Clubs vote in favour of New York and Ottawa

[Oxford]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

They could have perfectly legitimate reasons, they could be jealous tinpot organisations, they could be absolutely anything yet we just don't know.

Yeah but:

Leneghan and "It's a fair cop gov!" in the same sentence?

Eamonn McManus  saying "I know we're shooting ourselves in the foot yet again but I need to protect Saint's interests before those of the game as a whole!"

In other words transparency is not always what it's cracked up to be.

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

It's actually quite heartening that only 4 clubs voted against the admission of Ottawa and/or New York. I feared many more clubs would be short sighted and vote against them.

The reasons why Leigh and Widnes did are quite obvious as more well funded and well backed clubs probably kills off any chance of them getting back into Super League.

Not just getting back into SL , but also less chance of them even getting any sort of reasonable attendances at their ' built for SL ' stadiums , an influx of NA and French clubs into SL increases the likelihood of a return to licencing , which if implemented would most likely result in a severe drop off in interest to the ambitious clubs left out as it did last time , that saw Leigh's attendances drop by 50% in 4 years leaving the LSV with almost just 10% of capacity being used 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Not just getting back into SL , but also less chance of them even getting any sort of reasonable attendances at their ' built for SL ' stadiums , an influx of NA and French clubs into SL increases the likelihood of a return to licencing , which if implemented would most likely result in a severe drop off in interest to the ambitious clubs left out as it did last time , that saw Leigh's attendances drop by 50% in 4 years leaving the LSV with almost just 10% of capacity being used 

Equally in the short term having big north American clubs (and presumably big relegated SL clubs) in the second and third divisions increases the chance of that promotion pathway staying open. I have far more faith in the NA clubs keeping that a possibility than the current leaders of SL.

[Kayakman]

Plus the league will then need to expand to include more teams; no one will be left out.  There is room for all.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Equally in the short term having big north American clubs (and presumably big relegated SL clubs) in the second and third divisions increases the chance of that promotion pathway staying open. I have far more faith in the NA clubs keeping that a possibility than the current leaders of SL.

What sort of reaction do you think we would see to a NA club being relegated ?

[GUBRATS]

Just now, Kayakman said:

Plus the league will then need to expand to include more teams; no one will be left out.  There is room for all.

Not according to the people making the decisions 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

What sort of reaction do you think we would see to a NA club being relegated ?

Judging by what they've said they're happy to play by that system as that is the system they have joined? Let one get promoted to the top flight first.

I do think a big aspect of these NA clubs playing in the UK is that they can take part in European style sporting competitions which of course includes promotion and relegation, especially from the fans perspective. Perhaps we have football to thank for that.

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

What sort of reaction do you think we would see to a NA club being relegated ?

It probably depends on the TV money that North American teams contribute at that time.

[Smudger06]

There's been no split of SL & the RFL.......people seem to think that the Wigan, Warrington, St Helens, Hull FC group of Clubs derive their power from their SLE Ltd membership when that's not the case, they get it from being an influential & cohesive inner group within the RFL membership.....the other group, often at loggerheads with them being Leeds Rhinos backed by it's group of West Yorkshire Clubs of Featherstone, Batley, Dewsbury, Halifax, Keighley & Hunslet....

HKR, Castleford & Wakefield try to remain as neutral and independent as possible to maintain the status quo but HKR sides with Hull FC more often than not whilst cas & wakey have sided with the West Yorkshire faction on occasion. 

SL Clubs exercised their right which was already in the articles of SLE Ltd to put their ppl on the board, rather than having RFL & Independent directors....RFL and the two factions within it, mentioned above still holds the cards due to its special rights share of SLE.....

[Kayakman]

39 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Not according to the people making the decisions 

I'm sure their current thinking is pliable...$$$$$$.

Or do you deny it?

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Its less a worry about what the club do when they are relegated but what TV companies and sponsors do. Virgin Atlantic and Air Transat might be willing to get in on the ground floor of a growing club with the expectation of hitting SL and seeing their product advertised to 3-500k people per week. Are the going to carry on doing the same when they lose that with no guarantee of getting back? How interested are TV companies going to be in going from SL back down to the championship? How interested are they going to be in putting in place the long term commitment to build a sport when they don't know what representation they would have? 

We are relying on luck at the moment. People talk about the boost we would get from Toulouse going up and creating a French derby but forget about the risk that Les Catalans go down and the BeIn tv deal goes. 

We currently have clubs in 2 countries with 2 tv deals, We are a year away from possibly having 3 clubs in 3 countries with 3 tv deals. and possibly 4 years away from having 4 clubs in 4 countries with 4 tv deals.

We are also possibly a year away from having clubs in 1 part of 1 country with 1 tv deal. 

I concur , we are also possibly less than a year from having the rules changed to protect our biggest club from losing its TV coverage , so is your answer to these possibilities the same as mine , that if we see these new clubs getting SL status , then a return to some form of licencing is inevitable ?

[Oxford]

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/editors-column-new-york-and-ottawa-should-go-straight-in-to-super-league/

 

"So why waste time putting New York and Ottawa in League One?

The main justification for this experiment is that it opens rugby league up to new markets and potentially lucrative sponsorship and broadcast deals.

A press mention in the New York Times teased at the sort of coverage the sport can only dream of."

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

That article is just terrible Every suggestion is about going backwards. Even the suggestion that does expand the game is through gritted teeth and done in a way that keeps what doesn't work here.

It also manages to include two of the most idiotic arguments made when it comes to expansion. 1) that expansion and more teams in SL are the same thing and 2) that our aim should be to put in place an international league, see it become wildly successful then ditch it and go back to a system that admittedly doesn't work. Whether you are for or against expansion or whatever your thoughts on how we do it these two arguments are just moronic.

The game is struggling now, why would we try and find something that works so that we can go back to the thing that doesn't? 

When people talk about keeping alive RL traditions in this way it seems what they want is to keep alive the tradition of the game struggling and underachieving.

Indeed, that text illustrates why having the likes of Toronto and New York in the same league as the traditional clubs is such a mix of oil and water.  The place for them is a brand new franchised transatlantic league which starts with a clean slate so it can demolish the stereotypes about the game.

[Oxford]

On 11/04/2019 at 22:55, SL17 said:

Due dilligence is first required

I think everyone who's interested in the idea has said exactly that.

Those who aren't haven't.

We're a very consistent buch.

[Jayme2020]

If Ottawa is rejected I could see one of two things

1)TWP will buy the baseball stadium in Ottawa and partner with the city to put a roof over it which would allow the Pack to play there home games there until May.

2)Perez and company could look at another league but I don't think it would be MLR.

 

[Angelic Cynic]

5 hours ago, Oxford said:

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/editors-column-new-york-and-ottawa-should-go-straight-in-to-super-league/

 

"So why waste time putting New York and Ottawa in League One?

The main justification for this experiment is that it opens rugby league up to new markets and potentially lucrative sponsorship and broadcast deals.

A press mention in the New York Times teased at the sort of coverage the sport can only dream of."

          Seems that the rugby league journalists don't communicate with each other,read each others work  writing,or read current information that is available.

   Ottawa,via Mr Perez,have stated they wish to develop Canadian players.They will not be emulating Toronto..

   https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/04/11/the-future-of-rugby-league-in-canada/

 

 

 

 

 

[bbfaz]

2 hours ago, Jayme2020 said:

If Ottawa is rejected I could see one of two things

1)TWP will buy the baseball stadium in Ottawa and partner with the city to put a roof over it which would allow the Pack to play there home games there until May.

That's a hell of a shout actually.  Ottawa lost their AAA team over a decade ago, they've had a patchy Can-Am League team over the past few years.

9 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Not according to the people making the decisions 

Gubby, he doesn't get it, he never gets it.

When they expanded Super League to 14, all anybody seemed to complain about was the overall quality of play dropping.  Too many guys who aren't of the standard being brought in to fill the gaps, dragging down the lesser teams in the league.  The only way make sure the standard doesn't drop if we go back to 14 is to expand the development base of players.  We need more juniors playing, which is difficult when money is still tight in much of the UK, facilities are still disappearing (both in and outside RL hotbeds) and when grant money has dried up.

This is where any cashed-up Transatlantic side should be honking their horn.  From what I've seen, the absolute latest you can start in Rugby League and make it to the pros is 15/16 (i.e. McCarthy-Scarsbrook).  Create your own development system from the first moment and have plans so it can get going immediately.  Create minis programs, create u14s and u16s and then fill in the gaps in year 2 onwards.  When the RFL was cashed up with Sport England money, they were forming clubs left and right.  If an expanded league is going to be a viable product, it can't just be players from the same places we already get them from.  I'm not placing demands on them, I just think it would be sensible from their perspective.

EDIT: I'm aware of what Perez has said but he's said that stuff before.  Toronto are years behind on this and NY have said nothing.

[Jayme2020]

bbfaz   

I really think if TWP went to Ottawa and made them a good offer for the stadium buy it out right or a long term lease say 20 years there is no way the city says no.

I

[londonrlfan]

1 hour ago, bbfaz said:

That's a hell of a shout actually.  Ottawa lost their AAA team over a decade ago, they've had a patchy Can-Am League team over the past few years.

Gubby, he doesn't get it, he never gets it.

When they expanded Super League to 14, all anybody seemed to complain about was the overall quality of play dropping.  Too many guys who aren't of the standard being brought in to fill the gaps, dragging down the lesser teams in the league.  The only way make sure the standard doesn't drop if we go back to 14 is to expand the development base of players.  We need more juniors playing, which is difficult when money is still tight in much of the UK, facilities are still disappearing (both in and outside RL hotbeds) and when grant money has dried up.

This is where any cashed-up Transatlantic side should be honking their horn.  From what I've seen, the absolute latest you can start in Rugby League and make it to the pros is 15/16 (i.e. McCarthy-Scarsbrook).  Create your own development system from the first moment and have plans so it can get going immediately.  Create minis programs, create u14s and u16s and then fill in the gaps in year 2 onwards.  When the RFL was cashed up with Sport England money, they were forming clubs left and right.  If an expanded league is going to be a viable product, it can't just be players from the same places we already get them from.  I'm not placing demands on them, I just think it would be sensible from their perspective.

EDIT: I'm aware of what Perez has said but he's said that stuff before.  Toronto are years behind on this and NY have said nothing.

They could do worse than put some money in a London development league. There's a huge area here that's being neglected and has history of producing top players, but we need funding to go even deeper. It would affect us sure, but at least any players we lose would still be playing RL. We had 3 England youth players 2 years ago and now none of them no longer play for us at youth level. Whether that is due to union or other things, I don't know. 

[Oxford]

4 hours ago, Angelic Cynic said:

Ottawa,via Mr Perez,have stated they wish to develop Canadian players.They will not be emulating Toronto..

As with most things British at present why let a few pesky facts get in the way of a decent prejudice?

[Oxford]

8 minutes ago, SL17 said:

I think everyone again has one eye open. At present it doesn't effect SL. TWP being allowed entry to SL will be the way forward for both Ottawa and NY.

So theres your question?

What question would you like me to ask?

[Chamey]

 

On 14/04/2019 at 23:23, Big Picture said:

You can see it discussed in the comments of this Reddit thread.  Evidently it involves MLR paying all the production costs and possibly (according to at least one poster) getting a percentage of the ad revenue.  Not exactly a quick route to profitability and appreciation of the extremely modest sums paid for their franchises.

Key is in the second deal, all startup leagues just want exposure. If CBS likes what they see and pick up say 3 games a week for $2m a season then the league will be okay, if it's basically the same as the first one then the league will stumble along losing money, with some franchises probably shutting up.

On 15/04/2019 at 00:06, Pulga said:

MLR will be lucky to be around if the attendance trends the way it has.

On 15/04/2019 at 03:31, Mr Wind Up said:

Agree. You read union fans saying it’s building a foundation but i dont see how a pro league survives on 1500 crowds lol

Yep, it desperately needs to get it's attendance up, 2000 odd average (bar a surprise surge at Lamport) is not great, to put it into context, despite playing 2/15ths as many home games, TWP will pull half the total attendance of MLR.

It'll keep going on pride and cashed up owners, for some like Houston, NOLA, RUNY, and Toronto money isn't really a problem, and for others like Austin(?), Seattle, DC, San Diego the losses, even if £0.5m/team/year, will be rounding errors when it compares to how much their parent clubs lose (see the SRU paying $700k for 25% of DC MLR, or Stade Francais paying $1m for 20% of RUNY). For a long time the beat of the drum from USAR to the Union world has been "Union is the fastest growing sport in the USA", "breakthrough is just around the corner", with things like the 7sWC in San Fran acting as reassurance, as a result sunken cost fallacy/over optimism will set in and it will keep on stumbling on. 

The big wildcard is the tv deal, with the collapse of the AAF, a spring rival, and MLR seemingly doing okay on CBS (the final being moved to the main CBS channel for example) even a moderate value deal may be enough to sustain it at breakeven.

If we take ticket sales averaging $30 a pop, 2250 average attendance, $30*2250*8 = $540,000, the current salary cap, then the tv deal just needs to cover flights for the league to be sustainable, for example net $2m/year.

The next step for Argyle Imo is to take the best of MLR and TWP to create a domestic League 1. I can't really see Ottawa being sustainable in the Champ/L1 while flying across the pond 5 times a year, hence a competition involving Victoria, Ottawa, TWP B, Vancouver, Alberta, Halifax, Montreal, Hamilton, a salary target of $0.6m/year with the winners playing off vs the winners of L1 (ideally I'd also involve Elite 1 in the playoffs). The main effect this would have is to cement League as the top form of rugby in Canada, all of a sudden you'd have 8 sides regularly playing semi-pro rugby, doing outreach, recruiting the best juniors etc, creating the real community growth that TWP hasn't delivered on yet. League needs to learn from Union, and speculate to accumulate, and these 8 sides could probably be run for not massively more than a couple Ottawas, there's a halo around Canadian League currently, so now is the time to lure investors into investing in long term sustainable structures.

[bbfaz]

18 minutes ago, Oxford said:

As with most things British at present why let a few pesky facts get in the way of a decent prejudice?

Or, more the case, Eric Perez hasn't always delivered what he said he would and was elbowed out of his own club at the first opportunity.   It seems his idea of player development last time was more than a little bit flawed.  If he has a plan this time, more power to his elbow.  However, to quote George W Bush, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

[Oxford]

37 minutes ago, bbfaz said:

Or, more the case, Eric Perez hasn't always delivered what he said he would and was elbowed out of his own club at the first opportunity.   It seems his idea of player development last time was more than a little bit flawed.  If he has a plan this time, more power to his elbow.

Sounding a bit Parky there bbfz and that's not an insult though I'm sure some will interpret it that way.

He did deliver a Canadian Side which was the crucial and primary idea. There were a few other things which were well reported and well documented too. The point being that it would be easy to dismiss Eric Perez if you don't value what he actually did do and concentrate on the negatives. Our whole sport is crying out for people like Perez, people who really do believe it's wonderful, marketable and the best thing since sliced white. I listen to our chairmen, read our pundits and look at forums and I see and hear little sign of that real positivity and conviction about how good TGG is and what a great future it has. All I come across in this heartland is excuses about what we can't do, pretexts for what we shoudn't do, weak vindication about what we let go and lost and rationale for what we never did.

A sport that spends all its time wallowing it was is impossible has no future just a nice set of sepia memories. It is as marketable as a hanky with four knots pretending to be a hat.

[The Parksider]

21 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I think that is a major problem though. We have no idea why clubs voted how they did. 

Of course most on here have no idea as they don't read anything up.

The RL press ran plenty of analysis on Monday and make no mistake this isn't about expanding the game in terms of players. TWP do not bother doing this. Perez is back to boasting that Ottawa is full of potential RL players "Within half a generation we should have some decent athletes" is about all he said on this, and all NY boasted was that North America was a "Massive market for athletes" and they would hold trials looking for potential top RL players. All this rubbish we have heard before.

It's easy to follow your own fantasy than the more informed RL press who concluded, and make no mistake here, that the reason the Championship clubs voted for this was in the desperate hope that these NA clubs would deliver TV deals. The Championship's cut of the current SKY deal was somewhere around £20,000,000 plus and as we all SHOULD know Superleague will not be giving them a penny from the next deal. So when people stand up in front of them from North America and tell them of all the North America TV deals that are available in time as long as you let the North Americans play in the leagues here, they have nowhere to go but vote for it.

Conversely Superleague are getting an English  SKY deal but a reduced one so the clubs will neither give the Championship a penny nor contemplate "too many overseas clubs in SL" IF ANY (and if they do they say they will be French) and that is just common sense because the subscribers here want to watch their own clubs not Leigh in TWP shirts or Leeds in Ottawa shirts, and don't mind the French because they are real and have history. 

There's something tragic about Championship clubs living through several seasons of TWP and seeing themselves just how no TV deal to share here came from there and no players were developed yet they still end up having to vote for the same old "jam tommorrow"  baloney promised by Perez in 2016 and promised a second time. If you read what he said he boasted his financial backers were so rich they could fund Ottawa 15 times over, but declined to say who they were!!. Equally New York is full of rich investors but they could not possibly say who they were either!!!. Perez handed Wilby his script  and said "read that".

The championship clubs if people can remember this time last year were told by SL 8 of them could join an SL2 to make a Superleague of 2x10 clubs and the rest could go to hell. The clubs resisted this and decided to stick together and fight for their future. In NOT voting for all this phoney baloney (read it Perez's script is a re-run of his 2016 boast about North American development, and guess what?? New York make the same wild claims of TV riches, players and anonymous rich investors) they would cut off the only lifeline they have so they just have to "suck it up" and put their hands up. In voting "FOR" (and this is the key point) they leave it to Superleague to be the one's to be seen to be killing the North American dream and I have this bang on right because two SL chairmen came out prior to the vote to suggest that they would do this as both McManus and Pearson indicated in the press last week.

The fantasy element of this so called "expansion" has been extreme over the last three years of TWP but boy did Perez finish his presentation with the bombshell that if we follow his lead North America RL will become the top league in the world and will be able to pay players so much that the Transatlantic league will dominate the staid and boring NRL in Australia.......

Perez: "My goal..within 10 years...is to supercede the NRL as the premier (RL) competition, we are going to be in bigger markets than Australia has, Toronto has show there is a massive hunger for Rugby league, my goal is the best players in the world playing in the RFL"

So ultimately that's why the championship clubs voted yes as a no would leave them nothing. At least voting "Yes" still keeps what is becoming a howling pipedream of Aussie internationals playing in Ottawa and Batley going, and voting yes (more than anything) puts the ball back into Superleague's court to be the ones to kill the American dream, and Perez know this hence he's ramping it up.

Read it up and work it out......