Here you go again. Where I have said or implied that Keighley led the way in sports marketing?

Cougarmania was more than just razmataz and cheerleaders. At its heart was community involvement including working with schools, setting up the much praised and publicised Cougar Classroom and drug education. Not all of it was original to sport, but the way the whole package was applied to RL was.

We gained recognition in the national press and with senior politicians – If I recall even the PM of the time passed favourable comment.

We moved from bottom of Div 3 with a fan base of a couple of hundred and crumbling terraces to champions with an average crowd of i think around 4000 and a complete ground renovation.

We took 25 coaches with 1000+ schoolchildren to Wembly.

Now that’s not bad for a small town “minnow”.

Oh, and I’m sure that all the clubs that came to see what we were doing actually said “It’s all well and good but I think we’ll copy Leeds Cougars instead.

To claim that Keighley invented "everything" would be naive at best as would claiming they did not in some way change Rugby league.

I don't agree that it was a total Myth, it is however probably true that he became the "hate figure" for all Keighleys misfortunes. - I remember reading his (supposed) comments in the press. Now the press may have fanned the embers for their own ends but I would have thought that if he had been misquoted he would have demanded a retraction.

It might be difficult to find a direct quote now I can only point to this from a Keighley director [i"I remember Bradford coming to Keighley and their chairman, Chris Caisley, complaining about how disgraceful it all was - and look at them now."[/i

This statement was included in the Hansard debate (an interesting read from a historical point of view)
[i"now and again, there is a need to step out of Cougarland, put your feet on the ground, and get into the real world." [/i

I just used to have this "Spitting Image" type view of a Giant Murdoch sat with a Caisley dummy on one knee and Lindsey on the other



.

I can quite imagine someone like Caisley not getting on with Mike Smith and Mick O'Niel. However, Mr Caisley is not necessarily the best example to set when it comes to negotiation skills - see G Hetherington and I Harris

and some of the public statements he made at the time.

Slightly off-topic but was it Batley who brought in American Football-style goalposts?

So are you just claiming Keighley did some work in schools and got some press and politician recognition, and got promoted increased crowds and upgraded the stadium, and took some kids to Wembley? Nothing to dispute there.
Or are you claiming there was some influence on other RL Clubs?

Why not? It was just different criteria and a different time frame.

I remember seeing them somewhere, not sure if it was Hunslet?

Once again it appears you did not read what I said. The last line of my reply to you was:



I am indeed claiming that they influenced other RL clubs, as some of the other posters on this thread have also recognised. That other RL clubs were also influenced by other clubs and sports is also without doubt.

In my opinion, claiming that Keighley had no effect on what came later is like the Americans claiming that their ideas for space flight came only from Chinese fireworks, Jules Verne, Sir William Congrieve and Robert Goddard, and that those nasty German WWII scientists had no influence whatsoever.

It was. Not sure how they got away with it.
The move out of the field of play, and then to a single post, were both safety measures in american football.

Yes I agree they were different.

The old structure was simply a season long cycle of events that allowed each team to play each other such that a fair winner by means of results could be established. The winning team in each division was rewarded by promotion to a higher but tougher division where potential income was greater but so were the costs. So unless you are saying that this structure did not allow mid season movement between divisions then I'm not sure how it can be called protectionist.

The problem with the above system was that those teams that tried to buy success and failed usually went bust and some teams just seemed to yo yo between divisions and then boom and bust. Not good for the teams, not good for the image of the game. The RL solution to this boom and bust scenario was to introduce a franchising system that would give clubs stability and PROTECTION over a number of playing seasons so that they had more time to produce a sustainable business without the fear of relegation.

Is it right or wrong? Well it does not appear to be right just yet.

Is it protectionism? Well thats a firm YES.

The laws of the game (at the time at least) explicitly said that such posts were allowed and that they did not have to be 'H' shaped.

I vaguely remember that New Hunslet had to use them because of something about the greyhound stadium - maybe they were quicker to put up and take down? I think the posts were metal, rather than wood, too.

But no location criteria , where's now there is , hence protectionism

Which clubs have ' yo yo'd ' and gone bust ?

Because it protects teams who perform poorly in their club administration, youth development, stadium upkeep, supporter recruitment etc. Teams who neglect all those important things and concentrate on on the on-field work are protected from being moved down the divisions. J

If this hypothetical club is so bad in so many areas, I imagine it would be just as bad on the field.

It's an interesting point that you make and I agree that all those aspect are vital. It's a shame that many clubs in SL have not been able to improve these vital areas you suggest, even though they have been protected for three years to allow them to do just that. I'm not saying this as a tongue in cheek dig, I mean it, in fact it's a bloody crying shame for rugby league, not just those clubs.

The big difference is that the traditional system did not set out to be protectionist and any that occurs is by accident and tenuous at best.

Franchising deliberately set out to be protectionist. At the moment it isn't quite working, but I accept that may take time.

That depends on whether you take a literal interpretation of what I said. Perhaps it would have been more precise of me to say "hovering around the borders between divisions with the financial uncertainty that that brings and making poor financial decisions to gain promotion".

Yes it is. In the same way the salary cap is protectionist.

But it's an attempt to protecting clubs against themselves and to try and eliminate boom and bust nature that some clubs were willing to risk

So thats a ' none ' then

The salary cap is the same for all clubs so it protects ' all '

location criteria protects some only

I don't disagree, but then that was not the original point of the debate. That started several pages back when Adeybull wrote:

Hmmmm..... lets see.....

hovering around the borders between divisions ..... financial uncertainty ......making poor financial decisions to gain promotion. Must be at least half of the clubs in RL



I seem to remember that Dewsbury actually turned promotion down because they did not think they were financially prepared which ironically then resulted in Kelly leaving and ultimate relegation to NR2, but I am only speaking from memory. Did Hunslet also once turn down promotion?

Dewsbury and Hunslet were both turned down by the RFL I think.

There were Workington and Oldham for two.

So when were they promoted back up then ?

it doesnt protect those who could comfortably spend much more nor does it protect those who cant spend it