Re: Name and shame. : Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:14 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

The middle division will consist of four teams on £1.25m, two teams on £800k and two on £180k.

You reckon the two on £180k have a better chance of going up than the current one every three years ?

Sort the money out before you vote. That would be my advice to club reps.

Where did you get those figures from? They haven't been agreed yet have they?

Re: Name and shame. : Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:15 pm  

Starbug wrote:

And the bottom division is playing for?

To avoid relegation.

Re: Name and shame. : Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:36 pm  

Faxhali wrote:

It's a bit harsh charging ST holders a fiver IMO. Say 500 ST holders paying £5 is £1500.

500 x £5 = £1500 is it, really ?????

Re: Name and shame. : Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:15 am  

Sorry MM it's these freakin smart phones, you type something and it changes it for you. £2500, the coat of the weekend, still funded by the £5 from season ticket holders. Like I say, harsh on us who pay up front. I like the innovative new idea, I just think the execution could have been thought out a little better for the ST holder.

Re: Name and shame. : Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:25 am  

littlerich wrote:

And I'm not saying the 24/3 is workable on current monies - I'm saying that it is possible to get promoted. A Marwan Koukash can make it possible.

....and they're ten a penny, obviously.

You've probably less chance of finding a Marwan Koukash than getting a franchise under the current system.

Re: Name and shame. : Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:26 am  

Starbug wrote:

And the bottom division is playing for?

What bottom division ? Now or proposed ?

Re: Name and shame. : Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:37 am  

a.n Other wrote:

Where did you get those figures from? They haven't been agreed yet have they?

Exactly my point. Agree the cash first, then the format. Not the other way round.

Re: Name and shame. : Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:54 am  

griff1998 wrote:

Exactly my point. Agree the cash first, then the format. Not the other way round.

Your argument was based on figures you had just made up, And for that reason you are against it? The proposal in theory is a great one IMO.As the club is fully aware this can only be great if the right level of funding is found.

Are you against the idea and if so why?

Re: Name and shame. : Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:23 am  

I do like the idea of splitting the divisions mid term but the funding and salary cap must be agreed first.
If the bottom four super league teams are full time and have a cap of £1.6m or whatever it is while the championship teams have a part time squad on whatever their cap is the playing field is not level is it ?
It will be interesting to see if the eagles can defeat London who are probably the weakest super league team when they meet in the cc in a few weeks time.

Re: Name and shame. : Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:54 am  

a.n Other wrote:

Your argument was based on figures you had just made up......

Not at all. They are the figures proposed, including the new "parachute" payments. It does not mean that the proposals will not be amended.

Are you against the idea and if so why?

I am against the idea unless the finances are leveled out. I would consider it inevitable that the four better funded teams will finish in the top four and the two poorly funded teams will finish in the bottom two. What interest is there in that for spectators ?

The alternative scenario is that clubs will push the financial boat out to attempt to gain promotion. That could easily lead to more financial disasters and more than likely will.