After Toronto and Toulouse, which expansion clubs would you like to see in Super League?

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

Under "metro" Dewsbury has a population of 2,300,000 to aim at...

Not sure what the problem is with that.

[Marty Funkhouser]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Not sure what the problem is with that.

None at all, i'm with you all the way...but then the perennial Rugby League "small town" argument melts away. 

In UK professional Rugby League perhaps only the Cumbrian clubs and West Wales could claim to be in non-populous areas.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

The "city" of Green Bay has 102,000...if we are going to start measuring by the "metro" definiton then UK Rugby League is played in all the top 7 areas in the UK...with 27 million in that "metro population"...follow that through...

Under "metro" Dewsbury has a population of 2,300,000 to aim at...

You just showed the fundamental difference between Green Bay and Dewsbury, Castleford, etc.  By playing all those home matches in Milwaukee through the years and other such things, the Packers expanded their catchment area to be all of Wisconsin and became Wisconsin's team rather than just Green Bay's team.  No small town RL club could become West Yorkshire's team, or even their local authority's team because none of them are the only pro RL club within those areas.

[Marty Funkhouser]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

You just showed the fundamental difference between Green Bay and Dewsbury, Castleford, etc.  By playing all those home matches in Milwaukee through the years and other such things, the Packers expanded their catchment area to be all of Wisconsin and became Wisconsin's team rather than just Green Bay's team.  No small town RL club could become West Yorkshire's team, or even their local authority's team because none of them are the only pro RL club within those areas.

Agreed , but no RL club , even the big ones, are aiming for average attendances of 77000...

[GUBRATS]

34 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

Agreed , but no RL club , even the big ones, are aiming for average attendances of 77000...

Well they should be 

[17 stone giant]

12 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

It might eventually develop in Super League, if further significant expansion takes place, that nearly half the clubs will be big cities (e.g. London, Toronto, New York, Ottawa, Paris and Boston) some will be medium sized cities (e.g Toulouse, Leeds, Newcastle, and Hull), a few others will be towns ( e.g. Wigan, St Helens,  Warrington, Castleford,), and others will be regions (e.g. Catalans, Avignon-Vaucluse)

Surely if rugby league grows to that extent it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to add a few more major cities to replace the likes of Hull, Warrington and Castleford? Maybe Wigan and St Helens should be kept to preserve the origins of the sport, but apart from that let's just have major cities. Much more glamorous that way.

[Manfred Mann]

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

Surely if rugby league grows to that extent it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to add a few more major cities to replace the likes of Hull, Warrington and Castleford? Maybe Wigan and St Helens should be kept to preserve the origins of the sport, but apart from that let's just have major cities. Much more glamorous that way.

 

I think that you have to preserve many of the bigger traditional clubs  --- Wigan, St Helens, Warrington, Hull FC, Leeds, Catalans, and perhaps Hull KR and Castleford --- in Super League along side the new clubs from bigger cities like London, Toronto, New York, Ottawa, Toulouse  etc. Otherwise the traditional fan base of the game will disappear.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Manfred Mann said:

I think that you have to preserve many of the bigger traditional clubs  --- Wigan, St Helens, Warrington, Hull FC, Leeds, Catalans, and perhaps Hull KR and Castleford --- in Super League along side the new clubs from bigger cities like London, Toronto, New York, Ottawa, Toulouse  etc. Otherwise the traditional fan base of the game will disappear.

If instead the glamorous big city teams are in a new, separate league of their own, then the traditional fans can still see all the traditional teams in their traditional league and we could have the best of both worlds.

[Man of Kent]

My proposed World Wide Rugby League:

New York

Toronto

Boston

Paris

Toulouse

London

Barcelona

Milan

Perth

Shanghai

Dubai

Mumbai

St Helens

 

[17 stone giant]

4 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

 

I think that you have to preserve many of the bigger traditional clubs  --- Wigan, St Helens, Warrington, Hull FC, Leeds, Catalans, and perhaps Hull KR and Castleford --- in Super League along side the new clubs from bigger cities like London, Toronto, New York, Ottawa, Toulouse  etc. Otherwise the traditional fan base of the game will disappear.

Who cares about traditional fans from northern English pit towns? They don't have any money. We're talking here about a glamorous future for global rugby league. Let's not drag it down with teams from places like Hull and Castleford. Let's keep it upmarket.

Man of Kent has the right idea, although I think even he needs to broaden his horizons somewhat. Where's Rome, Madrid and Berlin in his list?

Personally, I think we should be looking at a North American conference and a European conference, with the winners of each meeting for the Rugby League World Series Grand Final Super Bowl Challenge Cup at the end of the season.

[Manfred Mann]

4 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

My proposed World Wide Rugby League:

New York

Toronto

Boston

Paris

Toulouse

London

Barcelona

Milan

Perth

Shanghai

Dubai

Mumbai

St Helens

 

You have descended back down to extreme caricature, in a feeble attempt to ridicule possible future expansion, instead of trying to present a rational argument. It is not funny and definitely not smart. But I guess that is all you are intellectually capable of.

[Man of Kent]

5 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

You have descended back down to extreme caricature, in a feeble attempt to ridicule possible future expansion, instead of trying to present a rational argument. It is not funny and definitely not smart. But I guess that is all you are intellectually capable of.

Ooh, priggish.

No, I’m not ridiculing expansion. I’m ridiculing fantasists...

[Tommygilf]

My genuine hope is that we can grow the game both in the UK, Europe and North America simultaneously and not necessarily through the same methods. 

NA undoubtedly has the ability to revolutionise the game in terms of image and positive approach. 

France needs bringing back to the stage where they are competitive with their English counter parts.

The rest of the UK (and Ireland) needs a slightly different approach that relies on the game increasing its profile - something which is in part reliant on the other two areas of expansion growing as well as capitalising on international rugby.

For me in an ideal world we'd reach a stage where we had a core of 4 to 6 stable French teams playing across the RFL to the point where they are professional enough to go back to France and form the core of the top professional tier of their own League. This opens the door for European games between the leagues and I think would help convince the wider French public to take the game more seriously.

In a similar way in NA I'd like to think a NA conference to SL could be the basis of a NA league with a champions league-esque cup comp keeping us all in contact. 

Perhaps that is fantasy but in the Medium to long term I think that's what's needed. We in this country should see our role as incubators to provide 'proof of concept' for our neighbours. In such a world the burden of expansion wouldn't be entirely on our shoulders anymore either - Serbian teams for example could look to the French league.

[whatmichaelsays]

The phrasing of the question smacks a bit of a "stick a pin in a map" approach to expansion. 

The simple issue is that we should all, be us fans, administrators or whatever, be encouraging RL to be played wherever it can be viable. 

I don't know if North America is the answer for this sport. I do howeve, believe that, despite the risks, it is a better answer than the argument to "concentrate on the heartlands", which has got the sport where it is today. North America presents opportunities that the heartlands don't. It gives us the right to discuss new commerical partnerships, new media relationships and to tap into new audiences. 

If there is an opportunity in Boston, NY, Ottawa or Philadelphia, then it should be heard, considered and not dismissed purely on the basis of a body of water between there and Manchester. If there is an opportunity in South Wales, Coventry or Newcastle-upon-Tyne, it shouldn't be dismissed because "away fans". 

The most frustrating part of this entire debate is people insisting that expansion cannot work, will not work and should not be allowed to work because of the 120+ years of baggage that this sport has. The world has moved on from working class roots and small towns. RL has not. 

[Omott91]

6 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The phrasing of the question smacks a bit of a "stick a pin in a map" approach to expansion. 

The simple issue is that we should all, be us fans, administrators or whatever, be encouraging RL to be played wherever it can be viable. 

I don't know if North America is the answer for this sport. I do howeve, believe that, despite the risks, it is a better answer than the argument to "concentrate on the heartlands", which has got the sport where it is today. North America presents opportunities that the heartlands don't. It gives us the right to discuss new commerical partnerships, new media relationships and to tap into new audiences. 

If there is an opportunity in Boston, NY, Ottawa or Philadelphia, then it should be heard, considered and not dismissed purely on the basis of a body of water between there and Manchester. If there is an opportunity in South Wales, Coventry or Newcastle-upon-Tyne, it shouldn't be dismissed because "away fans". 

The most frustrating part of this entire debate is people insisting that expansion cannot work, will not work and should not be allowed to work because of the 120+ years of baggage that this sport has. The world has moved on from working class roots and small towns. RL has not. 

Some people especially in Britain believe they have a right to be able to attend every game should  they want to. The game will never grow with this mindset.

[Mr Wind Up]

53 minutes ago, Omott91 said:

Some people especially in Britain believe they have a right to be able to attend every game should  they want to. The game will never grow with this mindset.

Or perhaps theyve seen past expansion efforts fail to take hold and wonder why some fans are so intent on growth in far flung places. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Mr Wind Up said:

Or perhaps theyve seen past expansion efforts fail to take hold and wonder why some fans are so intent on growth in far flung places. 

They also consider Sheffield and Newcastle far flung and 40 year old London as outsiders though. You're never going to win with straight up negativity.

[Mr Wind Up]

 

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They also consider Sheffield and Newcastle far flung and 40 year old London as outsiders though. You're never going to win with straight up negativity.

Why is it negative to want that from a fan's perspective? There are fans who are perfectly happy with what exists today. One could easily argue that they are the positive fans, and that the negative ones are the ones who believe that unless the game makes it in North America it'll be dead in a decade. 

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Mr Wind Up said:

Or perhaps theyve seen past expansion efforts fail to take hold and wonder why some fans are so intent on growth in far flung places. 

Which does not mean that RL expansion cannot be viable elsewhere. The reasons why expansion clubs haven't succeeded are long and varied, but that does not mean that expansion cannot work with the right levels of investment, skill and perseverence. 

What matters is that expansion clubs, be that Coventry, Catalans, Toronto or Toulouse, can become strong, viable clubs in their own right. That they can become competitive on the field, financially stable off it (something few heartland clubs manage) and put RL in front of people who would overwise not been able to access it as easily. 

What also doesn't help is this constant attempt to undermine expansion by applying of unique standards and expectations on RL clubs. Trying to argue that Catalans is a "failed experiement" because the French side haven't improved is like trying to argue that we should expel Widnes from the league because England still can't beat the Australian team. 

[whatmichaelsays]

29 minutes ago, Mr Wind Up said:

 

Why is it negative to want that from a fan's perspective? There are fans who are perfectly happy with what exists today. 

Fans are happy with clubs constantly being within a cat's c**k hair of the administrators coming in? There are fans that are perfectly happy with clubs being reliant on a small handful of benefactors that could get bored at any minute? 

Fans that are happy with a declining, ageing fan base? Fans that are happy with empty seats at our prestige events?

Fans that are happy that clubs are playing in decaying stadia? Fans happy that their are clubs that seem to have to play brinkmanship with their local council every year about their playing venue?

Fans that are happy with declining youth participation? Fans that are happy with our playing talent taking a £1m real-terms pay-cut over the last 20 years? Fans happy that our best talent needs to go abroad to earn a fair living for their efforts?

Yeah, sounds positive to me. 

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, Mr Wind Up said:

 

Why is it negative to want that from a fan's perspective? There are fans who are perfectly happy with what exists today. One could easily argue that they are the positive fans, and that the negative ones are the ones who believe that unless the game makes it in North America it'll be dead in a decade. 

Because standing still is going backwards which has been true since the dawn of time. Why did the teenage Fortnite world champion get a $3 million dollar prize when the SL salary cap isn't even two thirds of that? What exists today was not what existed yesterday and may not exist tomorrow.

I'd argue there are very few if any who argue that the game faces a choice between north America or oblivion - that is simply false. They simply think that RL is a great game that through various machinations hasn't existed in some areas and that that should and indeed can be rectified. That the same basic arguments being used against Toronto now were being used against (and in many cases still are being used against) teams like London and Sheffield indicate to me the disingenuousness of this position. The pro-expansionists it could easily be argued are the positive fans because they back the game to succeed on its own merits outside of those who have grown up in its gaze along the M62.

We constantly see calls on social media to "invest in the heartlands" etc. which disingenuously suggests that unless a team is within spitting distance of the M62 its not worth worrying about. The sheer negativity from some towards anything new/foreign is astounding. 

[whatmichaelsays]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

We constantly see calls on social media to "invest in the heartlands" etc.

The problem is that the people making this argument often don't even seem to know what it means. Does it mean throwing more money at clubs? If so, for what return? What does throwing more money at <insert Heartland club> achieve that isn't being achieved at present? 

The argument also implies that "the game" is investing in expansion, which isn't the case. David Argyle is investing in Toronto, "the game" isn't. Bernard Guasch is investing Catalans, "the game" isn't. David Hughes is putting his money into London, not "the game's" money. In the same vein, Derek Beaumont is (when it suits him) investing in Leigh, "the game" isn't.

It's an argument that supposes that if it weren't for expansion clubs, the smaller clubs would be far more successful than they are, when there is no evidence at all to support that. This is not a zero-sum game; the foreigners aren't taking your job and we do not have to all chase after the same limited pool of money - there is more to be found out there if only we look for it. 

I've heard lots of people argue "invest/concentrate/focus on the heartlands". Not one person making that argument has been able to explain how that moves the sport forward from where it is after more than a century of doing just that. 

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The problem is that the people making this argument often don't even seem to know what it means. Does it mean throwing more money at clubs? If so, for what return? What does throwing more money at <insert Heartland club> achieve that isn't being achieved at present? 

The argument also implies that "the game" is investing in expansion, which isn't the case. David Argyle is investing in Toronto, "the game" isn't. Bernard Guasch is investing Catalans, "the game" isn't. David Hughes is putting his money into London, not "the game's" money. In the same vein, Derek Beaumont is (when it suits him) investing in Leigh, "the game" isn't.

It's an argument that supposes that if it weren't for expansion clubs, the smaller clubs would be far more successful than they are, when there is no evidence at all to support that. This is not a zero-sum game; the foreigners aren't taking your job and we do not have to all chase after the same limited pool of money - there is more to be found out there if only we look for it. 

I've heard lots of people argue "invest/concentrate/focus on the heartlands". Not one person making that argument has been able to explain how that moves the sport forward from where it is after more than a century of doing just that. 

Couldn't agree more mate. Its a big world out there.

[GUBRATS]

Let's look at the original title 

After Toronto and Toulouse , which expansion clubs would you like to see in SL ?

First , Toronto and Toulouse aren't yet in SL , and yet the question in a way suggests they are 

Second after those 2 clubs there aren't any more that actually exist , 

Third for either or both of those clubs to enter SL , or indeed any further ones would most likely mean displacing a current heartland SL club , so you are hardly going to get positive responses from fans of clubs that these ' new ' clubs are likely to replace , similarly with recent former SL clubs like Bradford ,Widnes and Leigh 

So the question is already ' loaded ' to antagonise existing fans of genuine ' real ' clubs 

So ask a silly question , dont be surprised if you get a silly answer , and the OP did 

[Manfred Mann]

5 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Let's look at the original title 

After Toronto and Toulouse , which expansion clubs would you like to see in SL ?

First , Toronto and Toulouse aren't yet in SL , and yet the question in a way suggests they are 

Second after those 2 clubs there aren't any more that actually exist , 

Third for either or both of those clubs to enter SL , or indeed any further ones would most likely mean displacing a current heartland SL club , so you are hardly going to get positive responses from fans of clubs that these ' new ' clubs are likely to replace , similarly with recent former SL clubs like Bradford ,Widnes and Leigh 

So the question is already ' loaded ' to antagonise existing fans of genuine ' real ' clubs 

So ask a silly question , dont be surprised if you get a silly answer , and the OP did 

You seem to be either a very confused or a dreadfully uninformed person.

First the title question doesn't suggest that Toronto and Toulouse are already in Super League. In fact if you actually read the original post it stated clearly that there was a lot of support for both of them to enter Super League (hence logically entailing that they aren't there yet). The original post then asks if there should be further expansion after they enter Super League, and if so, with which clubs.

Second, it is patently false to assert that " after those 2 clubs there aren't any more that actually exist."  For your information Newcastle, Sheffield, Avignon and London Skolars are clubs that actually exist. It boggles the mind that a reader of rugby league forums would not know that. Moreover two other proposed clubs, Ottawa and New York, are in the advanced planning stage.

Third, under the current promotion and relegation for Toronto or Toulouse to enter Super League could mean displacing a current heartland club, but not if London Broncos are relegated. In any case,in the future the size of Super League could conceivably be expanded so as not to displace existing clubs. So the question is hardly loaded to antagonise fans of existing "real" clubs, as you assert. Again, as I have pointed out, four of the clubs proposed are already existing 'real' clubs. 

So there is nothing silly about the question. There is however a lot of silliness and shameful ignorance in the minds of the people who seek to ridicule the question, and who seek to ridicule the whole idea of global expansion of the game. That is the real reason why there have so many silly answers on this thread from an agitated few.