Freedom for supporters of the government, only for members of one party - however numerous they may be - is no freedom at all. freedom is always and exclusively for one who thinks differently. Rosa Luxemburg, 'Die russiche Revolution'.
Except, despite the title of the thread, you asked him about the championship. Which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, on a treadmill of constant improvement. Odd that, for a "tournament worth winning in its own right"
Starbug will be more than happy to confirm he brought the championship in to the argument, and that he stated that he wanted the championship attendances to be judged in isolation not in comparision. I simply asked him how we would do that. For reasons yet to be discovered this upset you.
You should also take notice that in the post you quoted i mentioned neither SL nor the championships but the game. What I said applies to the championships and SL and the amateur game. I.e we shouldnt limit ourselves by targetting 1k, 8k, 9k, 10k, 15k, averages, but should simply, constantly, try to improve.
Last edited by SmokeyTA on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Smokey, trust me, you're getting absolutely smashed in this argument and looking extremely silly. Keep going though, it's great fun to read.
There isnt an argument, i would rather there were one but there isnt, just one person saying RL is improving and progressing and growing, and one person talking about China and how the other person who isnt talking about economics shouldnt talk about economics. Its a strange one.
Luck is a combination of preparation and opportunity
Just to avoid confusion Starbug is the username of Steven Pike
SOMEBODY SAID that it couldn’t be done But he with a chuckle replied That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried. So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin On his face. If he worried he hid it. He started to sing as he tackled the thing That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
Why is the current SC the ideal figure for wages, isn’t it a figure set on previous revenue of which the previous attendances we aren’t allowed to factor in, are the major part? Shouldn’t we want it to be higher, in which case the crowds needed to pay for it would need to be higher, etc etc etc.
Do you not see the inherent contradiction in arguing that the ideal attendance shouldn’t be judged in relation to previous attendances but should be judged in relation to the Salary Cap, which is a figure set in the main, on the basis of previous attendances.
And the most obvious flaw in what you are saying, is that the SC can change. It could change right now to an SC which would allow clubs with attendances of 500 to be competitive and profitable spending it, does that mean that 500 becomes the 'good' attendance for the lower leagues?
Well it took you a while to think up some bollox to answer with , as your suggestion that a reduction in the Championship SC could then put a positive ' spin ' on poor attendances indicates
I would have suggested that the logical way of looking at this is that the aim should be for all clubs to reach the SC threshold , and then raise it , you obviously think that is the wrong way to do it
Luck is a combination of preparation and opportunity
Just to avoid confusion Starbug is the username of Steven Pike
SOMEBODY SAID that it couldn’t be done But he with a chuckle replied That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried. So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin On his face. If he worried he hid it. He started to sing as he tackled the thing That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
He did his best to answer your stupid question. Nobody can state an 'ideal' attendance, and you know that. What you're trying to do is manipulate any discussion so that any attendance, or any news at all, can never have a negative interpretation, because that would offend you, and your worship of the geniuses that run the RFL.
I can , it would be to have every stadium full for every game , I would suggest until you reach that level , you still have work to do , maybe thats the problem , Nigel/smokey think nothing can be done , so they do nothing , its the lazy way of running a sport
Well it took you a while to think up some bollox to answer with , as your suggestion that a reduction in the Championship SC could then put a positive ' spin ' on poor attendances indicates
I would have suggested that the logical way of looking at this is that the aim should be for all clubs to reach the SC threshold , and then raise it , you obviously think that is the wrong way to do it
I think you misunderstood me. The point i was making was the SC is based on attendances (or at least a major part of it is) so by basing it on the SC you are basing it on attendances. The other point i was making was that the SC is movable (as you go on to say) which means the aim you are stating (i.e your ideal attendance) isnt the aim at all, the aim is just as I said, progress.
I wasnt suggesting that lower crowds and a lower SC would be a positive spin on anything, i was suggesting that IF our aim was simply to fulfil the SC then should we bring down our SC to a lower level, even if crowds fell, then we would have achieved our aim. Which is clearly what no-one would want, which is why it wouldnt be a particularly worthwhile aim.
And i wouldnt disagree that when the SC becomes to low we raise it, thats pretty obvious. I just dont know why we would set it as our aim, i would just see it as a by-product. All our aim should be is constant improvement, when we bring in enough money we increase the SC, when we fill all our stadiums we build bigger ones, and when we bring in even more money we increase the SC, and when we fill our bigger stadiums we build even bigger ones, we dont set out to build bigger stadiums, nor increase the SC, we increase the cap and build bigger and better stadiums to increase attendance.
Luck is a combination of preparation and opportunity
Just to avoid confusion Starbug is the username of Steven Pike
SOMEBODY SAID that it couldn’t be done But he with a chuckle replied That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried. So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin On his face. If he worried he hid it. He started to sing as he tackled the thing That couldn’t be done, and he did it!
I think you misunderstood me. The point i was making was the SC is based on attendances (or at least a major part of it is) so by basing it on the SC you are basing it on attendances. The other point i was making was that the SC is movable (as you go on to say) which means the aim you are stating (i.e your ideal attendance) isnt the aim at all, the aim is just as I said, progress.
I wasnt suggesting that lower crowds and a lower SC would be a positive spin on anything, i was suggesting that IF our aim was simply to fulfil the SC then should we bring down our SC to a lower level, even if crowds fell, then we would have achieved our aim. Which is clearly what no-one would want, which is why it wouldnt be a particularly worthwhile aim.
And i wouldnt disagree that when the SC becomes to low we raise it, thats pretty obvious. I just dont know why we would set it as our aim, i would just see it as a by-product. All our aim should be is constant improvement, when we bring in enough money we increase the SC, when we fill all our stadiums we build bigger ones, and when we bring in even more money we increase the SC, and when we fill our bigger stadiums we build even bigger ones, we dont set out to build bigger stadiums, nor increase the SC, we increase the cap and build bigger and better stadiums to increase attendance.
If this is an intelligence test, I admit defeat, because I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You'd be great at the RFL you know...you really should apply for a job.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...