[New North American Competition]

I support this initiative, I hope it has some validity.

I can see why it lacks some credibility and I can understand people's cynicism but it grates on me.

In a similar fashion, the mockery of the Euro XIII idea pee'd me off.

As far as I can see, Mr Buchan had some real support for his early initiative, admittedly amongst mainly fledgling clubs, (although I don't know any details about what he actually proposed) and the whole thing was scuppered by the COVID pandemic.

We know a little more about him, due to his recent inauspicious involvement with the game in Bath.

Whether he actually achieves anything for the development of Rugby League remains to be seen but sadly, the truth about the development of our game the world over, is that we rely on individuals (or clubs) in almost all cases, like Mr Buchan, to drive the development.

In most cases, these people are entrepreneurial by nature, chock full of energy and enthusiasm (nay love) for our game and normally passionate about spreading the game far and wide. They are normally frustrated about the games historical progress and unwilling to wait for ''support'' or ''approval''. They usually acknowledge that there is no-one to help them (from the games adminstrative bodies), they tend not be intimidated by false authorities, p...s takers and the whole gamut of nay sayers, and so decide to get stuck in and do it themselves.

The very essence of this personality type is that they are willing to accept responsibility for their actions, they don't expect to get it right first time (and certainly not all the time) but are prepared to learn as they go along and modify their approach, based on tough (and sometimes costly) lessons learned. They are not normally defeated at the first signs of failure and tend to persist and improve their methods over time. 

So, unless he turns out to be a complete charlatan and fraudster, what we need is more people like Mr Buchan and I put it to you, the more the merrier.

 

 

[New North American Competition]

Just now, Pulga said:

Would be a good rivalry.

 

[What now for the French national team?]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Who do you suggest? France fielding their best are better than any other NH nation and I would say about 30 years minimum ahead of them, but they are still miles behind England, as I said in an earlier post, England should concentrate on playing SH nations going there every other year and getting one of them to tour here in the interim years.

 

I don't know if you've read the whole thread (or all my posts on this proposal) but if you had you might have better understood what I'm suggesting. It's not a quick fix.

As far as I know the role of the IRL organisation is to promote the game across the world. I think they should do something like I'm suggesting to nudge things along in the Northern Hemisphere.

I was just proposing that the northern hemisphere nations should start acting in unison to promote the International game, rather than acting in disparate and far-flung (small) pockets spread all over the entire Northern Hemisphere, only coming together every 4 years (if their lucky) for a World Cup.

I'm suggesting that a Trans-Atlantic Championship Trophy featuring the best of European (excluding England) and the best of the America's would provide a prestigious trophy which would promote the game right across the NH, acting as an incentive to everyone to improve. The winners would challenge England in a one off match. 

How long will it take before the standard rises to a decent level? I don't know.

It might take decades but who knows, some of the less hide-bound nations might achieve progress at a much faster rate than we have managed here at home, if there are sufficient incentives and an open invitation to take part.

We'll have to wait and see.

What I think though is this; if it's going to take decades, then the sooner we begin the better.

What I'm not proposing is some ghastly, hastily prepared, ill thought out, short term ''fix'' which we know full well, is not the answer to any of our deep seated problems. We have an almost complete history of opting for short term fixes, all of which have failed to produce the game we want and need.

We also have a pretty full catalogue of better ideas which we've not implemented because they involved some real commitment to the cause over an extended period of time.

As far as I can see, no-one else on these forums, has suggested how progress might be made (accelerated) in the medium to long term, to actually provide the existing Northern Hemisphere nations with some decent opposition.

So I'm being Avant-Garde Harry.

There's a lot of wailing about the current condition of the International game and plenty of criticism of the poor French and gnashing of teeth regarding the poor attendances at these dreadful mis-matches and the only suggestion to improve is to keep doing the same thing over and over, oh but play it in France, so we can rub their noses in it on their own patch, just to cheer them up.

The comment you quoted above (taken out of context) was meant to say that if in the long term, France did not improve as a result and Brazil or the United States overtook them, then that would not be a bad thing.

 

[What now for the French national team?]

8 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

The fledgling nations do have something to play for, they are not the nations we need to worry about at this stage. They do have competitions to play in:

- Since 2015 we have had the Americas Rugby League Championship. Brazil will become the 5th nation to compete in it this year. Excepting a long gap for COVID, this is an annual competition.

- In Europe there is the Rugby League European Championship. Again this is an annual competition and something for the fledgling nations to aspire to and measure their progress against.

These are great competitions for the countries who are at the level of USA, Canada, Serbia, Italy, etc. I would be happy to see a NH play-off between the winners between such countries and encourage their development.

What those competitions are not is prestigious.

They are played by amateurs (with a few pro/semi-pro's based mainly on heritage). Crowds tend to be in the hundreds (or lower) and there may be a youtube stream or something similar.

I am not trying to disparage those nations or their players and officials. They do great work and I wholeheartedly support their development in the game. I hope that they are able to see steady, natural growth of the game in their countries and that eventually they will be able to compete with the more established countries.

What I disagree on is that a competition for such countries in their current state could be prestigious. What you don't seem to have the answer for is how you get from the current situation to the prestigious competition that you say your proposal would be.

 

The other thing that the Euro's and Americas comp is not, is a good way to develop England, France and Wales. These are at least a step above the other countries.

Our problem is that because a small number of countries play the game, the gap in standard between countries is huge (especially in the NH):

England will almost always beat France, France will almost always beat Wales, Wales will almost always beat Ireland, etc.

Until you get to the amateur nations, no NH team has a competitor on their own level.

You are miss-understanding me:

I'm not saying that nothing will work. I wasn't even saying that your proposal won't work - It might do for the new nations (if tran-atlantic travel, etc can be funded).

I don't think it would work for England, France and Wales considering where they are in comparison to each other and in comparison to the rest.

But I was simply wondering how you could claim such a competition would be prestigious, or how you would get it to be prestigious.

I have highlighted the major points/questions you make and have attempted to answer them in turn.

Firsly I think it's reasonable to claim that amongst the competing nations players and organising bodies, winning a competition such as this would be prestigious. They could rightly claim that they are the best in their class in the NH.

In your second point I assume you mean how would we get the rest of the world (do we need the whole world?) to agree it's a prestigious competition. My answer is a simple one - growth. We have to start, with what we have and promote it, as we go along.

Your third point is that the gap in standards between present day competing nations is large and I agree.

It is also true that the existing nations will almost certainly develop at different rates and the existing pecking order may change over time, depending on the local conditions which might influence the uptake.

So todays minnows could catch up and overtake todays leading nations. It would depend on how successful they are in their respective home nations.

I simply do not accept that England will always beat France and France will always beat Wales and Wales will always beat Brazil etc. if the game continues to spread throughout the world. Wales only has about 8 amateur clubs by the way. The yanks (in disarray) have a lot more. 

In one of my earlier posts I suggested that the winners would challenge England in a one off match and when England loses a game they could be brought into the competition proper. Until then, England could seek other opponents to spur their own improvements.

This competition would only provide one game for England but one they would have to be wary of as standards improve.

Lastly, prestige is accrued over time, with higher standards, growing spectator numbers, and commercial sponsors.

I'm just arguing that we get on with it. 

[What now for the French national team?]

4 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Would that improve them though? 

My gut feeling is that playing in an annual competition against the best in the NH (except England) which would demand the best of them in order to win it but in which they have a reasonable chance of winning (not getting stuffed) is pounds better than what we have now.

I can't guarantee it, but as I said earlier, if the USA or Brazil, or Greece won it instead, would that be a bad thing? 

[What now for the French national team?]

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I assume it will be that way unless someone has a workable way for it to become prestigious - You don't seem to have that for your proposal. Calling the winners Trans-Atlantic NH champions is akin to France being the current European Champions and that hasn't done much for the prestige of the French team or the competition.

I still don't see how you plan to make it prestigious.

So do I.

But I can't see how your proposal moves anything forward in any practical way: We have a less than prestigious European Championship and a essentially amateur level Americas competition - A play off between the winners may be nice, but isn't an obvious panacea.

That's a good question for you, as the person proposing the trans-atlantic trophy.

How will it promote RL? How will it draw a crowd or get TV coverage? Very few people watch the European Championships and even less watch the Americas equivalent, why would your proposal make any difference?

I don't think the French would need to pull there socks up to win this. There closest competitor would be Wales, who they usually beat anyway.

Without the prestige, they aren't going to get excited about it.

How are USA or Brazil going to get to a level where they beat France in the play-off? Especially if (as the subject of the thread suggests) we are aiming to improve the French.

So instead, we have a second string France humiliating Brazil?

Thanks for the considered response.

My answer to most of your questions is the same.

Why do we play sports? Why do nations compete? if not to win, to win trophy's? To be called Champions.

What we have at the moment is meagre, and wholly insufficient.

What I'm proposing is to give these fledgling nations something to play for, something that they can use to mark their standing in the world and measure their improvement year on year. It's a competition which they have a much greater chance of being competitive in than the last world cup and much more interesting than their current home (club) league trophy.

You could argue that competing in the World Cup hasn't changed anything in Greece but is that true?

Do you think they might just be striving to be included next time, to be better? I imagine that they are.

Are they doing all they can to draw in commercial backing, government support and every other resource they can call on to improve? If not, then why include them in the first place? Why not just let Australia and New Zealand play each other once in a while for bragging rights.

Why do you assume that the invitation to take part, would not spur the Brazilians to improve?

You seem convinced that nothing will ever work, nothing is worth trying because we are doomed to failure and these ''new'' nations are just wasting everyone's time. 

I just can't accept that ''world view''. 

[What now for the French national team?]

3 minutes ago, corkonian77 said:

France as an international team seem to be going around in circles.

I dare to say in 20 years time they will be in the same situation. 

That's what I'm afraid of corky (I didn't mean to offend you with that).

We need to do something to help them (or give them the incentive) to improve.

If not we need someone to replace/overtake them. We need more NH opposition for the home nations. 

[What now for the French national team?]

23 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Why do you think that such a trophy would be very prestigious?

The current European Championship isn't prestigious and all you propose is effectively a play-off between the winner of that and an Americas champion.

Other than France, Wales and the current heritage players, the players would largely be amateurs and the matches played on parks in front of a few people. I don't see where the prestige would come from and how it would improve France.

Nonetheless, its a nice dream.

Well BM it would be prestigious, because the winners would be Trans-Atlantic NH champions.

You are right that the current Euro's isn't (very) prestigious but do you assume that it will always be this way?

I hope you are wrong.

I think the biggest mistake we can make when considering future plans is assuming that they will not work and that no matter what we do, nothing will change. If we decide, however that we'd like things to be different, to be better, then that wish begs the question, how do we get from here to there? 

I see the proposal as a vehicle, a mechanism to promote the game in the NH and no matter where we are at the moment, the idea is that it will act as an incentive to growth all over the NH. That todays amateur clubs will become more numerous and more professional etc etc. and that the quality of the competition (and the attendant prestige) will improve over time.

On it's own, it won't improve France, but the French (excited by the prospect of playing in such a competition) might just pull their socks up to increase their chances of winning. If not and the yanks end up winning it, or the Brazilians say, that's not a bad thing is it? We'll have a ''new'' competitive nation on the International scene.

It seems to me that what we are doing now, watching a reluctant France getting humiliated by a second string England is never going to cut it.

Let's say it's going to take 10 years before it's any good, when should we start doing it?

Now? Or should we wait another 10 years before we begin?

 

[What now for the French national team?]

5 minutes ago, Jughead said:

America are a joke nation, maybe they’d have something in common and Canada haven’t played since 2018 according to the internet. I’m not sure what playing countries worse than Scotland and Wales would actually achieve. Jamaica may be better than some opposition but it’s pretty much on par with many teams France have played for 15+ years. 

I think the main difference between what's been happening for the last 15 years and my idea is that I'm proposing a Trans-Atlantic Trophy not some hastily arranged friendly fixture, in some god-forsaken backwater, whose highest hope and fondest wish, is to sell enough tickets to cover the cost of putting it on in the first place.

I think your characterisation that America are a joke nation might be a little harsh. As far as I can see, they have more clubs than Wales (and Ireland and Scotland put together).

I agree they seem to be in disarray but perhaps a championship such as this, might provide the incentive to greater cooperation.

Anyway, no matter, whatever state their in, don't we want them all to improve together, over time?

The inclusion (in the calendar) of a novel competition like this might just liven up our sparse, tired and monotone International fixture list

[What now for the French national team?]

9 minutes ago, Jughead said:

They’re the European Championship holders and been runners-up in three out of the last five tournaments. 

Just to add a little to my earlier post, I think if the IRL are worth their salt then they should be looking further ahead and setting some longer term goals for the world game.

Drawing Canada, America, Jamaica and oddly, the South American nations into a (NH) Trans-Atlantic championship is a worthy goal indeed. (I think the IRL classify South America as part of the NH jurisdiction!).

It might be do-able (eventually) every 4 years, alternating with the World Cup, why not?

The format could evolve as it goes along, perhaps played every year initially, as a play off between the European champions and the winners of the America's championship. (The Winners challenging England each time, until England lose one and then they'd be drawn into the competition proper).

If it could be made into a commercial success (covering costs) then the competition could be expanded by including two nations from either side of the Atlantic into the competition, (and later 3 perhaps).

Such a competition, such a trophy would be very prestigious and I believe, act as an incentive to growth in the NH which at the moment is sadly lacking.

 Anyway Davo, it might be a long term project, which is why it makes sense to start now.

Isn't this just the kind of thing the IRL are supposed to be doing? 

 

[What now for the French national team?]

29 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

France won the last full contesting of the European Championship in 2018.

Yes I know. I just feel we need to draw in the America's.

There's something tired (in my opinion) and slightly monotonous, as it stands.

I also like the idea of bringing the whole of the NH up at the same time.

I know the practicalities are a mile off, but I think these are very worthy (and not unattainable) goals.  

[What now for the French national team?]

3 hours ago, Jughead said:

None of this is new though. If you go back over the fifteen years, they’ve had a good mixture of games:

2008 - World Cup (Scotland, Fiji and Samoa. 

2009 - Four Nations (Australia, England, New Zealand) and a friendly with England.

2010 - European Championship and friendly with England. 

2011 - Autumn Series against Ireland and Scotland and a game with England. 

2012 - Autumn Series against England and Wales and a friendly against Wales. 

2013 - World Cup (played against PNG, New Zealand, Samoa and England).

2014 - European Championship. 

2015 - European Cup against Ireland, Scotland and Wales and friendlies against England and Serbia.

2016 - Friendly with England. 

2017 - World Cup (Lebanon, Australia and England). 

2018 - European Championship and friendlies with England and Serbia. 

2019 and 2020 - nothing.

2021 - Friendly with England. 

2022 - World Cup (Greece, England and Samoa). 

Let’s be honest, France have had a reasonable selection of opponents ranging from Tier One nations to Serbia and Greece with tough opponents in Samoa, Fiji, Lebanon and PNG in there too. In that period, France have played England fourteen times and I make it 524 points as the total winning margins across fourteen games, which is an average of 37.42 per game. The closest winning margin was an eighteen point win for England in 2011. 

At what point do they improve? They’ve had fifteen years of reasonable fixtures ranging from very tough to what you’d perceive to be easy against a decent selection of nations, they’ve played England fourteen times in fifteen years and they’ve played in three World Cup’s in that time. Is continually playing them and nothing more going to actually make them any better? Is doing the same thing and expecting different results (not necessarily France winning but narrower margins) not just a really stupid plan?

I think they need something to inspire the whole nation.

To play in a tournament, with a trophy, (like a NH Trans-Atlantic cup, say) that they have a reasonable chance of winning, if they strive to win it.

It will bring all Nation competitors along with France and beats playing for the ticket money, hands down. 

[What now for the French national team?]

6 hours ago, Gomersall said:

The game in England simply can’t afford to spend money trying to raise standards in France. The money isn’t there and if it was could you imagine the uproar if it was used to shore up France whilst English clubs struggled financially? Having said that I believe we should do all we can within our constraints to help the French but as has already been pointed out the French have to show some commitment too.

The French need some meaningful competition, that they have an even chance of winning. 

[What now for the French national team?]

10 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Coming round to my way of thinking then?

I have always liked your idea.

I just don't know why you are trying to convince anyone here of it's worth, which is surely a complete waste of your time (and mildly offensive), rather than working towards bringing it to life.

If you don't mind me saying so, I think your efforts would have a much greater chance of bearing fruit if you worked with and on behalf of the USARL in America.

In my opinion, the country's sports fans have a natural affinity for our game and I truly believe that the game has the potential to spread quickly over there if it's promoted skillfully.

Come on man? If you really have a plan, stop wasting your time here, seek out the financial support you need (over there).

Assemble your list of investors and launch your competition, where it belongs and where it has the greatest  chance of success, in the USA.

If you can pull it off, it will dovetail perfectly with the development of a Trans-Atlantic International competition which could dwarf RaRa's six nations.

 

[What now for the French national team?]

2 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Keep going. A yearly fixture against England is a must.  Yes they'll get a shellacking for the foreseeable future, but it doesn't seem to worry Italy in the other version. There are more French lads than ever playing in SL and the championship, they'll improve with time but not if we relegate them to playing second tier nations.

Despite the one sided nature of yesterday's game, I thoroughly enjoyed yesterday.  

I think we need a NH Trans-Atlantic competition.

We can consider the structure of the competition if anyone wants to enter into a discussion about it but I'd suggest that the winner of said comp. get's to challenge England in a one-off game after the Super League season's end.

The competition would promote the games development in all of the NH nations and as standards rise, the champions games against England will become tighter.

France (and all others) may need to really strive in a competition such as this, to ensure their right to play against England and that will surely sharpen their edge.

This kind of preparation/qualifying tournament is much better than some half-hearted mid-season ''friendly'' fixture.

 

[100 years of Wembley]

16 hours ago, del capo said:

....... given Wembley's air brush of RL history with them time to move on elsewhere in my view once the current contractual arrangements conclude.

Keep it down south though.....

Can we take the statue with us ?

I think this is a grossly offensive and frankly, unforgiveable insult to Rugby League.

Did we (RFL/SuperLeague) know in advance, that we were going to be snubbed? Have we confronted them since, over this howling faux pas? Have they (Wembley) made any attempt at an explanation, offered any kind of apology? 

I'm absolutely livid about this travesty.

I hope someone from the games hierarchy is seeking recompense?

 

[I Saw This and I Thought of You ....]

On 29/04/2023 at 07:25, Oxford said:

I always thought the fighting Irish was Notre Dame or members of of the NY police force or was it Boston ?

Notre Dame, I think. 

When our club was formed it was called Aberavon RL Club. We ceased operations after about 18 years, without sufficient thought given to succession.

Thankfully, we had imbued a couple of brothers with the RL bug and they brought the club back into existence after a few years break. 

They were of a catholic family of Irish descent so were adamant the club would be called The Fighting Irish.

They knew they might be infringing some kind of copyright, but thought that a legal challenge from across the Atlantic would be great publicity and confident they could ultimately set up some kind of fraternal relationship with the Notre Dame organisation.

No such challenge has been received to date. 

They've settled at the Quins RU club which is run by one of their brothers. Ha! 

[I Saw This and I Thought of You ....]

2 hours ago, Madrileño said:

Agree with you 100%. 

On another matter, where do the Fighting Irish play these days as a matter of interest?

They (I stress the word they) play at Aberavon Harlequins RUFC. 

 

[Worcester Rebels RLFC]

We do seem to attract, more than our fair share of nut-jobs.

Good luck Rebels! 

[I Saw This and I Thought of You ....]

2 minutes ago, Oxford said:

.....The question is always, Why would a real RL site allow a competitor room and board?

It suggests to me that we've lost the war.

Poverty? Necessity? Ignorance? Who know's?

I'm always amazed at the naivety of so many posters here, who think we have nothing to worry (and complain) about.

If anybody's in any doubt about their true intentions for us, look at the new World Rugby Football League they've just launched. World RFL?

I can't understand why we don't just get on and develop our own sport, without reference to, association with, or reliance on the sickeningly hypocritical, glaringly envious, dangerously pernicious, dark side.

Their agin us and that's all we need to know.

Nice to hear from you mate. 

[I Saw This and I Thought of You ....]

14 hours ago, Oxford said:

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/international

Scroll down the page and look at the scorers listed here and ask yourself what's going on?

 

Continually exposing our best and fairest to their pernicious poison.

[London Broncos & London Skolars]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

We have an area of the country with around 10 community clubs sitting underneath a couple of semi-pro clubs, one of which runs an RFL-accredited academy. The same area generates strong TV viewer numbers and delivers strong attendances for 'event' RL. It has different demographics to any other RL stronghold in the country. 

But there is no plan to exploit any of this.

There should be 50 or 60 community clubs. 

 

[NRL to make call on double header in US for next season]

10 minutes ago, rlno1 said:

It's all about Murdoch's new gambling arm and using league.

That's what I suspect.

I just hope the IRL can assign some resources to help the USARL amalgamate, grow and produce a competitive international team to enter into NH competition.

I'm sure the invitation into regular international competition would give the game a boost over there.

It seems apparent to me, that Vlandys  sees the spread of international competition as a threat to the NRL and State of Origin, which far outweighs (in his mind) any potential benefits of a  healthy world-wide game.

From our (my) point of view, the growth of International competition (particularly in the NH) has no downsides.

It's all upside. So what can we do to help them and usher them into the fold?

 

 

[NRL to make call on double header in US for next season]

It seems there are two potentially different outcomes and motives at play here.

Vlandy's want to raise awareness of the game over there amongst gambling addicts to cash in on the USA sports betting market revenues.

The Manly bloke seems to want to get the USA to take up the sport to enter into the RL family.

There could be a mutually beneficial overlap but I don't see anything about spreading the game in America from the Vlandys accounts.

I know which idea I prefer.  

[NRL in Las Vegas 2024]

So tell me, what's the forums conclusion here?

Do you believe this is just click bait, or is there any truth in the story?

If it is a fabricated story, then don't they (FOX) realise that ''crying wolf'' negatively affects their credibility, lowers the average quality of their output, reveals a certain amount of contempt for the readers/listeners, harming the relationship with the fans and tends to put people off responding (clicking) in future.

The coverage here today, of the ''Franchise RL'' story is of a similar ilk.

Don't our editors/marketing people realise the harm it does?

We hear so much talk about the necessity of professionally marketing our game but these short term tactics are anything but professional. Is it really that difficult to do some cursory checks about the validity of a story before rushing to print? 

My heart aches for the NRL, IRL, and/or the RFL to get involved in America, to assist them in pulling all the loose threads together and then pushing for expansion but please media, stop lieing to us.