Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Toulouse think they will hear about Superleague decision soon


  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#41 Ponterover

Ponterover
  • Coach
  • 1,786 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 01:13 PM

But that's why Catalans worked. Should we only have expansion clubs that fail?

 

No not in the slightest, I'm trying to get my head around what they bring to the table, versus what could be lost to the table by including them.



#42 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 01:21 PM

No not in the slightest, I'm trying to get my head around what they bring to the table, versus what could be lost to the table by including them.

Not very much initially but potentially a great deal. I know this is said of London as well but they have had their chance to deliver on their potential and failed. Toulouse have yet to fail.

 

But I don't get the French M62 thing. Catalans are a pro side but there was no pro side in Perpignon - that's expansion. There is no pro side in Toulouse either. What we do have is a lot of the things that will help a pro side survive - and yet seemingly you are against these things.


Edited by Northern Sol, 05 June 2013 - 01:23 PM.


#43 Casfan1978

Casfan1978
  • Players
  • 5 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 04:09 PM

Ok first post guys so go easy on me but this thread led me to signing up !

For clarity, the argument about another French club reducing RL Sky Broadcasting Rights is a moot point.

Sky pay £x per year for x number of games. Sky have built in to their contract that the league must contain a certain minimum number of teams, I seem to recall the minimum is 12 from recollection, however, the geographical positioning of those teams is not specified.

The key driver for Sky's broadcoasting rights value is competitive games = increased viewing figures = subscriptions = better programming sponsorship. Sky want a product that is ultimately revenue generating for them. If the pool of English clubs from which Sky can pick from reduces by 1, it is unlikely to have any bearing on the underlying value (of the broadcasting agreement) unless Toulouse are a complete "turkey on the field" and everybody switches off. In this scenario, Toulouse are likely to be less attractive and Sky would pick alternative games (not featuing Toulouse) in future weeks.

The only bearing which another French club would have on the Sky agreement would be if a French TV network demanded (and were granted) pan-European exclusivity on the two French clubs matches. In practice, this is unlikely to happen given the scalability of RL (which is small) therefore in practice Sky would use their cameras and vica versa for highlights, live games (i.e. simulcast, which is common in Austrailia particularly for AFL).

This is how broadcoasting works for percieved smaller sports like ours.

If Toulouse genuinely have the money, sponsors, TV, potential crowds / supporters, then the RFL are responsible for making sure they undertake extensive due diligence on them to prove it (or have a financial guarantee in place if they dont). This means a proper process not a farsical sham like we have seen with the Crusaders.

#44 flyingking

flyingking
  • Coach
  • 828 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 05:38 PM

Welcome to the forum and a top opening post.


www.twitter.com/flyingking2

#45 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 3,054 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 07:08 PM

Thanks for that, I get that there is potential for a French TV deal, but I worry that what we gain there might be lost when Sky re-negotiate, they're not going to sell any dishes in Toulouse and might lose a few at home.

 

I hope you're right about cross border sponsorship, personally I can't see it in the near future.

 

I agree that a new competitive team is needed in SL, wherever it may come from.

 

I also see that it will over time strengthen the French national team, which can only be a good thing.

 

 

I'm not against Toulouse (or any other European team) joining SL per se. Just worried that the perceived benefits might be drowned out by what I think are real risks associated with the move.

I'm intrigued here, because I'd be interested to know what you think the risks are. For me, France is something we absolutely have to make progress with.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#46 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 07:20 PM

Also, it's a perception issue.  Try selling the credibility of rugby league if it's entrenched in the north with a couple of French clubs.  It's an open goal for anyone who wants to have a go at us.

Just to be clear, we are a sport that has to invent a team to be able to play an international, in a 15,00 capacity stadium which is still more than the fixture has ever attracted, but at least no one can mock us because we have a token presence playing the worst football in the league in front of next to nobody.

You can just as easily knock the game because of the current state of the Broncos every bit as much as you could if they were not in Super League.

But any sport which makes decisions on the basis of trying to prevent people have a go at it deserves to be mocked, although it would only be short lived because it would have no chance of surviving.

Also, everything else you said was wrong too.

#47 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,083 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 06:56 AM

I just don't understand how the league will be perceived as an M62 sport any more than it already is if Toulouse replace London. There will still be two clubs outside the M62.

The Broncos are failing as a SL club. It's there for all to see.
Posted Image

#48 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,741 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 02:27 PM

If Toulouse genuinely have the money, sponsors, TV, potential crowds / supporters, then the RFL are responsible for making sure they undertake extensive due diligence on them to prove it (or have a financial guarantee in place if they dont). This means a proper process not a farsical sham like we have seen with the Crusaders.

Welcome to the board but I don't welcome you singling out Crusaders.

How about the license given to Bradford Bulls??

How about the license given to Castleford??

These clubs didn't have the resources to compete yet got a licence, so why do Toulouse have to pass a much sterner test??

Is it cos they is French?

#49 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,741 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 02:34 PM

I'm intrigued here, because I'd be interested to know what you think the risks are. For me, France is something we absolutely have to make progress with.

There are no risks any greater than accepting clubs like Cas, Quins, Widnes, Salford and Wakefield who were all graded third rate each with a "C" license. Indeed "B" rated Bradford went belly up, and salford collapsed. It's OK to "take risks" with M62 clubs but you can't trust Johnny Foreigner.

If new SL clubs outside the heartlands are impossible to create, then naturally Toulouse as a french heartland club are pretty much an automatic pick, especially to revive proper international RL.

If they did go bust trying to be an SL club then they can join a long list of clubs who have done the same, only they won't, because clubs outside the M62 are erm "different"

#50 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,160 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 02:37 PM

Welcome to the board but I don't welcome you singling out Crusaders.

How about the license given to Bradford Bulls??

How about the license given to Castleford??

These clubs didn't have the resources to compete yet got a licence, so why do Toulouse have to pass a much sterner test??

Is it cos they is French?

I think much of it is them saying in that article that if they get a "yes" then they'll invest whereas the current Championship clubs have to get their affairs in order first.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#51 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,741 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 02:50 PM

I think much of it is them saying in that article that if they get a "yes" then they'll invest whereas the current Championship clubs have to get their affairs in order first.

They have always said that Superleague will attract the local government funding and the big industrial sponsors.

Of course there's a chance that their plans may not come to fruition. How that translates into a risk I don't know?

If the money doesn't appear they can collapse or stagnate just like many M62 clubs have done.

Whose a better risk than Toulouse???

Edited by The Parksider, 06 June 2013 - 02:51 PM.


#52 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 02:52 PM

Welcome to the board but I don't welcome you singling out Crusaders.

How about the license given to Bradford Bulls??

How about the license given to Castleford??

These clubs didn't have the resources to compete yet got a licence, so why do Toulouse have to pass a much sterner test??

Is it cos they is French?

Bulls and Cas are still playing RL at their home ground. Which part of Bridgend are Crusaders playing at these days? How many Welsh qualified SL players are they developing these days?

 

The obvious point to anyone with common sense is that Bradford and Cas are known entities. We know how well they stand up as SL clubs. Toulouse is something new, potentially a lot better but also potentially much worse.



#53 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,160 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:03 PM

They have always said that Superleague will attract the local government funding and the big industrial sponsors.

Of course there's a chance that their plans may not come to fruition. How that translates into a risk I don't know?

If the money doesn't appear they can collapse or stagnate just like many M62 clubs have done.

Whose a better risk than Toulouse???

Do they have letters of promise, or even statements of intent, from the government agencies or industrial sponsors that if they get into SL that the money will be forthcoming?  Without that, it's just marketing fluff that's worth nothing.  At least there are proven examples of Championship clubs making efforts and investing money to reach minimum SL standards.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#54 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:59 PM

Is it cos they is French?

Just to be clear, it certainly should be. The RFL have a responsibility to their members, which includes all the clubs you mentioned but not Toulouse. If a team meets the criteria for a licence or place then the decision to deny it to them needs be rigorous. So absolutely the requirements should be different, and an FFRXIII member have to pass stern tests, to justify their entry in an RFL sanctioned competition ahead of its own members.

#55 Casfan1978

Casfan1978
  • Players
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 04:04 PM

The Parksider, on 06 Jun 2013 - 15:26, said:
Welcome to the board but I don't welcome you singling out Crusaders.

How about the license given to Bradford Bulls??

How about the license given to Castleford??

These clubs didn't have the resources to compete yet got a licence, so why do Toulouse have to pass a much sterner test??

Is it cos they is French?

In reference to your comment, the nationality of the team has nothing to do with my comment. My belief is that the credibility of the competition is generally underminded by the poor governance structures in place at the RFL.

How a club can be included in a licensing process and then suddenly removed at the last minute is nothing short of shambolic (in the case of Crusaders). Forget the detail of how it came about, what perception does this create externally of our beloved game ?

I am particularly supportive of expansion of the game if it is done in a carefully considered manner, given the RFL's various failed ventures (Catalans excepted), the due diligence process needs to be sterner than what we have had previously because of this - not because they are French.

If they have the backers, sponsors... bring it on and hopefully it brings with it increased exposure for the game and perhaps in the longer term a stronger French National Team !

#56 statties

statties
  • Coach
  • 278 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 04:18 PM

Just to be clear, it certainly should be. The RFL have a responsibility to their members, which includes all the clubs you mentioned but not Toulouse. If a team meets the criteria for a licence or place then the decision to deny it to them needs be rigorous. So absolutely the requirements should be different, and an FFRXIII member have to pass stern tests, to justify their entry in an RFL sanctioned competition ahead of its own members.

 

You are correct and this highlights an issue I have raised in the past. The RFL should not be stakeholders in the SL. The RFL need to be severely downsized and its only responsibilities should be for grass roots development and the national team.

 

An independent body should be governing the SL and looking after the sports finances from top to bottom and making decisions on the growth of the professional competition in the UK and Europe.



#57 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,714 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 04:24 PM

I've always been in favour of the Toulouse option but things of course need to be right. The French game needs a rivalry and 2 clubs would increase the pot internationally. Our best bet for regular competition internationally is easily France.

#58 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,160 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 04:44 PM

You are correct and this highlights an issue I have raised in the past. The RFL should not be stakeholders in the SL. The RFL need to be severely downsized and its only responsibilities should be for grass roots development and the national team.

 

An independent body should be governing the SL and looking after the sports finances from top to bottom and making decisions on the growth of the professional competition in the UK and Europe.

A big old gap from SL to the grassroots...  We've already seen how dodgy effective administration can be you have two competing governing bodies.

 

It's a common fallacy I see from many RL supporters, it's SL only and anything below SL is just a rumour that they don't really believe exists.


For the budget they have, the RFL do a fantastic job.  Just think how good they'd be with a budget that the FA, RFU, LTA or ECB use.  Also, what makes the RFL not independent?

 

Finally, if SL were allowed to make their own choices about things then we'd get the situation we have with Australia where international development is a severe and unwelcome nuisance that just gets in the way of making clubs do as they see fit.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#59 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 6,090 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 05:13 PM

Do they have letters of promise, or even statements of intent, from the government agencies or industrial sponsors that if they get into SL that the money will be forthcoming?  Without that, it's just marketing fluff that's worth nothing.  At least there are proven examples of Championship clubs making efforts and investing money to reach minimum SL standards.

 

Spot on. Make them prove they have these resources guaranteed. If they do, then i would let them in and ditch the worst SL club, either London or Cas.



#60 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 6,090 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 05:16 PM

You are correct and this highlights an issue I have raised in the past. The RFL should not be stakeholders in the SL. The RFL need to be severely downsized and its only responsibilities should be for grass roots development and the national team.

 

An independent body should be governing the SL and looking after the sports finances from top to bottom and making decisions on the growth of the professional competition in the UK and Europe.

 

And who will be responsible for the Championships ?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users