Re: We need a backer : Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:41 pm  

I finally worked out where we went wrong
*We don't have a money man so we ain't providing enough input to SL to keep Big Ears and Fat Controller in pies
*The lack of financial input means the RFL idiots can't give themselves huge bonuses
*No financial backer means we less likely to go bust so we won't have to grovel for a handout when he pulls out
*The rfl idiots are actually related to the bankers who got the country into the situation it is now and they wish to do the same to rl
*Halifax is not run by liars.

Re: We need a backer : Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:10 pm  

So the RFL want a big money man (see Crusaders - Leighton Whatever) how stupid are they. These people tend to get bored and if they have any brains (which I guess they have if they've made this money) then why put up with the numpties at the RFL?

Re: We need a backer : Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:17 pm  

andy the viking wrote:

Steve O'Connor has organised an astute business plan to enable the Vikings to be self sustainable.

You mean by plugging a million pound hole? Don't get me wrong, anyone that's willing to part with their earned money to put in to a club should be applauded but if that money is no longer available, for whatever reason, the club's in risk of going to the wall. How many times have we seen this exact thing happen over the years? For this to be even hinted at by 'the powers that be' is ludicrous and irresponsible.

Re: We need a backer : Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:54 pm  

Starbug wrote:

Which is probably too many teams , SL is already at least 2 teams too big now

NRL in Australia is 16 teams and that seems to work. Its not always dominated by the same team, just look back over the GF winners for last 15 years. No reason why SL cannot be 16 teams. that would be 30 games a season, plus Challenge Cup and play offs.
Everyone will now say thats too much, but the NRL is a veryt very physical competition and they manage ok.

[Nat (Rugby_Aholic)]

Re: We need a backer : Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:30 pm  

Standidge wrote:

NRL in Australia is 16 teams and that seems to work. Its not always dominated by the same team, just look back over the GF winners for last 15 years. No reason why SL cannot be 16 teams. that would be 30 games a season, plus Challenge Cup and play offs.
Everyone will now say thats too much, but the NRL is a veryt very physical competition and they manage ok.

Yes, but they have larger squads and an entire NSW or Queensland cup team of overage players to pick from.

Re: We need a backer : Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:47 pm  

Standidge wrote:

NRL in Australia is 16 teams and that seems to work. Its not always dominated by the same team, just look back over the GF winners for last 15 years. No reason why SL cannot be 16 teams. that would be 30 games a season, plus Challenge Cup and play offs.
Everyone will now say thats too much, but the NRL is a veryt very physical competition and they manage ok.

pIus Origin series & Anzac test matches

Re: We need a backer : Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:56 pm  

Standidge wrote:

NRL in Australia is 16 teams and that seems to work. Its not always dominated by the same team, just look back over the GF winners for last 15 years. No reason why SL cannot be 16 teams. that would be 30 games a season, plus Challenge Cup and play offs.
Everyone will now say thats too much, but the NRL is a veryt very physical competition and they manage ok.

But in Australia they don't play everybody home and away , do they ?

You will argue that because we have a play off system then equal games doesn't matter , but in a true league comp it does , just because they do it in Oz doesn't mean it's right

Re: We need a backer : Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:58 pm  

In 2008 , Leigh were criticised for being too reliant on owner finance

I don't think they made as much fuss about Quins

Re: We need a backer : Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:00 pm  

Starbug wrote:

, just because they do it in Oz doesn't mean it's right

TEII THAT TO RED HAII

Re: We need a backer : Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:34 am  

Starbug wrote:

In 2008 , Leigh were criticised for being too reliant on owner finance

I don't think they made as much fuss about Quins

I remember reading in Huddersfield's licensing summary that they were heavily reliant on a big money backer also that was some cause for concern should that funding be withdrawn.