Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

flyingking

Toulouse think they will hear about Superleague decision soon

148 posts in this topic

From what I understand the City Council & Regional bodies are ready to invest may be up to €7M in renovating their Stade des Minimes ground. I think they will want some assurances that that we be rewarded. If they got the nod from the RFL now they would be in a slightly similar situation to the Catalans back in 2006 - time to build on & off the field.

They are lifting their on field activities. They missed by a whisker two Finals in 2013 & their U21s where runners up to the Catalans on the league ladder. Three former Dragons players with well over a hundred SL appearances under their belts - Andrew Bentley, Kane Bentley & Cyril Stacul are rumoured to be on their way to Toulouse too. Aaron Wood a top Australian here is also on board for September. May be they're cranking up their operation. They hosted the Elite 1 semis this year & drew 5500; so now all eyes on Stade Ernest Wallon in a fortnight when the Dragons are in town for the Hull KR clash. Billboards cluttering the place promoting the event. Fingers crossed.

 

In my opinion, a second club in France is a must in 2015. Toulouse seem like the perfect option, which your post and those of Cliff's highlight time and time again. I wish them all the best in their application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Did Bradford, Wakefield or Salford have such proof of funds?

2. Investing every last penny to get to the starting gate only. After that as you said they need to turnover £3.2M to just stay on the SL ladder. Will they have to have letters of promise and statements of intent for the extra £1,000,000 a season they'll need?

 

Re 1 above. No they didn't and look what happened to them. They all went bust. It's time we started learning from our past failures. There are negatives in admitting a French team in that they do not bring revenue to the table via travelling support and they do not generate sales of Sky dishes to placate our major broadcast partner, so we need to ensure that they are not going to compound these negatives by going bust as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. There are negatives in admitting a French team in that they do not bring revenue to the table via travelling support

2. they do not generate sales of Sky dishes to placate our major broadcast partner, so we need to ensure that they are not going to compound these negatives by going bust as well.

1. Then we must reject Les Catalans from SL as soon as possible.

2. So if Toulouse were admitted and Castleford were relegated how many SKY dishes would that lose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equally if you believe my view on anything has "changed with the wind" then set out what that view is and how you think it has changed and don't be so rude. I don't seem to be able to get it through to you that to have a good debate you have to stop calling people.

 

<snip>

That is bias and that position I have has never changed "with the wind" if you think it has then you are misunderstood.

 

Parky circa 2008 - "finance doesn't matter"

Parky circa 2012 - "London need central funding from the RFL"

 

Parky on Crusaders - "A Welsh team in SL guarantees a competitive fixture for England - that's why Crusaders should be in SL"

Parky on Toulouse - "Having one French side in SL isn't enough to guarantee a competitive fixture - that's why we need a second French club"

 

Recently from the same thread:-

"You can't build in the Championship, expansion has to take place in SL"

"Crusaders crowds were going up before they joined SL"

 

Parky in Sheffield in SL - "It's been tried there and it will never work, the crowds are too poor"

Parky on a Welsh side in SL - "Saying that RL has failed in Wales is like saying it's failed in Oldham or Rochdale. We need to keep trying"

 

Parky on RL in Salford / Manchester - "They've been trying this for years and they've never captured the Manchester market. Time to cut losses"

Parky on RL in London - "We need to keep trying because London is a huge city"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those with genuine bias may paint John Wilkinson as a hero and a saint and Leighton Samuels as a cruel and heartless villain. 

No, I think the vast majority of Salford fans see John Wilkinson in that light. I think the vast majority of Welsh rugby league fans* do see Samuel (you never did learn his name) as a pantomime villain without the jokes..

 

* and Welsh rugby union fans and quite a few Welsh soccer fans

 

That you call this bias says a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The licensing criteria are there for a reason, as long as they meet them at the time of application then they compete against the established names for a place, there are a few SL sides who would be very nervous if a couple of Championship sides achieved enough for a C grade license.  No-one expects a newly promoted side to succeed immediately but the criteria are there to ensure that they at least have a good chance of doing so.  Even if the Championship sides invest the money and don't get in, they're providing an extra level of professionalism to their club that can only enhance the Championship itself.

Yes I agree the licensing criteria make clubs "set themselves up to succeed" so to speak. The only problem with that is in meeting the criteria it leaves clubs with literally nothing. Sheffield, Halifax and Leigh are miles behind Featherstone who are meeting the criteria because they have funds, some from their directors. Those funds happily are reported as not guaranteed against the ground either.

But as Griff reports the accounts are at full stretch, and so where does the money come from to pay the wages of a competitive side? Rovers have the problem of one of the lowest fanbases, and the fans know this and in discussion are looking realistically for a 5,000 start. This is unlikely to grow unless the club can get top players in - Chicken and egg as Widnes showed last week with a 4,600 crowd. So Rovers fans pin their hopes on the default position of Mr. Nahaboo pledging to put money in so the club can pay "full cap".

I'm of the opinion that if any club has a Chairman who is prepared to put a million or so a year into a club year on year, then that overrides any licensing system. Sure in Superleague clubs must have standards, but if they have a rich chairman they can buy and build those standards.

As for SL clubs being nervous given Sheffield have a small fanbase that doesn't grow and don't produce professional players from their area I don't think they make anyone nervous, nor Leigh with an equally shrinking fanbase and no junior development apart from that that feeds Wigan and Wire. As for Halifax even their own fans say that to get round the debacle of their business being adjudged as"falling below the standards" it needs Mr. Abbot and others to stump up riches.

No SL club should be nervous of that lot.

In fact maybe the contrary as Chairmen of the lower SL clubs like Hughes, O'Connor, Hudgell and Fulton start to shuffle around "standing down from the board" fidgeting for an exit strategy. Being replaced by a stronger club could just be the face saver they want, and a quiet way out.

I ask you or anyone this - To disregard Toulouse because they cannot prove their plans will generate the funds and players, and to go on to replace failing "nervous" SL clubs like London, Cas, HKR and Widnes, with Fev, Leigh, Halifax and Sheffield (three of whom were disasters in SL) will do what for the game??

Finally on enhancing the championship, sadly any good at the top end being done is being unravelled as the bulk of the Championship turn themselves into feeder clubs and "A" teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as for a third French club didnt Martyn Sadler recently allude to the mutterings that those at PSG have had some level of discussion about resurrecting their RL arm? It'd also tie in nicely with the fact that Bein Sports are in fact Al Jazeera who are in fact owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund. PSG are owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund. Might seem far fetched now but you never know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to know whether I have any anti-salford bias i suggest you have the courtesy to ask me and not leave it to people who are genuinely biased against certain Rugby league clubs to give you an equally biased answer.

Equally if you believe my view on anything has "changed with the wind" then set out what that view is and how you think it has changed and don't be so rude. I don't seem to be able to get it through to you that to have a good debate you have to stop calling people.

Salford and Crusaders both made the 13/14th clubs in an enlarged Superleague in 2009. A big city club in the north and an expansion club in an area sympathetic to Rugby league. Both were a potential boost to the game we had to try for. Both had their struggles, both Chairmen gave up due to the financial strain.

People can read what suits them into that scenario, those with genuine bias may paint John Wilkinson as a hero and a saint and Leighton Samuels as a cruel and heartless villain. But my position is and has always been clear. I do not like people having a go at non English heartland clubs for things they do/can't do and excusing the M62 clubs for being just as bad.

That is bias and that position I have has never changed "with the wind" if you think it has then you are misunderstood.

 

 

I never suggested that you had any anti-salford bias, and I don't need to ask you whether you have that bias or not, you're quite capable of fighting your own corner with anyone that accuses you of anything. I don't need to extend any courtesy to ask you about that, I was making no accusation as is perfectly clear. It is my considered opinion that you seek to create and elongate debate on all manner of threads and topics, often ignoring points which are difficult to argue against, and being deliberately provocative at times – for instance taking swipes at the clubs' your debating opponents support that have no relevance to the threads where you're debating.

 

It's my view that you at times argue whatever you feel will get under the skin of those you are debating with. You've been full of praise for many clubs and individuals, but if a fan of those clubs is posting something that you do not agree with, that praise can often turn to an out and out attack on those clubs that have been working hard to better themselves.

 

If you find my previous comment rude, then I suggest that the internet is not the best place for you to engage in debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as for a third French club didnt Martyn Sadler recently allude to the mutterings that those at PSG have had some level of discussion about resurrecting their RL arm? It'd also tie in nicely with the fact that Bein Sports are in fact Al Jazeera who are in fact owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund. PSG are owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund. Might seem far fetched now but you never know!

 

Interesting, although I'm instantly worried about where their player pool would come from.  How much RL is played in and around Paris these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, although I'm instantly worried about where their player pool would come from.  How much RL is played in and around Paris these days?

 

not a lot I suspect! Methinks it'd be heavily Antipodean for the first number of years. But if they did get back into RL and you did get shot of the salary cap (or allow for certain marquee players) they could outbid the nrl with ease. I''m sure if they did come back to RL - and it may well be just talk they wouldnt be satisfied faffing around establishing themselves, it'd be straight for the jugular.

The Qataris bought the Paris Handball club (who in a previous guise had been part of the PSG organisation) last year, they'd never won the league before - guess who's the French handball champions now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as for a third French club didnt Martyn Sadler recently allude to the mutterings that those at PSG have had some level of discussion about resurrecting their RL arm? It'd also tie in nicely with the fact that Bein Sports are in fact Al Jazeera who are in fact owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund. PSG are owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund. Might seem far fetched now but you never know!

 

 

That'd be fantastic if it came off and also Bein stumped up some cash to professionalise Elite1 (and include PSG, Catalan and Toulouse).  Then we could have two pro leagues in Europe and have a meaningful (but separate) European competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never suggested that you had any anti-salford bias, and I don't need to ask you whether you have that bias or not, you're quite capable of fighting your own corner with anyone that accuses you of anything. I don't need to extend any courtesy to ask you about that, I was making no accusation as is perfectly clear. It is my considered opinion that you seek to create and elongate debate on all manner of threads and topics, often ignoring points which are difficult to argue against, and being deliberately provocative at times – for instance taking swipes at the clubs' your debating opponents support that have no relevance to the threads where you're debating.

 

It's my view that you at times argue whatever you feel will get under the skin of those you are debating with. You've been full of praise for many clubs and individuals, but if a fan of those clubs is posting something that you do not agree with, that praise can often turn to an out and out attack on those clubs that have been working hard to better themselves.

 

If you find my previous comment rude, then I suggest that the internet is not the best place for you to engage in debate.

 

Hallelujah. Back of the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my considered opinion that you seek to create and elongate debate on all manner of threads and topics, often ignoring points which are difficult to argue against, and being deliberately provocative at times – for instance taking swipes at the clubs' your debating opponents support that have no relevance to the threads where you're debating.

 

It's my view that you at times argue whatever you feel will get under the skin of those you are debating with. You've been full of praise for many clubs and individuals, but if a fan of those clubs is posting something that you do not agree with, that praise can often turn to an out and out attack on those clubs that have been working hard to better themselves.

Lovely stuff. This is what always happens when people don't have a reasonable answer, they start to have a personal go and what a whopper this one is. I see you get praise from Las Palmas for your efforts.

I think you will find the only threads I post on are about the development of the modern game so your completely wrong there, as for "elongating" the thread if I choose to post and people choose to answer that's our choice.

So so far you've had a personal go again, wrongly claimed I post on loads of threads which I don't and spirited up the charge of "elongating" - you'll have to report me to the mods for that.

Your main and final accusation is that I "attack" clubs and that's where you get it completely wrong. We have on here a number of people who blatantly attack any club outside the M62 - something I picked you up on something you can't answer hence the personal stuff.

I don't "attack" any club, I point out the hipocracy of people like you quick to have a go at any club that's not from the heartlands, but equally quick to excuse the shortcomings of our traditional clubs.

Pointing out the sad realities of the state of our clubs is not "attacking them" its stating the facts to counter the many fantasies trawled out on here, it's only when we accept the realities of the state of the game that progress can be made.

I've no problem posting on the internet no matter how rude and nasty people want to get. The problem is the keyboard warriors who when they don't like a view being examined and questioned decide to get all personal from behind the security and anonimity of their keyboard, just like you and Las Palmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your main and final accusation is that I "attack" clubs and that's where you get it completely wrong. We have on here a number of people who blatantly attack any club outside the M62 - something I picked you up on something you can't answer hence the personal stuff.

 

Distasteful in the extreme.  I called London a basket case, they are.  Whether other clubs are or aren't basket cases are immaterial to the point I made.  I backed it up with some crude maths for you to show where the "investment" that Mr Hughes goes in comparison to Mr Glover's.  Something you chose to ignore. 

 

For your information I live nowhere near the M62 and I haven't for almost twenty years. I support by monthly direct debit more than one non-heartlands club.  To suggest that I am anything other than somebody intrested in the expansion of this game is complete lunacy.

 

I consider my answer perfectly reasonable, because I made it clear that it was my opinion of some of your posts.  If you don't like that then fair enough, that is your opinion.

 

I acknowledge that some people appear to attack non heartlands clubs, but that is not justification for your accusation that I am hypocritical about heartlands clubs simply because I have posted on the same threads or shown some partial or more solid agreement to some points raised.  

 

If you took time to read my postings rather than imagining them you would find that I have been deeply critical of Featherstone Rovers in recent weeks, along with of course pointing out the major shortcomings of my own club, Wakefield Trinity.  However as that doesn't appear to suit the theme that you are wishing to portray, you have chosen to either ignore that, forget that, or simply assume that I am hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What do featherstone bring to the table?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Distasteful in the extreme.  I called London a basket case, they are.  Whether other clubs are or aren't basket cases are immaterial to the point I made.  I backed it up with some crude maths for you to show where the "investment" that Mr Hughes goes in comparison to Mr Glover's.  Something you chose to ignore. 

 

For your information I live nowhere near the M62 and I haven't for almost twenty years. I support by monthly direct debit more than one non-heartlands club.  To suggest that I am anything other than somebody intrested in the expansion of this game is complete lunacy.

 

I consider my answer perfectly reasonable, because I made it clear that it was my opinion of some of your posts.  If you don't like that then fair enough, that is your opinion.

 

I acknowledge that some people appear to attack non heartlands clubs, but that is not justification for your accusation that I am hypocritical about heartlands clubs simply because I have posted on the same threads or shown some partial or more solid agreement to some points raised.  

 

If you took time to read my postings rather than imagining them you would find that I have been deeply critical of Featherstone Rovers in recent weeks, along with of course pointing out the major shortcomings of my own club, Wakefield Trinity.  However as that doesn't appear to suit the theme that you are wishing to portray, you have chosen to either ignore that, forget that, or simply assume that I am hypocritical.

The problem with Parky is that he has no interest in the game outside SL (except for Hunslet!) so if you say stuff about Broncos that is just fair comment then you must be anti-expansion because Skolars, Oxford, North Wales etc don't exist to him. It doesn't matter either whether what you say is true either, he will just trot out the excuse that Cas or Salford are just as bad (even when they clearly aren't) or go on about how Rochdale won't ever replace Broncos in SL (like that has any relevance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played at the Stade des Minimes and I thought it was a cracking little ground. I don't remember it being that good for car parking and I've no real memory as to how close to the centre of the city it is.

I think the big question for me, is who's next after Toulouse in France assuming that they come into Superleague and are a success like Les Catalans.

Avignon?

Have achieved 15k crowds at many international games against smaller status opposition. Fairly decent crowds. Pretty populous area. Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avignon?

Have achieved 15k crowds at many international games against smaller status opposition. Fairly decent crowds. Pretty populous area. Why not?

Dunno, Audois? Cliff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avignon?

Have achieved 15k crowds at many international games against smaller status opposition. Fairly decent crowds. Pretty populous area. Why not?

 

Nice place. Went there last time England played. Just a shame the RLWC2013 fixture schedule doesn't allow a return trip this year, unless you've got a private plane to get back to Huddersfield for the England game the next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've got to be admitted for the good of the game not just super league.

You would expect France to be very competitive with England with a second full time team to pick from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A really competitive French national team would be a huge boost to RL in the northern hemisphere. Toulouse in SL could be a good step along the way to helping that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I called London a basket case, they are.  

 

2. I consider my answer perfectly reasonable, because I made it clear that it was my opinion of some of your posts.  If you don't like that then fair enough, that is your opinion.

1. I called Wakefield a basket case - they are.

2. I needed your opinions in regards to you calling London a basket case which I thought was unfair when other M62 clubs have been disasterous in SL.

Instead you switched the debate to calling me names like silly before escalating it to a full blown personal attack on me. Believe me it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is you can't stick to the debate and have to use the silly tactic of switching it to how awful I am, and guess what I agree with you - I'm a shocker!!!

Do you get the point now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do featherstone bring to the table?

Who knows we'll have to see.

But potentially Toulouse can bring far far more if they develop pro players from their area, attract local govt and big industry money, attract up to 10,000 fans and make France competitive again.

But it's not Toulouse.v.Featherstone and I do hope we don't get these ideas again that the licensing committee are choosing between two clubs, it doesn't work like that.

If it did Featherstone would have no chance.

Both in for me......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I called Wakefield a basket case - they are.

2. I needed your opinions in regards to you calling London a basket case which I thought was unfair when other M62 clubs have been disasterous in SL.

Instead you switched the debate to calling me names like silly before escalating it to a full blown personal attack on me. Believe me it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is you can't stick to the debate and have to use the silly tactic of switching it to how awful I am, and guess what I agree with you - I'm a shocker!!!

Do you get the point now?

You live in a dream world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows we'll have to see.

But potentially Toulouse can bring far far more if they develop pro players from their area, attract local govt and big industry money, attract up to 10,000 fans and make France competitive again.

But it's not Toulouse.v.Featherstone and I do hope we don't get these ideas again that the licensing committee are choosing between two clubs, it doesn't work like that.

If it did Featherstone would have no chance.

Both in for me......

 

It's all well and good to say you want them both in. That's my preferred option also, but you have also pushed the view that SL should be cut to 12 or less clubs. The two propositions would seem to be mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017