RugbyLeagueGeek

Scotland RL isn't seen full stop. That's why the majority of Scottish people aren't interested. Precisely. And they've recruited loads of players born outside Scotland to help them win those close games and become more successful. As has the football team. The feel-good factor that comes from being more successful doesn't appear to have been dampened by the inclusion of players who 'aren't Scottish'. Any negatives have been outweighed by the benefits. Yes - because very few people are interested in RL full stop. Why have the amateur internationals played by 100% home grown Scottish players not been played at Hampden Park in front of 50,000 passionate fans? Because RL doesn't register on the radar in Scotland at all. Outside of the heartlands in England it barely registers here either. Whereas in Queensland and New South Wales it's the number 1 sport. Scotland playing heritage players doesn't bother me. Neither does Tonga playing heritage players. But this is a discussion forum, and we're having a discussion. From reading the responses on here, it seems my view is not as bizarre as you think. What I find bizarre is the inconsistency in the view that a player being born in Sydney to Tongan grandparents is somehow more Tongan than a player being born in Dewsbury to Scottish grandparents is Scottish. The only solution I can think of is that some people think that Tongan players look more 'Tongan' than Scottish players look 'Scottish'. The argument about supporters is a strawman argument. It doesn't make the players any more or less Scottish or Tongan. Tonga's passionate support just happens to have coincided with them becoming really good at a sport that is huge in that part of the world. Why do Scotland hockey not get huge attendances despite having a predominantly Scottish-born team? It's because hockey isn't a big spectator sport in Scotland!

There seems to have been plenty of interest in Scotland's 6 Nations performance despite many of their squad not being born in Scotland. Likewise, there was loads of hype around Scotland qualifying for the World Cup despite a quarter of the squad not being born in Scotland. The main reason the majority of Scots are not interested in the Scotland RL team is because they're not interested in RL full stop. Surely you're not suggesting that if Scotland RL picked a team full of Scottish born players that they would suddenly become extremely popular?

What evidence do you base that on?

Is it that? Or is it because they live in a country where rugby league is massive, and loads of people with Tongan heritage play it, and therefore it captures the imagination of the Tongan ex-pat population? Is it that? Or is it because they live in a country where rugby league barely registers in the media whatsoever?

There's almost a million Scottish ex-pats living in England. Would you prefer it if they all wore a kilt and looked like this?

I think we'll have to. I fail to see any difference whatsoever. There could be plenty of that Tongan team who would jump at the chance to play for Australia if the opportunity came about - we just don't know, and I'm not going to let it bother me either. Just the same as I won't let it bother me with Scotland - I just want to see more competitive international teams playing each other.

It's not for you to say that though. You can't possibly know each player's motivation, either those playing for Scotland or Tonga. I fail to see any difference between the two situations personally.

Has anybody mentioned Nazis yet?

With over 204 pages and counting of this thread, has anyone mentioned Nazis yet?

It's certainly going to be interesting to see how it pans out. 4 teams with salary caps of 1.85 million vs 4 teams with salary caps of 900k doesn't quite seem fair. But then after reading the salary cap details both teams could in fact be paying squads far more than this within the rules. I agree it could well end up without any teams ever getting promoted. But also I don't think there are 12 really strong clubs who can all fend off the threat of losing to these lower teams.

One of the interesting things I've read in the policy review document is that the salary cap for Championship will be 900k. It will be interesting to see how the middle 8 goes with half the clubs operating on a salary cap of 1.8 million and the other half on 900k... Also, it seems any club-trained player will have a salary cap limit of 100k (40k in Championship). So presumably the clubs will be able to pay them over and above this figure without it counting towards the salary cap.

I'd expect clubs to offer 1 season ticket for the league games and another season ticket for the expanded 8-team play-offs/leagues

I think this is a great idea

Ah I understand now. I was operating on the principle that the money saved by chopping a further 2 clubs would be redistributed to the 2nd tier thus closing the gap rather than widening it. IMO this is the only way that P&R can ever work, as relegation into a league with such a huge drop in funding forces clubs to completely alter their business model.

I'm sorry for being dim, but I still don't understand from what you've written why there would be a bigger gap between 1st and 2nd tier with 2x10 as opposed to 2x12. From your argument above, surely 2x10 would be better as there would be 4 fewer struggling clubs?

Not sure I understand what you're getting at here? Why would 2x10 lead to bigger gaps between 1st and 2nd tier than 2x12?

This is the big thing for me. Whilst at first glance it looks like there is scope for a lot of mobility between the divisions, the reality could well be that it is harder than ever for teams in the lower echelons to break through.

By definition, greater mobility = less stability. Less stability could have serious implications for long-term business planning, income/budgets, player and staff recruitment/retention, spectator engagement etc etc.

Why?

I reckon the CC is poorly attended for much the same reasons as the play-offs are poorly attended - because they aren't included in the season tickets and folk are generally pretty skint.

Could it be moved to the August one? Challenge Cup surely doesn't need to stay on a bank holiday weekend?

Why does the Magic Weekend have to be in the first phase of the comp (i.e. the 2x12 bit)? It adds an additional repeat fixture and arguably creates a lopsided fixture list. Plus the second phase (the 3x8 bit) will presumably give clubs an additional 7 fixtures, which would also have to be lopsided as some clubs would play 4 home games, whereas others would play 3. If the Magic Weekend was in this second phase it would therefore leave 3 home games for each club and make the whole structure much fairer.

Yes but this is still only 10%, whereas living costs are, relatively speaking, far higher.

Given that there has been the suggestion from some quarters citing cricket as an exponent of P&R, here's an interesting perspective on domestic cricket in this country: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/counties/9976184/County-cricket-in-need-of-reinvention-with-falling-crowds-and-lack-of-stars-leaving-the-format-in-the-doldrums.html

With living costs far higher in London than Wigan, London have essentially been operating on 50% of the salary cap compared to Northern clubs.