solly

Produce what? Players? That's not true. Titles? That's not true either. Results? Sure, I'll go with that. What kind of results?

No. Players do. Especially when they get paid. If you want success in rugby league - or most anything really - you have to spend.

Teams struggle when they are in over their heads. That can occur at any level. As for being ridiculous, it's also provincialism. That's why we have problems. Looking after your own club first doesn't automatically mean being in the top division.

And so do your costs. That's why there is no shame in a club plying its trade in a level more suited to its potential. The broader the appeal, the broader the support and the more likely there are to be opportunities for increased and varied income streams. Keep the code within its historical suburban borders and unless there is a dedicated campaign to promote those suburbs nationally or internationally (which is a possibility) the sport effectivelly dies. It’s provincialism when you consider your patch of the garden to be more important than the garden itself.

It’s only unsustainable if you are in a division or league that is beyond you.

It’s not 'idealistic' because it actually happens in other sports. I'm sorry but the rest of the post is provincialism and is the very reason why the sport is in the shape it's in. If I were an owner keeping a small club afloat I'd be delighted if my job were made easier by expanding markets, increases revenue potential and greater opportunities for growth and support.

Provincialism isn't limited to being anti-expansion though. There is no rule saying that a club's supporters must be from within the club's nominal borders. Expansion also refers to appeal. Limit your appeal to a small(er) market and you will stay small. Let me be very clear on this - there is nothing wrong with being small time. But it has to be in context. If your small is the standard of success for everyone else, you're going to have a tough time of it when others go past you.

Provincial minds are horrible. Their limited horizons are exposed with every post. They imagine they are being clever with their glass-half-full quips and act as if they are somehow the purest of fans with their cherry-picked prophecies.

Who makes up the team is irrelevant. If you don’t play, you don’t earn ranking points.

I tend to agree with this except for the Makinson point - he won the award because he played brilliantly in the Test matches that year. Which is what the award is. You don't have to be the best player in the world. You have to be the best (or at least amongst the best) in the matches the award reflects. Otherwise, yeah, GB were hugely disappointing.

Wrong Gubrats. The Champions League is an excellent point of comparison, not because of its size or whatever differences you can find between soccer and league. It's a great example because it shows a code taking full advantage of its profile.

You don’t need the 'best' teams in the beginning. The prestige will come later. Just like any tradition.

Which means what with regards to the value of the concept having been said now? If people are going to criticise based on imaginary scenarios that didn’t happen, then those people are in a worse place than any of us previously thought.

Sorry Rach but I don’t think that you read the article properly.

I admit that promoting yourself internationally helps to also promote the code. If the code is publicised overseas well enough then all clubs can benefit. The future of the code is more important than its past.