: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:00 pm  

a.n Other wrote:

What in you opinion is the solution?

To continue to put central funds into grassroots RL - amateur clubs / schools colleges & Unis + womens RL + expanding the game for older players though modified rules.

I have already praised Kevin Nicholas and Batley on this thread. So it should be obvious that the way that the Bulldogs run themselves would be a very good starting point. HTH.

: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:17 pm  

Marsdengiant wrote: You made my case. Well done. You directly accused me of sneering at lower clubs. How does thinking the concept of commonly owned businesses are moribund a sneer at lower league clubs. [several of the quotes you rely on refer directly to this point] Or thinking Widnes under Vaughn are better than Bramley at RL a sneer at C clubs? How is telling a poster who dismissed the Giants recent youth development that he must have limited RL knowledge a sneer at lower clubs? (surely you cannot be so stupid to think that challenging a posters knowledge is having a go at lower league clubs? ) How can pointing out that a guy who has a go at 'sugar daddies' and then begs for wealthy inputs is being hypocritical be a sneer at lower level clubs? You read what I wrote but your blinkers mean you do not understand it. This does not surprise me. I have little time for clubs that do not pay taxes, or do not pay players or that hide behind CVAs while creditors get screwed. I think central funds £ should go to developing the grass roots not funding failing private enterprises. I do not mind commonly owned enterprises. However when the people involved with them get sanctimonious about privately owned organisations I may challenge it. When common ownership activists start getting holier than thou about wealthy club backers while themselves desperately looking for private funds I will point it out. Hardly sneering at 'lower clubs'. HTH. so, try again. Find actual examples where I sneer at decent, hard working ,non moralising championship clubs. Why do i think of this bloke everytime i read your posts

Marsdengiant wrote: You made my case. Well done. You directly accused me of sneering at lower clubs. How does thinking the concept of commonly owned businesses are moribund a sneer at lower league clubs. [several of the quotes you rely on refer directly to this point] Or thinking Widnes under Vaughn are better than Bramley at RL a sneer at C clubs? How is telling a poster who dismissed the Giants recent youth development that he must have limited RL knowledge a sneer at lower clubs? (surely you cannot be so stupid to think that challenging a posters knowledge is having a go at lower league clubs? ) How can pointing out that a guy who has a go at 'sugar daddies' and then begs for wealthy inputs is being hypocritical be a sneer at lower level clubs? You read what I wrote but your blinkers mean you do not understand it. This does not surprise me. I have little time for clubs that do not pay taxes, or do not pay players or that hide behind CVAs while creditors get screwed. I think central funds £ should go to developing the grass roots not funding failing private enterprises. I do not mind commonly owned enterprises. However when the people involved with them get sanctimonious about privately owned organisations I may challenge it. When common ownership activists start getting holier than thou about wealthy club backers while themselves desperately looking for private funds I will point it out. Hardly sneering at 'lower clubs'. HTH. so, try again. Find actual examples where I sneer at decent, hard working ,non moralising championship clubs. Why do i think of this bloke everytime i read your posts

: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:22 pm  

Marsdengiant wrote:

To continue to put central funds into grassroots RL - amateur clubs / schools colleges & Unis + womens RL + expanding the game for older players though modified rules.
I have already praised Kevin Nicholas and Batley on this thread. So it should be obvious that the way that the Bulldogs run themselves would be a very good starting point. HTH.

I what way would that help CC and CC1 clubs?

: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:33 pm  

Marsdengiant wrote:

You read what I wrote but your blinkers mean you do not understand it. This does not surprise me.

Oh I understand it perfectly well, you don't need to doubt that, and a great deal of it makes sense in the correct circumstance.

It's often sneering tone in which it is delivered, as shown repeatedly in my previous post. There is no need for it. No respect shown to fellow RL fans.

If you can't see any that then I pity both your ignorance and immaturity.

I'll let you have the final word.

: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:31 pm  

Alexs Dad wrote:

Oh I understand it perfectly well, you don't need to doubt that, and a great deal of it makes sense in the correct circumstance.

[I asked for examples of sneering at 'lower clubs'. You actually produce none. You produce a list of things I have written but cannot substantiate your claim. but you stick with your fictions]

It's often sneering tone in which it is delivered, as shown repeatedly in my previous post. There is no need for it. No respect shown to fellow RL fans.

[so now you shift your point from sneering at 'lower clubs' to 'fellow RL fans' do try and make your mind up. Just because someone likes RL does not mean you have to respect them. Of two posters on here I have disagreed with most one has made ignorant comments about development at the Giants and suggested that the club going from 3k to 8k gates was 'poor' - I do not respect such comments. He has also made insulting personal comments. i do not mind about these. It is funny that you do not chastise that poster for his insults..isn't it? The other poster calls 'sugar daddies' BAD while his club was saved by private financial support - I do not respect those'double standards'. HTH ]

If you can't see any that then I pity both your ignorance and immaturity.

[Given your inability to substantiate the claims you make and your many confusions I am not to bothered about what you feel about me or anything else. But if you need to feel pity..go for it. ]

I'll let you have the final word.

[will you? Fair do's]

: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:40 pm  

a.n Other wrote:

I what way would that help CC and CC1 clubs?

My interest is the game in general not just C clubs. however greater particpation in RL and greater awareness of the game may lead to people going to C games - as long as they offer a good quality product / service at an acceptable price.

many C -clubs would benefit from the way Batley do things. that is where I would astart with many C clubs. (Good quaity management / decision making)

: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:46 pm  

Marsdengiant wrote:

My interest is the game in general not just C clubs. however greater particpation in RL and greater awareness of the game may lead to people going to C games - as long as they offer a good quality product / service at an acceptable price.

many C -clubs would benefit from the way Batley do things. that is where I would astart with many C clubs. (Good quaity management / decision making)

There are more people playing rugby in London now than ever before and the Skolars are getting next to no fans into their games. How would you explain that? Even the SL side is struggling to get people to watch the game.

: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:39 pm  

Starbug wrote:

I dont think you are grasping the concept

Which people do you want ' marking and how ?

this was the post

no it wasnt, how have you confused yourself here?

this was the post, its just a bit above yours

Starbug wrote:

Why , how many people do Quins have in their marketing dept ? , or Celtic

In fact having a think about it today as the Skolars would find it difficult to ' partner up ' you could have them arrange things with Quins and Celtic

It all comes down to money , the non SL clubs dont have any so instead of having maybe one person working on their own not really getting anywhere , you have a team working full time on marketing but ' blitzing ' one club in any given week

The people the clubs supply learn more about marketing as a result so if that club then does get into SL you have an experienced person to head up any marketing that club then does

Like ' training '

the people learning would be the The people the clubs supply learn more about marketing as a result so if that club then does get into SL you have an experienced person to head up any marketing that club then does

: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:43 pm  

Starbug wrote:

To quote you , " There is no either or here "

Why does it have to be one or the other ?

Are the SL clubs that fragile they cannot survive unless they chase support in little towns like Batley,Swinton or Keighley ?

SL clubs should be chasing support everywhere, big towns, small towns, cities, where-ever

It doesnt 'need' to be an either/or situation, but in practical terms it likely is,

What is ' best for the game ' is all clubs progressing in whatever competition they are in ans at whatever level they are at

yes, vague platitudes, pretty much meaningless arent they!

: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:51 pm  

Starbug wrote:

Fair enough , I can live with that , or are you saying without corporate and sponsorship support no club can ever be a success ?

at super league level no they cant, clubs need to have strong sponsorship and corporate structures to survive in SL level

I have been arguing that clubs like Leigh will never get the level of support for ages and the RFL are wasting time and money trying to get clubs chasing it and I've had the likes of you and others saying the RFL know what they are doing

If you are giving up on having these, you are giving up on SL

and thats fine, not all clubs can be Elite, but it changes the focus of what the RFL need to try to do with clubs in that position

the focus is either getting clubs in that league into a position where they can become SL clubs, or we can focus on strengthening the position of Semi-Pro clubs and improving the contribution they can make, in their position, to the game as a whole

Yes clubs should be and are and want to strengthen their position no matter where that is

As for ' potential ' , well nobody can decide what any clubs ' potential ' is , certainley not you

you seem to be contradicting your self as usual,

on one hand you say Leigh dont have the potential to bring in this money and the RFL are wasting their time trying to encourage clubs to do so and on the other saying no-one knows if they do or not

All clubs should be encouraged and more importantly ' helped ' to improve themselves especially financially given recent events and any money spent needs to be spent in the most productive way , all clubs desperatley need more fans through the gates , especially the ones who we agree will not and probably never will be able to bring in high levels of investment and sponsorship

Then fine, we can change the focus of the championship and the contribution it can make to RL