wireone

Pompous patronising pile of poop?

No mate, not towing the pc, we're all friends we aren't allowed to criticise anymore nonsense, look at us we used to be poor blah blah.

I don't have a short memory at all and we had a lot of clever, intelligent people who worked us out of the poop.

Wakefield are bouncing from one disaster to the next but we can't critise them? Why?
Oh they produce players, they have a great history blah, SO WHAT?

People rip London to spreads and you all collectively nod your heads in agreement yet turn on a Northern club at your perile, say something about a northern club and all the, we need to stick together nonsense comes out.

Wakefield have been loaning players, not paying wages on time, signing players who leave at the 11th hour because they can't guarantee them a wage.

If I'd substituted Wakefield for London all you here is "disgrace, embarrassing, kick them out". What's any different?

So answer me this and answer it honestly are Castleford and Wakefield NOT holding us back? Just answer that question with a simple yes or no

And another thing any players worth their salt at junior level would still be picked up by other teams

Personally I'd like to see all the teams in SL compete, & more from the Championship promoted to expand to a larger SL....That isn't going to happen anytime soon though.

One thing you seem to be discarding between London & Cas/Wakey is once again money, it's no big secret that London have had an obscene amount of cash put into them that makes a laughing stock of their results.

Wakey have had some turbulent times lately, debts hidden by their owners etc - However they now have new management that seem to be doing things the right way & hopefully will land on their feet with what still looks to be a competitive team.

Cas have pretty much been living within their means, which admittedly hasn't seen them do brilliantly, but I think they'll get a lot more right than wrong this year and there will be a big improvement with DP in charge, even without Chase. I'm predicting Marc Sneyd to have a cracking season and being in 2 minds whether he wants to return to Salford.

I want a league like the NRL too, I want a league in which a team that just misses out on a GF one year could potentially finish bottom the next like happens in the NRL, I want every team to have money behind them and smash 7 bells out of each other and the bookie not know who is the favourite from one game to the next, I want London, Bradford, Wakefield and Castleford challenging for a GF place.

Exactly.

We just don't have enough money as a sport or enough rich chairmen to get there, yet.

This is slowly changing though, look how competitive the league is now compared to 15 years ago. People like Moran, Davies, Lenegan, McManus, Koukash, Hetherington are making the top end of the league more competitive every season, due to their investments & business plans (OK, Koukash is yet to be proven but he looks set to follow suit and certainly isn't shy with his cash).

A more competitive & entertaining SL [ishould[/i mean more money coming in to the sport, which will in time allow clubs without rich chairmen to put more money into their teams, grounds & business plans.

Wakey & Bradford both have had new owners, reductions in staff & staff turnover in the last few months, it's easy to say they're the same club but hopefully things will change for the best for them. Cas have got a new coach who they were a hell of a lot more competitive under for the back end of last season, and half a new team.

It's easy to tar a club with the same brush as in their past, but things are changing - for better or worse we'll just have to see.

You're OK with homophobia, then?

Are people not forgetting that most of the teams in the league, with the exeption of Salford Leeds and Hull are small northern towns with limited population. I would love to see Warrington getting 25,000 people each week, but it aint going to happen niether is it at Saints, widnes, wigan, cas, wakey hudds ect we are limited to the crowds we will get? revenue streams are limited due to the size of the clubs and the nationwide/world-wide exposure that we dont have. We do need to grow, but know are limits and work to get there. We would all love to spend full cap but it is not feasable. I love the game and i feel that we are on the start of a fantastic kourney. We are where football was 20 years ago with money men wanting to invest and who knows we may exceed our expectations.

I appreciate teams go through crests and troughs in terms of success on the field, and that's certainly no reason to questions someone's right to compete at the top.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading that 23% of the castleford area had some sort of connection to the rugby league club which is the highest percentage of any sport anywhere. Whilst a fantastic figure, and shows the club are doing well in the local area, the flip side of the argument is obviously they must be reaching the limitations of what is possible in the local area, so should start looking beyond the immediate surroundings to continue growing - but would they be able to compete for new fans with Leeds, Wakefield, fev, fax etc? To an outsider it looks a very congested area (and thus the continued growth argument is used by those that believe in forced mergers)

Personally, given the situation castleford were in, I'd say profit is wasted potential, break even should be the aim (that's not to say it's not a very good achievement )

Do you own your stadium currently?

I like castlefords dependence on youth, that said how much that is because you have a small squad and how much is deliberate I suppose it's up for debate - but youth development is one of the key issues for the new structure so either way it can't be held against you - but again to have it as a key strength, to be above and beyond those also around the local area - would you say your closer to Leeds' standard youth development or wakefields?

Again in no way an attack (and ultimately quite pointless, as it will once again be decided upon the pitch)

Castleford are a great club. They bring through countless SL level players (Hull nick loads of them). They would easily draw 8k average if they can get in top 6 for a couple of years. And they already have a wide area of support covering Sherburn/Selby area.

You could argue that Wigan/Warrington/St helens/Widnes and Salford is equally an over congested area.

What have Wire brought to the game recently???

Widnes have been champions more recently than Warrington.
i don't think having a nice shiney new ground is the mark of a team contributing.


Whilst the point maybe obtuse, I find it annoying that those who have benefited from other clubs being held back. ie Warrington. Are now harping that the free economy should be let rip. I'm sure when they were in their own financial troubles with dwindling crowds and others had said that the cap should be removed, there would have been complaints that Wigan and Saints would benefit at their loss.

Whilst I'm not a fan of the cap, it's got nothing to do with wanting to chop the legs off clubs who can spend less, it's about wanting proper financial governance. Which can't be done if clubs are spending beyond their means.

" I find it annoying that those who have benefited from other clubs being held back. ie Warrington."

How?

Did we pick the bones of Wakefield, London and Bradford when they were in the ? NO, in fact we offered them players to help them out.

Saints and Wigan picked our bones as well in the .

You've picked Salford's bones a few times!



Let's face it though, this is going to happen no matter what. Good players want opportunities to win & more money, not necessarily in that order. If your team can't offer at the very least one of those, you're lucky to keep hold of your good players.

Garforth/Wetherby/Boston Spa/Tadcaster as well are places where you see us Cas fans around

The point is that Cas and Wakefield are in the same position that Warrington were in the pre Moran days and the way the game is structured it is all but impossible to get out of that situation without a wealthy backer.
The clever, intelligent people who worked us out of the poop were all attracted to the club by Simon Moran who was prepared to subsidise the club.
I have never commented on the London situation but, personally, I am sad that, in spite of the millions expended, the professional game has not got a firmer toehold in the Capital. However the money expended has resulted in there being a healthy amateur set up in the South East and I wish the Broncos every success in the future.
I am not sure what Wakefield and Cas are holding us back from. They are a Rugby League fact of life as are a number of other clubs who are living a hand to mouth existence. If you get shut of them you won't get shut of the problem of the lack of cash in the game and the vast proportion of that cash going on wages. The problem will not be solved by looking down our noses at the poorer clubs. Either all clubs will have to get a wealthy backer or the league will have to more competitive so that games will be more of a contest and different clubs will be vying for honours every year instead of the usual suspects that apply at the moment and has applied for a long time.. That way, hopefully, the competition would be more attractive and generate more income.
I repeat I cannot see that happening with a toothless executive and the game controlled by vested self interest.
I would defend to the death your right to criticise. I just don't agree with you in this particular instance and I don't think there is anything to be gained by turning on struggling clubs as, the way things are going, the whole game could be struggling before long.

Some of what you just spat is correct but the vast majority is I'll informed clap trap.

Was that after Salford had took the players off a Widnes club in administration?

Players? No.

Well it's nice to see all the niceties after the world cup have been set aside in favour of some good old fashion rivalry bashing.


Bring on SL2014!!!!!

Not sure on this. We certainly usually have the biggest attendance:population ratio than any othe rugby league team. However, this is flawed in assuming that people only from Castleford attend games when there is Pontefract, Featherstone, Methley, Leeds, Wakefield, southern places, Bristol, the North East, the East Coast.



I don't think we have reached our limitations in the local area; that said, expanding outside the area is key but the significance in that is that you need a successful side. Look at Huddersfield Giants as an example. They've had a period of being a perennial lower league club so much so that they've probably failed to capitalise on a generation of young kids, simply because they weren't good enough. Even now when they're on the crest of a wave, their crowds are simply not good enough. If Cas were top of the league they'd be attracting 10k weekly.

I'd say the difficulty for Cas is a dying generation coupled with a newer generation with less loyalty. A lot of older fans are dye-in-the-wool fans - regardless of club too I'd add - that only ally themselves to one club - their local club. Talk about Cas they're all t'pit workers that went darn t'lane etc. Cas's demise has probably fallen at the worst time, just as Leeds have rose again and become successful. Wakefield have probably nabbed a few as a result of our relegations. Young fans nowadays don't necessarily show allegiance to their local club but the successful clubs. I know of people from around here that support Wigan and St Helens.

For us to get back crowds we need some sort of success. If a side like Cas can attract 10k+ to a Championship Grand Final, imagine how it'd be for a consistent top eight side knocking off the big boys. We have the potential and we CAN do it. We just need someone to give us a chance and push us to that next level financially, or we have to do it ourselves collectively - fans, sponsors, BoD, shareholders.



Personally, I'd like to see this introduced into rugby league with a maximum amount Directors [and their respective companies are allowed to put in to a club per year, much like the FFP in football. Break even would - I imagine - be satisfactory for most clubs, especially since some top clubs rely on benefactors rather than their income from the business.




Yes, which is the issue with the new stadium. We're reliant on selling our asset - Wheldon Rd - to fund the new ground. Before the economic disaster it was probably worth around £10m to a developer but since the crash the housing market has fallen and the supermarket we were looking to sell to has since reviewed its strategy and is less pressing on such expansion now. There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon though that something may change shortly on this front and has been rumoured for a while so we live in hope.



There is no doubt that in recent seasons gone by this has been an issue for us and I'd agree it can be seen as both as a pro and a con, acknowledged by the club too. The simple factor is that injuries has meant that players like your Thompsons, Clarks and Milners have come through and played 15-18+ games in a season at 18/19. Fine achievement may be but it has meant that they've had to mature pretty quickly, possibly before their bodies have. If you look at a club like Warrington they usually blood them at a Championship club for experience and bring them through gently. Currie has been on the scene for a few years but I'd argue that this year is going to be his first proper full SL season; last season he was still very much a fringe player.

Not true.

Homegrown players count on the cap but you can have dispensations of:

-£50k for ONE club trained player nominated of choice.
- A MAX of £100k for a player/s in the ETS or Knights squad. But this is £10k per player in the ETS or £5k per player in the Knights.

It is not £100k on one player or £100k on all players.

Quote ="Wire Yed" So answer me this and answer it honestly are Castleford and Wakefield NOT holding us back? Just answer that question with a simple yes or no'" So you're entire post goes on about London and Wakefield but doesn't mention Castleford barring the last sentence? Is that barring the stadia and recent seasonal performances, you don't actually have a leg to stand on? And if we are holding the game back may I ask why we apparently voted against the Stobart deal, whilst yourselves - according to the Telegraph - voted for it www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... -deal.html Isn't everyone screaming on here about how the Stobart deal was a failure and has set the game back? Food for thought. Perhaps the reason we're not able to compete on a similar level is because a) there is not enough income in the game; and b) we haven't had a supportive council and sugar-daddy to fund money into us to take us to that next level. You're perception of a lack of ambition is misguided. We'd love to be challenging, we'd love to be successful. We just have to do it the hard way, not the easy way. Unless you can see many multi-billionaires floating around wanting to invest in RL. And it certainly doesn't help that sponsorship contributions were nil over the last few seasons.

Quote ="Wire Yed" So answer me this and answer it honestly are Castleford and Wakefield NOT holding us back? Just answer that question with a simple yes or no'" So you're entire post goes on about London and Wakefield but doesn't mention Castleford barring the last sentence? Is that barring the stadia and recent seasonal performances, you don't actually have a leg to stand on? And if we are holding the game back may I ask why we apparently voted against the Stobart deal, whilst yourselves - according to the Telegraph - voted for it www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... -deal.html Isn't everyone screaming on here about how the Stobart deal was a failure and has set the game back? Food for thought. Perhaps the reason we're not able to compete on a similar level is because a) there is not enough income in the game; and b) we haven't had a supportive council and sugar-daddy to fund money into us to take us to that next level. You're perception of a lack of ambition is misguided. We'd love to be challenging, we'd love to be successful. We just have to do it the hard way, not the easy way. Unless you can see many multi-billionaires floating around wanting to invest in RL. And it certainly doesn't help that sponsorship contributions were nil over the last few seasons.

That's the current rule, it has been changed to what has been said:



So as said, saints would have roby in that category who would be limited "to the nominal value of 100k". If saints also signed graham, he too would be in the same category and of value 100k.

I did not know that. However, that is still to be ratified and is not in place as of yet so it still remains as was.

Though, I think the Club Trained Rules need to be tightened - I don't agree with a player changing clubs under 21 and still counting. It should be a player that has played continuously for the same club for three years under the age of 21. Any movement before or after 21st birthday means full salary cap value applies again.

The only exceptions being anyone who moves at 17/18 and plays at the same club until 21.

Quote ="Fully"I did not know that. However, that is still to be ratified and is not in place as of yet so it still remains as was. Though, I think the Club Trained Rules need to be tightened - I don't agree with a player changing clubs under 21 and still counting. It should be a player that has played continuously for the same club for three years under the age of 21. Any movement before or after 21st birthday means full salary cap value applies again. The only exceptions being anyone who moves at 17/18 and plays at the same club until 21.'" This is tied in with the league structure, so for this not to go through requires the league structure to go through - along with a whole host of other issues - return of the reserves (though is optional), increase in non fed trained players to 7, a similar rule for championship clubs as above (though they're limited to 40k) A full read: media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf I'm not sure about the club trained status, it's a difficult position to be in: for example jon Wilkin is due his testimonial next year I believe, and has played all of his senior rugby with saints, I'd find it hard for him not to be defined as a home grown player, even though he was brought over from hull kr - I don't think it should be done by age, rather who you made your first team debut for.

Quote ="Fully"I did not know that. However, that is still to be ratified and is not in place as of yet so it still remains as was. Though, I think the Club Trained Rules need to be tightened - I don't agree with a player changing clubs under 21 and still counting. It should be a player that has played continuously for the same club for three years under the age of 21. Any movement before or after 21st birthday means full salary cap value applies again. The only exceptions being anyone who moves at 17/18 and plays at the same club until 21.'" This is tied in with the league structure, so for this not to go through requires the league structure to go through - along with a whole host of other issues - return of the reserves (though is optional), increase in non fed trained players to 7, a similar rule for championship clubs as above (though they're limited to 40k) A full read: media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf I'm not sure about the club trained status, it's a difficult position to be in: for example jon Wilkin is due his testimonial next year I believe, and has played all of his senior rugby with saints, I'd find it hard for him not to be defined as a home grown player, even though he was brought over from hull kr - I don't think it should be done by age, rather who you made your first team debut for.

However, the RFL still have to sort out finances, funding, salary caps etc and so this will fall under this, which I presume will all have to be ratified by the Super League clubs.