Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:28 am Posts: 28625 Location: West Yorkshire Member for 16 years
Aldy wrote:
Only time will tell.
You say that, but the possibility hasn't really been considered has it? An immediate and rabid assumption that the panel have been complicit in engineering an outcome with the sole purpose of disadvantaging Hull KR. As opposed to focusing scarce central academy funding where the marginal returns are greatest ie removing spend where there are geographical overlaps and awarding elite status to the better candidate.
Mike Smith is RFL Vice President. This appointment was met more with "Nice one, that won't do Rovers any harm" than "OMG the RFL is bent as" I suspect.
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:49 am Posts: 12012 Location: Leicestershire. Member for 14 years
Mrs Barista wrote:
Mike Smith (Hull KR CEO for years) is Vice President of the RFL isn't he? Paranoia and conspiracy theories are the order of the day it seems; easier than addressing the possibility that the evidence presented may have been weak in certain key areas?
While the optics aren’t great, Rovers fans campaigning against the decision need to be very careful about making this a central plank for now. If the guy is a military hero with more medals than Usain Bolt, didn’t involve himself in discussions or decisions relating to the KuH clubs, and once saved an infant from drowning in a duck pond and her parents are Rovers fans it could fall very flat.
Even if the process was, from some perspectives flawed, I do still think Rovers could be beneficiaries rather than victims but I’m probably the only one. The economics don’t stack up, from a selfish POV, imo.
On the paranoia - it is wiser than being docilely trusting.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:28 am Posts: 28625 Location: West Yorkshire Member for 16 years
Mild Rover wrote:
While the optics aren’t great, Rovers fans campaigning against the decision need to be very careful about making this a central plank for now. If the guy is a military hero with more medals than Usain Bolt, didn’t involve himself in discussions or decisions relating to the KuH clubs, and once saved an infant from drowning in a duck pond and her parents are Rovers fans it could fall very flat.
Even if the process was, from some perspectives flawed, I do still think Rovers could be beneficiaries rather than victims but I’m probably the only one. The economics don’t stack up, from a selfish POV, imo.
On the paranoia - it is wiser than being docilely trusting.
I've seen it claimed he is ill-equipped to make rugby decisions despite the fact he has been the president of the RFL and here seems to have intellectual capability greater than most (maybe not you obvs) https://sldinfo.com/2016/08/transformin ... an-andrew/
Rovers fans calling him a "sicko" on SM ‐ I mean really? Perhaps they should take some wisdom fron Mark Manson: People aren't thinking about you nearly as much as you think they are, you're not special, and blame is a mostly useless concept.
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:49 am Posts: 12012 Location: Leicestershire. Member for 14 years
Mrs Barista wrote:
:D
I've seen it claimed he is ill-equipped to make rugby decisions despite the fact he has been the president of the RFL and here seems to have intellectual capability greater than most (maybe not you obvs) https://sldinfo.com/2016/08/transformin ... an-andrew/
Rovers fans calling him a "sicko" on SM ‐ I mean really? Perhaps they should take some wisdom fron Mark Manson: People aren't thinking about you nearly as much as you think they are, you're not special, and blame is a mostly useless concept.
Social media isn’t really my scene, beyond dedicated RL sites. But from what I hear that sounds plausible. I mean, the tone on here was more ‘ha, ha dobbins’ than ‘protect the community clubs’, which doesn’t frame the substantive arguments particularly well.
I see Mr Manson’s point. However, blame is a very useful political concept, whether justified or not. Like the outrage some posters have aimed at the council for not standing up Allam on maintenance and management of the KCOM stadium. I can’t be bothered, but I bet if I went back through that thread, I could find things at around the level of ‘spineless’.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:28 am Posts: 28625 Location: West Yorkshire Member for 16 years
Mild Rover wrote:
Social media isn’t really my scene, beyond dedicated RL sites. But from what I hear that sounds plausible. I mean, the tone on here was more ‘ha, ha dobbins’ than ‘protect the community clubs’. I see Mr Manson’s point. However, blame is a very useful political concept, whether justified or not. Like the outrage some posters have aimed at the council for not standing up Allam on maintenance and management of the KCOM stadium. I can’t be bothered, but I bet if I went back through that thread, I could find things at around the level of ‘spineless’.
I'm pretty certain that had Hull been excluded the first Rovers reaction would have been 'haha curly turds' from grown adults - it's what we do. The positioning of the whole process and decision making as uniquely motivated by a corrupt "sicko" Hull fan trying to dismantle Hull KR's youth academy is narcissistic and paranoid IMO given we don't know the content of the submissions. Whilst it's nice to spread the money thinly for optics purposes I suppose in the end it comes down to the purpose of the academy. Is it to allow more young players to be involved in the game and be affiliated to a professional club, or is it to create a genuine first team pathway for the "elite" in a catchment and optimise their progression? If it's the latter then surely it makes sense to focus resource where it has the best chance of delivering first team player outcomes through the local pool. If you have a poor track record on this, whether through having, say very few homegrown players in your squad or "poaching" players from other catchments, then you can see why decisions have been reached. That's not Dean Andrew's fault, IMO.
On the stadium it's the obvious thing to blame the Allams, or the council, and we like to do both of course. But it's mostly a useless exercise other than making us feel a little galvanisation.
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:49 am Posts: 12012 Location: Leicestershire. Member for 14 years
Mrs Barista wrote:
I'm pretty certain that had Hull been excluded the first Rovers reaction would have been 'haha curly turds' from grown adults - it's what we do.
Of course, many would. Credit to the Wakefield fans I’ve seen for showing more empathy - possibly resulting from them having expected to be the ones getting what they regard as the poopie end of the stick.
Mrs Barista wrote:
The positioning of the whole process and decision making as uniquely motivated by a corrupt "sicko" Hull fan trying to dismantle Hull KR's youth academy is narcissistic and paranoid IMO given we don't know the content of the submissions.
Indeed, but without being very active on social media, I don’t know how representative that is of fan opinion on and off those platforms. My safe guess would be somewhat but not completely. Without condoning it, it doesn’t surprise me that some people have reacted emotionally or even aggressively without knowing the full facts - it is what some do. I condemn anybody calling Dean Andrew a ‘sicko’ or similar. Given his links to Hull FC, and assuming he doesn’t (didn’t ) have similar links to Hull KR, I do think it would have been wise for him remove himself from those discussions. I doubt he’s an idiot and he may very well have done that. If he did, it’d probably be a good idea to gently leak that to the press - to not do so would be taking collective responsibility a bit far imo. Even if he didn’t, highlighting flaws in the process isn’t even half the ‘battle’.
Mrs Barista wrote:
Whilst it's nice to spread the money thinly for optics purposes I suppose in the end it comes down to the purpose of the academy. Is it to allow more young players to be involved in the game and be affiliated to a professional club, or is it to create a genuine first team pathway for the "elite" in a catchment and optimise their progression? If it's the latter then surely it makes sense to focus resource where it has the best chance of delivering first team player outcomes through the local pool. If you have a poor track record on this, whether through having, say very few homegrown players in your squad or "poaching" players from other catchments, then you can see why decisions have been reached. That's not Dean Andrew's fault, IMO.
the current youth development pathways in RL appear very, very inefficient to me - but it depends how you measure it and why clubs or fans want an academy. These tweaks don’t fundamentally change what I think is a broken system and some slightly unhealthy attitudes that arise from it. With a bit of intelligence and imagination, I think that a club that is now free to adopt a different approach could do better by the measures I would use.
Mrs Barista wrote:
On the stadium it's the obvious thing to blame the Allams, or the council, and we like to do both of course. But it's mostly a useless exercise other than making us feel a little galvanisation.
For the reasons ‘Wilf’ has laid out, it is not the the councils fault, IMO. Hull FC are part of the community but are not the community. My parents don’t want to pay more council tax so that a council employee can have the privilege of scraping bird poop off seats at the KCOM. They don’t know it yet but I shall tell them later. Taking on the risk of being landed with such responsibility seems imprudent both financially and politically. On the behaviour of the current owners of the SMC, you have my genuine (though impotent) sympathy.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Not academy, but schools partnership related - good to see.
The footage just goes to show how much (often unheralded) work is undertaken by the community team. Got some really good people involved within the club.
16 years
14 years
