Liverpool RLFC

[Big Picture]

42 minutes ago, RP London said:

except for it being in the north, populated by northerners with knowledge of the north there is no material difference at all! 

(BTW i'm not saying it will work but it is very very different to the proposition of London... its bigger issue is around football and how it will cope with not alienating one side by the decisions it makes [kit & badge are the first hurdles])

Precisely.  Where Londoners might simply assume that these teams from places which they've barely even heard of don't rate their time and money when they come to town, Liverpudlians are more likely know they don't rate their time and money if and when they play in their city.

27 minutes ago, londonrlfan said:

Who are these "Northern village teams" you keep going on about? Leeds, Salford, Hull and Wakefield are all cities for a start. Leeds, Hull, Wigan and Huddersfield have been able to host PL clubs, so can't be that small. Warrington biggest town in Cheshire, St Helens pop over 100k. Salford is good enough for the BBC. That just leaves Castleford. 

It's not my phrase, another poster used it the other week so I adopted it.   Of the places you mention there, the fact is that apart from Leeds and Hull they're all small towns.   The fact that teams from two of those small towns have historically been the top teams in the game over the years undoubtedly adds to the game's image problem because it reinforces the stereotype of it being a small northern sport for northerners with limited appeal to others, because if it was not then those two teams wouldn't have been able to dominate it from year to year.

[RP London]

58 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Precisely.  Where Londoners might simply assume that these teams from places which they've barely even heard of don't rate their time and money when they come to town, Liverpudlians are more likely know they don't rate their time and money if and when they play in their city.

 

dont talk daft

Firstly..  how can you start with "precisely" when i have just disagreed with what you said before and you then go on to contradict your original comment on London and Liverpool having no material difference...

Second.. Green Bay is a small insignificant town yet they contribute a bucket load to the NFL... you dont need many but people understand the history in the north, they understand the "small towns" are still famous clubs. you may not like that but its still a fact. London needs a different sell to Liverpool on that.. what liverpool needs is to get a town that cares much more about football and only football to care about something else and it doesnt matter who they play that is still the challenge (very much like Sheffield that struggles to catch the imagination but its got nothing to do with who they play but to do with not really giving a toss about another sport)

[Yakstorm]

1 hour ago, fevtom said:

I suppose the closest comparison you could make for our North American friends is saying that Saskatchewen and Calgary should be replaced in the Canadian Football League with bigger names like Boston and Jacksonville. After all if they turn up for NFL games so they could be converted to Canadian football fans and it would appeal more to an international audience.

Funny you use that comparison, when the CFL actually did try that approach, they did actually have some success with the Baltimore side averaging 37,347 compared to the Canadian Avg of 22,740 in 1994 and 30,111 v 24,406 in 1995.

Anyway regardless completely agree that you can't just put a team in a city and expect it to work, or for fans of other teams nearby just to change sides.  That said, I feel we do ourselves no favours when we actually have people with money wanting to try these ventures, by making it difficult for them.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, owls said:

and Middlesbrough

Forgot about them.

I don't think Middleborough residents even remember that there in Yorkshire to be fair

[fevtom]

33 minutes ago, Yakstorm said:

Funny you use that comparison, when the CFL actually did try that approach, they did actually have some success with the Baltimore side averaging 37,347 compared to the Canadian Avg of 22,740 in 1994 and 30,111 v 24,406 in 1995.

 

Just out of interest, why did they stop? North America seems to have more success of people following teams they weren't previously attached to. There's probably a geographical advantage too. If Liverpool was in America then it would be a city of a couple of million with St Helens, Widnes and Warrington being districts, as it is, we are usually suspicious of anyone more than three or four miles away.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

dont talk daft

Firstly..  how can you start with "precisely" when i have just disagreed with what you said before and you then go on to contradict your original comment on London and Liverpool having no material difference...

Second.. Green Bay is a small insignificant town yet they contribute a bucket load to the NFL... you dont need many but people understand the history in the north, they understand the "small towns" are still famous clubs. you may not like that but its still a fact. London needs a different sell to Liverpool on that.. what liverpool needs is to get a town that cares much more about football and only football to care about something else and it doesnt matter who they play that is still the challenge (very much like Sheffield that struggles to catch the imagination but its got nothing to do with who they play but to do with not really giving a toss about another sport)

In fact Green Bay is the exception which proves the rule.  Out of 148 franchises In the five major North American pro leagues, the Packers are the only one located in a small insignificant town.  They're one of the three surviving original NFL franchises from it's start in 1921 and they managed that as the league grew to become the powerhouse we know today thanks to the equal sharing of NFL revenues among its member franchises and by becoming Wisconsin's team rather than just Green Bay's team.  Without those things they'd have either folded or moved along the way like all the other small town teams did.

Unlike the RL teams from small northern towns in England, Green Bay has held its own in a league full of big-city teams and that's why the sporting public of those cities rates them as a rival and thus a draw for them.  There's a world of difference between that and the situation in English RL.

How do you know Sheffield's struggles have nothing to do with whom they play?  What's your evidence for that?

[owls]

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Forgot about them.

I don't think Middleborough residents even remember that there in Yorkshire to be fair

you are probably right about the young ones not  knowing ,they did a poll in a local paper and the question was asked where is Middlesbrough,  about 77% said either North Yorks or North Riding of Yorks,. in Redcar the Yorkshire name has been added to some road signs,

[RP London]

47 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

In fact Green Bay is the exception which proves the rule.  Out of 148 franchises In the five major North American pro leagues, the Packers are the only one located in a small insignificant town.  They're one of the three surviving original NFL franchises from it's start in 1921 and they managed that as the league grew to become the powerhouse we know today thanks to the equal sharing of NFL revenues among its member franchises and by becoming Wisconsin's team rather than just Green Bay's team.  Without those things they'd have either folded or moved along the way like all the other small town teams did.

Unlike the RL teams from small northern towns in England, Green Bay has held its own in a league full of big-city teams and that's why the sporting public of those cities rates them as a rival and thus a draw for them.  There's a world of difference between that and the situation in English RL.

How do you know Sheffield's struggles have nothing to do with whom they play?  What's your evidence for that?

The fact i live here, was born and raised here and know the city.. 

The small norther towns in England are holding their own.. we dont have big city teams and they are going to be very hard to come by quickly.. you have to deal with what you have in the same way as it took a long time for American Football to grow away from its own heartlands and develop. We are years late in all this and we are working against one of the biggest sports on the planet to garner interest in big cities.. you work with what you have and develop from there.. 

Developing Liverpool would be good and I would love to see it work as i would with Sheffield, Coventry, Newcastle, London etc al but what will hinder it is not the lack of Manchester or Birmingham but the prevalence of football. 

[Big Picture]

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

The fact i live here, was born and raised here and know the city.. 

The small norther towns in England are holding their own.. we dont have big city teams and they are going to be very hard to come by quickly.. you have to deal with what you have in the same way as it took a long time for American Football to grow away from its own heartlands and develop. We are years late in all this and we are working against one of the biggest sports on the planet to garner interest in big cities.. you work with what you have and develop from there.. 

Developing Liverpool would be good and I would love to see it work as i would with Sheffield, Coventry, Newcastle, London etc al but what will hinder it is not the lack of Manchester or Birmingham but the prevalence of football. 

The fact that you were born and raised there isn't evidence that the issue is simply the prevalence of soccer, but for now let's say that it is that.  The fact remains that for pro RL to succeed in the cities which you listed, it needs something with which to break through and attract a good number of their sports followers to acquire an interest in it and buy tickets, merchandise, etc.  You and I both know that playing the traditional small town teams won't ever achieve that breakthrough.

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, fevtom said:

Just out of interest, why did they stop? 

https://nationalpost.com/sports/football/cfl/the-true-and-strong-and-free-why-the-cfls-humiliating-expansion-to-the-united-states-was-actually-a-force-for-good

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

The fact that you were born and raised there isn't evidence that the issue is simply the prevalence of soccer, but for now let's say that it is that.  The fact remains that for pro RL to succeed in the cities which you listed, it needs something with which to break through and attract a good number of their sports followers to acquire an interest in it and buy tickets, merchandise, etc.  You and I both know that playing the traditional small town teams won't ever achieve that breakthrough.

Actually you and I dont know that (and that is quite a step for you to take presuming that i do, especially after reading my posts)... as I dont agree with you. I think playing the small towns that people in the UK recognise as traditional to RL and with a history is actually important. I played RL in London I also coached kids there.. when London were playing Wigan and Saints they wanted to go BECUASE it was Wigan and Saints.. It is different here to where you are, I accept that Canada would like to play big city names but its just not as important here.

Sheffield Eagles playing Wigan or Saints has the same draw.. and we get bigger crowds but in Sheffield people are heavily invested in their football side and anything else can go do one.. There is little or not interest in any of the other sports here its football football football and little is going to change that without some sort of massive push and investment from someone but even then playing big cities is NOT the thing that will make people go.. 

In the UK you play the team, the club, the history whether they are a big city or not is not important.. how good is that team, are they the best in the country or not?? thats what will pull people through the doors. 

 

[mrfranco]

17 hours ago, TboneFromTO said:

Jeeze you guys don't want overseas teams, and you don't want local teams, seems to me that change might be the enemy

Love Liverpool as a city, and as a team location (you know a place people outside of England have heard of unlike some teams - for international appeal obviously).

My major concern is when do they enter the structure, since Ottawa was announced for next year (with the option to delay if they want) and the alleged NYC bid, seems a few years down the line for them (or more time in the minor leagues then the "big spending" owners would like!)

Seems to me 2021 with NYC would make sense - Ottawa to join next year to get back to an even number of teams, then Liverpool and NY together the year after to still have an even number!

[realist]

hows the water park and academy buildings he promised to build coming along at salford ?

[Celtic Rooster]

20 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

The rugby commentator on radio merseys was being interviewed this week and Koukash and his plan were being discussed and the host asked him would it succeed in Liverpool and his reply was that a cup tie in Liverpool between Liverpool city and Warrington drew a crowd of over 34k. Now that was probably in the fifties but it still got the crowd. 

So what Koukash says is proof?

20 hours ago, The Daddy said:

The positivity on this thread is inspiring  

I think its more a case of some of us have seen and heard it all before. The thread is not exactly bursting with Liverpudlians telling me I'm wrong is it?

17 hours ago, TboneFromTO said:

Jeeze you guys don't want overseas teams, and you don't want local teams, seems to me that change might be the enemy

Love Liverpool as a city, and as a team location (you know a place people outside of England have heard of unlike some teams - for international appeal obviously).

My major concern is when do they enter the structure, since Ottawa was announced for next year (with the option to delay if they want) and the alleged NYC bid, seems a few years down the line for them (or more time in the minor leagues then the "big spending" owners would like!) 

I love the idea of expansion mate and there won't be many people who have visited more expansion club grounds than me over the years, but, I am a realist. Rugby League is a minority sport. There are probably about 350,000 people in the whole,  of the UK, if I'm generous, that are involved in RL at any level, including supporters. Where are the players for new clubs going to come from when the amateur league in the heartlands has diminished every year since 1980's and the amateur clubs elsewhere are 95% RU players playing in their off season? The leagues below Super Greed are already being "watered down" in terms of facilities and playing strength.

 

[Celtic Rooster]

4 minutes ago, realist said:

hows the water park and academy buildings he promised to build coming along at salford ? 

We are getting an Aldi instead apparently and that is nothing to do with Marwan. I've met the man and I don't doubt his passion for RL for one minute. He was badly advised when he took over Salford. He thought he was going to bring around massive changes but he didn't realise how difficult that would be. I wasn't happy with him when he "bailed out" but I have to say that I don't think the club would be in SG now if he had not got involved, and he still watches games at Salford this season.

[ELBOWSEYE]

10 minutes ago, Celtic Rooster said:

So what Koukash says is proof?

I think its more a case of some of us have seen and heard it all before. 

 

No but I will give him the benefit and hope he has learned from what he did at Salford, but ultimately it his and the others money . If you are right he has wasted his money but even though be has left Salford he still helps them .

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

Actually you and I dont know that (and that is quite a step for you to take presuming that i do, especially after reading my posts)... as I dont agree with you. I think playing the small towns that people in the UK recognise as traditional to RL and with a history is actually important. I played RL in London I also coached kids there.. when London were playing Wigan and Saints they wanted to go BECUASE it was Wigan and Saints.. It is different here to where you are, I accept that Canada would like to play big city names but its just not as important here.

Sheffield Eagles playing Wigan or Saints has the same draw.. and we get bigger crowds but in Sheffield people are heavily invested in their football side and anything else can go do one.. There is little or not interest in any of the other sports here its football football football and little is going to change that without some sort of massive push and investment from someone but even then playing big cities is NOT the thing that will make people go.. 

In the UK you play the team, the club, the history whether they are a big city or not is not important.. how good is that team, are they the best in the country or not?? thats what will pull people through the doors.

In fact the crowd figures show that the biggest crowds in Sheffield when the Eagles were in SL from 1996 to 1996 were against Bradford (average 6,702) and Leeds (average  5,925).  The averages against Wigan and St Helens are 5,056 and 4,349 respectively, so Bradford and Leeds were bigger draws than the historically much more successful Wigan and St Helens though they might have had more travelling support.  Sheffield's overall home average for that period was 4,240.

Wigan was the biggest draw in London during those years (average 7,117) but Bradford was next (average not far behind at 6,517), well ahead of St Helens (average 5,264).  So even in London big name (it was the height of Bullmania after all) but historically not that successful Bradford was a bigger draw than the historically much more successful Saints were.  In two of the four years the Bradford crowd was bigger than than the Wigan crowd.

So I suggest that in fact the biggest name opponents are the biggest draws, and that doesn't really line up with the history of the respective clubs.  The question is, what big name opponents exist for Sheffield, London and the prospective Liverpool team to play so they can break through the apathy/resistance which exists in their cities where RL is concerned?

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

In fact the crowd figures show that the biggest crowds in Sheffield when the Eagles were in SL from 1996 to 1996 were against Bradford (average 6,702) and Leeds (average  5,925).  The averages against Wigan and St Helens are 5,056 and 4,349 respectively, so Bradford and Leeds were bigger draws than the historically much more successful Wigan and St Helens though they might have had more travelling support.  Sheffield's overall home average for that period was 4,240.

Wigan was the biggest draw in London during those years (average 7,117) but Bradford was next (average not far behind at 6,517), well ahead of St Helens (average 5,264).  So even in London big name (it was the height of Bullmania after all) but historically not that successful Bradford was a bigger draw than the historically much more successful Saints were.  In two of the four years the Bradford crowd was bigger than than the Wigan crowd.

So I suggest that in fact the biggest name opponents are the biggest draws, and that doesn't really line up with the history of the respective clubs.  The question is, what big name opponents exist for Sheffield, London and the prospective Liverpool team to play so they can break through the apathy/resistance which exists in their cities where RL is concerned?

 Bradford and Leeds are also big names with a big history.. that may have escaped you.. i dont deny they are ALSO cities but they are big clubs in terms of history for RL and were strong clubs at the time too... 

[Teessidewire]

4 hours ago, TheConductor said:

What about Hartlepool as used to be a big Rugby Union area ?

It was, still is to some extent, but a couple of clubs have gone to the wall and those that are left are struggling for numbers. The stadium at Darlington where Morden Park now play would be ideal for top class RL.

[Oxford]

So all in all Toronto on the Mersey a waste of time, energy, money and everything else.

Good to know.

Dave T's started a positive vibe thread, do you think we should go on that to talk about this?

[Oliver Clothesoff]

4 hours ago, Teessidewire said:

It was, still is to some extent, but a couple of clubs have gone to the wall and those that are left are struggling for numbers. The stadium at Darlington where Morden Park now play would be ideal for top class RL.

Isn’t it in the middle of nowhere?

[JDINTHEHIZZOUSE]

At the risk of repeating myself on a repeated thread,I can tell you that scousers have no interest in tgg. I live in Liverpool and the interest levels are zero,so much so that I find people can only hold a conversation with me about rl for 38 seconds. When the possibility of a team in Liverpool first arose I took the chance to ask my workmates what they thought of it,would they go and watch them etc and reported my findings to this forum,only to be labelled negative.A mate of mine who is a true koppite even asked me what was going on at anfield this coming weekend,when I told him he just moaned about his hallowed turf being desecrated. My long winded point is that due to being steeped in football history,whether they are from a blue house or a red house,their only interest is a polite passing one. I hope I'm proven wrong at some point soon. Again this isn't me being negative,quite the opposite as I'm taking  the time to ask locals what their pov is and hopefully generate some form of interest. I would love to have a pro rl team in Liverpool.(got lots of train stations too)

[The Parksider]

On 22/05/2019 at 15:30, The Daddy said:

Liverpool It really needs to happen, the more big cities in RL the better.

Do you ever take in any facts? do you ever look anything up? Do you ever analyse anything properly? 

There are and have been clubs in some of the biggest cities, London, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle,  Coventry, Sheffield and Bradford  so exactly how well have the clubs in all these big city's done over the years and to date. There's been three attempts at developing a Rugby league club in Liverpool all total and utter failures yet here we go again with you, "Captain Expansion" blurting out sentences that make no sense and ignore the facts. Castleford is a tiny pit village, let's transfer them to Birmingham - laughable nonsense but then you and other fantasists are already  moving the game to Los Angeles and Vancouver. 

On 22/05/2019 at 21:57, TboneFromTO said:

Jeeze you guys don't want overseas teams, and you don't want local teams, seems to me that change might be the enemy

The enemy is daydreaming on a anonymous forum, picking up on every little thing bored businessmen with far more money than sense say to get their names in the papers, then inflating that into Rugby League suddenly metamorphising into world dominance. Nobody but a handful of amateur enthusiasts plays RL in North America nor intends to, nor is there any development system but you lot have multiple squads of 30 top class players lined up for Ottawa, Hamilton, Montreal, Boston. New York, Pennsylvania, LA, Vancouver, Jacksonville - Oh hang on!! Just add TWP and we now have a 10 club North American League!!! Can you organise to send the Queen Mary from Long Beach to pick up 300 of our pro-players here plus captain Expansion above who will sail them to a new life in big city America?

17 hours ago, Celtic Rooster said:

So what Koukash says is proof?

I think its more a case of some of us have seen and heard it all before. The thread is not exactly bursting with Liverpudlians telling me I'm wrong is it?

I love the idea of expansion mate and there won't be many people who have visited more expansion club grounds than me over the years, but, I am a realist. Rugby League is a minority sport. There are probably about 350,000 people in the whole,  of the UK, if I'm generous, that are involved in RL at any level, including supporters. Where are the players for new clubs going to come from when the amateur league in the heartlands has diminished every year since 1980's and the amateur clubs elsewhere are 95% RU players playing in their off season? 

Liverpool City's record attendance is listed as 7,398 for a game against Saints in 1954 (Saints, a village club has a record attendance of 35,695), I actually looked that up as a fact so I do not suppose it counts on here. Gary Hetherington knows a bit about the game  and he took RL to one of the UK's biggest cities in Sheffield into the RFL and 35 years later they have managed to get their 900 crowds down to 600 and have produced one or maybe two quality pro players. So that's the model for Liverpool to follow. Realism has no place here.

But in the end it's not really the fault of the lads and lasses on here, if the game thinks it's a good policy to  let all these smart businessmen ready to dedicate their lives and fortunes to our game brag big time about how they are going to expand the game across Great Britain and the world, on the basis that there is no such thing as "Bad publicity". It's just that any debate on here get's rooted in that pure fantasy which even Lenegan spawned with his "World league" boast to the NRL, and he's the man at the top!!

At my age I can certainly wait for 2021, I hope it is very slow in coming, but when it does and the reality of the TV deals available are laid bare, we just may get back to some sort of sanity, although we did get that just the other day (albeit it didn't register with the expansionista's) when McManus and Pearson were scathing about North America, whilst Elstone followed that up with high praise for Toulouse "A rivalry with Catalans would boost RL in France and add to Superleague". Here's hoping.....

[RP London]

2 hours ago, JDINTHEHIZZOUSE said:

At the risk of repeating myself on a repeated thread,I can tell you that scousers have no interest in tgg. I live in Liverpool and the interest levels are zero,so much so that I find people can only hold a conversation with me about rl for 38 seconds. When the possibility of a team in Liverpool first arose I took the chance to ask my workmates what they thought of it,would they go and watch them etc and reported my findings to this forum,only to be labelled negative.A mate of mine who is a true koppite even asked me what was going on at anfield this coming weekend,when I told him he just moaned about his hallowed turf being desecrated. My long winded point is that due to being steeped in football history,whether they are from a blue house or a red house,their only interest is a polite passing one. I hope I'm proven wrong at some point soon. Again this isn't me being negative,quite the opposite as I'm taking  the time to ask locals what their pov is and hopefully generate some form of interest. I would love to have a pro rl team in Liverpool.(got lots of train stations too)

You work there and live there but how do you “know”????? 

[Angelic Cynic]

31 minutes ago, RP London said:

You work there and live there but how do you “know”????? 

  Looking at his interests he may be limited in how many people he can communicate with about rugby league.

  Obviously,to Anfield,when soccer is played,people travel from Ireland,Norway,Sweden etc - not from a 10 mile radius of the stadium.

  Liverpool RLFC will not be limited to a few mile radius of wherever their stadium will be located.

  Parky keeps quoting Pearson.Could he stop until our sport matches the other code as predicted by the elite owner of the elite club that is Hull FC ( that needed a whole club from rugby league outpost Gateshead to survive.)

  There is no greater set of non-league soccer fans than travel to,and watch,Wrexham FC.

  When Crusaders were parachuted into that town over 10k watched the opening game v Leeds,in Super League,on a snow-covered pitch.

  It can be done.Just be positive and pro-active.