Sport Today

by **Phil Arundel** » Wed, 27 May 1998 04:00:00

You seem to be a very big fan of Franchising, but how would you feel if SL
decided that there was still too many clubs along the M62 corridoor, and
suggested that Wigan and St Helens merged, in order to "Improve the game" As
I've said earlier in this post, there have been times fairly recently where,
had the SL happened, Wigan would not have had a look-in.

<-snip->

by **WiganRLf** » Wed, 27 May 1998 04:00:00

On Tue, 26 May 1998 14:48:43 +0100, "Phil Arundell"

Quote:

>You seem to be a very big fan of Franchising, but how would you feel if SL
>decided that there was still too many clubs along the M62 corridoor, and

They already have. Remember Calder?

As to being a fan of franchising I would say I see it as realistically as the
only way the game is going to expand despite the unfairness it introduces to
the first division clubs.

Quote:

>suggested that Wigan and St Helens merged, in order to "Improve the game" As

No problem, we will have Joynt, Sculthorpe and one or two others thank you!

Quote:

>I've said earlier in this post, there have been times fairly recently where,
>had the SL happened, Wigan would not have had a look-in.

I fully appreciate the boot could be on the other foot if this had happened
when Wigan were in the second division and I am glad it did not.

However I would speculate that if it had, Wigan (or a consortium representing
the Wigan area) would have been invited to submit a franchise due to the fact
Wigan is so well known in the world of RL if for no other reason.

However despite that I do think the fact we are moving to a new ground is a
good thing to protect the club from being booted out for not meeting one of the
criteria.

Dave
--
Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

(remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

by **jon_ma..** » Thu, 28 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> As to being a fan of franchising I would say I see it as realistically as
the
> only way the game is going to expand despite the unfairness it introduces to
> the first division clubs.

It's the obvious unfairness of the current situation that I'm against, rather
than franchising per se. Either we have franchising, or we have
promotion/relegation. The current mish-mash, where being a friend
of Mo seems to count as much as anything else, is not helping Div 1 clubs.

The ideal is an elite league of about 14 clubs, all averaging 5 figure
crowds, playing in modern stadia, with good sponsors, large numbers of
amateur teams etc, with hopefully most of the main population centres of
Britain/France/Ireland covered.

None of the current first division teams are likely to do this, ever.
On this basis, they are being denied promotion to superleague, probably quite
rightly. The perception of unfairness stems from the fact that we have several
current SL clubs with poor grounds, poor crowds & poor finances. Yet these
clubs are now safe from relegation, regardless of their on-field or off-field
performance.

If we must have a closed franchise system, a clear set of criteria should
be made available, as has happened in Oz. The best bids play in the top
flight, the others play lower division. That gives the likes of Fev/ Wakefield
the option - merge/relocate and play in the big-time, or stay as a
small local community team and play at a lower level. It also means the
weaker SL clubs have more of an incentive to improve themselves.

Jon

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

by **WiganRLf** » Thu, 28 May 1998 04:00:00

<snip>

Quote:

>The ideal is an elite league of about 14 clubs, all averaging 5 figure
>crowds, playing in modern stadia, with good sponsors, large numbers of
>amateur teams etc, with hopefully most of the main population centres of
>Britain/France/Ireland covered.

>None of the current first division teams are likely to do this, ever.
>On this basis, they are being denied promotion to superleague, probably quite
>rightly.

Yes that is correct as one of the criteria is population base. Most if not all
of the Div 1 clubs are so close together they compete for crowds and therefore
all fail to meet this criteria.

Quote:

> The perception of unfairness stems from the fact that we have several
>current SL clubs with poor grounds, poor crowds & poor finances.

Well those above you can fix and it seems a few SL clubs are having a go at
doing something about it such as Wigan (moving) Halifax (moved) Warrington
(moving). They are the ones I know about, others may be doing things as well.

I know that makes them no different than some Div 1 clubs but the point I am
trying to make is that the population base is the one criteria that is hardest
to meet for Div 1 clubs due to their location.

It does also apply to a number of SL sides however so that IMO is where the
unfairness may lie.

Quote:

> Yet these
>clubs are now safe from relegation, regardless of their on-field or off-field
>performance.

>If we must have a closed franchise system, a clear set of criteria should
>be made available, as has happened in Oz.

The criteria are very clear, its who they apply to that is not.

The criteria are:

Playing Strength
Quality of facilities
Guarantee of financial backing
Residential population (catchment area, density etc)

Quote:

> The best bids play in the top
>flight, the others play lower division. That gives the likes of Fev/ Wakefield
>the option - merge/relocate and play in the big-time, or stay as a
>small local community team and play at a lower level. It also means the
>weaker SL clubs have more of an incentive to improve themselves.

It was my understanding when franchises came about that all SL clubs would have
to apply as well as anyone else such as South Wales or Wakefield or any other
Div 1 clubs.

If that is still the case then the system is fair. If not than the 12 sides in
there are very lucky.

Does anyone know if existing clubs have to apply, if not this season but in
future years?

IMO it does seem as if the current 12 are safe (at least for the time being)
and the criteria mentioned above are only going to be applied to new
applications.

Whatever, I still don't see any other way to expand the game other than
franchising of new clubs into SL.

Dave
--
Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

(remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

by **jon_ma..** » Fri, 29 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> it seems a few SL clubs are having a go at
> doing something about it such as Wigan (moving) Halifax (moved) Warrington
> (moving). They are the ones I know about, others may be doing things as
> well.

Cas were looking into having a ground at Whitwood, near the M62 junction, I
think. I believe Warrington were looking at moving to a site by Burtonwood
Air Force base, but I don't think they'd identified how it was going to be
paid for.

Quote:

> I know that makes them no different than some Div 1 clubs but the point I am
> trying to make is that the population base is the one criteria that is
> hardest
> to meet for Div 1 clubs due to their location.

> It does also apply to a number of SL sides however so that IMO is where the
> unfairness may lie.

That's right. I guess if you are a fan of say Wakefield (current Div 1
leaders), it would be quite galling to be told you couldn't be promoted
because your population base was too small, when Castleford were already
in SL.

Quote:

> It was my understanding when franchises came about that all SL clubs would
> have
> to apply as well as anyone else such as South Wales or Wakefield or any
> other Div 1 clubs.

> If that is still the case then the system is fair. If not than the 12 sides
> in there are very lucky.

> Does anyone know if existing clubs have to apply, if not this season but in
> future years?

I agree. If the criteria are openly available and apply to all clubs, then
no-one can have any complaints. There's probably some scope for argument
on some of them - how do you identify which parts of Leeds belong to Hunslet
for example, but it's not impossible.

Quote:

> IMO it does seem as if the current 12 are safe (at least for the time being)
> and the criteria mentioned above are only going to be applied to new
> applications.

> Whatever, I still don't see any other way to expand the game other than
> franchising of new clubs into SL.

Agreed. I'm a little bit concerned about the quality & location of the
bids that are in so far, though. I lived in Cardiff for a while and
although it's a reasonable size city (pop 300 000) and there's plenty of
potential players there, there is also a lot of other sport in town
- Cardiff RU, Cardiff City FC, Cardiff Devils Ice Hockey and Glamorgan CC
all of whom will overlap with the league season to some extent. Even with
a great team playing a great sport, it's not going to be the easiest
market to get into.

The Northampton bid probably suffered a bit of a credibility problem with
their last-minute withdrawal from the Southern Conference. It also has
a much smaller catchment area and again competition from a top RU side
and cricket in summer.

Gateshead probably looks the strongest, but it's still "oop north!"

Jon

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

by **AJ KIN** » Sat, 30 May 1998 04:00:00

<SNIP>

Quote:

> >The point I've been trying to make is that if the winner of Div1 meets
all
> >the criteria (except location ;-) ), then they should be allowed into
the
> >competition automatically. I know its unlikely that they would, but at
least
> >it still leaves the door open for the established teams,

> I think that is impractical. You can't have an ever expanding (in terms
of
> numbers) SL. You would be faced with the possibility of knocking back a
> franchise from a new area because a "suitable" club from Div 1 won the
title.
> You have to make the rules clear before you start and I think that the
Div 1
> clubs know none of them will be going up this year.

Careful with this line of thought Dave. Are you assuming that there is a
finite number, known to the almighty (MO) that will not be allowed to be
exceeded?
This would make some sense if the Australian debacle is used as an example,
but what would determine a new club's suitability, and might this imply
replacing an existing club?
Although you would find this hard to even imagine, the time might come when
the club to be replaced was Wigan (ask Newtown supporters about this).
Would you then go along with them being demoted from SLE if it could be
shown to be for the good of the game?
Assuming that I can guess your answer, we all have to acknowledge that
emotion plays a part in much of our judgement about our own team, whilst we
expect others to adopt a more objective approach when it is their team
which is being discussed.

Quote:

> Dave
> --
> Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

> (remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

Alf

by **WiganRLf** » Tue, 02 Jun 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Careful with this line of thought Dave. Are you assuming that there is a
>finite number, known to the almighty (MO) that will not be allowed to be
>exceeded?

I doubt if they know what the number is but I can see them putting a limit on
it sometime.

Quote:

>This would make some sense if the Australian debacle is used as an example,
>but what would determine a new club's suitability, and might this imply
>replacing an existing club?
>Although you would find this hard to even imagine, the time might come when
>the club to be replaced was Wigan (ask Newtown supporters about this).

It has always been in the back of my mind that this could happen one day. ATMO
it won't because the criteria are relatively easy for a club like Wigan to
meet, especially as the club is moving to a new ground.

Quote:

>Would you then go along with them being demoted from SLE if it could be
>shown to be for the good of the game?

I don't think demoted is the right word. If they failed to get their franchise
renewed for some reason and it was plain for all to see why, then I may be
gutted but what could you say if those were the rules?

The people to blame would be the directors (and maybe the supporters for not
turning out in enough numbers perhaps) for not keeping up with franchise
criteria.

I think they are correct to impose criteria on entry into SL above finishing
1st in Div 1 and it looks as though the "population base" one is the one that
would exclude the likes of Wakefield etc.

Franchising is the chosen method to impose criteria.

We will have to see how franchising develops in RL. I can't say I would like
to see a situation where franchises are bought and sold in the same way as in
American Football but you never know it could happen.

Quote:

>Assuming that I can guess your answer, we all have to acknowledge that
>emotion plays a part in much of our judgement about our own team, whilst we
>expect others to adopt a more objective approach when it is their team
>which is being discussed.

That is very true.

Dave
--
Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

(remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

Sport Today

Calling All Expansionists

Calling All Expansionists

Calling All Expansionists

Calling All Expansionists

Calling All Expansionists

Calling All Expansionists

Calling All Expansionists

Calling All Expansionists