Did anyone else think Clint was trying to say something more in his column today, especially about clubs going under, who will pay players, where's all the RFL money going (read who is being propped up!) etc? He also mentioned that only 3 clubs voted against keeping 14 teams, (we know KR were on of them 'cos Hudgell stated so). Something going on at Red Hall that they want to keep quiet as long as possible?
Joined: Jul 08 2006 Posts: 2059 Location: West Hull
JohnSmith2602 wrote:Did anyone else think Clint was trying to say something more in his column today, especially about clubs going under, who will pay players, where's all the RFL money going (read who is being propped up!) etc? He also mentioned that only 3 clubs voted against keeping 14 teams, (we know KR were on of them 'cos Hudgell stated so). Something going on at Red Hall that they want to keep quiet as long as possible?
I find it a bit of a double standard really ,when your club was in NL1 they wanted SL exspanding so you could get in ,and they didnt want to end relegation, now you want a smaller comp for 12 teams with no relegation , i dont normally come on here to be negative about your club ,but surley going back to 12 teams, and having to play more than some teams twice would devalue the comp more ,instead of like we have now 14 competetive teams ,playing everyone home and away ,more British players to choose the home nations squads from, is that not better for the British game or is a bigger share of the TV money that important to the hkr board .I thought reading between the lines Clint was worrying more about the size of his next contract and maybe the possibilty that Rovers will be cutting the cloth a bit in the future
Joined: Apr 06 2006 Posts: 1103 Location: The Heart of East Hull
fc-eaststander wrote:I find it a bit of a double standard really ,when your club was in NL1 they wanted SL exspanding so you could get in ,and they didnt want to end relegation, now you want a smaller comp for 12 teams with no relegation , i dont normally come on here to be negative about your club ,but surley going back to 12 teams, and having to play more than some teams twice would devalue the comp more ,instead of like we have now 14 competetive teams ,playing everyone home and away ,more British players to choose the home nations squads from, is that not better for the British game or is a bigger share of the TV money that important to the hkr board .I thought reading between the lines Clint was worrying more about the size of his next contract and maybe the possibilty that Rovers will be cutting the cloth a bit in the future
a couple of points,
1. we were promoted to a 12 team competition fairly and squarely
2. the idea of going to a 12 team competion was put about in the press to have less games (not play other teams more than twice) in order to give our international players more of a rest in the hope of competing against the aussies.
Incidentally, I am against a 12 team competition and glad it got voted out and wish they would bring back proper promotion and relegation (if we'd had a 12 team comp with P & R last year, Hull would have gone )
1. we were promoted to a 12 team competition fairly and squarely
2. the idea of going to a 12 team competion was put about in the press to have less games (not play other teams more than twice) in order to give our international players more of a rest in the hope of competing against the aussies.
Incidentally, I am against a 12 team competition and glad it got voted out and wish they would bring back proper promotion and relegation (if we'd had a 12 team comp with P & R last year, Hull would have gone )
Firstly, I am not sure we would have gone, I reckon drastic measures would have been taken, not by us but other clubs in danger as well, I think because there is no relegation it has taken the competition out of the mid-bottom half of the table, and I would like to see the return of relegation, promotion I remember watching Wakey & Cas battle it out and what a game it was as good as a grand final. I believe it creates more competition within the league.
1. we were promoted to a 12 team competition fairly and squarely
2. the idea of going to a 12 team competion was put about in the press to have less games (not play other teams more than twice) in order to give our international players more of a rest in the hope of competing against the aussies.
Incidentally, I am against a 12 team competition and glad it got voted out and wish they would bring back proper promotion and relegation (if we'd had a 12 team comp with P & R last year, Hull would have gone )
If we'd had a 12 team comp and P&R last year they'd have changed the rules to keep us in
I'm sure clint would have backed his board with the reduction in games by taking a corresponding reduction in salary had it been approved. editted last - made me nervous and not immediately relevant to the topic. MR
Joined: Sep 06 2005 Posts: 3169 Location: EAST HULL
The RL would never have let us "leave" the SL. We are too big in many ways and it would have impacted negatively across the board. It isn't surprising that Grudgehull wants 12 teams now is it, just like he keeps crying for SL handouts of every kind.
XXXXX K / 12 > XXXXX K / 14
THANK YOU Mr. PEARSON, FOR RIDDING US OF FCKWIT FUBAR, CEO TOOL AND THE STINKING UNCLE KATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY DON'T THE DOBBINS PLAY IN GREEN SHIRT, GREEN SHORTS AND GREEN SOCKS IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THEIR INFINITE ENVY OF EVERYTHING BLACK AND WHITE??
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12664 Location: Leicestershire.
thehullwhitestar wrote:The RL would never have let us "leave" the SL.
Wigan seemed pretty concerned in 2006. And they're traditionally one of RL's biggest teams.
thehullwhitestar wrote:It isn't surprising that Grudgehull wants 12 teams now is it, just like he keeps crying for SL handouts of every kind.
par example?
thehullwhitestar wrote:XXXXX K / 12 > XXXXX K / 14
Indeed - and when most clubs are running at a loss, and the glorious exception makes, as an annual profit, roughly what John Terry is reported to earn in three days, there is an argument for that.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
[quote="fc-eaststander"]I find it a bit of a double standard really ,when your club was in NL1 they wanted SL exspanding so you could get in ,and they didnt want to end relegation, now you want a smaller comp for 12 teams with no relegation , i dont normally come on here to be negative about your club ,but surley going back to 12 teams, and having to play more than some teams twice would devalue the comp more ,instead of like we have now 14 competetive teams ,playing everyone home and away ,more British players to choose the home nations squads from, is that not better for the British game or is a bigger share of the TV money that important to the hkr board .I thought reading between the lines Clint was worrying more about the size of his next contract and maybe the possibilty that Rovers will be cutting the cloth a bit in the future[/quote]
Pillcock.... I think you will find all Hull KR wanted was promotion and relegation maintaining ... nothing to do with increasing the number of teams in Super League - bad memory, dumb or biased or are you all 3?
Rugby League will stay in the Shadow of Rugby Union whilst they maintain their untransparent nature!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 199 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
)
