Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:32 pm  

8 out of a squad of, say 25 is still poor. If you're going to challenge you'd want to be blooding a few every year with the hope that 2 or 3 will make the grade and be making the side on merit. The league needs to say that you've got to produce 8 out of each weeks 17. It would be harsh at first but eventually we'd have more competition for places at international level.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:44 pm  

Hendy Charming wrote:

8 out of a squad of, say 25 is still poor. If you're going to challenge you'd want to be blooding a few every year with the hope that 2 or 3 will make the grade and be making the side on merit. The league needs to say that you've got to produce 8 out of each weeks 17. It would be harsh at first but eventually we'd have more competition for places at international level.

Agreed, and I'm hoping the RFL gradually increase that number, in the same way that they reduced the non-federation-trained quota. One of the few good initiatives they've introduced, IMO.

As it stands now, it's 8 club trained (minimum), and 5 "non-fed-trained" (maximum), in the 25-man squad, which is a lot better than it was a few years ago, but still needs to improve. I haven't seen anything about further changes for next season.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:46 pm  

Hendy Charming wrote:

8 out of a squad of, say 25 is still poor. If you're going to challenge you'd want to be blooding a few every year with the hope that 2 or 3 will make the grade and be making the side on merit. The league needs to say that you've got to produce 8 out of each weeks 17. It would be harsh at first but eventually we'd have more competition for places at international level.

Start at 5 playing next year, and increase by one each of the following years. Not fook!ng rocket science.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:00 pm  

The issue of how many teams there should be in SL is a minor one.

The major problem facing the game is financial failure and mismanagement.

The licensing system and the SC have failed to do their job properly. Licensing has allowed clubs with desperately weak finances to be awarded franchises - Bradford and Crusaders being recent examples. It is a scandal.

The SC has not been raised in line with inflation. It's value in real terms is at least 30% lower than it was it was brought in (£1.6m in 1999, would after 12 years of inflation at 3% p.a. now equate to almost £2.3m). Despite this, there are few clubs that could afford to overspend the current SC level if they were allowed to. This is a disgrace and a damning indictment of the inept management of the game.

The failure to secure a better TV deal is astonishing. RL is pretty low profile on Sky: Sky news in their sports round up I saw earlier today made no mention of the Exiles game, but did talk about the RU, golf etc. The reality is however that RL delivers very good TV audiences on Sky, despite the low priority Sky give to promoting the sport. Competent management would be pushing Sky a lot harder, particularly on financials. BT's interest in the football is a sign of how the rights market is likely to evolve and I'd be saying to Sky that the RL wanted them to do more.

The Stobart sponsorship fiasco is so appalling I can't actually bring myself to say any more than that it speaks for itself.

I'm afraid that the 10/14 club debate etc is a bit of a sideshow - the fundamental issue is the incredibly inept financial management which threatens to reduce the game to the level of the domestic RL competition in France. Long term, with these idiots in charge, that's where we are heading.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:08 pm  

Wigan Peer wrote:

Start at 5 playing next year, and increase by one each of the following years. Not fook!ng rocket science.

It's not rocket science to us but it would be to the rfl. The problem i see is the rubbish coming out of certain academies bringing the league standard down (even further) at some clubs. Wire would be stuffed too.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:24 pm  

Hendy Charming wrote:

It's not rocket science to us but it would be to the rfl. The problem i see is the rubbish coming out of certain academies bringing the league standard down (even further) at some clubs. Wire would be stuffed too.

Wood, Riley, Harrison, Cooper and O'Brien are regular first teamers now so it wouldn't make a massive difference to us, also Blythe, Williams, Evans, Currie etc have played a fair bit this season too.

However I agree with you that a lot of what comes out of most teams academies is not good enough so all the people that say we should increase the number of players to increase our chances of beating the Aussies, are missing the point. Players that are not up to the job are never going to be up to the job....how many first team games do they need to 'get experience' and become international standard?

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:30 pm  

EastStandFaithful wrote:

Who is Mr Creosote?

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life... It's on telly tonight.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:48 pm  

When Rugby League was re branded into "Super League" what actually changed apart from changing to summer rugby and a few rule changes? To call it Super League is an absolute farce and the RFL have missed the boat to develope the sport and make it what it should be. The opportunity was there to take the sport to a greater level but not enough was done. They say Rugby League is a game played by professionals and run by amatures, well how true is that!!. What should have happened is smaller teams should have merged to create one "super" club. Teams such as Salford Oldham and Rochdale could have been branded as Manchester and Yorkshire clubs done something simular. Obviously people would bang on about tradition and that there'd be no way supporters would join together. But where's the traditon when these teams supporters dont seem to be there anymore?. Besides, the individual clubs wouldnt just fold and fade away, they could still play in a seperate comp known say as league 1 and be feeder clubs to their Super League club. Up and coming players from those town would have something to aim for and aspire to play in "Super League". Also players coming to the end of their career could step down and teach these kids the things they've learned over the years.

So who would go watching these new teams? Well apparently Super League is the second most watched sport on sky after football, so the audience is there. Obviously the clubs would need marketing right and finances play a big part in that, but the chance was there to at least try it.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:45 pm  

jimlav wrote:

there are some interesting things here, but its as if you have started to think about the answer before you have fully understood the problem.

Money makes the world go round. In our current state, SL cannot grow. our SC cannot rise due to certain clubs holding it back (who at the same time offer nothing towards to competition). If we had less teams, thats more money for successful academies that produce SL and international level players, and we get rid of the dead wood ones that lower the standard of player.

It also means we get to keep hold of our current players as the amount of sky money gets spread between less teams, meaning the salary cap can rise.

In addition, young players who are having to chose between playing for sale sharks or Wigan warriors or St Helens are more likely to pick the League academies because they know that they can make a living out of the sport, rather than picking union because the money is there.

there are a thousand more reasons for less teams.

Ps, you make the point about 28 or 20 centres getting regular game time. I bet people can name 8 super league centres who are stealing a living as a SL centre. because there just isnt enough talent.

I think you have misunderstood my point, I certainly haven't thought about any answer before the question.

Money makes the world go round. In our current state, SL cannot grow. our SC cannot rise due to certain clubs holding it back (who at the same time offer nothing towards to competition). If we had less teams, thats more money for successful academies that produce SL and international level players, and we get rid of the dead wood ones that lower the standard of player

I agree, money is the reason that everyone goes to work etc. It's what puts food on the table and a roof over our heads. However, having less teams means less opportunity for the up and coming player. Lets take this to the smallest league of two - the academies are making near perfect players but the perfect players still hold the number one spot and the cash.

It also means we get to keep hold of our current players as the amount of sky money gets spread between less teams, meaning the salary cap can rise.


No it doesn't. It means that Sky have less games on TV. WHy would Sky give the same money for less games? If there was more money, surely the first team would ask for more or would the new found glut of tallent be preventing this but providing more supply than demand?

In addition, young players who are having to chose between playing for sale sharks or Wigan warriors or St Helens are more likely to pick the League academies because they know that they can make a living out of the sport, rather than picking union because the money is there.

Why? As a former player and with hindsight with knackered knees I would take the financial security of RU over RL. At what point in your business plan does the RL salary cap eclipse the PPP of RU?

there are a thousand more reasons for less teams.


Such as?

Ps, you make the point about 28 or 20 centres getting regular game time. I bet people can name 8 super league centres who are stealing a living as a SL centre. because there just isnt enough talent.

Feel free.

I'm sure that having a large gene pool for competition of the fittest is better than artificially narrowing the pool. Lets make the SL a group of 10 teams with more money, it just makes it easier to buy from Aussie imports that are just outside top 90% (being generous) of their game (which is better that the SL by how much, 10-15%?) rather than taking a gamble on the young lads on the way though.

Re: Ellery hanley has his say : Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:57 pm  

Deano G wrote:

The SC has not been raised in line with inflation. It's value in real terms is at least 30% lower than it was it was brought in (£1.6m in 1999, would after 12 years of inflation at 3% p.a. now equate to almost £2.3m). Despite this, there are few clubs that could afford to overspend the current SC level if they were allowed to. This is a disgrace and a damning indictment of the inept management of the game.

This is something that I have always argued. Unlike yourself I actually like the salary cap and think that it is a good idea that just needs tweaking a little. However one must is that it should be linked to inflation so it doesnt decrease in real terms. If this was the case and we had a salary cap of £2.3 million we would have certainly kept a lot more players in the game and could compete with RU much better. It is a joke that some players from the 90s got paid more than players today when TV deals, sponsorship deals, crowds, ticket prices etc have all gone up considerably. Where has all the money gone? It doesnt make sense or add up to me.