Oxford

Now, now Sleet's Rearend, if you haven't got any evidence or argument left, fess up! Is any individual on here not aware of the parlous state of RL's budget and economy? Does anyone posting not understand that every SL club needs an academy? Does a single person writing their opinions on't forum not follow that these two things are not easy to marry up and particularly difficult at present? Added to all this the criteria for being allowed an academy team have become an obstacle for clubs desperate to run one. If this was just one of the criteria used to decide who's in SL and who isn't, some clubs would be out for that reason alone when it's the RFL's fault they don't have one. The truth is the RFL couldn't possibly have done a better job of ensuring the "haves" continue to have, even if that was their real intention. Now back to Sylvain, T O should have been made exempt but they weren't and asking or deciding now would just alienate more fans from the sport from the club who'd take their place. I don't trust the RFL not to decide exactly this, even at the last moment.

Every SL side should have an academy side. What is your evidence for some clubs only wanting the Cheque? All SL sides financial position is pants. Fresh blood is not any kind of guarantee for boosts for anything.

First of all the Sky money needs to guarantee each clubs financial survival. Secondly they have good production line for several reasons some of which have nothing to do with Sky monies. You also cannot use academy as a criteria if some clubs are not allowed one. Getting the same cheque means lots of varied choices for different clubs and sometimes that means both survival year on year, for some it means trophies year on year because that's not all they have. The history of RL and SL is littered with clubs who put trying to be like the top clubs ahead of financial security. There are, of course a lot more things to this.

Now, I'm afraid there is little real evidence to say that any club spends wisely, or that the condition. stage, level, position or quality of each club is related to how or even how much they spend of the SC. This is mostly because these two ideas are among the things used to bash the less successful ones.

"I never felt magic crazy as this I never saw moons knew the meaning of the sea I never held emotion in the palm of my hand Or felt sweet breezes in the top of a tree But now you're here Brighten my northern sky" Worrying about what people say on Social Media .... mmmmmmmm

The trouble with a discussion like this is it's like going back to a restaurant you used to love, the menu seems exactly what you expected, the wine list appears much the same, the decor hasn't changed in the slightest and the management has managed to age with you and the port. But it's just not the same any more. When you get home you realise it wasn't the place, it was you that went missing, because you're just not the same any more. Examples from other sports who are as rich as Croesus, or who have a huge amount of support from the press and the system generally are hardly likely to produce useable models, criteria, systems or processes that can translate into a sport lacking either. The debate about virgin areas or traditional regions is a bit of a cul de sac really. Traditional places are not expansion and completely new locations are a level of need and ambition that the sport is incapable of realising. Generally modern sport throughout Europe lives far outside any kind of finacially sensible boundaries, as the evidence of Football illustrates only too well. Though the silly debate and interference in the sport around the proposed European League echoed all the symptom of RL's heritage versus adventure debates. There is of course the argument that if only we'd stuck with it and seen it to completion. This is perhaps the most telling point. We have not seen one expansion that recieved the level and consistency of support and commitment that's needed. The reasons for this are obvious either we just can't afford or just don't want it enough or both. There is of course the Big City theme put forward as the answer to all this but not only is this riddled with the same kinds of problems, it's put forward by people who wouldn't be affected by the changes and the lack of due diligence of this idea is ridiculous.

Jo .... with Jean Reno

I meant to say this rolled on from this article https://aeon.co/essays/what-1930s-political-ideologies-can-teach-us-about-the-2020s It was a thoughtful piece, well written.

Thanks Dave, I'm right as rain.

Ten Percent at the moment

The Alternative by Oswald Mosley

I'm not sure how you got to that point, to be honest, Dave. As an expansionist (Probably former) I now think that expansion is beyond RL's ability to achieve it, that all attempts will ultimately fail. It is the EL Dorado of a sport and a sporting culture that has neither the will, nor the wherewithall to achieve it and in large part is against any attempt. The question for this thread was about TWP fans and I think they are a legacy that RL should avoid repeating.

We are at least agreed on this point, Dave. I think you tend to downplay some things I believe are crucial. I'm not bothered and wasn't mithered about criticism of TWP. RL is a small sport because it's limited by the ideas within and though they're not the only thing that prevent its progress they are important and if we learned anything it's that we're an expansion black hole. And maybe we shouldn't be even trying so that we don't leave people who came to love our sport in our wake.

Using facts is quite important and the omissions are just as crucial. The sense of adventure and risk departed very quickly for some and that anti-feeling grew and grew. My view on expansion is that whatever it is won't make any difference it wil be welcomed to some extent, a thousand reasons will be given why it's not going to work. Then it won't and there'll be a few smug comments. The RFL will do as little as possible and make it clear they weren't to blame. If the expansion clubs start in the lowest division they'll be crucified and if they start in SL they'll be hung drawn and quartered. That theme of damned if you do or don't is how the story of expansion tends to work out. As a sport we are welcoming but there are so many caveats it's barely worth anyone trying and I'm always surprised when they do. But if you were an investor looking into RL I can't see why you'd continue after you read about TWP. As a fan the people who followed TWP in Toronto are a sober lesson to anyone who becomes excited about RL.

And looking at the experience of TWP, its adiministrators and fans will alway be a blueprint of what you can expect and it's difficult not to come to the conclusion that was the aim all along. The fans of TWP could be forgiven if they have nothing good to say about RL and the damage done in Canada for the future of RL will be assessed by no one.

Do we need a measure of things that took place, a numerical evaluation of how true something can be said to be? I don't think people were necessarily over sensitive so much as alot of the criticism was unnecessary and burdened with far too many out of date ideas. But the point about prospective investors still applies just as much do TWP fand still watch .... Would you?

But that also ignores the fact that there was a real sense of relief and even rejoicing when they disappeared; and the level of critism aimed at them even when they were well funded is clear on this very forum.

Well Dave, that's certainly an interesting interpretation. The rejection of TWP was a matter of perfume and soap. And here was me thinking it was about Northern RL being unable to cope with eveything including ambition, vision, goals and plans. The model could have its uses if expansion teams are well funded in the first place. If well funded groups or individuals turn up the TWP experience will be what they can refer to to ascertain the possibilities, inroads and ambition of the sport. Any serious body would do due diligence which may well include examining fan social media etc. Now, as a prospective investor, what conclusion would you come to, given all that evidence?

Not really as Sylvain, great though he is, would say that woudn't he? Paul Rowley says the same should apply to Salford, and I agree!

Ah, the "lot we can learn from past failure" motif ! RL and learn in the same sentence without can't, never can or ever will to help. There's a bunch of fairly weighty evidence on the throad from Streatham and Mitcham to TWP that might suggest otherwise. You should know Dave, being a Wolves fan!

The push for over rated soccer has been hugely helped by having more cameo and walk on parts in films than Alfred Hitchcock, the entire MGM studio extras and the entire Sioux Nation combined. So do you reckon TGG will get a comparable leg-up?

Er ....... We have to accept two things: we have a set most parochial opinions and outlook and probably the most financially limited sport. These are in direct contradiction to the quality of the game itself. U S money will be aware of this and reject it as lacking vision and ambition. The idea is that the Aussies can match this and provide a saleable product to the Americans says tons about the diggers view of themselves. If it can't be seen as a money making activity in direct competition in an overloaded market it's a dead end street. Then there's what a disaster a vibrant and marketed USRL would have here, if they need to gain a playing strength to begin their competition.

We have to accept two things: we have a set most parochial opinions and outlook and probably the most financially limited sport. These are in direct contradiction to the quality of the game itself.

" The age of Adeline" This is harmless but narration replaces decent script and storyline explanation which is always the give away of cinematic cluelessness!