Tony Smith on FiveLive this morning

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

We very rarely meet people who say they do not want to travel.  They just have a long list of excuses why it is not possible.

But this is the challenge here. We all have different lengths we would go to to get where we want to be.

We may all have the same aim of wanting RL to be the biggest and most popular sport in the world.

Some will want to route tens of millions of SL money to drive that, some will believe that it should be encouraged other ways and these things should be self funded.

As with most debates on AOB, there is little tolerance of differing views.

I want AIDS to be wiped off the face of the earth, but I haven't donated a penny to AIDS charities for probably the last 10 years.

I want to support the ending of homelessness in Scotland so have been supporting a couple of charities this year, but I haven't moved my daughter's cot into our bedroom and invited in a homeless person to have her room.

It is bang out of order to suggest that people don't want expansion or label them flatcappers simply because their preferred approach is different.

More pragmatism is needed, across the game tbh, as everybody spends so much time arguing that very little gets done.

[Bob8]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

But this is the challenge here. We all have different lengths we would go to to get where we want to be.

We may all have the same aim of wanting RL to be the biggest and most popular sport in the world.

Some will want to route tens of millions of SL money to drive that, some will believe that it should be encouraged other ways and these things should be self funded.

As with most debates on AOB, there is little tolerance of differing views.

I want AIDS to be wiped off the face of the earth, but I haven't donated a penny to AIDS charities for probably the last 10 years.

I want to support the ending of homelessness in Scotland so have been supporting a couple of charities this year, but I haven't moved my daughter's cot into our bedroom and invited in a needy person to have her room.

It is bang out of order to suggest that people don't want expansion or label them flatcappers simply because their preferred approach is different.

More pragmatism is needed, across the game tbh, as everybody spends so much time arguing that very little gets done.

Indeed. 

To take the analogy of travel, many people have very good reasons for not going.

Even the most pain free expansion will involve some sacrifice.  I very much enjoyed the debate with Gary O, as we discussed frankly.  While I would like to see big prosperous clubs enter Super League, I can see that rugby league in Leigh would lose out.  That would affect a thriving rugby league community as well as clubs that produce many excellent players.  More importantly, it is a hugely important social and sporting resource for many mediocre players!

Gray O believed that sacrifice would be too much, I thought it would be a true shame, but worth it as the current threat to the game was great enough.

Where I have little patience is with disingenuous arguments.  I will often but a pint of beer rather than give the money to an AIDS research institute.  To use the example you cite, if I claimed I did that because I was helping fight AIDS, I hope I would be called out on such BS.  I will do others the same kindness.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Bob8 said:

Where I have little patience is with disingenuous arguments.  I will often but a pint of beer rather than give the money to an AIDS research institute.  To use the example you cite, if I claimed I did that because I was helping fight AIDS, I hope I would be called out on such BS.  I will do others the same kindness.

I don't know what you mean. Could you explain this point a little more please?

[Bob8]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't know what you mean. Could you explain this point a little more please?

For many people, they care about the performance of their club in the league table and their memories of youth.

If the game as a whole is weaker, but their club does better, they will be happy with this.

If the game withers, but sticks to the way it was when they were young, they will be happy with this.

And, that is reasonable.  Rugby league does not really matter, it is just a contrived agreement about where a bag of air goes.  Ultimately these are fair stand points.   I have no problem with people being like this and saying that.

If they believe in that and claim otherwise, insist on what benefits their club in the short term over everything else, while claiming to only care about the game, it is a dishonest assertion and I have no respect for it.

I have equally seen expansion areas fail, because the people who took over wanted to change it to be like the rugby league they grew up with.  All the time, they insisted that was not their motive and every action said otherwise.  I do not have respect for those dishonest arguments either.

[DeadShotKeen]

1 hour ago, Jim Prendle said:

Who are the fabled "M62 Brigade"?

I don't think I actually know anyone who wants the game the game to be confined to its current boundaries.

What's that based on? What they tell you? I don't think anyone would admit to being anti-expansion but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I asked a very simple 2 part question to someone who classes himself in that group earlier in this thread and he refused to answer it (somewhat petulantly to boot).

Are you prepared to answer the question?

It's not about what you say, it's about what you're prepared to support.

[DeadShotKeen]

39 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But this is the challenge here. We all have different lengths we would go to to get where we want to be.

We may all have the same aim of wanting RL to be the biggest and most popular sport in the world.

Some will want to route tens of millions of SL money to drive that, some will believe that it should be encouraged other ways and these things should be self funded.

As with most debates on AOB, there is little tolerance of differing views.

I want AIDS to be wiped off the face of the earth, but I haven't donated a penny to AIDS charities for probably the last 10 years.

I want to support the ending of homelessness in Scotland so have been supporting a couple of charities this year, but I haven't moved my daughter's cot into our bedroom and invited in a homeless person to have her room.

It is bang out of order to suggest that people don't want expansion or label them flatcappers simply because their preferred approach is different.

More pragmatism is needed, across the game tbh, as everybody spends so much time arguing that very little gets done.

Seeing as you're back in the game now (having presumably dealt with your temper tantrum) can you lose the analogies and give a response to my very straightforward 2 part question of earlier?

[DeadShotKeen]

30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't know what you mean. Could you explain this point a little more please?

I also think the analogy is a little clumsy but why not focus on the much better points raised in his earlier 2 paragraphs?

This basically sums you up - picking and choosing bits of responses to attack rather than dealing with the key issues.

Expansion that harms Leigh and their ilk but is for the overall good of the game? Yes or no? Very simple stuff.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

For many people, they care about the performance of their club in the league table and their memories of youth.

If the game as a whole is weaker, but their club does better, they will be happy with this.

If the game withers, but sticks to the way it was when they were young, they will be happy with this.

And, that is reasonable.  Rugby league does not really matter, it is just a contrived agreement about where a bag of air goes.  Ultimately these are fair stand points.   I have no problem with people being like this and saying that.

If they believe in that and claim otherwise, insist on what benefits their club in the short term over everything else, while claiming to only care about the game, it is a dishonest assertion and I have no respect for it.

I have equally seen expansion areas fail, because the people who took over wanted to change it to be like the rugby league they grew up with.  All the time, they insisted that was not their motive and every action said otherwise.  I do not have respect for those dishonest arguments either.

I personally have a view that many of the failed attempts are due to either incompetence or naivety in how to achieve their goals rather than dishonesty.

There are some people who believe that all you need to do is show a group of people a game of RL and they will fall in love with it and run with it from there. There are some that would happily sacrifice all the existing assets if it meant RL could be bigger on the other side of the world. 

Like you, I am comfortable with people's approach whatever it is, if people don't want expansion, and they are happy with their little hobby, who am I to tell them they are wrong, but I don't agree with them.

I just think there is a lot less dishonesty around it than you. Nobody needs to be dishonest about their intentions. 

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, DeadShotKeen said:

Seeing as you're back in the game now (having presumably dealt with your temper tantrum) can you lose the analogies and give a response to my very straightforward 2 part question of earlier?

I'll discuss what I want with who I want thank you.

[Bob8]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I personally have a view that many of the failed attempts are due to either incompetence or naivety in how to achieve their goals rather than dishonesty.

There are some people who believe that all you need to do is show a group of people a game of RL and they will fall in love with it and run with it from there. There are some that would happily sacrifice all the existing assets if it meant RL could be bigger on the other side of the world. 

Like you, I am comfortable with people's approach whatever it is, if people don't want expansion, and they are happy with their little hobby, who am I to tell them they are wrong, but I don't agree with them.

I just think there is a lot less dishonesty around it than you. Nobody needs to be dishonest about their intentions. 

I am actually rather sympathetic to the expansion attempts of twenty years ago.  It was less obvious what was needed to start a successful club. We are now at the point that it is clearer than it was, and it also seems to apply to traditional clubs in traditional areas too.

I do think that people are often more interested in asking Where rather than Why. 

As someone who is cast as a cheerleader for North American clubs, I see the distance as a problem.  If it could have happened close to the existing English game in a prosperous new market, that would be even better.  It would be tremendous if a successful club starts in New York, but one in Dublin or Zurich would be even better (at least in the short term)!

[Scubby]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'll discuss what I want with who I want thank you.

Hot Shot Hamish > Dead Shot Keen 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Hot Shot Hamish > Dead Shot Keen 

you should pipe down too 

[Jim Prendle]

1 hour ago, DeadShotKeen said:

What's that based on? What they tell you? I don't think anyone would admit to being anti-expansion but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I asked a very simple 2 part question to someone who classes himself in that group earlier in this thread and he refused to answer it (somewhat petulantly to boot).

Are you prepared to answer the question?

It's not about what you say, it's about what you're prepared to support.

Ask your question and I will answer it.

[Mattrhino]

5 hours ago, Jim Prendle said:

Who are the fabled "M62 Brigade"?

I don't think I actually know anyone who wants the game the game to be confined to its current boundaries.

Come on you only have to read posts on here Twitter and Facebook to see peoples views on expansion. Mostly things about no travelling fans, how come France haven't won the WC after Catalans have been in the league 10 years. Why don't Toronto just make a Canadian league. I can't believe the RFL making our players go over to play Rugby in Toronto blah blah blah

[Jim Prendle]

22 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

Come on you only have to read posts on here Twitter and Facebook to see peoples views on expansion. Mostly things about no travelling fans, how come France haven't won the WC after Catalans have been in the league 10 years. Why don't Toronto just make a Canadian league. I can't believe the RFL making our players go over to play Rugby in Toronto blah blah blah

I guess that's partially the reason I don't use either Twitter, or Facebook.

I do see some of those types of comment, but just because they are negative about the relative success of some of the expansion efforts so far, doesn't mean they want the game restricted to being played in a corridor along the M62.

The problem is that you can't make all of the people happy all of the time. Some of the people I know are delighted that Toronto are making a good go of their opportunity, but would never think of getting on a plane to go and watch them.

We all have different levels to which we will get involved in RL. Some will travel, some will not. Some will complain about the lack of travelling supporters, and some will see it for what it is. That doesn't mean that they inherently want our game to remain within its traditional boundaries forever.

[DeadShotKeen]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'll discuss what I want with who I want thank you.

That's fine (if again somewhat childish) but it leaves you with a lack of credibility to duck a very simple question about expansion and then continue to engage in discussion about it.

[DeadShotKeen]

5 hours ago, Jim Prendle said:

Ask your question and I will answer it.

"Supposing we could find a Koukash/Perez to set up a side in Edinburgh (not unthinkable by any means) would you support the granting of a permanent SL licence to such a side to help establish and grow the sport in Scotland?

And if - as would seem likely - such a modernisation necessitated the loss of at least 1 side from the heartlands (Wakey or HKR, say) in order to accommodate it would you also support that?"

[DeadShotKeen]

2 hours ago, Jim Prendle said:

Some of the people I know are delighted that Toronto are making a good go of their opportunity

But what does that translate to? Placed in such isolation it's just empty rhetoric.

Does it mean they want them to succeed but only in the lower leagues?

Or that they want them to blast their way to the top of SL and open up the sport to a new worldwide audience (even if this is at the expense of 1 or more heartlands teams)?

Without such qualification it is essentially hollow.

[Jim Prendle]

1 minute ago, DeadShotKeen said:

But what does that translate to? Placed in such isolation it's just empty rhetoric.

Does it mean they want them to succeed but only in the lower leagues?

Or that they want them to blast their way to the top of SL and open up the sport to a new worldwide audience (even if this is at the expense of 1 or more heartlands teams)?

Without such qualification it is essentially hollow.

They are in isolation now, but who is to say that will be the case in 5 years? It makes much more sense to me to build a team at a time, rather than go for a full compliment in a place where there is no tradition for the game.

[Jim Prendle]

6 minutes ago, DeadShotKeen said:

"Supposing we could find a Koukash/Perez to set up a side in Edinburgh (not unthinkable by any means) would you support the granting of a permanent SL licence to such a side to help establish and grow the sport in Scotland?

And if - as would seem likely - such a modernisation necessitated the loss of at least 1 side from the heartlands (Wakey or HKR, say) in order to accommodate it would you also support that?"

Yes, and if the second part is absolutely required, but I don't see any set of circumstances whereby it would, then yes.

[Tongs ya bas]

3 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

Come on you only have to read posts on here Twitter and Facebook to see peoples views on expansion. Mostly things about no travelling fans, how come France haven't won the WC after Catalans have been in the league 10 years. Why don't Toronto just make a Canadian league. I can't believe the RFL making our players go over to play Rugby in Toronto blah blah blah

The way it works is this;

"I'm all for expansion, but..."

[DeadShotKeen]

1 hour ago, Jim Prendle said:

They are in isolation now, but who is to say that will be the case in 5 years? It makes much more sense to me to build a team at a time, rather than go for a full compliment in a place where there is no tradition for the game.

No you've misunderstood my point. I mean that placing the idea of "delight" at Toronto in isolation of what lies beneath that sentiment is empty. It can mean many things from a patronising pat on the head at the nice new little team tucked below the elite level to a desire to see them push the game forward. The additional detail is crucial.

[DeadShotKeen]

1 hour ago, Jim Prendle said:

Yes, and if the second part is absolutely required, but I don't see any set of circumstances whereby it would, then yes.

A fair answer but surely expansion necessarily brings with it the requirement for contraction alongside it, no? The basic principle would be that a new club with a big (or at least big latent) fanbase raises the entry requirements of the other teams. Having Batley in SL is fine if you set the bar very low with regard to off field expectations but introducing Toronto alongside them by definition necessitates placing them in a degree of peril, does it not? It would seem to be pure idealism to suggest that they could happily cohabit any elite league.

[Jim Prendle]

4 minutes ago, DeadShotKeen said:

A fair answer but surely expansion necessarily brings with it the requirement for contraction alongside it, no? The basic principle would be that a new club with a big (or at least big latent) fanbase raises the entry requirements of the other teams.

Quote

Does it? Why?

Having Batley in SL is fine if you set the bar very low with regard to off field expectations but introducing Toronto alongside them by definition necessitates placing them in a degree of peril, does it not? It would seem to be pure idealism to suggest that they could happily cohabit any elite league.

Quote

I haven't, and I don't think anyone else has either, suggested that a team like Batley should co-exist with Toronto in SL. If Toronto get into SL for the 2019 season, then they will have done it on merit. If Batley get in, then they will have done the same.

 

 

[DeadShotKeen]

1 minute ago, Jim Prendle said:

 

Not sure why you needed to put the "Does it? Why?" bit when I basically went on to explain why.

And your second point is plain odd. You're describing an objective possibility without then giving any kind of reaction to it or even placing it in any kind of context. You're just saying "Well yes, that might happen" and leaving it at that. What does it mean if that happens, that's the point? Can the teams co-exist in the same league? Would they be in the same market for players? Both able to spend to a high salary cap? Both able to offer the same facilities?

What would be the outcomes of that objective situation? Without addressing that you're really adding nothing to the debate.