they wouldnt,

its a common tactic on these boards, invent a very unlikely and pointless example of something, point out how pointless it would be but ignore how unlikely it is, then pretend you have argued against whatever it was an example of.

I think you have mis-read what I said.

you said:


I said:

sorry,my mistake,excuse me

Testify brother

I think you will find that, that is what I said



Very clever, but that does not represent what I said or why I said it.

Western Suburbs Magpies highest attendances on average were around 11k (they had one 15k average in 1961, the rest were 8-11k). They dropped as low as 6k on average.
Balmain Tigers are similar. Apart from a brief period in the late 60s where their averages were between 15-19k, they were 8-11k every other year, again dropping as low as 6k on average.

The years leading up to the merger, they were both averaging between 6-10k.

Wests Tigers averaged 12-13k straight away, and now average 17-19k. They average combined what Balmain and Magpies were getting on their own. It's a very successful merger, and neither of these clubs have shown signs since the 60s of getting anywhere near decent crowds on a consistent basis.

A bit different in this instance , as it would seem there is money on offer if 2 clubs decided to do it , we dont know how much money or if any clubs are excempt , but it does make this particular issue more relevant

you say that, but your argument is pretty much destroyed by one question, the same one which i responded to.

Why would Hunslet and Bramley merge?

Answer, they wont so it isnt a useful example.

A more useful example would be the Coventry example given previously, or at a stretch a cumbrian merger with a view to SL which, pragmatically is a little beyond any of the current sides.

... except the proposals seem to talk about "A club brought about by the amalgamation of two existing clubs in the Championships" and guaranteeing a place in "the Championship" not 'the championships', so Cumbrian sides merging for an SL bid (however unlikely that might be) fits better than clubs outside the current championships clubs merging to enter Championship 1.

I'm sure the feedback on that section will be 'interesting'

You have taken one line of what I said and either misunderstood or twisted it to suit your views.


I said:


If you go back and actually read the associated posts you will see that the whole point is that a merger in UK RL is not a merger but a takeover, where the stronger (home club) wins and the other clubs fans are disenfranchised.

If you had said to Sheffield fans after their Challenge Cup victory over Wigan, that they would be swallowed by Huddersfield and end up re forming and spend years struggling in the lower leagues they might ask you why.....
.... on the other hand they may have used stronger words.

It will if the clubs actually understand it , you have to admit , having ' the ' Championship in the ' Championships ' can be a tad confusing at times , if it had been Championship 1 and Championship 2 , things would be a bit clearer

I didnt attribute it to anyone, you arent the only one to have mentioned those clubs.

However, you have simply pointed out here an example of you doing exactly what i have explained.

What on earth does a very unlikely merger between Bramley and Hunslet have to do with anything? What relevance is a 'never going to happen' merger between Hunslet and Bramley to Sheffield or Huddersfield?

Why is 'ridiculously unlikely' merger between Bramley and Hunslet a good example in the context of a merger in uk RL not being a merger but a takeover?

with respect it was you that started the Hunslet/Bramley merger thread - you just picked an inapropriate combination that's all.

Rather than Sheffield/Huddersfield and Hull/Gateshead which were both extremely obvious

Hmmm... you've used "very unlikely", "never going to happen", and "ridiculously unlikely" in two sentences. I take it you don't think it will happen



I'll focus on "ridiculously unlikely" 'cos it sounds nice. The term is only relative to time; what is "ridiculously unlikely" now may not be so in two years....five years... 10 years time. Just ask fans of Sheffield and Gateshead what it's like to be "ridiculously unlikely".

That's very true.



Not at all, I picked the two teams deliberately.

And ' logically ' in the context of reasons to merge

enlighten us to why you picked them deliberately ?

You really have to ask ?

2 small clubs in a large city full of RL fans and players overshadowed by a monster of a club ?

It's not hard to see why really is it ?

but as you admit, it was ridiculously unlikely, and as you also admit, you picked those two deliberately. Now why would you pick two ridiculously unlikely to merge teams as your example of teams merging leading to a takeover rather than a merger other than because it is obvious that a merger between those two clubs would likely lead to many easily identifiable negatives, which are the exact reason such a merger is obviously so 'ridiculously unlikely' therefore painting mergers in a negative light.

An almost text book example of what I stated and you denied.

No, I used your words in the context of what I said.

Lets see.......

Hunslet are freshly promoted to the Championship and are potential candidates for a quick return back to CH1

Their stadium is not big enough for the supposed proposed new crieria for Championship rugby, these are their words, not mine [urlhttp://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php/topic/213212-minimum-capacity-of-3000/[/url An injection of cash needed??

Bramley are relatively close at hand and touted by some for the new championship

Rhinos produce more youngsters than they need

Does it sound "ridiculously unlikely" now



Money and power can make strange things happen.



Not so. I did not deny it, merely stated (correctly) that you took one line of my post out of context and spun something around it.

Was the Sheffield/Huddersfield merger "ridiculously unlikely"???

It sounds on paper like a good idea. And a particularly good way of expanding by drawing in teams not far from our heartlands (Nottingham, notably).

agreed,but if the so-called 'heartland' clubs can't make a go of it then why bring in smaller teams with even less potential support - surely the main thing would be to make the existing clubs stronger ? Somehow take the peoples game back to the people in the heartlands !

The proposed structure includes a Championship of 12 to 14 clubs. There are currently 11 clubs in the Championship so it will need at least one other club to make up the numbers. SL is staying at 14 so an extra club will not come from above. That means that they need to either be a club being promoted (and if the league is to be increased by one then it seems more likely that no-one will be relegated and one team promoted rather than 2 down-3 up or 1down-2up thereby promoting two or three probably weaker clubs, as Hunslet (and Oldham) dominated Champ 1 last season). Or much more likely considering that minimum standards are being introduced is that the existing 21 clubs will be invited to apply for a place in the new Championship. With potentially 3 extra places up for grabs are there 4 clubs at Champ 1 level strong enough to dislodge Hunslet. No. Much like with the original SL franchise awards I do not see any club dropping down a division.

As far as the level of minimum standards for stadia are concerned this is a consultation paper that is going to the clubs for negotiation prior to being finalised. As the saying goes turkeys won't vote for Christmas. If Hunslet, Oldham, Whitehaven and any other clubs hoping for a spot in the new Championship know that their current ground doesn't get them in then they will negotiate to get the standard lowered for the intial three years at least. Also as there was with SL there is bound to be a grace period for improving stadia with clubs allowed to make promises and submit improvement plans. Clubs can't be expected to throw up new stands or stadia by September having been told what to do in February.

As far as the incentive to merge goes I think it is aimed more at Whitehaven and Workington than any other of the 21 clubs as a means of getting a stronger single West Cumbria club that could better push for SL in the future rather than the two small clubs barely surviving and that would be seen as the future presence at the top level in Cumbria.

You haven't made this post without being told more than has been published , so where have you heard this from ?