Would the game be in a better or worse state if it had stuck with the original plan for SL?

[JM2010]

Since the inception of SL there have been several clubs that have struggled to survive or prosper. The liquidation of the Bradford Bulls, the demise of the Cumbrian clubs, Oldham Bears and Doncaster going bust, Sheffield's 'merger' with Huddersfield, Halifax entering administration, the scrapping of reserve grade etc.

This got me thinking if the original plan for SL would have been more successful than what we have now. I know there was a big outcry from supporters of lots of clubs about mergers but many of these clubs have struggled to survive and compete. Some clubs are now even starting to pool their resources by running joint academies.

Could the proposed system have worked if it had been used?

Would the game be pulling bigger crowds or have a bigger TV deal?

Would the competition have attracted bigger name sponsors and bigger sponsorship deals?

Could the club sides have been involved in a semi professional competition underneath this new system and been used for fringe players and youth development?

Would it have failed?

[westlondonfan]

What is the most noticeable thing for me is the difference in success enjoyed by Melbourne and NZ as against their northern hemisphere equivalents.

[JDINTHEHIZZOUSE]

I can't remember what the original format was jm and that's not due to my age,that's due to the constant changes and inconsistency that the rfl pump out at an alarming rate,most people um and ah on a daily basis.The rfl haemorrhage ums and ahs

[Dave T]

The big risk is that these clubs collapsed or just didnt kick on.

Paris was a failure, as was Gateshead and Crusaders SL. London isnt strong right now - I believe there is little to suggest that clubs in major cities would have done too well - see things like Ice Hockey's UK comp or the old American Football teams like London Monarchs.

That leaves the mergers then, and i just think its too much of a gamble to force them - the clubs that are closest geographically are often the fiercest rivals.

Many clubs have grown bigger than pre-SL - Cheshire would have been made up of Wire and Widnes - would they have been stronger together? Dunno, but they currently get 15k between them, not sure Cheshire would have gone to that level on their own.

Over the years we have tried many of the things we wanted in the original blueprint, we have had big city teams, most flunked.

[EastLondonMike]

Who knows. One thing that would have been highly likely is that the people running the clubs still would have been the same, so the outcome would also have probably been the same.

[The 4 of Us]

My feelings having previously leaned towards an NRL type model (where 2nd tier clubs aspire to do well in the competition they're in without the need/desire to get to the top) is that we need to have some promotion/relegation to provide that pyramid simply because the sport is so small and so underfunded in comparison. Also, there just isn't the tradition/acceptance of ringfenced competition in the UK as there is in the countries we look to for comparison, namely the US and Aus.

What I would say is that we need to ensure that getting to the top of your division shouldn't be enough. There need to be stringent minimum stadium standards in your own stadium (no London Welsh to Oxford scenarios) and even more stringent financial tests including a live salary cap to make sure your spending what you can afford in the division your in and to stop an owner throwing in money the business turnover can't sustain, or is reliant on an owner throwing in, who then puts a business into admin because it all falls short and they're owed money. 

But that applies to teams already in Superleague who should be relegated for repeat underperformance.

 

[roughyedspud]

id rather watch oldham in the north west counties league than "manchester"

[The Parksider]

17 hours ago, JM2010 said:

Got me thinking if the original plan for SL would have been more successful than what we have now. I know there was a big outcry from supporters of lots of clubs about mergers but many of these clubs have struggled to survive and compete. Some clubs are now even starting to pool their resources by running joint academies.

I don't think there was a formal plan based on merger as such.

Lyndsay organised a 12 club professional league in which "Superleague Europe" would consist of 12 clubs each taking a slice of the TV money to allow them to professionalise. Clubs who didn't exist were invited to join through press releases like Rome, mergers were suggested like Calder and traditional stand alone clubs were suggested like Halifax (yes Halifax). But it was up to those who ran existing clubs or those who wanted to set up a Superleague club to actually make applications and from there the RFL/SL would pick the 12.

The hope was that with a TV contract subsidy and greater status and exposure more investors would get on board whether some rich guys in Paris or Rome with new clubs, whether the three boards of Wakey/Cas and Fev joining up, or wether new investors coming in to existing clubs excited by this new horizon.

Any plan therefore was fundamentally about greater private investment and based entirely on "Rugby league is going professional with a TV contract - come on board" That didn't work as well as Lyndsay had hoped probably because the clubs who were always going to do well already were owned by directors happy to join up as they were. For the rest it was a matter of a big risk whether a new club or a merger. Fans scuppered the merger part by making it plain investors would get a tough ride, and new clubs failed because their investors weren't even rich enough to bankroll an SL club.

So the plan was get a lot more investment and the result was it didn't work. Now we see SKY's investment only being enough to stop clubs falling apart, and private investment being limited by SL clubs agreeing to keep salary caps low.

I don't think mergers really was the plan, just a suggestion to get more investment into merged clubs and leave room for investment at new clubs from outside the M62

 

[The Parksider]

17 hours ago, westlondonfan said:

What is the most noticeable thing for me is the difference in success enjoyed by Melbourne 

The level of $$$$$investment that went on there was massive. I can't recall just how much, but it was set out in a thread on here a couple of years back...............

[The Parksider]

4 hours ago, The 4 of Us said:

What I would say is that we need to ensure that getting to the top of your division shouldn't be enough. There need to be stringent minimum stadium standards in your own stadium and even more stringent financial tests including a live salary cap to make sure your spending what you can afford in the division your in and to stop an owner throwing in money the business turnover can't sustain, or is reliant on an owner throwing in, who then puts a business into admin because it all falls short and they're owed money. 

But that applies to teams already in Superleague who should be relegated for repeat underperformance.

You just can't threaten badly underperforming SL clubs with relegation when the replacements would be even worse.

Dump Cas and Wakey out for their terrible stadia (they WERE threatened with this twice) Dump Wakey and Widnes out for failing to spend full cap (Stevo suggested this was a crime to take an SL place and fail to fully fund a team) Dump Salford out for cheating and no fans. Dump Salford and Huddersfield because Koukash and Davey are putting massive subsidies in?

Who would be your replacements? part time Batley? Dual Reg Fev, failed London, skint sheffield or skint Halifax?

The only way to get to your plan to work appears to be to drop the salary cap to say £1,000,000 so more clubs could survive in SL and you could then choose the more responsible ones for Superleague. But a low cap would destroy the game.

 

 

 

 

[JM2010]

I think if any such system was to work clubs would have to be based on a Catalan Dragons type model where the local clubs still exist as semi professional outfits below the regional team. It wouldn't be mergers but new franchises based on a region

[Hopping Mad]

17 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

I think if any such system was to work clubs would have to be based on a Catalan Dragons type model where the local clubs still exist as semi professional outfits below the regional team. It wouldn't be mergers but new franchises based on a region

This is pretty much what happened in Irish, Scottish and Welsh RU. Crowds at many of the 'local clubs' are now tiny.

[The 4 of Us]

5 hours ago, The Parksider said:

You just can't threaten badly underperforming SL clubs with relegation when the replacements would be even worse.

Dump Cas and Wakey out for their terrible stadia (they WERE threatened with this twice) Dump Wakey and Widnes out for failing to spend full cap (Stevo suggested this was a crime to take an SL place and fail to fully fund a team) Dump Salford out for cheating and no fans. Dump Salford and Huddersfield because Koukash and Davey are putting massive subsidies in?

Who would be your replacements? part time Batley? Dual Reg Fev, failed London, skint sheffield or skint Halifax?

The only way to get to your plan to work appears to be to drop the salary cap to say £1,000,000 so more clubs could survive in SL and you could then choose the more responsible ones for Superleague. But a low cap would destroy the game.

 

 

 

 

Not immediately no but I think the starting premise should be that you have 2 years starting now to sort your house out and we'll take the 12 best business/stadium plans after then regardless if they're in the top 12 or not.

If that means teams need drop so be it. 

The RFL needs to manage the expectation of the club's they can do nothing to improve their situation and get away with it. That means an independent RFL and change of leadership.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

With the collapse of Bradford who wwre the club that more than abny other bought into the Super League dream under Peter Deakin transforming itself from dour Bradford Northern to Bullmania as The Bradford Bulls. The time is now right to have a debate within the game as Rugby Union is having - i.e. just how many professional clubs can the game sustain with an added twist in league as to where these clubs should be.

Rugby Leagues great strength and achilles heel lies in the local club "my small town" syndrome The games greatest chalenge is for he or she taking the reins at the RFL not only to be able to articulate the case for a professional league is that has a geographical spread - perhaps even a transatlantic spread-  but also to withstand beng the most most unpopular figure in certain areas of the "hearrtlands".

Sorry but its geography and cash that will save the game, it's no good furious banging of keyboards that my small town club has "earned its place" "proved it;'s worth", history, heritage etc and would be just as big as Leigh, Huddersfield and Salford in Super League. Those clubs have cashed up backers. Yours does not. As things stand from a business viewpoiont only Leeds, Wigan, St Helens, Warrington, and Hul FC are viable business propositions of which only Leeds breaks even *

This season in both Super League and the Championship a gap will emerge betyween the rich and poor, those spending the cap and those not, those full time and those part-time. Given that the trajectory of the game seems to be an ever decreasing spiral. It's now time to take back control of the games future by having this debate about who and where with the focus on long term planning to increase playing numbers, the spectator base, sponsorship and media viewership with the aim of future proofing the game so that there is a professional game to post about in 20 ears time. Was this not the original aim of Super League ?

* Not commenting on the French scene as I do not know enough about their finances so could go either way,

[Padge]

Basically the TV money on offer was wasted because it was used in a war between SL Austraia, SL Europe and the NRL for players, the players did well out of it but the money that should have been available to modernise the whole game over here was lost and we finished in the same mess but with a bigger wage bill.

[Tommygilf]

13 hours ago, Hopping Mad said:

This is pretty much what happened in Irish, Scottish and Welsh RU. Crowds at many of the 'local clubs' are now tiny.

But it did save the game overall in those countries. And they now have fans who have only ever known the Ospreys or Scarlets, rather than Neath, Swansea or Llanelli. 

Even taking into account Union bias and all that, these clubs show how the smaller nations with smaller resources took on the issue of long term club and national competitiveness with England and France and sacrificed for a wider gain. It wasn't perfect at the start but after those problems were dealt with a strong competition emerged and Wales Ireland and Scotland remain  (largely) competitive internationally, as per the original plan. It is sad that the now second tier clubs have declined, but the rise in the other clubs is astronomical.

The problem with SL was that ostensibly international performance was not at the heart of it; it was all about clubs.

[iffleyox]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

But it did save the game overall in those countries. And they now have fans who have only ever known the Ospreys or Scarlets, rather than Neath, Swansea or Llanelli. 

Even taking into account Union bias and all that, these clubs show how the smaller nations with smaller resources took on the issue of long term club and national competitiveness with England and France and sacrificed for a wider gain. It wasn't perfect at the start but after those problems were dealt with a strong competition emerged and Wales Ireland and Scotland remain  (largely) competitive internationally, as per the original plan. It is sad that the now second tier clubs have declined, but the rise in the other clubs is astronomical.

The problem with SL was that ostensibly international performance was not at the heart of it; it was all about clubs.

I agree with your last sentence; other than that.... I'm not sure you'd find many people who would agree that regional franchises have "saved" RU in Wales and Scotland. Scotland's ended up with 2 clubs, neither of which are in its RU heartlands. They get decent gates, but from memory overall spectators and participation in RU up there are through the floor. Scotland were the last to go professional/honest - and then it was mainly driven by an aspiration not to lose all their players to clubs paying more in England. As it is, with only 2 clubs, they could arguably not have bothered and just called players back from "abroad" for internationals - it's basically what they do with many of them now anyway.

Regionalisation in Wales has been a disaster. Scarlets has worked because, alone among the franchises, it basically is Llanelli anyway. Ospreys still struggle with gates because of the number of people in Neath and Swansea who won't follow them (and the youth may well not remember the time before the Ospreys but they've been hoovered up by the meteoric rise of Swansea City anyway. Dragons are from the playing heartlands, and have small gates because everyone is either still playing, or spectating in penny packets across the large number of Principality Premiership clubs. Wales in particular is used by English RU fans as a reason *not* to go down that route.

Ireland did work, after a fashion, but some of that was down to the fact that they were doing expansion anyway, so grafting in an "all in Ireland must be near top flight RU approach." If the RFL was going to (quietly) take lessons from RU, then look at Ireland and for god's sake don't pray Wales/Scotland in aid.

Incidentally, before we all beat ourselves up too much, it might be instructive to note that there is a groundswell of opinion in RU looking over the fence and quite liking the 8s as a concept, and way to hold something out to championship clubs who can't aspire to actually get promoted to the Aviva. The grass appears to be greener on both sides of the fence depending on which side you're looking from.

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

I agree with your last sentence; other than that.... I'm not sure you'd find many people who would agree that regional franchises have "saved" RU in Wales and Scotland. Scotland's ended up with 2 clubs, neither of which are in its RU heartlands. They get decent gates, but from memory overall spectators and participation in RU up there are through the floor. Scotland were the last to go professional/honest - and then it was mainly driven by an aspiration not to lose all their players to clubs paying more in England. As it is, with only 2 clubs, they could arguably not have bothered and just called players back from "abroad" for internationals - it's basically what they do with many of them now anyway.

Regionalisation in Wales has been a disaster. Scarlets has worked because, alone among the franchises, it basically is Llanelli anyway. Ospreys still struggle with gates because of the number of people in Neath and Swansea who won't follow them (and the youth may well not remember the time before the Ospreys but they've been hoovered up by the meteoric rise of Swansea City anyway. Dragons are from the playing heartlands, and have small gates because everyone is either still playing, or spectating in penny packets across the large number of Principality Premiership clubs. Wales in particular is used by English RU fans as a reason *not* to go down that route.

Ireland did work, after a fashion, but some of that was down to the fact that they were doing expansion anyway, so grafting in an "all in Ireland must be near top flight RU approach." If the RFL was going to (quietly) take lessons from RU, then look at Ireland and for god's sake don't pray Wales/Scotland in aid.

Incidentally, before we all beat ourselves up too much, it might be instructive to note that there is a groundswell of opinion in RU looking over the fence and quite liking the 8s as a concept, and way to hold something out to championship clubs who can't aspire to actually get promoted to the Aviva. The grass appears to be greener on both sides of the fence depending on which side you're looking from.

At the risk of sounding like Parksider, the failings you point out are missing the point. The decline in playing numbers had started long before regionalisation. Regionalisation was the radical revolutionary change intending to pool resources so that in 30 years time their game would be stronger (hopefully). Something had to be done.

The point is not that it is perfect, but that it is better than nothing. Something which sounds very similar to the talk RL in the run up to SL. Scotland may only have two pro teams (that between them are reportedly are spend nearly 3/4 of the entire 12 team SL salary cap), but at least they don't have no pro teams and an even worse international team. 

Financially and competitively, the decision was made that the previous system of Welsh League, Scottish League and Irish League were not going to be able to sustain an international team capable of keeping up with England (let alone the southern hemisphere teams). Yes the change was revolutionary in places that didn't want it, yes it didn't work straight away, but now most of the teams are able to compete with anyone else in Europe.

It happened in Australia and New Zealand too; though it was far more successful in the latter.

Also, I too have heard such rumours of t'other code looking over and thinking the grass is greener (at least in ideas). World Club Challenges, Franchised Premierships, even faster Rucks its all rumoured.

 

[Dave T]

21 hours ago, The Parksider said:

I don't think there was a formal plan based on merger as such.

Lyndsay organised a 12 club professional league in which "Superleague Europe" would consist of 12 clubs each taking a slice of the TV money to allow them to professionalise. Clubs who didn't exist were invited to join through press releases like Rome, mergers were suggested like Calder and traditional stand alone clubs were suggested like Halifax (yes Halifax). But it was up to those who ran existing clubs or those who wanted to set up a Superleague club to actually make applications and from there the RFL/SL would pick the 12.

 

I don't think mergers really was the plan, just a suggestion to get more investment into merged clubs and leave room for investment at new clubs from outside the M62

 

that's just not true.

This article from April 8th details the proposal:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/the-revolution-starts-here-1614896.html

• 14 club SL starting in March 1996
• Proposed line-up of:

1. Wigan
2. St Helens
3. Leeds
4. Calder (merged Cas, Wakefield and Fev)
5. London
6. Cumbria (4 merged clubs)
7. Toulouse
8. Paris
9. Manchester (Salford and Oldham)
10. Cheshire (Warrington and Widnes)
11. Humberside (Hull FC and KR)
12. South Yorkshire (Sheffield and Doncaster)
13. Halifax (maybe merge with Hudds or Bradford)
14. Bradford

So mergers very much were part of the plan. 

As part of the original plan, Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, London and Paris made the start line in their proposed form. You could probably suggest that 3 of those clubs are at least as strong 20 years later (Wigan, Saints and Leeds), we all know about Bradford's plight, but Halifax and Paris were flops and London are not where we want them to be.

Out of the proposed new clubs:

Calder, 2 of the clubs are now in SL, with average crowds in poor grounds - probably not what we would class as 'Super' clubs, although Cas are performing well in relation to some competitors.

Manchester - Oldham were in there and flunked.

Cheshire - Warrington are now much stronger than they were in 1995, so should be classed as a success - whether they are stronger than a merged team - I'd suggest yes.

Humberside - Hull FC are strong and between them and KR they have been delivering 17-18k fans regularly. Would they have become a real force together - who knows?

South Yorkshire - Sheffield were in and it's never taken off. Doncaster struggle.

So my view is that the original plan wasn't that good tbh - it as too much of a mish-mash rather than a proper clear strategy.

The unknown is around the likes of creating a Manchester club, or a Cumbria SL team - but ultimately this was still a league that would face the criticism of being an M62 comp in the main (10 of the 14 clubs being in that region).

We have tried placing new clubs in South and North Wales, Gateshead and Paris - and they just didn't work - I have seen literally nothing to suggest mergers work.

I also think it is wrong to suggest that it was a wasted opportunity. The initial proposal wasn't that radical.

[Trojan]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

that's just not true.

This article from April 8th details the proposal:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/the-revolution-starts-here-1614896.html

• 14 club SL starting in March 1996
• Proposed line-up of:

1. Wigan
2. St Helens
3. Leeds
4. Calder (merged Cas, Wakefield and Fev)
5. London
6. Cumbria (4 merged clubs)
7. Toulouse
8. Paris
9. Manchester (Salford and Oldham)
10. Cheshire (Warrington and Widnes)
11. Humberside (Hull FC and KR)
12. South Yorkshire (Sheffield and Doncaster)
13. Halifax (maybe merge with Hudds or Bradford)
14. Bradford

So mergers very much were part of the plan. 

As part of the original plan, Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, London and Paris made the start line in their proposed form. You could probably suggest that 3 of those clubs are at least as strong 20 years later (Wigan, Saints and Leeds), we all know about Bradford's plight, but Halifax and Paris were flops and London are not where we want them to be.

Out of the proposed new clubs:

Calder, 2 of the clubs are now in SL, with average crowds in poor grounds - probably not what we would class as 'Super' clubs, although Cas are performing well in relation to some competitors.

Manchester - Oldham were in there and flunked.

Cheshire - Warrington are now much stronger than they were in 1995, so should be classed as a success - whether they are stronger than a merged team - I'd suggest yes.

Humberside - Hull FC are strong and between them and KR they have been delivering 17-18k fans regularly. Would they have become a real force together - who knows?

South Yorkshire - Sheffield were in and it's never taken off. Doncaster struggle.

So my view is that the original plan wasn't that good tbh - it as too much of a mish-mash rather than a proper clear strategy.

The unknown is around the likes of creating a Manchester club, or a Cumbria SL team - but ultimately this was still a league that would face the criticism of being an M62 comp in the main (10 of the 14 clubs being in that region).

We have tried placing new clubs in South and North Wales, Gateshead and Paris - and they just didn't work - I have seen literally nothing to suggest mergers work.

I also think it is wrong to suggest that it was a wasted opportunity. The initial proposal wasn't that radical.

It wasn't too radical.  It was too rushed.  If clubs and fans had been given time to think about the offers then perhaps they'd have made more sense.  Instead it was this offer is limited muck or nettles.  I'm sure there would have been more time, after all the SL war in Oz lasted two years.   And I'm also pretty sure that those in the know knew this was coming long before they revealed it to you and me, the hoi polio (the dross?)  I think the fact that the RFU were finally taking opening pro Union seriously is an indicator that they too knew something was in the wind in RL.  

Perhaps we should look around for another broadcaster, C4 have lost the racing, perhaps they'd be up for RL.

[The Parksider]

6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

1. At the risk of sounding like Parksider,

2. Regionalisation was the radical revolutionary change intending to pool resources so that in 30 years time their game would be stronger

1. It's both childish and against the board rules to goad people. Cut it out. 

2. The original suggested plan was for a 14 club Superleague playing an inter continental competition - This was the radical revolutionary change - regionalisation of Engish clubs was a smaller part of the original plan which lasted a mere 22 days as per Tony Hannons article in A Rugby Revolution, 

The actual plan was temporarily diluted to 14 clubs playing out a "European" Super League with regionalisation still on the table and this came home to roost with Sheffield-Huddersfield and that famous East Coast club Gateshead-Hull some years later.

However the original plan for an inter-continental competition re-appeared in 1997 as the "World club Championship".hailed as the very core of the global concept for RL. All the SL clubs were involved against the Australians who included Auckland, Cronulla, Brisbane, Cantebury, Penrith, Canberra Hunter mariners, North Queensland, Perth, Adelaide.

The "Global concept" plan fell at the first hurdle, and we should not make the mistake of thinking the major plan for the game was mergers, it wasn't. It was far more than that, and when they got there and played out a World Championship it failed, 

20 years is a long time ago and the OP may not know that the plan was for, and that we actually had, an intercontinental competition.  I even correct myself here, I forgot about it!

I think the impression we get that it was all about English club mergers was because that was a massive bone of contention the English press seized on and wound the fans up over. So much so we are still debating it 20 years later yet forget the real plan.

 

 

[The Parksider]

19 hours ago, The 4 of Us said:

 I think the starting premise should be that you have 2 years starting now to sort your house out and we'll take the 12 best business/stadium plans after then regardless if they're in the top 12 or not.

If that means teams need drop so be it. 

With respect you avoid the point. You can't give the clubs a warning to "sort your house out" or they may be ejected from SL in two years. What do you mean by "sort your house out" if it means develop better players, find more fans and get more investment how can any club guarantee to do that?? Or do you simply think they are not trying??

IIRC Wakey and Cas were warned to "sort their houses out" or they would be out, but when it came to it there was nobody capable of replacing them. Only Halifax put their hands up and their business plan was judged to be "inadequate and speculative". In the time since then London have left their house and Bradford are liquidated.

Again with respect you can't gee up competition amongst the clubs to vie for SL places when there was only 4 SL clubs up to standard at the 2011 asessment?? This time Saints & Catalans are likely to be "A" grade but that's it. 

 

 

 

 

[The Parksider]

19 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

The time is now right to have a debate within the game as Rugby Union is having - i.e. just how many professional clubs can the game sustain with an added twist in league as to where these clubs should be.

I enjoyed your post as always, as for "how many professional clubs" that was debated when the SL clubs were reportedly in £68,000,000 debt. Neil Hudgell reported on the debate and the clubs decided on 12 professional clubs.They nearly went for 10 clubs though. As for where, Catalans success and the advent of Toulouse may be a clue, the idea of an anglo-french league has been around a bit and still looks a good option. If that is the case then I can't see a 10 club league with only eight English clubs in it, so I'm not sure there's much to debate. 

[zorquif]

2 hours ago, The Parksider said:

1. It's both childish and against the board rules to goad people. Cut it out. 

2. The original suggested plan was for a 14 club Superleague playing an inter continental competition - This was the radical revolutionary change - regionalisation of Engish clubs was a smaller part of the original plan which lasted a mere 22 days as per Tony Hannons article in A Rugby Revolution, 

The actual plan was temporarily diluted to 14 clubs playing out a "European" Super League with regionalisation still on the table and this came home to roost with Sheffield-Huddersfield and that famous East Coast club Gateshead-Hull some years later.

However the original plan for an inter-continental competition re-appeared in 1997 as the "World club Championship".hailed as the very core of the global concept for RL. All the SL clubs were involved against the Australians who included Auckland, Cronulla, Brisbane, Cantebury, Penrith, Canberra Hunter mariners, North Queensland, Perth, Adelaide.

The "Global concept" plan fell at the first hurdle, and we should not make the mistake of thinking the major plan for the game was mergers, it wasn't. It was far more than that, and when they got there and played out a World Championship it failed, 

20 years is a long time ago and the OP may not know that the plan was for, and that we actually had, an intercontinental competition.  I even correct myself here, I forgot about it!

I think the impression we get that it was all about English club mergers was because that was a massive bone of contention the English press seized on and wound the fans up over. So much so we are still debating it 20 years later yet forget the real plan.

 

 

Surely it was intra-continental?

[shaun mc]

Uncle Mo patently saw London, New York, Paris, Munich in his eyes as the SL of the future, and the first proposed mergers was only the start of it. Why not Saints/Wigan if Widnes/Warrington was ok?

Everyone was bullish when we had 18k at the first game in Paris

Mo hated the small clubs - Keighley, Workington, Oldham, Cas - as they were holding back the sport, and went to great lengths so extradite clubs from RL altogether. They hung on, just, in stark, brutal comparison to what is currently going on with Bradford

As Padge noted earlier, far, far, too much money was paid out linked to the SL/ARL war down under that could have been much better spent elsewhere. A gun was held against clubs heads and the outcome has never been ideal in RL when that happens.