zylya

You keep talking about money, but I haven't mentioned it. The initial complaint was whether Brazil and their contribution was valued by the IRL. An announcement that included some details on a South American regional tournament and how the nations there can grow their national teams and domestic scenes over the next 10 years would have been a demonstration that they have value to the IRL. As an example, in their own news article, they included quotes from the NRL and RFL but nothing from their two regional bodies (Europe and Asia-Pacific). While money is definitely needed to grow the game entire, the fact is that it's just one of the steps needed. But the IRL can't even be bothered to do any of the steps that don't require money either, so I don't see what point you're trying to make here.

-double post-

It's not just inclusion in the World Cup though is it? What, in the IRL announcement, do you see that will support a country like Brazil, aside from a vague mention of Regional Tournaments and a World Series idea? There's nothing concrete for a developing nation to actually plan around and build growth from.

Completely agree - if they'd announced some details on this World Series - where it is, how often, how they see it developing teams long-term then there would likely be less dismay from developing nations. They don't actually say how many teams will be in the 2030 World Cup - whether it reverts to 16 or stays at 10. FIFA, by contrast, announced the expansion to 48 teams for 2026 in 2017, so 9 years for associations to prepare. If an ambitious, smaller nation wanted, they could have invested in a 9-year programme to develop their national team to qualify when the tournament expanded. IRL have given teams 2 years notice, if we count the date as 2025, or if we're generous, they've given teams 3 years notice that if you're outside that "top" group then forget about any plans you made. All the hard work Greece or Jamaica did to get themselves to the World Cup last year and the progress they each made has essentially been for nothing. If they'd announced two cycles in advance that it'd be reduced, at least nations have time to prepare for it - either by increasing investment or managing their expectations accordingly.

I think the point is more that they've already done a load of work - including funding their own way to IRL tournaments with the eventual goal of getting to a World Cup, just to have this pulled out from under them by the IRL moving the goal posts. Which wouldn't be as much of a problem if they were investing into these countries and supporting International teams to take part in their regional tournaments. But I didn't see anything announced about a tournament to support the growth of South America or any development plans to ensure that the good work that has started in Brazil doesn't just die out. Even if these are the correct decisions for the whole game, the timeframe is ridiculous. There's no stability in the intl game, just lurching from one extreme to the other. How can Brazil, or any other developing country for that matter, shoot for long-term growth when the IRL is incapable of staying the course on anything? I'm sure someone will say "regional tournaments/World Series" as part of the announcement. Let's assume I'm running Brazil Rugby League, I can hardly launch a strategy for growth of the back of an alleged Regional Tournament which has just as much chance of happening as not. There are no details (which regions, how often, funding arrangements, progression opportunity for some easy starters) and it's essentially just an idea at this stage.

Agree with this and the follow up post that it wouldn't be easy to find anything in London. Think both Hemel and New River are decent options for a base - I know that Hemel is being used for a few community things - e.g. some college & university activity in the south. They also use the Army stadium in Aldershot for some of the finals etc. As someone who's had some experience being involved with a community club in the South, one thing I will say is that you're very "on your own" about things. While the RFL try to be helpful, the reality is that they're under-resourced for staff and finances. So although there are some grants here and there - and they've definitely been useful at the time - the reality is that it's going to be up to the people who start clubs to build those foundations. One thing that the RFL as NGB could do to assist that is to develop a proper Southern strategy. 27 Development Officers in London would definitely boost playing numbers, but what we need is DOs whose job is also around infrastructure and not just coaching. A strategy for the South would be targeting areas to ensure that 4-6 clubs are starting within a particular region and trying to ensure that there are the facilities to support. That might mean picking a county and developing a handful of teams across that county all at the same time, and working to ensure a lease on a pitch somewhere in that county. E.g. if you created 6 teams in Hampshire (using Hants because there aren't any teams there at the moment) then you could create a Hampshire League, plus find a venue that you could lease/licence with at least one pitch, floodlights and clubhouse/bar area. All 6 teams, in their infancy, could play games at the central venue - this would allow new teams to train in less conventional spaces - parks, schools, smaller AGP etc without needing the full 110m x 70m space plus posts to stay up over the summer. This would reduce the reliance on Rugby Union clubs, but also make administration easier. A fictional Development Officer for this Hampshire League would then have the role of embedding schools pathways etc to support recruitment into senior teams etc and to help clubs develop themselves in terms of finding their own regular facilities once they're established. Just using Hampshire as an example - you could do the same thing in a part of London or any region that makes sense in the South. Even better, because you're approaching it fresh, you wouldn't have to be bound by traditional county lines like rugby union still is and football used to be until fairly recently. Choose locations that have great transport links between each other etc.

I can't get behind this logic. If you sell 20,000 seats in a 20,000 seater stadium then you're (likely) going to make less money than selling 40,000 seats in a 60,000 seater stadium. Agree that it's better to have 20,000 in a 20,000 seater than 20,000 in a 60,000 but if we're talking about London, then 8 of the 10 highest ever England National Team attendances have been in London. Internationals have a chance to be a huge revenue generator that can then fund the game going forward. That means you need to be maximising attendance, not picking small stadiums.

-

Personally feel like every three test series should have two games in the heartlands and one in London. London has delivered the consistently highest attendances for England internationals so is worth sticking with IF they can make the financials work. As we saw with RLWC, it attracts people who aren't traditionally involved in the game which is so important. Some people complain that these spectators don't then transition into the club game, but that's not an issue IMO. If they pay to watch internationals, and the internationals make money, then it's good for the RFL and the wider game. Especially if you can run a three test series every year and have an annual game in London. The NFL runs in London and sells out mega fast - it's not like they're relying on people flying over from the States for the games! It also removes a bit of "buyer fatigue" which I think you'll get with three games in the heartlands. The three-game tickets might mitigate some of that, but realistically, most people taking their families are going to pick. the game that's closest to them and go for that one - which means Leeds and Hudds are competing against one another. As someone living in the South East, I can confirm that, barring some miracle, I definitely won't be going to any of the games, whereas I would head over for a game in London (5-6h to Leeds, 2h to London...) That said, it's super important to have regular internationals, so if nothing else, this is an important step in the right direction and I hope that it succeeds because otherwise there's a good excuse for them not to do it again. But the World Cup has shown us that there a lot of casual fans in and around London that won't see the game as another expense of their RL support in the same way that a ST holder for a SL club would.

I think one of the issues is that the governing bodies, for whatever reason, don’t seem proactive enough in creating expansion. I know that the ERL do coaching and referee courses and run a handful of competitions but beyond that I don’t know what they do to expand rugby league across the continent - in direct terms of getting new teams & players playing. I don’t know if there is a strategy for growth or whether there’s just a hope that new countries want to start off their own back.

I guess that's the true beauty of the internet... you don't even have to leave your house to set up a rugby league club!

Bristol Sonics now "confirmed" to round out the 4...

Does anyone know/has anyone seen an updated version of the document with the grading criteria that were changed (e.g. catchment > community etc)? https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/IMG & Rugby League Grading Criteria[81].pdf

https://twitter.com/BristolSonicsRL They've not posted since 2021, then they retweeted Bath in the Franchise RL and have appointed a General Manager, which is a term that the FRL clubs have been using but that you don't see much in English RL.

I find it ironic that the Keighley owner has stated that he wants it to be all about being able to play for it on the pitch, but when push comes to shove, he shows Catalans' attendance as his measure of (lack of) success. I also find it ironic that the Keighley owner, who wants it to be about on-pitch ability, has chosen to aim at Catalans, a club that has won more major trophies than Keighley. I also find it ironic that the Keighley owner has posted about attendances aimed at a club which currently holds the Super League regular season attendance record, holds the second highest Challenge Cup final attendance record in the Super League era, and had an average attendance in 2022 of around 5 times that of Keighley in the same season.

Yeah, had a similar thought!

Saw this posted earlier with some info about it. Word is that it's a 4-team comp with H/A fixtures and a grand final 1st vs 2nd at the end. Valencia vs Bath already announced for 16th September. https://t.co/qW6lc5eNSs If it gets to the start line of course...

Think this is a bit of a sidebar discussion tbh. If England picks the best U16 from the Heartlands, no one says "well they're not growing the game in London/Midlands" etc. Your U16 team is to identify and develop your future talent. Scotland is not going to have a pro league any time soon, so the best thing they can do is cast their net wide to find players. Where are they going to end up playing if they're any good? Super League/Champ/League 1. Yes, there's a responsibility on Scotland RL to grow the game but things like this talent dev day have to happen AS WELL AS growing the game in Scotland. Additionally, it's probably a couple of volunteers or per-session coaches who are running it rather than being some big investment. If it identifies Scottish Qualified players who are already playing RL that's only going to help their performance.

Absolutely agree with you and Yorks Tim that this is the right approach, just feel that some people's worries that they might not have a strong squad this year may be overestimating how good their squad needs to be this year - so they might have a lot of local players who aren't up to League 1 standard, but that doesn't mean it's curtains for them so early in their life.

This might not be a popular opinion but since there's no relegation from League 1, I don't think it necessarily matters how good Cornwall are this year on the pitch. Obviously there comes a point where they're losing too much to build supporters etc, but I think a lot of potential fans will be patient in their first season at least, especially if they can demonstrate their policy of bringing through local talent. If I was in charge, then I would be definitely targeting a 3-5 year growth plan with the intention of making the team competitive (i.e. challenging for play-offs) within that time. Any results before that would be a bonus, but the main priority would be growing off the field and developing local players and systems to ensure they've got a good feed-through for years to come.

Apologies for being a massive nerd about it, but is there a ground plan for which bits go where? Really interested to see how it's all put together. Massive congratulations to the club, such a cool project and hopefully leads to increased success.

Cornwall were announced 2 days ago, the other three clubs have nearly 450 years of history between them. How much value for money has been gained by giving these clubs all the money they've had over the past x number of years (since Champ/League 1 funding started)? Some people are suggesting that Cornwall shouldn't be allowed in League 1 because these clubs, who have had around 150 years each to grow themselves into sustainable businesses, might have to pay extra travel money. Not saying they deserve a kicking just for existing, but should they be the main factor when deciding what direction the game goes? If they have no ambition to grow beyond being a decent semi-pro club in their communities, should we be trying to restrict the semi-pro level to what they can manage, or should there be an aspiration to have a truly national game? Unlike football or union, there's no clubs outside the heartlands that can just grow into semi pro teams and get promoted in the same way. All the clubs have to be new or nearly new because for about 100 years of Rugby League, there was very little interest in getting RL played nationally, with a few notable exceptions (London, Wales etc). And whether we like it or not, new clubs, by definition aren't going to have the same level of infrastructure as a club who's existed for 150 years and has been in receipt of central funding.

Couple of questions for people who are anti-Cornwall-in-league-1: 1. If your issue is travel for the other League 1 clubs, what league should they be in instead? 2. If your issue is that it doesn't seem well planned - what details (e.g. financial plan? business plan?) would you have to see that would convince you that it might work?

Didn't see the edit before I posted

In inverted commas because it's not boring, that's just the term that someone else used. The point is that it doesn't take crazy out-there solutions that make for good news stories, it just takes consistent effort applied regularly.