Jump to content

AWRL130

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral
  1. It's neccarsary to be open minded to both parties having self interests. Not just one. Expansion clubs maintaining a monopoly is one. Super League clubs avoiding a negative impact is another. This would be difficult to resolve if expansion remains a professional project and if expansion incorporates new clubs into already established league's. In the absence of a professional club, campaigning the local government for funding might help. I don't know how much was benefitted from the Canadian government (if anything) in relation to Toronto but without it expansion will be held back. The British government may fund the RFL in the UK but it would raise concerns with taxpayers if that money funded projects abroad. I'm not certain if it influenced the recent vote, but it if it were, it would be a legitimate reason for taking a hands off approach towards expansion.
  2. I don't disagree but I think my point may have been missed. If the original post is relating media with the recent Toronto vote, my issue with this is that it promotes Toronto (and perhaps other expansion clubs) as a solution to the lack of media coverage. For reasons I've given, when assessed, Toronto may not have been that solution. If we keep promoting Toronto unnecessarily as a solution to something, then it puts pressure on them to come up with results. If they don't, it makes it easy to argue against Toronto or expansion. There may well be issues that Toronto can resolve but it is neccarsary to back it up. The approach I prefer is to say you want expansion. It would be much easier to make a case for expansion through public opinion rather than having to prove expansion's impact on media.
  3. I agree, there is a hands off approach but I'm not yet sure if they are retreating from expansion or taking a different approach that would counter the issue you have highlighted. But reffering back again to the original post about CNN, which relates media with expansion, I think this is one area where attitudes towards expansion has changed because of the ways in which the media has changed. If another project was attempted in the future, media would be prioritised differently.
  4. There's been plenty more clubs than Toronto and London. Most of them have come and gone. But the fact they were in Super League suggests an openness to expansion. The vote against Toronto suggests they no longer are... Something is changing.
  5. Yes. I agree with that but the original post ties all this in with media coverage. I perhaps strayed off point in my second post. My original response was to question why rugby league was not covered (ignorance or choice?) and do we now need to rely on the same platforms for coverage. Media has changed since ie Catalans' introduction. Media City has seen more broadcasting brought to the north of England, Newspaper sales are falling, social media has developed etc... Where media may have once been cited as a reason to expand, there is less of a need for that to be a reason to expand today.
  6. The number of expansion clubs that have featured in Super League suggests the opposite of that description is true. The independence of Super League and Toronto's demise are recent developments. This suggests either that the vote against Toronto was dealt with independently or attitudes towards expansion are changing.
  7. Ten or more years ago media coverage was often discussed. It may even have been the primary influence of recent expansion attempts. However, I don't think this should reflect an ignorance towards rugby league. Not covering rugby league is not the same as not knowing about it; other reasons may explain the levels of coverage. The internet and streaming services has given us more options to broadcast today and increase coverage without having to wait or rely on media companies covering rugby league. It may be an indication as to why Super League's attitude towards expansion is changing.
  8. There is an amateur league in Canada isn't there? That suggests the foundations for future development is set already. It does not have to end with Toronto so long as the sport doesn't overreach and take the risk of leaping from amateur to pro in the hope of attracting big markets, development is still a potential. As for another point you make, I don't disagree with your point about high profile clubs helping with this but there did seem to be a reliance on Toronto to expand the game. The problem here is Toronto are not obliged to and may not want to expand. As the sole club they may not want to compete with other clubs in the area and may see this as beneficial to them, it is like a monopoly. It needs more direct involvement to ensure self interest doesn't limit further growth. Federations should be working with the Canadian government to fund grassroots rugby league. The hands off approach and outsourcing to Toronto Wolfpack by the RFL suggests this was not the way expansion into Canada was approached.
  9. Critics of expansion often suggest this but expansionists dismiss it. But it is a good idea to consider. Development should always start from the bottom, funding amateur teams first. Realistically they may only reach a semi pro level but what does that matter if it reflects regional player growth and a fan base? For some reason there is an urgency for teams to be at the top. This sacrafices a lot of things like player development and in Toronto Wolfpack's case, the existence of the club itself. To maintain this level of standard Toronto Wolfpack had to spend big sums of money because they had no player development structure in place. By spending at the top, your only hope is that enough money spills over and finds its way to the bottom. Until that happened there was no way Toronto could structure in a youth team and develop local players.
×
×
  • Create New...