Page 2 of 2
Re: Overseas players
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:07 am
by DaveO
GeoffN posted:
DaveO posted:
I can't say I am very plaeased about it given ML was not so long ago banging on about producing an virtually al-wigan team with just three overseas players.
Dave
Yeah, but there are enough complaints about us not taking advantage of "loopholes" that other clubs are not too 'honest'to exploit...salary caps & short-term signings for example.
I have not seen the majority of people complaining like that. More like complaining that clubs have spotted the loopholes and exploited them, for example the short term signings for the playoffs.
It is only the short sighted who say "me too".
We have to face facts, the team would look a lot weaker without those 'foreigners'. The local lads have been tried (albeit we'd no choice) this season, and found wanting, which is why Wild, Aspi, Beswick, Allen and the rest have been allowed to leave.
I know it would be weaker but that doesn't excuse the situation or make it right. I blame Bradford and Chris Caisley myself.
He is on record as saying the club game is more important than the international game. His club were the first to exploit the Kolpak ruling and he threatended the RFL with legal action when they tried to remove all overseas players from the off-quota 5 year rule as opposed to new signings only.
Bradford would not be close to another GF appearance if it were not for the fact thay have a lot of overseas players in their squad. It appears ML has concluded "if you can't beat 'em join 'em".
If Bradford and others we not obsessed with overseas players we would not need to have 8 overseas players in our squad next year and over time we might just end up with a GB squad that could compete.
RL will reamin viewed as a northern sport with no international games of note so long as we are easy beats v Australia and we will always be so if we continue to have the top clubs with their first 17 players dominated by overseas signings.
I think Leeds have the fewest overseas players in the competition and so I hope they stuff Bradford.
Dave
Re: Overseas players
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:16 am
by bulldog59
crap there over paid players that s coming to wigan to get good wages for naff all
Re: Overseas players
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:16 am
by bulldog59
crap there over paid players that s coming to wigan to get good wages for naff all
Re: Overseas players
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:16 am
by GeoffN
DaveO posted:
GeoffN posted:
DaveO posted:
I can't say I am very plaeased about it given ML was not so long ago banging on about producing an virtually al-wigan team with just three overseas players.
Dave
Yeah, but there are enough complaints about us not taking advantage of "loopholes" that other clubs are not too 'honest'to exploit...salary caps & short-term signings for example.
I have not seen the majority of people complaining like that. More like complaining that clubs have spotted the loopholes and exploited them, for example the short term signings for the playoffs.
It is only the short sighted who say "me too".
We have to face facts, the team would look a lot weaker without those 'foreigners'. The local lads have been tried (albeit we'd no choice) this season, and found wanting, which is why Wild, Aspi, Beswick, Allen and the rest have been allowed to leave.
I know it would be weaker but that doesn't excuse the situation or make it right. I blame Bradford and Chris Caisley myself.
He is on record as saying the club game is more important than the international game. His club were the first to exploit the Kolpak ruling and he threatended the RFL with legal action when they tried to remove all overseas players from the off-quota 5 year rule as opposed to new signings only.
Bradford would not be close to another GF appearance if it were not for the fact thay have a lot of overseas players in their squad. It appears ML has concluded "if you can't beat 'em join 'em".
If Bradford and others we not obsessed with overseas players we would not need to have 8 overseas players in our squad next year and over time we might just end up with a GB squad that could compete.
RL will reamin viewed as a northern sport with no international games of note so long as we are easy beats v Australia and we will always be so if we continue to have the top clubs with their first 17 players dominated by overseas signings.
I think Leeds have the fewest overseas players in the competition and so I hope they stuff Bradford.
Dave
I've said for ages that the biggest difference between RL and RU is the relative importance of club and international games..we get good (and increasing) support at club level, but relatively poor attendances for internationals...RU sells out for internationals but is poorly supported at club level. From that comes much of the perception in the media that RU is the more "marketable" game. The vast majority of RL fans support club over country, and I suspect nothing is going to change that.
I agree that a tougher limit on foreign imports would help GB, and have long argued for the quota criterion to be "players not qualified for GB"; however, no club with any ambition for success is going to unilaterally decide to go down that route...it would have to be imposed.
Re: Overseas players
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:35 am
by DaveO
GeoffN posted:
I've said for ages that the biggest difference between RL and RU is the relative importance of club and international games..we get good (and increasing) support at club level, but relatively poor attendances for internationals...RU sells out for internationals but is poorly supported at club level.
I have not looked for stats but I suspect club support in RU is on the up.
Due to lack of RL around here (Chester) my son plays RU and there are a lot of people who travel from here to Sale. I know some of the southern RU sides are getting good crowds.
From that comes much of the perception in the media that RU is the more "marketable" game. The vast majority of RL fans support club over country, and I suspect nothing is going to change that.
You are probably right. They majority do support club over country but I am not sure half of them realise why thay are doing it.
I suspect if we had a strong international side they would not be so club oriented. I also think the club over country thing is something that has occured recently. By that I mean when the likes of Mike Gregory were playing I think people really were still interested in seeing GB doing well much more so than now.
I agree that a tougher limit on foreign imports would help GB, and have long argued for the quota criterion to be "players not qualified for GB"; however, no club with any ambition for success is going to unilaterally decide to go down that route...it would have to be imposed.
Well Maurice tried to adopt a self imposed limit like that and despite our 8 overseas players next season I have not lost all hope that we might slowly, over the next few seasons, get to a situation where we don't have to rely on so many overseas players.
If Wigan do it and Leeds continue the way they are both clubs between them might be able to supply a GB team to give other countries a game despite the Bradfords of this world.
Dave
Re: Overseas players
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:58 am
by GeoffN
RU premiership clubs averaged about 5,000 attendance last season, with Leicester by far the best at 8,800. This means around 55k watch premiership RU every week, as against 100,000 watching SL.
(source for the RU figures:
http://www.rugbyclub.co.uk/84_87.php )
By contrast, even GB v Aus RL internationals (by far the highest) struggle to get 30k...whereas the RU will fill Twickers (or wherever, at around 80k) for games against 7 or 8 international sides)
Re: Overseas players
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:31 pm
by ian.birchall
DaveO posted:
I don't know how many foreign players Bradford have this season but in 2004 it was eight.
Dave
Looking at tonights lineup for t'GF, the Bulls are still playing 8 overseas players so not much change there but what I would give to have Hape in my side instear of Vaelaeki and to be honest at his age now dallas tpoo be replaced by Vainikolo.
I think disregarding London, but why should we, particularly when thety go bust doing it and get let off by all the rest of the league.
Re: Overseas players
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:35 pm
by ian.birchall
GeoffN posted:
RU premiership clubs averaged about 5,000 attendance last season, with Leicester by far the best at 8,800. This means around 55k watch premiership RU every week, as against 100,000 watching SL.
(
Would not want to fault you on your figures GeoffN but Leicester average 13-14k and all the London clubs are around the five figure mark and Gloucester/Bath and Northampton will also be up in the high single figures. Where is DaiJones when we need him?
Also you are woefully optimistic on the SL figures, I do believe that we have not yet managed to break 70k in the weekly rounds, our max was 69630 on the Good Friday round this year inc the 25004 at Wigan? and 22843 at Odsal to see the Bulls/Leeds game the night before, but that isn't bad with a maximum of 6 games/round, particularly when both London and Huddersfield are at home..
Re: Overseas players
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:12 pm
by GeoffN
ian.birchall posted:
GeoffN posted:
RU premiership clubs averaged about 5,000 attendance last season, with Leicester by far the best at 8,800. This means around 55k watch premiership RU every week, as against 100,000 watching SL.
(
Would not want to fault you on your figures GeoffN but Leicester average 13-14k and all the London clubs are around the five figure mark and Gloucester/Bath and Northampton will also be up in the high single figures. Where is DaiJones when we need him?
Also you are woefully optimistic on the SL figures, I do believe that we have not yet managed to break 70k in the weekly rounds, our max was 69630 on the Good Friday round this year inc the 25004 at Wigan? and 22843 at Odsal to see the Bulls/Leeds game the night before, but that isn't bad with a maximum of 6 games/round, particularly when both London and Huddersfield are at home..
I got the RU figures from the rugbyclub website...I don't see why a Union site would underestimate them.
According to that site, Leicester's TOTAL Premiership attendance for 2004/5 season was 184,683, for 22 games, which works out at 8,394. Lowest was Leeds Tykes, with 61,308, or 2786 average.
I admit to being wrong on the SL figures, due to taking someone else's word for them instead of checking properly! Sorry - won't do it again! The RFL figures come out about the same, at 55k weekly. The fact remains, though, that most of those don't go to watch international RL, whereas for RU they seem to come out of the woodwork.