Joined: Oct 20 2004 Posts: 5766 Location: Coventry
Marto wrote:I'm fairly certain the situations you talk about were down to the more poorly run clubs cancelling games. Or only wanting to play when they can put a winning team out.
Yes but the very fact that they couldn't get out a team at that time of year suggests that having a whole team of BARLA players isn't a good idea in a league that overlaps with BARLA. If clubs like Bramley have some BARLA players but can still get a team out in the overlap it's not a problem, but to expect clubs where every player prioritises BARLA to field a team in the cross-over is plain stupid. I reckon Liverpool, Carlisle and maybe East Lancashire were legitimate in not raising a team, but clearly Underbank were taking advantage of the lack of rules to wait til they got their best team out. Ultimately they need to stop BARLA/winter players who don't prioritise the summer club from playing in the RLC or they need to shorten the season to fit entirely in the off season, which you wouldn't like. Ultimately it's difficult though as Braley, Nottingham Hemel and as far as I can tell Warrington Wizards and Gateshead Storm need the longer season, but the other clubs would be just as well off playing in the RLC Premier. Unfortunately until enough good NCL/BARLA clubs agree to switch en masse entirely we'll be stuck with this problem.
Last edited by bowes on Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Feb 02 2002 Posts: 21765 Location: In the Wild West of Leeds, where the Buffaloes Roam
bowes wrote:Yes but the very fact that they couldn't get out a tem at that time of year suggests that having a whole team of BARLA players isn't a good idea in a league that overlaps with BARLA.If clubs like Bramley havbe some BARLA players but can still get a team out in the overlap it's not a problem, but to expect clubs where every player prioritises BARLA to field a team in the cross-over is plain stupid. I reckon Liverpool, Carlisle and maybe East Lancashire were legitimate in not raising a team, but clearly Underbank were taking advanatge of the lack of rules to wait til they got their best team out. Ultimately they need to stop BARLA/winter players who don't prioritise the summer club from playing in the RLC or they need to shorten the season to fit entirely in the off season, which you wouldn't like. Ultimately it's difficult though as Braley, Nottingham Hemel and as far as I can tell Warrington Wizards and Gateshead Storm need the longer season, but the other clubs would be just as well off playing in the RLC Premier. Unfortunately until enough good NCL/BARLA clubs agree to switch en masse entirely we'll be stuck with this problem.
If there's many spelling mistakes in this post I apologise as my monitor isn't working properly at the moment so I can't check the spelling
you can't stop amateur players from playing the game, BARLA have tried and failed. well not strictly true the will allow you to be dual registered with the armed forces, police, students and other bodies, and themselves but not with the summer game.
tossers!
Liverpool have held their hand up and said they should have made their first few games on a Sunday as we do every year and as i have said to you else where.
Carlisle, say the season started too early. and East lancs are the perennial weak link in our competition.
Joined: Mar 26 2003 Posts: 4069 Location: Bury Broncos
rlspa wrote: However as far as I can see, they have no raison d'etre. The RFL have presided over perhaps the greatest growth in the sport since 1895.
correct! what is BARLA there for? to develop the game? or to maintain itself? the letter at the start of the thread shows exactly what their reason for being is...
ok, development funds get channelled to the RFL, and not BARLA, but could yyou trust them to use it appropriately? i'd say not
Joined: Aug 05 2002 Posts: 14094 Location: He can smoke a pound in a single bound!
bowes wrote:While BARLA might be far from perfect (and in fact they're nowadays pretty bad, some individual leagues are well run though), but to claim BARLA players in the RLCN is a good thing I'd have to strongly disagree as the first three weeks of the RLCN this year were a complete joke and it would help the RLC to not have too many BARLA players and to put them in separate BARLA summer leagues. Of course this doesn't mean there shouldn't be heartland RLC clubs it just means we shouldn't make believe that players can play two games at the same time, as they clearly can't.
Ultimately the game needs full season leagues and to try to force heartland clubs into the RLC model as you'd have happen would see a huge player exodus to RU as players get sick of a pathetically short season. Those leagues need to exist, I'd rather it be under the RFL, but the game couldn't survive without them. Whether these are summer or winter is up to the clubs to decide ideally both option would be there, but individual players should only play one or the other
Why?
If people want to play all year round why can't they? If people wanted to play 2 games in a day why should anyone stop them?
I'm not Jesus Christ, I've come to accept that now.
[quote][b]XBrettKennyX wrote:[/b] Once more the anti SC brigade, purposely or otherwise fail to see the point.
Joined: Mar 26 2003 Posts: 4069 Location: Bury Broncos
Billinge_Lump wrote:Why?
If people want to play all year round why can't they? If people wanted to play 2 games in a day why should anyone stop them?
and they, (as does their club), have the right to pick which game they play, in whichever competition, if there is a clash, (subject to the normal rules of that competition - i.e. concede more than two games, you are not considered for promotion)
Joined: Oct 20 2004 Posts: 5766 Location: Coventry
Billinge_Lump wrote:Why?
If people want to play all year round why can't they? If people wanted to play 2 games in a day why should anyone stop them?
Because it harms the clubs they play against to have to call off games due to players having another priority, backing up on the same weekend is not exactly ideal and overplaying players sees more burn out etc. Ultimately that's their choice but doesn't stop the game having a responsibility.
As for BARLA banning RLC players, it actually makes sense for them as they don't want clubs scratching at the end of the season, and they have to run competitions
Joined: Oct 20 2004 Posts: 5766 Location: Coventry
Marto wrote:Carlisle, say the season started too early.
Surely that is the whole point I'm making that if you have winter players there will be problems during the overlap. Maybe if that's the case they should shorten the season and look at ideally getting teams into the Northern Rail Cup, but if as is likely that's not possible then they could look at a Northern Rail Trophy type tournament with a group of maybe 4 teams playing home and away before the season with a final later as the curtain raiser to the NRC or something.
Also when the RLCP South gets to a standard to be the RLCN (South), which will happen eventually as it's already closer to RLCN standard than it is to RLCP standard (Bedford would have a good chance of winning the RLCP Midlands this year but got hit for 100 by South London, Nottingham won the RLCP midlands last year and instantly are near the top of RLCN), a competition like this would allow Hemel to retain fixtures against all the big northern sides, while replacing ones against East Lancashire etc with higher or equivalent standard local ones.
Joined: Mar 26 2003 Posts: 4069 Location: Bury Broncos
bowes wrote:Surely that is the whole point I'm making that if you have winter players there will be problems during the overlap. Maybe if that's the case they should shorten the season
Joined: Oct 20 2004 Posts: 5766 Location: Coventry
mmp wrote:or shorten the winter season...
Why should they? Their clubs manage with a longer season fine and they're the only one to allow players a full season. Of course I'd rather this winter season be under the RFL than BARLA, but they shouldn't have to take games off everyone for the minority that want to play summer as well
The RLC National is the one that brought this situation on itself by coming up with the ludicrous idea of a 5 month season, which is about the worst idea you could have. A 7-8 month season is long enough that players will play just for you and not need two clubs and a 3-4 month season is short enough that winter players can play both for you and their winter club without the two interfering. A 5 month season and you have players playing two overlapping seasons and you end up with the utter joke that was the first three weeks of the RLCN this season.
Of course I'd like to see a RLCN (or better still Championship 2) with a full season, but half the current clubs probably wouldn't be able to cope, so may be difficult, although for some clubs the longer season would make it more appealing for players to commit just to that club.
Joined: Feb 02 2002 Posts: 21765 Location: In the Wild West of Leeds, where the Buffaloes Roam
bowes wrote:The RLC National is the one that brought this situation on itself by coming up with the ludicrous idea of a 5 month season, which is about the worst idea you could have.
what? by having season that allows us to play out grand final with the championship cubs?
we had a full season. the rfl took that away from us by fooking about with the challenge cup. and not allowing us to play in the nrc.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 975 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
