Re: new fixtures : Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:29 pm  

mmp wrote:

will be a while before its sorted - there are an army of clubs who hadnt put their forms in as of Tuesday after the meeting...

Hadn't you better get to London and tell Cameron to sack half your staff?

Travelling First Class mate??

Re: new fixtures : Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:40 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Hadn't you better get to London and tell Cameron to sack half your staff?

Travelling First Class mate??

I'm going tomorrow now but am staying until Monday evening, then back there on Wednesday after coming back oop north for Tuesday night training - how about that for commitment! Tonight i'll show my face at training, then need to get home and pack everything.

And yes, travelling back first class. paying the £10 upgrade myself and taking a bottle of red on the train with me....

(and it's more than 1/2 that are to go!)

Re: new fixtures : Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:54 pm  

Re: new fixtures : Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:55 pm  

mmp wrote:

maybe Woolston shouldnt have had to either?

Having had Hindley come back in Div 6 / 5 and score 100 points on some teams it's damaging to the development of new clubs to throw such clubs into the bottom - and probably doesnt help them either! Even worse a Cumbrian team - travelling to Cumbria is an expense for any club but probably more of an issue for a new club which will have less established revenue streams and little by way of financial reserves. Can imagine clubs not wanting to go, and definately not wanting to go if its likley they will get a beating from a team that is actually well established having just missed out on winning the Barrow and District League...

I'm assuming the Barrow League is of a better standard than the bottom end of NWC???

Somewhere down the line the NWC must look to the RFL to fund travel to cumbria. If it's classed as development of the game why not.

On another item

The comment on Hindley was interesting, they completed the 2006-7 season in Div1 but decided not to enter in 2007-8 through lack of players. When they re-applied in 2008-9 they went to the bottom division 6.

Orrell St James were in either the prem or div1 in 2007-8, played a few games then informed the league they could only play friendlies due to lack of players. Dropping out of the league early in the season, basically doing the same as Hindley, however they restarted in div 3 for 2008-9 season.

If Hindley had followed that route would they be in the lower divisions??

Re: new fixtures : Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:50 pm  

Didn't Hindley request to start in the bottom division to work their way up?

Re: new fixtures : Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:48 am  

Terry Gorman wrote:

Somewhere down the line the NWC must look to the RFL to fund travel to cumbria. If it's classed as development of the game why not.

but the NWC is an independant entity, and accepts applications from clubs. I dont see why the RFL should subsidise costs. also...those Cumbrian clubs travel equally far, and more often, do you subsidise them?

What's needed is more clarity on the league structure much earlier so that clubs can plan it into their budgets for the year.

Re: new fixtures : Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:23 pm  

Playing for both Newton Storm and Newton RUFC, when the Union team travelled to the Isle Of Mann (there was a manx team in their division), the trip was heavily subsidised by the RFU. Surely NWC/BARLA could do the same?

Re: new fixtures : Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:21 pm  

mmp wrote:

maybe Woolston shouldnt have had to either?

Having had Hindley come back in Div 6 / 5 and score 100 points on some teams it's damaging to the development of new clubs to throw such clubs into the bottom - and probably doesnt help them either! Even worse a Cumbrian team - travelling to Cumbria is an expense for any club but probably more of an issue for a new club which will have less established revenue streams and little by way of financial reserves. Can imagine clubs not wanting to go, and definately not wanting to go if its likley they will get a beating from a team that is actually well established having just missed out on winning the Barrow and District League...

I'm assuming the Barrow League is of a better standard than the bottom end of NWC???

No it doesnt - it's dull as dish water and when you do get a game against a higher standard of opposition your well and truely undercooked

Didnt they reorganise it last year so they moved mainly second teams into div 6?

Re: new fixtures : Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:26 pm  

Ayres Rock wrote:

Didn't Hindley request to start in the bottom division to work their way up?

no - we were put there. I believe and I'm not certain about this but the difference between Hindley and Orrell was a a possible admin error ....

Re: new fixtures : Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:30 am  

i really hope theyb keep the 2nd teams seperate again, especially as there are a couple of new 2nd teams coming in.

it'll also mean Div 5 can be a genuine league for new(ish) first teams with Hindley (not newish!) and Waterhead (a 2nd team to a conf club) moving up, probably Cobras too given they will be starting a 2nd team, it will hopefully mean we get a much more even competition in 5. The new clubs of recent years (Bury, Westhoughton and Chorley) will have an extra year of experience, Bolton, Bulldogs and Newton are not massively better than the three who finished bottom while Eccleston and Wild Boars will start as favourites. Can't see the new Little Hulton, Accrington or Shaw teams being hugely better than before. In the main, it'll actually be a division of clubs who have only been formed a few years if they decide to go this way...

I'd go with a division of:
Wild Boars
Eccleston
Bolton
Wigan Bulldogs
Newton
Chorley
Bury
Westhoughton
Little Hulton
Shaw
Accrington
Blackpool S (as they didnt get a single point in Div 4 last year)

Of course, that sees three teams go up, and doesnt account for Askam, but there are a lot of clubs asking about moving divisions higher up the league so it might be possible.