Quote:
> > Here, here. It's the same old attitude that we've been battling
> >in Australia for years. Do these people really think that it helps to have
> >the game confined to small regional pockets, where all the clubs compete
> >for the same finite dollar instead of having their own markets? Where
> >clubs are forcing each other to the wall as they starve each other of
> >finances? Where the game just attracts the same old supporters that
> >it's always had and never new ones?
> > Mr McCaul tells us that we shouldn't "shit" on those clubs that
> >have been around for the last 101 years and nurtured the game to where it
> >is today. Well, let's just examine where the game is. Before SL, 101 years
> >of progress had moved the game's boundaries as far south as Sheffield, as
> >far north as Bradford (Cumbria if you prefer to include 1st division), as
> >far east as Hull and not even as far west as ***y Liverpool! If this is
> >the way the current crop have nurtured the game in 101 years then it's
> >about time we started shitting on them and the more shit the better!
> > No doubt Mr McCaul is one of these people who then turns around
> >and bemoans the small profile of league. He probably wonders why he has to
> >pay to watch the game on tele because the Beeb won't pick it up. He
> >probably wonders why clubs can't draw crowds, can't afford players, can't
> >attract descent sponsorship and can't pay their bills. With these sort of
> >attitudes prevailing for a century it is no wonder that league needed the
> >radical reforms of Lindsay and Murdoch's millions.
> Yawn, Ywan, Yawn. It seems as though this group has an awful lot of selfish
> bastards in it. What did you do to deserve a name like Leigh?
I was born to two loving, *married* parents. Perhaps some were not
so lucky...
Quote:
> anyway in case you chose to ignore a sentace in my previous post I'll
> repeat it for you 'Yes the game must expand, BUT NOT AT ALL COST!',
I did not choose to ignore the statement, nor did I seek to argue
with it. I am not advocating change at all cost but a change of direction
and approach to the one that has moved the game in England no where in 101
years.
Quote:
> I don't moan about paying to watch the game on TV, I pay my regular
> subscription to Mr Murdoch and enjoy what I receive i.e. The Workington
> Vs Halifax game was excellent entertainment, I don't bemoan the small
> profile of the game, I enjoy the game for what it is I support my local
> club home and away,
I withdraw the critical statement but ask the question would you
prefer to see the game remain in its current state (or more importantly in
its state before SL) or become the bigger more widespread game that it
could? If the answer is the latter then at least some current clubs have
to go to make way for the new. It's an unfortunate side effect of the
expansion process.
Quote:
> I do feel strongly about someone who bought his way into the game
> coming in and trying to re-arrange the game at all cost, the only way
> the expansion of RL will succeed is gradually, you can put your teams in
> Paris, Barcelona and Newcastle, let them off with a bang and for a few
> weeks even months the local interest may be good but unless you have the
> grass roots to support the expansion it is gauranteed to fail. How many
> schools in Newcastle, Paris & Barcelona know how to play RL? so where
> will their players come from? Just a few questions that need answering,
> the old adage 'Learn to walk before you run springs to mind'. As for
> Crowds, Players and Wages, well I think they are linked, unless you have
> good players you will not be able to draw good crowds and thanks to
> Maurice Lindsay good players now cost the earth, the way the league is
> structured at the moment with Murdochs money being distributed uevenly
> amongst the clubs this is seemingly a situation the lower division clubs
> will have to live with unless they snap up local talent, something which
> Paris, Newcastle and Barcelona will struggle to do unless the expansion
> is at grass roots level and not thrown in at the deep end..
I did not argue development in my previous post. The reason for
that is because I completely agree with all your points on the matter.
Proper grass roots development does need to occur in the schools and lower
league comps.
What I did argue was the general statement that just because these
teams have been around for 101 years and "nurtured the game to where
it is today" they deserve more consideration than teams (or potential
teams) that haven't. In reply to this I pointed out exactly how well these
sides had "nurtured" the game. What the traditional clubs have done for
the development of the game in over a century is blatantly pathetic and for
that they shouldn't be owed anything. As for age, whether a club is 100 or
10 it shouldn't make any difference, if they are unviable or "undesirable"
(ie. one of too many sides in one district or based in a small population
centre) in a national or international comp such as SL then they shouldn't
be in it. This comes back to the questions I asked at the top of my
previous post.
Quote:
> >Catchya round, Leigh
> I Wish
I'm sure you do, but then my time is limited so you'll have to
book well in advance (and pay the appropriate booking fee).
Catchya round, Leigh
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Leigh T. Gillespie * "It takes leather balls *
* Phone - Australia (077) 791219 * to play Rugby!" *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *