Gone quiet on the New York, Boston, Hamilton front

[Bob8]

21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I would never attribute that trait in your direction Bob, but I could classify you as presumptious, alternatively:-

It could be the RFL have done their diligence, and found it was a bad bid with many outstanding concerns.  In those circumstances, it would be prudent to give the bid team time to start all over again.

Very true and thank you for the kindness. 

Either way, I find the delay unalarming. The last bid rushed in was Celtic Crusaders, which seemed ill-prepared and indeed was. 

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I understand the view Harry, I genuinely do, but it's not one I agree with. I just can't see how a new area could ever hope to compete with some of the giants of the game, meaning that effectively you may as well give up on club expansion.

I don't see how they can hope to compete without subsidies and concessions.

People asking for 75% of players for TWP in SL to be Canadian just means that they will never develop enough to ever be able to develop 20 Canadian players of that standard.

Something has to give.

As I say, I understand your view, and appreciate it, I just don't agree with it.

Yes David, certainly is pie in the sky asking for 75% contingent of home grown players, that wont happen for a couple of generations at least, Rugby League is like anything else in life that is introduced in foreign places, it needs time to take root and then evolve.

But, when you mention places like Wigan are these not the places that the players who will be employed by our trans Atlantic friends come from, of course places like Wigan have a centuary of expierience to fall back on, and a good job it is to.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes David, certainly is pie in the sky asking for 75% contingent of home grown players, that wont happen for a couple of generations at least, Rugby League is like anything else in life that is introduced in foreign places, it needs time to take root and then evolve.

But, when you mention places like Wigan are these not the places that the players who will be employed by our trans Atlantic friends come from, of course places like Wigan have a centuary of expierience to fall back on, and a good job it is to.

Of course it is, and you should know from my posting history that I am a fan of expanding whilst strengthening our existing base too.

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It's not subsidies and concessions. It is, to borrow a phrase, checking your privilege.

The game has been set up in a way that It feels is best for what it is. It is set up to protect and encourage the clubs it has which are overwhelmingly heartland clubs. And what is a a protection for a heartland club can be a barrier for am expansion club.

We have in place things like quotas so that clubs use British players. But not only is that largely irrelevant for a Canadian side, it's also much more difficult. It is disproportionately more difficult for a Canadian side to do that. 

We have a salary cap when the vast majority of players a produced from a relatively small geographical area. It's far easier for Leigh to convince a fringe Wigan product to stay at home and join them for 40k a year. It's a lot harder for London to get them moving 200miles and even harder for Toronto to get them to move thousands of miles. 

We have set our game up to maximise the benefit to the heartlands. For obvious reasons. But to those she benefitted from having the strong amateur game on their doorstep and benefited from things like the salary redressing the balance for those disproportionately disadvantaged by it feels like they are losing out.

Very well said Scotchy, but as I stated in my initial reply to Dave, effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul, as you put it the "disproportionate disadvantage" would shift 180° to assist the "newbies" over their contemporaries in terms of on field assistance in aiding their chances of success.

I know lots of people are not in the least bothered by the sporting factor in earning a place in the top echelon by on field results, guess I am a traditionalist in that sense, I like the fact that "points mean prizes"

[Dave T]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Very well said Scotchy, but as I stated in my initial reply to Dave, effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul, as you put it the "disproportionate disadvantage" would shift 180° to assist the "newbies" over their contemporaries in terms of on field assistance in aiding their chances of success.

I know lots of people are not in the least bothered by the sporting factor in earning a place in the top echelon by on field results, guess I am a traditionalist in that sense, I like the fact that "points mean prizes"

But I think this is then about balance. What you are really trying to do with subsidies and concessions is create a more level playing field.

You aren't trying to create something so a new team can just be far better than everyone else, but you can try and balance out some of the advantages the well established major teams have. 

Allowing TWP a £500k overspend on the cap, and giving them £2.5m instead of £1.8m central funding, and relaxing the quote isn't about giving them the advantage, it is about trying to allow them to compete and grow. Those limits I quoted are all there for illustration.

New clubs face additional costs usually to establish a market, or sign players, or hire staff etc. so they aren't going to just be at an advantage because they get more money for these additional costs.

With regards to quotas, they will still have the challenge that they are isolated (if they went to proper home/away style fixtures) on the other side of the world and won't have easy access to the pool of players that others do.

Concessions and subsidies shouldn't be seen as giving them advantages, it should be seen as giving them a fighting chance.

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Of course it is, and you should know from my posting history that I am a fan of expanding whilst strengthening our existing base too.

Yes I will concede that of you David, but on this point of "extra concessions" I honestly don't think you can have a foot in each camp, you saw you agree with me in awarding the extras will create an unfair advantage, how does that assist those clubs vying for the same end.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes I will concede that of you David, but on this point of "extra concessions" I honestly don't think you can have a foot in each camp, you saw you agree with me in awarding the extras will create an unfair advantage, how does that assist those clubs vying for the same end.

I don't think we quite agree that it is about giving them advantages - see my last post that I will have been typing as you wrote this.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But I think this is then about balance. What you are really trying to do with subsidies and concessions is create a more level playing field.

You aren't trying to create something so a new team can just be far better than everyone else, but you can try and balance out some of the advantages the well established major teams have. 

Allowing TWP a £500k overspend on the cap, and giving them £2.5m instead of £1.8m central funding, and relaxing the quote isn't about giving them the advantage, it is about trying to allow them to compete and grow. Those limits I quoted are all there for illustration.

New clubs face additional costs usually to establish a market, or sign players, or hire staff etc. so they aren't going to just be at an advantage because they get more money for these additional costs.

With regards to quotas, they will still have the challenge that they are isolated (if they went to proper home/away style fixtures) on the other side of the world and won't have easy access to the pool of players that others do.

Concessions and subsidies shouldn't be seen as giving them advantages, it should be seen as giving them a fighting chance.

Seems you have given me your interpretation to my next question, which i was preparing as you answerd my previous mail, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Dave T said:

I don't think we quite agree that it is about giving them advantages - see my last post that I will have been typing as you wrote this.

Touche.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

You've created a false dichotomy. Its not a question of dis-proportionally disadvantaging expansion sides or giving them an advantage. We can simply redress the balance. 

As for the second paragraph, the game, and some peoples support of it, is wierdly skewed towards the question of how clubs are promoted to SL. It is a relatively small part of the game, that effects relatively few clubs, but holds the entire game hostage. There are leigh fans who will tell you their entire support of RL in all its forms is 100% tied to the concept of promotion and relegation. This from a club who have spent 2 of the past 25 seasons in the top division.

Fully understand what you say Scotchy, yes I am one of those Leigh fans, I have been there for all of those 25 years and the 25 years preceeding those. It may be a small part of the game to someone who has not been subject to being placed in a tunnel with no exit, that is how I feel about the "closed shop", for what it is worth my entire support of RL extends much further than Leigh RLFC, I have had involvement at numerous levels throughout the years, not so much these days mind, but I can never be accused of not supporting the game in many of its forms.

[DEANO]

I’m all for expansion but the more new clubs there are the more the British game is diluted as there are only so many players to go around

[damp squib]

6 minutes ago, DEANO said:

I’m all for expansion

Yes, yes DEANO we know.

[DEANO]

As I have said before on numerous occasions we ere trying to sell a product that nobody wants except a few exceptions 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, DEANO said:

As I have said before on numerous occasions we ere trying to sell a product that nobody wants except a few exceptions 

We are no different to other sports, and plenty others manage to grow in newer areas.

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

On 05/04/2018 at 8:30 AM, jpmc said:

Your not getting me mixed up at all Harry i believe Liverpool and in particular Manchester are important if RL is to grow in the Northwest.

Toronto exist,Perez is the man that brought them into being,Argyle is there financing it.

Who are the people that are starting up Bristol & Dublin,Which grounds will they play on,Who is going to finance them.

For the good of the game i hope Perez is still active and hasnt just walked of into the sunset thinking jobs done when its only just started.

If you look at that article that appeared on the BBC website.

I would say Mr Arygle wouldnt have been impressed with the commercials.  Billionaires tend to be good at finding men who can get a job done, suspect brought one of his one men in to sort things out.

PR wise excellent job. Commercially a disaster.

You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk.

 

[Bob8]

23 minutes ago, TheLegendOfTexEvans said:

If you look at that article that appeared on the BBC website.

I would say Mr Arygle wouldnt have been impressed with the commercials.  Billionaires tend to be good at finding men who can get a job done, suspect brought one of his one men in to sort things out.

PR wise excellent job. Commercially a disaster.

You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk.

 

What can we learn from it though, for future clubs?

[jpmc]

48 minutes ago, TheLegendOfTexEvans said:

If you look at that article that appeared on the BBC website.

I would say Mr Arygle wouldnt have been impressed with the commercials.  Billionaires tend to be good at finding men who can get a job done, suspect brought one of his one men in to sort things out.

PR wise excellent job. Commercially a disaster.

You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk.

 

Dont think ive seen it can you copy it onto here please

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

22 minutes ago, jpmc said:

Dont think ive seen it can you copy it onto here please

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42702631

 

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

58 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

What can we learn from it though, for future clubs?

I think just be a little less emotive.

Treat this as a trial venture and not get over excited either way.

Book keeping for me is a major problem.

If they had said they had made a 2 million profit we would just have to accept that.

North Americans club need to have the books checked and signed off IMO if they are to play in our league.

 

[jpmc]

23 minutes ago, TheLegendOfTexEvans said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42702631

 

Sorry Tex i see very little negativity in that article.

Was you expecting there to be no losses ?  

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, TheLegendOfTexEvans said:

I think just be a little less emotive.

Treat this as a trial venture and not get over excited either way.

Book keeping for me is a major problem.

If they had said they had made a 2 million profit we would just have to accept that.

North Americans club need to have the books checked and signed off IMO if they are to play in our league.

 

Why is that so important? Apart from cap rules.

[TheReaper]

Well that one seems written for the complainers.

"The club admits it made a financial loss last year, but insists that was expected as part of a longer-term business plan"

Admits... insists.. As if they didn't say all that up front before they ever started playing.  And as if that isn't how every business gets started.  If that didn't let you know the attitude of who wrote then the bitching about having to pay for sandwiches and getting to the airport did.

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

2 hours ago, jpmc said:

Sorry Tex i see very little negativity in that article.

Was you expecting there to be no losses ?  

Poor season ticket sales.

Actual ticket sales 3500 not 7000 on average gates.

TV deals given away for free.

All this is with a backdrop of high profile media exposure.

To the answer question i expected to see a loss.

I dont see this venture as commercially viable.

 

 

 

 

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Why is that so important? Apart from cap rules.

If this was is a test case club for creating transatlantic teams we are putting the microscope on british clubs then it is only fair we subject everyone to the same level of scrutiny.

Say we move to 10 x 2.  Merge teams. Wipe out league 1 clubs.

Bin Swinton, Oldham and Rochdale. Reject viable uk applicant clubs.

Then 5 years from now every north american team folds we could have doomed Rugby League.

 

[Cowardly Fan]

45 minutes ago, TheLegendOfTexEvans said:

Poor season ticket sales.

Actual ticket sales 3500 not 7000 on average gates.

TV deals given away for free.

All this is with a backdrop of high profile media exposure.

To the answer question i expected to see a loss.

I dont see this venture as commercially viable.

 

 

 

 

I highly doubt the Toronto owners saw that 1st season as disappointing commercially.  

3.5k Season Tickets is strong for a team in its first season, what's even more positive is ticket sales were growing through the season.  Sponsorship and merchandise sales are very encouraging, from the little we know.  You would be crazy to expect a paid TV deal in the first year.  Even getting it on TV for free was a good result, and takes a long-term view.