accurate as Crusaders made the top 8 and were not far off knocking out Huddersfield in 2010, the stagnation and capitulation after that was down to inept owners wanting to bankrupt Wrexham FC and Crusaders were a bit part player in that but thankfully they are out of the picture now but you do wonder what would have happened if people in charge had wanted to push Cru on last season not strangle them to death.

Re: Featherstone Granted Planning Permission..... : Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:13 am  

espanyolswan wrote:

Not sure that is accurate as Crusaders made the top 8 and were not far off knocking out Huddersfield in 2010, the stagnation and capitulation after that was down to inept owners wanting to bankrupt Wrexham FC and Crusaders were a bit part player in that but thankfully they are out of the picture now but you do wonder what would have happened if people in charge had wanted to push Cru on last season not strangle them to death.

Celtic Crusader playing out of Bridgend, not the nice bloke child at Wrexham ,they were never awarded a licence

Re: Featherstone Granted Planning Permission..... : Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:34 am  

littlerich wrote:

I don't doubt the quality of the top half of SL by the way. There are some great clubs up there and I'm still entertained by many matches on TV but to my mind there's some real dross in it. There's about 5 clubs that shouldn't be there but there's no other clubs of better quality to replace them.

Surely that's a reason to congratulate Featherstone on their continuing efforts to become a better quality club to replace one of those?

Re: Featherstone Granted Planning Permission..... : Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:29 am  

SBR wrote:

Surely that's a reason to congratulate Featherstone on their continuing efforts to become a better quality club to replace one of those?

2 nd post page 2

Re: Featherstone Granted Planning Permission..... : Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:32 am  

Are they gonna do something about the pitch? When Wigan played there on the telly it looked like a ploughed field.

Re: Featherstone Granted Planning Permission..... : Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:39 am  

What's capacity going to be after the redevelopment?