NotToday Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Just now, Gerrumonside ref said: I’m obviously talking about a theoretical collegiate system that sits underneath the professional level rather than running alongside it. We get to keep our athletes in education longer and those that don’t make it are likely to come out with qualifications at the very least. Not to mention the potential spinoffs of high level high quality university and college sports attracted crowds and more media attention. Merchandising becomes a possibility then and other revenue streams that can be pumped back into the sporting programs. Would we really turn all that down if it were possible in the U.K.? This is a really bad argument. You're basically saying "let's handicap them, so they have no other option". In which case you can make people literally do anything. Take away a person's food, and you can make them dance naked for a loaf of bread too. Not to mention, the only reason even those NCAA football and basketball competitions are huge is because US audiences historical saw no other option for entertainment in those sports, and US media was heavily insular. American Football doesn't get played in other countries, so all they have is NFL and NCAA. Now that AAF and XFL are starting up, I'm not presuming they would make the NCAA irrelevant either, because they already developed a following and tradition. So people will keep watching. It's the same reason why they watch the NCAA over basketball leagues in other countries. They don't really follow the EuroLeague because of its lack of availability in the US and outside continental Europe. Soccer and rugby is different. If audiences are done watching Premiere League, they can watch Spanish League or French and German leagues. They don't need to stoop to watching collegiate sports when there's elite pros playing year-round. It almost seems silly to follow collegiate sports if it isn't your local team you have a connection to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerrumonside ref Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 21 minutes ago, NotToday said: This is a really bad argument. You're basically saying "let's handicap them, so they have no other option". In which case you can make people literally do anything. Take away a person's food, and you can make them dance naked for a loaf of bread too. Not to mention, the only reason even those NCAA football and basketball competitions are huge is because US audiences historical saw no other option for entertainment in those sports, and US media was heavily insular. American Football doesn't get played in other countries, so all they have is NFL and NCAA. Now that AAF and XFL are starting up, I'm not presuming they would make the NCAA irrelevant either, because they already developed a following and tradition. So people will keep watching. It's the same reason why they watch the NCAA over basketball leagues in other countries. They don't really follow the EuroLeague because of its lack of availability in the US and outside continental Europe. Soccer and rugby is different. If audiences are done watching Premiere League, they can watch Spanish League or French and German leagues. They don't need to stoop to watching collegiate sports when there's elite pros playing year-round. It almost seems silly to follow collegiate sports if it isn't your local team you have a connection to. I guess we just see the world very differently my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotToday Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 6 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said: I’m not sure I’m against that kind of interventionist economics to be honest. Once again, this is a bad argument devoid of reality. You keep trying to create a world of what-ifs where we can make up literally any scenario of our lives like that. Fiji would be a world superpower. Britain doesn't have the material conditions of the US, to be giving away free stadiums. 1. There's healthcare and other subsidies that government puts money into. US sports investment are about 'bread and circus' first and foremost to distract from other services or lack thereof. Sports in general tend to be a 'bread and circus' worldwide, but how much regimes spend on it varies. 2. US has 50 states each competing for attention. Hence, why the states spend money on subsidizing stadiums and corporations. They don't want to lose the corporation to another state. When Amazon said they're picking a second HQ, everyone fell in line trying to offer benefits. In the end it turned out to be a facade because they went with NY and Virginia (i.e., the financial capital and nation's capital; Virginia borders DC). But they managed to get subsidies from both those states, which they wouldn't have otherwise. So there's no "what if we did what they did" because the material conditions literally won't allow for it. And the only way you can even fantasize about it, is by fantasy alone where everything works according to your vision without any other variables coming into play. Like some early 20th-century communist dreaming of an ideal society before putting it into practice, and facing the realities. The American system as a whole cannot be employed anywhere else like it does: Collegiate, subsidies, lack of pro-rel. There are elements of it in other countries, that have to do with their own material conditions. Let's take Australia: 1. Only 25 million people. Countries with small populations can do without pro-rel. 2. Country is absolutely huge, but far less dense than the US. Lower-tier teams won't be able to travel for away games even if they wanted to; it'll be expensive. So pro-rel is practically impossible. A second-tier at most may work. They won't be financially feasible but pro-rel in the US could because they are a market of 320 million and have huge population centers. 3. Australia has states, and so does Canada, and there is some competition for attention. So there are stadiums being subsidized to an extent, but it is far less than what's going on in the US. In regards to point #3, Britain doing that just results in the status quo: England being the more dominant cultural and economic center compared to Wales and Scotland. You have that already. Governments other than the US couldn't even build as many stadiums to equal the amount of clubs in a league, nevermind multiples leagues/collegiate sports; How many stadiums can you build in a country of say 40 or 80 million? Definitely not 20. Maybe 10. You'd have like 30 major teams trying to share a single stadium (in your scenario where major/collegiate sports all play in stadiums like the US, and not local pitches like in the UK), presuming you have 4 major sports with approx. 18-20 teams each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotToday Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said: I guess we just see the world very differently my friend. You see a fantasy world where economics, population, density, and political dynamics doesn't apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gledhill Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 3 hours ago, Oliver Clothesoff said: Who’s rejected it and since when was it rejected? The RFL members (the clubs) saw the New York City bid as a perceived threat to their future existence. The voting and acceptance power fundamentally lies with the RFL members (the clubs) and not Ralph Rimmer, Karen Moorehouse, Emma Rosewarne etc... Survival of the fittest mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerrumonside ref Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 27 minutes ago, NotToday said: You see a fantasy world where economics, population, density, and political dynamics doesn't apply. That’s pretty rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Just now, Michael Gledhill said: The RFL members (the clubs) saw the New York City bid as a perceived threat to their future existence. The voting and acceptance power fundamentally lies with the RFL members (the clubs) and not Ralph Rimmer, Karen Moorehouse, Emma Rosewarne etc... That is a fundamental flaw then that needs to change. A club that can never and will never be able to get to Super League and plays in front of a few hundred fans should not be able to stop progress and the growth of the game in that way. Clubs should be careful what they wish for because the obvious solution to that would be a Super League 1 and 2 with new clubs, with the necessary backing and finance, going straight into Super League 2 and bypassing this veto completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotToday Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Just now, Gerrumonside ref said: That’s pretty rude. Did you read the post above? It was a very detailed difference between the US and other countries, and the dynamics at play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Chopra Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, Michael Gledhill said: The RFL members (the clubs) saw the New York City bid as a perceived threat to their future existence. The voting and acceptance power fundamentally lies with the RFL members (the clubs) and not Ralph Rimmer, Karen Moorehouse, Emma Rosewarne etc... Survival of the fittest mentality. Seems like the opposite of 'survival of the fittest' to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gledhill Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Just now, Damien said: That is a fundamental flaw then that needs to change. A club that can never and will never be able to get to Super League and plays in front of a few hundred fans should not be able to stop progress and the growth of the game in that way. Clubs should be careful what they wish for because the obvious solution to that would be a Super League 1 and 2 with new clubs, with the necessary backing and finance, going straight into Super League 2 and bypassing this veto completely. It's this level of ”self-vested interest” attitude that has the held the game back since 1895. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerrumonside ref Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, NotToday said: Did you read the post above? It was a very detailed difference between the US and other countries, and the dynamics at play. I’m working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Chopra Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 11 minutes ago, Damien said: That is a fundamental flaw then that needs to change. A club that can never and will never be able to get to Super League and plays in front of a few hundred fans should not be able to stop progress and the growth of the game in that way. Clubs should be careful what they wish for because the obvious solution to that would be a Super League 1 and 2 with new clubs, with the necessary backing and finance, going straight into Super League 2 and bypassing this veto completely. This would be the obvious endgame - a full breakaway - except... even the biggest Superleague clubs and Elstone himself seem rather cold about the overseas teams. I think they see them as more of a threat than a benefit too. They're happy with the status quo too, as long as they keep near the top of it. IF there was a market for 'Big City' rugby league - and I'm not persuaded there is - then someone's going to have to come in from the outside and blow the existing system out of the water with a *huge amount of cash, like Murdoch threatened to do to union in the early 90s before it professionalised. *(The 'huge amount of cash' needed to take over British Rugby league isn't actually that huge compared to other sports, but would still be a hell of a gamble.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gledhill Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said: This would be the obvious endgame - a full breakaway - except... even the biggest Superleague clubs and Elstone himself seem rather cold about the overseas teams. I think they see them as more of a threat than a benefit too. They're happy with the status quo too, as long as they keep near the top of it. IF there was a market for 'Big City' rugby league - and I'm not persuaded there is - then someone's going to have to come in from the outside and blow the existing system out of the water with a *huge amount of cash, like Murdoch threatened to do to union in the early 90s before it professionalised. *(The 'huge amount of cash' needed to take over British Rugby league isn't actually that huge compared to other sports, but would still be a hell of a gamble.) Do the Super League clubs who pay Elstone £46,000 per year want New York City accepted? I would suggest not. Ringfencing and licensing are potentially returning for 2021 and those clubs currently in the top division won't want to jeopardise any of the new broadcast money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Clothesoff Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Just now, Michael Gledhill said: Do the Super League clubs who pay Elstone £46,000 per year want New York City accepted? I would suggest not. Ringfencing and licensing are potentially returning for 2021 and those clubs currently in the top division won't want to jeopardise any of the new broadcast money. Why would you suggest that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gledhill Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said: Why would you suggest that? Which part are you querying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said: This would be the obvious endgame - a full breakaway - except... even the biggest Superleague clubs and Elstone himself seem rather cold about the overseas teams. I think they see them as more of a threat than a benefit too. They're happy with the status quo too, as long as they keep near the top of it. IF there was a market for 'Big City' rugby league - and I'm not persuaded there is - then someone's going to have to come in from the outside and blow the existing system out of the water with a *huge amount of cash, like Murdoch threatened to do to union in the early 90s before it professionalised. *(The 'huge amount of cash' needed to take over British Rugby league isn't actually that huge compared to other sports, but would still be a hell of a gamble.) I think a wise man could see that there is money to be made by using British Rugby League as part of a wider picture. 8 of the bigger UK clubs and new or existing clubs in France and North America opens up additional TV markets. It wouldn't take much of a TV deal initially to support 4 clubs in France and 4 clubs in North America but the upside could be huge for a fairly modest investment with TV rights being sold to 3 big markets. If private backers were found for clubs, like with Toronto and Catalans currently, obviously the costs would be less too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayakman Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 22 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said: This would be the obvious endgame - a full breakaway - except... even the biggest Superleague clubs and Elstone himself seem rather cold about the overseas teams. I think they see them as more of a threat than a benefit too. They're happy with the status quo too, as long as they keep near the top of it. IF there was a market for 'Big City' rugby league - and I'm not persuaded there is - then someone's going to have to come in from the outside and blow the existing system out of the water with a *huge amount of cash, like Murdoch threatened to do to union in the early 90s before it professionalised. *(The 'huge amount of cash' needed to take over British Rugby league isn't actually that huge compared to other sports, but would still be a hell of a gamble.) Cue David Argyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RP London Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 36 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said: Seems like the opposite of 'survival of the fittest' to me thats what i thought... survival of the fittest is about evolution not standing still.. its also about taking on the good and shedding the bad things.. hence we dont have a tail (pointless) but we have opposable thumbs (quite useful, though by the amount of times I have hit "backspace" mine dont seem to be working!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EF2000 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 On 2/10/2019 at 11:02 PM, Mr Plow said: Well the last thing that was made public was that the investors were concerned about how long it was taking for the RFL to make a decision, I think Major League Rugby approached them as well New York are playing in Major League Rugby as we speak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCKonstantine Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Why don't we just bang together a bunch of conferences like the NFL and then all (most) teams will be in the top league anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReaper Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 8 hours ago, NotToday said: I follow the NBA, there's definitely some garbage teams in there. One of them is the Knicks. Clippers and Pelicans suck too. These teams consistently do poor. The bottom 5 teams in any sports league is garbage. But you wouldn't know because there's nothing to take their place because there's no pro-rel. Toronto Raptors has 1 Canadian player out of 15 players. After all these years, and basketball being one of the most-watched sports in Canada, all they've got is 1 player? ROFLMAO!!!!! You are way off here. We're in a golden age of Canadian basketball. It has more popularity and participation than ever before. There are currently 14 Canadian players in the NBA, more than ever before (38 all time, including those 14). Canada is qualified for the world cup. A new Canadian summer league is starting in May. We've had a winter league for several years. Almost all of this is due to Canada getting two NBA teams in the 90's, boosting awareness and popularity of the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leaguefan13 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 If New York have been rejected then Rimmer and the RFL need sacking immediately. We may as well chuck Toronto out of the league too and let RU crack America. We can look forward to a future of Rochdale vs Hunslet in front of a few hundred fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelic Cynic Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 2 hours ago, Michael Gledhill said: The RFL members (the clubs) saw the New York City bid as a perceived threat to their future existence. The voting and acceptance power fundamentally lies with the RFL members (the clubs) and not Ralph Rimmer, Karen Moorehouse, Emma Rosewarne etc... Survival of the fittest mentality. Mick, Are you able to articulate exactly what the vision for the sport actually is,please? I read that Manchester Rangers are expected to input 500k to enter League 1 - as are overseas clubs to enter the Coral Challenge Cup. Andrew Chalmers reveals that the central funding,in The Championship now varies club to club. Manchester had been following guidance from the RFL on how to conform to the requirements. Once more it seems places outside of England have far more unity and determination to expand;with a common purpose - https://philcaplan.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/rugby-leagues-balkan-super-league-expands-to-include-first-italian-club/ I now see Championship clubs offering reduced entrance fees,right at the start of the season,a tactic used elsewhere and which didn't end well. Can you please establish the perfect scenario for the sport.moving forward,from Super League to the plebs,and ascertain if the players union have any influence? The most fragmented sport in existence continues to totally confuse greater minds than mine - as reported in the League Express. If no new clubs are going to be allowed,what happens to the rest? What must they do to help the sport continue? No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluded pom? Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 2 hours ago, Michael Gledhill said: Do the Super League clubs who pay Elstone £46,000 per year want New York City accepted? I'd be amazed if Elstone is on that low a salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 11 minutes ago, deluded pom? said: I'd be amazed if Elstone is on that low a salary. I assumed he meant 46k each? so whats that about 520k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.