Maurice Lindsay & Robert Elstone on Back Chat this week

[Kayakman]

1 minute ago, Mattrhino said:

Like a poster said before, it really is crazy that we look to be willing to cast aside a working expansion club in Toronto who have won two league titles in a row and look on course for promotion for a Manchester club who don't even exist.

If they pull the rug out on Toronto, who the hell will want to invest in our sport after seeing what we do to outsiders.

Plus the risk of opening the sport to a costly court case if Toronto feel they have been duped.

Sport is business...if I introduce a new product to my customers that is a little different than my regular 'go to' line as a test and it sells very well and there is a sustained want for the product.....well I would try to supply more of the product to keep the consumers happy...not cut the new product line back (or get rid of it altogether).....others will step in to fill the need....like the NRL for example. 

Let hope more level heads prevail.

 

 

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Why? It is just a sport. The same as Tennis, Rugby Union, Formula 1, Boxing, Football, Horse Racing.

We have been lazy and kept it all about the 80 minutes, whereas everybody else has moved on.

Very few people watch F1 live, but millions do on TV and billions get spent. There is a structure that develops drivers but the numbers do not equate to say rugby or football or probably tennis.

Yet from a crude back yard shed industry it produces a world wide extravaganza. And individual teams come and go if they slip up. And individuals and groups may at the lower level actually pay for the privilege of entering the bottom rungs.

What I am saying is that we are crucifying the game trying to play 30 games a season to try to prop up gate receipts, when we need a coherent 22-24 season package to earn the grade 1 teams a profit from TV that entertains millions all over the world. 

Fair enough the different tiers work together in symbiosis, but without a successful top tier, a REALLY successful top tier, than lower rungs will never generate talent - REAL talent. The top tier will and must be the catalyst. And that catalyst must be the successful top tier that generates national and international interest, entertainment and revenue.

[Honor James]

16 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Tomorrow, I think.

Yes - tomorrow morning (Sat. 28th), 9 o'clock on www.totalrl.com

http://www.totalrl.com/this-weeks-rugby-league-back-chat-20/

[Mattrhino]

11 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Very few people watch F1 live, but millions do on TV and billions get spent. There is a structure that develops drivers but the numbers do not equate to say rugby or football or probably tennis.

Yet from a crude back yard shed industry it produces a world wide extravaganza. And individual teams come and go if they slip up. And individuals and groups may at the lower level actually pay for the privilege of entering the bottom rungs.

What I am saying is that we are crucifying the game trying to play 30 games a season to try to prop up gate receipts, when we need a coherent 22-24 season package to earn the grade 1 teams a profit from TV that entertains millions all over the world. 

Fair enough the different tiers work together in symbiosis, but without a successful top tier, a REALLY successful top tier, than lower rungs will never generate talent - REAL talent. The top tier will and must be the catalyst. And that catalyst must be the successful top tier that generates national and international interest, entertainment and revenue.

165,000 at the German GP last Sun over the weekend probably about 300,000

[redjonn]

37 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

Yeah, I just can't get over the disappointment of not having someone level headed, forward thinking and dynamic at the helm of our club. Some like Hetherington, for instance.

chuckle... although he ain't a bad track record with Leeds..... not a bad starting point even if it isn't what one thinks is the right person to take the sport as a whole forward he certainly been the main instigator in taking Leeds club forward...

I would swop him for Rimmer... although that doesn't say much...

[Honor James]

16 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Not much new to come out of that but Elstone doesn’t seem keen on Toronto, calling it a “spurious” expansion. I wonder if he means their attendances? 

 

........... or their ability to create regular, positive-image promoting publicty for their club and for the game as a whole.

It must have happened, of course, but it would be interesting to know when last any UK based club was officially recognised and applauded by its own town council, or city hall.

http://www.totalrl.com/wolfpack-feted-at-toronto-city-hall/

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, Honor James said:

........... or their ability to create regular, positive-image promoting publicty for their club and for the game as a whole.

It must have happened, of course, but it would be interesting to know when last any UK based club was officially recognised and applauded by its own town council, or city hall.

http://www.totalrl.com/wolfpack-feted-at-toronto-city-hall/

Yeah, there’s lots to like about Toronto. 

We’ve been here before, of course, with Fulham. Too early to write it off or indeed hail it as a massive sucesss...

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

It was not a one man band. Robinson was with him from the beginning.

Still left him hanging.

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, Jim Prendle said:

Yeah, I just can't get over the disappointment of not having someone level headed, forward thinking and dynamic at the helm of our club. Some like Hetherington, for instance.

He's kept Leeds in the black unlike most super league clubs which appear to be in the red. As for Maurice being forward thinking I don't think Cas, Wakefield and Featherstone were too impressed with his ideas along with a few others.

[Kayakman]

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

Yeah, there’s lots to like about Toronto. 

We’ve been here before, of course, with Fulham. Too early to write it off or indeed hail it as a massive sucesss...

Ya but this comment he made...I saw a clip of him somewhere much earlier (don't ask me where) saying the exact same thing verbatim...that means he is messaging  (repeating the same line over and over).  If he is messaging that means there is a plan, of which, the messaging is part.  What is this Plan?  And who has hatched this Plan?

[bird]

Just watched the rrecording after missing most this thread deliberetely. Very very depressed about the future of the game in the hands of that negative muppet.

[Man of Kent]

11 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Ya but this comment he made...I saw a clip of him somewhere much earlier (don't ask me where) saying the exact same thing verbatim...that means he is messaging  (repeating the same line over and over).  If he is messaging that means there is a plan, of which, the messaging is part.  What is this Plan?  And who has hatched this Plan?

Que?

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I don’t believe football is about the occasion, actually.

I follow a League 1 club - not hugely different in terms of attendances to Super League - and the 46 league matches are by no means ‘occasions’.

I get the train, I meet friends and family at the bar, we watch the game, we go home. Rinse and repeat.

The context here was England rugby union internationals at Twickenham, where often people spend more time at the bar than watching the game.

Some want to be ‘seen’ there - not necessarily see the match - for all sorts of reasons other than sport.  

Can rugby league be that? Probably not.

In Toronto RL already is that to a degree, judging by the pictures of how crowded the beer tent area usually is.

[Kayakman]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

Que?

Elstone.

He was coming out of some meeting somewhere and someone put a mike in front of him and he said the exact same thing verbatim as on BackChat.  Last week i think.  You Tube?

[Man of Kent]

3 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Elstone.

He was coming out of some meeting somewhere and someone put a mike in front of him and he said the exact same thing verbatim as on BackChat.  Last week i think.  You Tube?

No idea. For the record I am not wearing a tinfoil hat and being remote-controlled by Robert Elstone 

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, Kayakman said:

This is an interesting thread and of all the comments on anything I have ever read on this forum this comment from Scotchy stands out for me.   I believe it to be true.  Who cares if the stadium is old...its the atmosphere that counts.

I believe that  one of two things is happening....either he is trying to manipulate Toronto for a better deal which is fine...thats business.  The other is that he represents a mind think that will do whatever it can to come up with flimsy excuses to block Toronto....thats just sad.

Scotchy has hit the nail head on with his hammer....dark clouds indeed.

If the Toronto bid is rejected the option of RL 'staying the same' is a red herring....the decline of the game in the Northern Hemisphere will begin a new decline much greater than any have seen so far....so shortsighted its rather unbelievable....lunacy.  Its like dealing with a person who does intentional harm to oneself....troubling.

All should reread Scotchys post to see a very unwanted doomed future...totally wrong mindset by this new guy.  No vision.

As I've said elsewhere, no one within the British game can competently manage all the issues surrounding bringing teams like Toronto in, so Argyle and the others will need a whole different plan for it.

3 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

Mate I cringe when I watch most of these BackChat's. No offence to the owners of this website intended. But I sometimes wonder some of the people they have on even bother watching the game, as all they have to say is negative.

Like you say, what is the point in saying for the 1000th time that tge NRL is better than the SL. We really need an attitude change in the media of this sport.

Like others within the game, those guests have the mindset that as long as Australia routinely beats England on the field when it counts, the English game is inferior and deserves to play second fiddle to the Aussies.

[Kayakman]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

No idea. For the record I am not wearing a tinfoil hat and being remote-controlled by Robert Elstone 

Why would you even say such a thing?...except if it is ____?

[graveyard johnny]

am more fixated by the glasses of wine that never get touched, but after the break they are all on different levels, do they just have a glug during the ads?

[ojx]

Just now, graveyard johnny said:

am more fixated by the glasses of wine that never get touched, but after the break they are all on different levels, do they just have a glug during the ads?

Glad it's not just me, I have often wondered about that.

[Damien]

I really enjoyed watching Backchat last night and actually found many of the issues and conversations that were discussed pretty similar to what RL fans are discussing. For all his knockers I found Lindsay very on point with quite a few things and although I was never a fan even today he still makes Wood and Rimmer look like amateurs. 

I found some of the revelations very interesting, like only getting £300,000 a year prior to the Sky deal which began at £17.5 million a year. For all those that decry and moan about Sky they truly transformed the game and the game would undoubtedly be in a worse place now without them. 

Also little things like what happened at Paris and having to pay to use the PSG name. Also the team having to be headquartered in Paris to get government recognition. With little money it did seem that Lindsay and Elstone knew it was destined to fail pretty early. Strange how then they seemed opposed to Toronto which is the polar opposite and everything they would have wanted PSG to be. 

I did find myself agreeing with much of what Lindsay and Elstone said and do think Elstone will be good for the game. They both had a very good grasp of the issues facing the game and did highlight where the game has been going wrong. I did though strongly disagree with what they said about Toronto and can only hope that when he talked about not funding scurrilous expansion in areas with no RL that he'd have no qualms if that expansion was self financing and did not require RL funding, as in Toronto's case. It would simply be crazy to turn away a very successful, well attended and well financed club otherwise. 

With Manchester I totally disagree with the mergers but totally back a new Manchester club or Manchester Rangers. As was said we do have an awful lot of expansion to do even within our heartland area. However we should be striving for every town to have a RL club, as in Football and RU, at a sustainable level and not diluting what few we have by merging them. Keep Swinton, Rochdale and Oldham and push a Manchester club too. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I really enjoyed watching Backchat last night and actually found many of the issues and conversations that were discussed pretty similar to what RL fans are discussing. For all his knockers I found Lindsay very on point with quite a few things and although I was never a fan even today he still makes Wood and Rimmer look like amateurs. 

I found some of the revelations very interesting, like only getting £300,000 a year prior to the Sky deal which began at £17.5 million a year. For all those that decry and moan about Sky they truly transformed the game and the game would undoubtedly be in a worse place now without them. 

Also little things like what happened at Paris and having to pay to use the PSG name. Also the team having to be headquartered in Paris to get government recognition. With little money it did seem that Lindsay and Elstone knew it was destined to fail pretty early. Strange how then they seemed opposed to Toronto which is the polar opposite and everything they would have wanted PSG to be. 

I did find myself agreeing with much of what Lindsay and Elstone said and do think Elstone will be good for the game. They both had a very good grasp of the issues facing the game and did highlight where the game has been going wrong. I did though strongly disagree with what they said about Toronto and can only hope that when he talked about not funding scurrilous expansion in areas with no RL that he'd have no qualms if that expansion was self financing and did not require RL funding, as in Toronto's case. It would simply be crazy to turn away a very successful, well attended and well financed club otherwise. 

With Manchester I totally disagree with the mergers but totally back a new Manchester club or Manchester Rangers. As was said we do have an awful lot of expansion to do even within our heartland area. However we should be striving for every town to have a RL club, as in Football and RU, at a sustainable level and not diluting what few we have by merging them. Keep Swinton, Rochdale and Oldham and push a Manchester club too. 

It is interesting that they both claim Paris was destined to fail. And that is because if they don't say this then ultimately they carry the can. Because it was 'destined to fail' the blame can't be placed on them. Weasel words tbh that I have seen and heard many times.

They bemoaned the fact that the game positively discriminate, something I agree with, but they were the men to drive that through. They failed and are now sneering at Toronto which is already more successful than their venture.

[The Future is League]

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I won't disagree with any of the above, but you simply for reasons best known to yourself spectacularly have chosen to leave out the point I made in the post above, it was not soley about TWP but the NA concept, obviously TWP fall into that catagory.

The basis was the furnishing of these 'new'  teams with player's at the possible expense of replacing some clubs who actually do produce player's, we all know in NA that they will not be capable of making that happen for a long time.

Mr Lindsay said that there is a document in place produced in the 90's which is a relevant today as it was back then, it listed the fundamentals required to be a SL team, amongst those was "Player Development" the document was "Framing the Future" Mr Elstone was nodding in agreement. For all the positives you may want to list re TWP and NA they are not in a position to fulfil that criteria.

Before you jump at me and say other criteria were not adhered to in the last round of licensing, Mr Elstone was asked about ground facillities by Dave Wood and could we continue to live on promises from some clubs that they will take the nessacary steps to ensure they have modern, acceptable grounds, Mr Elstone said it would be no longer acceptable to live on promises, he named Castleford and Wakefield stating they have to take action, he metioned, Leeds, Wire and Saints as examples of clubs who have improved or moved at their own expense, if they can do it so can other clubs, he said!

Time will tell if he is as strong as his convictions.

Lets not forget that Wakefield got into Super League nearly 20 years ago saying they would upgrade their ground or move into a new stadium and still we wait.

Castlefords is just as bad and the same can be said about Bradfords.

I have been to 6th tier soccer clubs grounds with better facilities.

[thirteenthman]

It was a strange comment re the original French SL team having to be in Paris because of 'Government funding'. I know the governing bodies of French sports had to be based in Paris, but it was never explained why this impacted on the choice of Paris as a venue for a SL team. I was always under the impression that the French RL would've preferred somewhere in the South, but it was the RFL that went with Paris for the prestige. 

Mind you, there were quite a few things Lindsay commented on that appear to have received a more favourable slant as the years have passed by. You'd hardly know from listening to him that News Corp only made the money available for SL simply as part of a war for the pay TV rights in Australia. I'm pretty sure whoever was running the RFL at the time would've made sure the game accepted a deal - Maurice just happened to be the man in charge at the time. 

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, thirteenthman said:

It was a strange comment re the original French SL team having to be in Paris because of 'Government funding'. I know the governing bodies of French sports had to be based in Paris, but it was never explained why this impacted on the choice of Paris as a venue for a SL team. I was always under the impression that the French RL would've preferred somewhere in the South, but it was the RFL that went with Paris for the prestige. 

Mind you, there were quite a few things Lindsay commented on that appear to have received a more favourable slant as the years have passed by. You'd hardly know from listening to him that News Corp only made the money available for SL simply as part of a war for the pay TV rights in Australia. I'm pretty sure whoever was running the RFL at the time would've made sure the game accepted a deal - Maurice just happened to be the man in charge at the time. 

That was my point in an earlier post. He said the first he knew about any potential deal was when they arranged a meeting and offered 75mil on the orders of News Corp.

His initiatives and delivery were as patchy as anyone before or since.

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Lets not forget that Wakefield got into Super League nearly 20 years ago saying they would upgrade their ground or move into a new stadium and still we wait.

Castlefords is just as bad and the same can be said about Bradfords.

I have been to 6th tier soccer clubs grounds with better facilities.

You still avoid the point of the first post you criticised. 

I already conceeded that the ground 'upgrades' would be brought to question, and that Mr Elstone said it would not be acceptable in the future, which I should imagine he means under his watch.

I was commenting on what Lindsey and Elstone said in respect of player development being an integral part of being in SL, you went all protective on the NA and TWP expansion project, giving me an whole host of reasons why they should be founded and in Toronto's case promoted, up to know in 3 posts you have chosen to avoid Mr Elstone's expected conditions with any sensible statements.