Dave T

Those distances are not comparable in the slightest. Keighley seems to be the marker people are using, its 2.5hrs to the furthest Cumbrian team versus 7hrs for Penryn. And again, the clubs have shown they will travel to play, having done it to Canada - where the RFL sorted travel funding.

Yeah I think so. It feels like a competition announcement rather than an individual club. Something feels slightly off with it all tbh, feels like there are politics at play.

The lack of travel funding is part of the bad planning. Distance means cost - it is the same point. Clubs showed with Toronto they were prepared to travel from a time point of view. These are not different points. And you appear to agree about the bad planning with your points about the time lines. This is the point. Had the RFL announced this for 2023 and given £5k travel subsidy per club it'd be hard to argue there is an issue.

They are real RL clubs, working in their communities, playing games, doing good stuff. The disdain shown towards RL clubs from within is disgusting. Who needs enemies?

2. Perez has admitted that he has been working on this for '4 or 5 months'. That hardly suggests extensive groundwork has been done. They have no team (or anything really) with 4m to go. There appears to be no funding plan in place from the RFL who have removed travel funding. As per my previous post, if this was announced for 2023 and that travel costs were covered, it would be difficult to grumble.

Clubs will travel. We have actual evidence that proves that (Canada). Clubs are rightly pushing back on funding expansion. It is being left to them to fund it. Of course the long list can be I terpreted in various ways, and I don't have an issue with failures really, but it isn't inspiring.

Thanks for clarifying - and yes, I think you should use the quote function to make it clear what you refer to

Why do you think Cornwall have higher ambitions? Because Perez said he wants to walk out at Old Trafford? This project has no foundations of note, or anything else really. This is a perfect example of a club absolutely having to prove itself at the bottom of the pyramid, and they are lucky to be admitted there. I 100% agree about strategy and planning, but you are the one championing what is a badly planned initiative here. You say the previous failures do no harm, but they absolutely do. The long list of failures versus the few moderate successes hardly inspire confidence and attract others to join.

There are two main concerns here I can see. 1. Lack of planning - admit them for 2023 2. Lack of funding - it can only go ahead with a £50k travel subsidy provided by the RFL. It's up to them how they get that. In reality, that would leave clubs without a leg to stand on to resist it. What we have seen is a huge funding cut and an accelerated thumbs up to a logo.

How so? The ones championing this aren't the ones putting their hands in the pockets for vanity projects. Typing some stuff on the Internet to slate Oldham and the likes is no effort at all really.

And where would that leave Cornwall? Just keep dismissing concerns leaves us with a huge list of failures. Comps based on geography are not unusual. Maybe it is the right thing to do at this level. Or maybe the evidence shows that when funded properly the clubs will play anywhere, even Canada. A lack of pragmatism is one of the biggest risks the sport faces imo.

It's interesting that people are quoting resistance to expansion teams, and then also to Manchester without realising that it sort of demonstrates that clubs are perhaps against bad ideas rather than teams based on geography. When it has been funded it has happened - Toronto, Toulouse, and other new expansion teams in L1 (as well as those in other leagues but let's keep it to L1). My understanding is that Toronto were voted in by the clubs. So let's go back to the discussion at hand. What is it that people like so much about the decision to admit Cornwall to a comp starting in 4m, when they have little more than a logo and a field? The same support wasn't there for Leigh last year. A bad plan is a bad plan. The issue is less about geography, and more about doing things badly. I hope Perez surprises us and his plans are further on, but blind faith doesn't make things work. As a sport we do so many of these things poorly, I'm not sure why we are expecting a different result here. Look how difficult Coventry have found it and they appear to have been a stronger organisation. But, all that said, I'm fascinated to see how it goes, and it all adds to the fun of being an RL fan. Although it's costing me nothing.

Wrong thread

Did you factor in the accommodation and meals too, because surely your proposal isn't to do the round trip in 24hrs?

Each decision should be taken on its own merits. Cornwall were not a thing this year, and they want to be admitted next year. There is a cost associated with this decision that needs to be paid for. As part of the cost/benefit analysis this should have been factored in and it should be considered how it would be funded. It isn't an automatic yes because they will be based in England. If this was an established club working its way through the system and nowhere else to go, it would make it harder to reject, but as a brand new venture it should have a proposal that covers costs. Otherwise it could be seen as a reckless vanity project.

I agree, and that's why this needs to be part of the initial decision. I. E. Can it be afforded? We can't have vanity projects putting other clubs at risk. To be fair, the RFL recognised this with Toulouse and Toronto and secured funding (through the clubs directly) so hopefully they aren't blind to this.

And that probably doesn't include the equipment. I had a quick scan at the flight options, there were some very interesting combinations on SkyScanner - flying via London, Dublin, Alicante and then Newquay Actually, that doesn't sound too bad tbh!

People not paying the bills can't just dismiss this concern. Let's assume Mick G is accurate (a silly assumption I know) - but the L1 clubs are seeing a reduction of c75%+ of their funding - and then having a new cost thrown on them - apparently without consultation. This kind of thing needs to be funded - the governing body needs to be providing the support here - the starting point to any decision needs to be how is it funded? That cannot be an afterthought. The clubs are absolutely right to be pushing back to the RFL here - and I hope it leads to them getting the funding.

I don't think that's fair. GJ is using his posting style to make his point strongly, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as sneering. And your point about 'very little info to go on' is sort of the point. At the moment they appear to be a logo and a ground hire contract. In the absence of any more detail the questions about travel, players, costs, fanbase etc are all valid, and there is nothing positive that has been presented on that yet, so it is perfectly fine to use what we know (that they will be a club who are massively geographically isolated with no RL pathway for hours). Now, Perez and whoever he gets on board have the chance to prove the doubters wrong, but calling out cynicism based on what we know so far is reasonable. It is also reasonable to challenge that and sya give it time, but as this is a forum, it sort of makes the thread redundant. I have plenty of reservations about this - people need to stop dismissing the geography point - only a few weeks ago we were hearing that L1 may not even exist as funding reductions are crippling clubs, and now a club has been admitted that will add substantial costs at this level (people should just look at the costs and schedules of flights instead of making out it is the easy solution). Hopefully there is a solution in place to support this, but additional costs of probably £50k+ have been added in at a time that funding has reduced by c£500k. People can call that thinking small time but it won't be them paying this, they just expect others to do it for their hobby. On the flip side of this, I find stuff like this exciting, it will be fascinating to watch, but I dont have to fund it. It'll be interesting to see Perez' approach and who he gets bought into this. And ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, anybody who wants to play RL should be welcomed - but I hope the RFL have done their due diligence before allowing a new club into the 3rd tier. There has to be some standards. I hope any concerns vanish quickly and Peeez has a strong plan.

So this all seems to be taking a bit of a turn for the better. Only a few weeks ago we heard that many clubs would not make the start line, now we have a new club in the league and this Coventry initiative - I assume we will indeed be having a L1 in 2022 after all?

This is unlikely to feature in the publicly available stuff as it won't make the top 15 or so that week.

Whilst it is problematic, it is the clubs themselves who are responsible for driving this really. It is on them to drive this to its conclusion. I can see it is more problematic for lower down who will be impacted by how the top tier looks. The hope has to be that conversations are happening at pace now and we are close to an announcement on the future.

Yes, I may start to use that with regards deadlines at work

World Club Challenge unlikely to happen – TotalRL.com | Rugby League Express | Rugby League World Details here of dates, number of rounds etc. Obviously not the P&R status yet, but that is up to the clubs to decide so it is within their control.

He does also fail to mention what happened to both the main clubs he played for who paid him huge wages.