Jump to content

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


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

97 members have voted

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


This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 12/08/20 at 23:34

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Manfred Mann said:

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.

A lot of support from ?

Newcastle ? , Outside chance in 20 years time 

Sheffield ? , Nope never happening

Avignon ? , Unlikely , but not impossible

Skolars ? , 30 years perhaps if Argyle gets bored of Canada 

OttAwa ? , Again a club that doesn't exist 

NY ? , Doesn't exist and is looking unlikely to ever exist 

So tell me , what sort of timeline were you thinking of ?

I'll leave this nonsense alone 

All the best 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

A lot of support from ?

Newcastle ? , Outside chance in 20 years time 

Sheffield ? , Nope never happening

Avignon ? , Unlikely , but not impossible

Skolars ? , 30 years perhaps if Argyle gets bored of Canada 

OttAwa ? , Again a club that doesn't exist 

NY ? , Doesn't exist and is looking unlikely to ever exist 

So tell me , what sort of timeline were you thinking of ?

I'll leave this nonsense alone 

All the best 

GubrAts, why do you insist with spelling Ottawa like you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Omott91 said:

GubrAts, why do you insist with spelling Ottawa like you do?

I repeatedly spelt it wrong by accident ( as plenty of others have and do ) with an ' o ' instead of an ' a ' , and had a pedant pull me on it , so to make sure I don't do it wrong again , I capitalise the ' A ' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Made up teams on the list but no Coventry or the Welsh teams? Coventry or a Midlands based team could definitely work with the right investment. The West Midlands is one of the biggest population centres in the country with excellent transport links. There is massive potential for the sport to grow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/08/2019 at 03:43, 17 stone giant said:

I always find it hard to envisage a league with huge cities like Paris, New York, Boston, etc. competing against places like Huddersfield, Hull and Salford.

I know there's already London Broncos, but even that sometimes seems odd to me to have such a major city playing a team like Castleford.

Just try to see it as part of life's rich tapestry!

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours 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.

C'mon Tommy, Newcastle is in the development stage only time will tell what it will acheive good or otherwise and it has taken on a more bottom up approach to the professional game than either the birth of Sheffield or London did, the game was "Plonked" in these area's and expected to flourish and grow, no matter how you look at it and what positives can be taken out of each excersize of those clubs, they have all but failed to grab the attention of the local population. 

The negativity is a condition born out of evidence, the stadiums they play in, the crowds they attract the same evidence could easily be applied to a number of clubs in the traditional areas, BUT because London are not in the traditional areas some people consider them to be a special case.

Yes nigh on 40 years has passed so they are not outsiders, if London had the same stadium as Wakefield and attracted the same attendances then they would be viewed as a success, but the logic of a lot of people is Wakefield should be surplus to requirement whilst London have potential, how many more years will those who hang on to the shirt tails of potential realise Rugby League is not the flavour of the month (or even 4 decades) to the populas of the capital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 There are fans that are perfectly happy with clubs being reliant on a small handful of benefactors that could get bored at any minute? 

For example:

Neil Hudgell, Eamonn McManus, Ian Leneghan, Ken Davy, Adam Pearson, Bernard Guasch, David Argyle, Simon Moran, Ian Fulton, and David Hughes I have left out Leeds 2 owners and Wakefield 6 shreholders, not what is it you are trying to get across.

If you wish I can list the Championship clubs also I would start with David Argyle and Derek Beaumont is there any point in carrying on?

Rugby League would not survive without those benefactors who could get bored at any minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

For example:

Neil Hudgell, Eamonn McManus, Ian Leneghan, Ken Davy, Adam Pearson, Bernard Guasch, David Argyle, Simon Moran, Ian Fulton, and David Hughes I have left out Leeds 2 owners and Wakefield 6 shreholders, not what is it you are trying to get across.

If you wish I can list the Championship clubs also I would start with David Argyle and Derek Beaumont is there any point in carrying on?

Rugby League would not survive without those benefactors who could get bored at any minute.

You're right, rugby league would not survive without those benefactors and the point I'm making is that is not a healthy place to be in. 

Last year we saw what happens when the owner of a Championship club throws his toys out of the pram and decides he doesn't want to bankroll another failed promotion effort. It is only a matter of time before we see another club in a similar position either because that owner has got bored, or because father time has caught up with them. 

What is a healthy position to be in is to have sustainable clubs that can stand on their own two feet because they have a financially sound business plan. Clubs that are sustainable because they can attract high quality and high-paying sponsors, clubs that are sustainable because they can attract strong crowds, clubs that are sustainable because they can generate good levels of non-matchday income. We have few clubs that can do that. 

If, and I accept that it is a big if, there are clubs out there in the big wide world that believe that they can be sustainable without a heavy reliance on a benevolent benefactor, why is that something to fear? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

And there is the crux, there are many on this site and other platforms who just want to watch their Rugby League on TV, see the threads about Toronto and Catalan not being screened,

Is that such a bad thing? 

It's very hard for somebody to buy into RL if they don't live in a tiny geographic area. Expanding our appeal across the media helps us with that. Going to every game home or away doesn't make you a better fan than the supporter who watches on TV because he can't or doesn't want to go to the ground. They're both fans of the sport. 

Let's get out of this idea that we are in the business of selling tickets - we aren't. We're in the business of selling content, and selling entertainment. The ticket is just one way of charging to access that content, but why can't TV or online be another one - and one that we embrace and enhance? The world is increasingly moving to an 'on demand' culture where people want to access content on their terms - why insist that they can only watch a game in a rickety ground with ###### food and beer at 3pm on Sunday? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

You're right, rugby league would not survive without those benefactors and the point I'm making is that is not a healthy place to be in. 

Last year we saw what happens when the owner of a Championship club throws his toys out of the pram and decides he doesn't want to bankroll another failed promotion effort. It is only a matter of time before we see another club in a similar position either because that owner has got bored, or because father time has caught up with them. 

What is a healthy position to be in is to have sustainable clubs that can stand on their own two feet because they have a financially sound business plan. Clubs that are sustainable because they can attract high quality and high-paying sponsors, clubs that are sustainable because they can attract strong crowds, clubs that are sustainable because they can generate good levels of non-matchday income. We have few clubs that can do that. 

If, and I accept that it is a big if, there are clubs out there in the big wide world that believe that they can be sustainable without a heavy reliance on a benevolent benefactor, why is that something to fear? 

 

 

So not Toronto then ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GUBRATS said:

So not Toronto then ? 

I've got no idea whether Toronto might or might not be sustainable in the long term. I suspect you don't either.

But Toronto is a business that is three years old and has the initial start-up costs that go with a three-year-old business. 

Most of the clubs mentioned earlier have had more than a century head start, and still don't appear to be any further forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

I've got no idea whether Toronto might or might not be sustainable in the long term. I suspect you don't either.

But Toronto is a business that is three years old and has the initial start-up costs that go with a three-year-old business. 

Most of the clubs mentioned earlier have had more than a century head start, and still don't appear to be any further forward. 

Man City have had a century plus , but require massive owner investment , how many other examples do you want ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Man City have had a century plus , but require massive owner investment , how many other examples do you want ?

 

Manchester City generated £10.4m in profit last year, but overlooking that (and the fact that their situation is clearly exceptional in professional sport), I'm not sure what point you're making. 

Yes, some clubs rely on benefactors in sports other that RL. That doesn't make the situation in RL any more healthy. Nor does it prove one way or another the viability of Toronto or any other expansion club as sustainable long-term businesses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Manchester City generated £10.4m in profit last year, but overlooking that (and the fact that their situation is clearly exceptional in professional sport), I'm not sure what point you're making. 

Yes, some clubs rely on benefactors in sports other that RL. That doesn't make the situation in RL any more healthy. Nor does it prove one way or another the viability of Toronto or any other expansion club as sustainable long-term businesses. 

They ' generated ' £10.4 M profit on the back of being owned and sponsored by an entire country , their sponsorships are essentially a nonsense , their sponsors aren't interested or expect a return on their investments , it's all about avoiding FIFA fair play rules , and you know that 

Without a huge paying TV deal ( requiring 5/6 other NA teams as per Mr Perez ) Toronto will never be self sustaining , and you know that as well 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

They ' generated ' £10.4 M profit on the back of being owned and sponsored by an entire country , their sponsorships are essentially a nonsense , their sponsors aren't interested or expect a return on their investments , it's all about avoiding FIFA fair play rules , and you know that 

Exactly, which makes them an extremely exceptional example to bring up - you can apply the same criteria to Paris SG. That doesn't however change the fact that what matters is sustainability - something that is lacking across far too much of RL. 

Quote

Without a huge paying TV deal ( requiring 5/6 other NA teams as per Mr Perez ) Toronto will never be self sustaining , and you know that as well 

Yes, a North American TV deal does have a big influence in this entire process, which is why any sensible fan acknowledges that the inherent risks with North American expansion.

But firstly, in order to generate interest from North American broadcasters, it's helpful to have a presence in North America - Toronto provides that. 

And secondly, whatever happens at Toronto doesn't change the fact that the situation across UK RL clubs isn't healthy - which is the point I was initially responsing to. You can't apply a double standard that says Toronto should be self-sufficient but it is OK for Leigh to be at the mercy of Derek Beaumont's whims.

The goal here is that all clubs should be self-sufficient and that means that we need to increase the level of revenue coming into the game. It's clear that the ability of the clubs to do that is limited, so that puts more emphasis on central funding. Where does most of the central funding come from? TV and sponsorship. So why not make this sport as appealing as it can be to both domestic and global TV and sponsorship markets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

C'mon Tommy, Newcastle is in the development stage only time will tell what it will acheive good or otherwise and it has taken on a more bottom up approach to the professional game than either the birth of Sheffield or London did, the game was "Plonked" in these area's and expected to flourish and grow, no matter how you look at it and what positives can be taken out of each excersize of those clubs, they have all but failed to grab the attention of the local population. 

C'mon Harry, Newcastle get larger crowds than most of their heartland L1 counterparts and challenge a good number of them in the Championship, play at a great facility and run an academy. I don't see how there is a "or otherwise" there. They have passionate RL people there evidently and that should be encouraged.

50 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

The negativity is a condition born out of evidence, the stadiums they play in, the crowds they attract the same evidence could easily be applied to a number of clubs in the traditional areas, BUT because London are not in the traditional areas some people consider them to be a special case.

Surely then precisely because London are doing it outside the traditional areas that makes them a special case? They have none of the benefits that most heartland clubs do in terms of deep familiarity with the game or its culture, a large local(-ish) player pool of amateurs at a relatively high standard, a local council that will help build them a facility etc. Yet they can compete in SL, survive relegation and keep producing youngsters to play the game. 

50 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes nigh on 40 years has passed so they are not outsiders, if London had the same stadium as Wakefield and attracted the same attendances then they would be viewed as a success, but the logic of a lot of people is Wakefield should be surplus to requirement whilst London have potential, how many more years will those who hang on to the shirt tails of potential realise Rugby League is not the flavour of the month (or even 4 decades) to the populas of the capital.

Yet despite those 40 years they still are treated as such, why? Probably due to the fact they are the only non heartlands English team the majority of supporters have come across. 

Its not that Wakefield are surplus to requirements at all. It's that they have been standing still for nigh on 50 years in an area where the game really is played in abundance and genuinely is more popular than Football. On the most recent RL backchat the Fev chairman (hardly seeming like someone who would be a bastion for expansion or otherwise) called Belle Vue an embarrassment to the game.

The potential in London is obvious and always has been, just like in Melbourne for the NRL. Problem is it takes a hell of a lot more money and investment to get it there. The argument, London and SE people don't like RL is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, due to our own insistence on our northern geographic concentration hardly any are ever exposed to it on anything like a regular basis to be able to form an opinion. Secondly, our test matches have always been best attended in London, and having been there is always a large number of southern voices knocking about. Finally the Broncos have made some pretty poor choices in terms of marketing and location over the years (Quins RL, having god knows how many different stadiums etc), yet we as a game have pinned our hopes for almost the entire south of England on them with almost no support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Is that such a bad thing? 

It's very hard for somebody to buy into RL if they don't live in a tiny geographic area. Expanding our appeal across the media helps us with that. Going to every game home or away doesn't make you a better fan than the supporter who watches on TV because he can't or doesn't want to go to the ground. They're both fans of the sport. 

Let's get out of this idea that we are in the business of selling tickets - we aren't. We're in the business of selling content, and selling entertainment. The ticket is just one way of charging to access that content, but why can't TV or online be another one - and one that we embrace and enhance? The world is increasingly moving to an 'on demand' culture where people want to access content on their terms - why insist that they can only watch a game in a rickety ground with ###### food and beer at 3pm on Sunday? 

You needn't worry to long Micheal, Rugby League along with a few more sports that require body preperation and physicality will not be around in the not to distant future and in RL's case it will gather a pace to extinsion if taken to places aces that cannot do more than "bring the circus to town" i.e. give nothing back to the sport save for a decent attendance, if next season was day one for the formation of community development in 'virgin' territories it would be 30 years plus before those seeds would bear fruit.

You are quite correct the world is a changing, there are far more other distractions to demand peoples time and interest other than (in RL's case) getting bashed about a bit, coupled with in respect kids are losing the desire to play the game these days, which is evident by the big decline in participation numbers at most amatuer clubs which is gathering speed year on year, if you know anything about the amatuer game you will already know this.

There are some quite intelligent people it seems who write on this forum, but seemingly they have a brain storm when it comes to this issue of so called expansion, I have asked the question on numerous occasions,  "how do we sustain a player converyor belt in this country if we lose teams from our production area's we have here, at the expense of new teams originated in RL barren places" I am yet to recieve any coherent replies or suggestions, look at Manfreds suggestions of "Expansion" areas tell me how it will/can  be done, please enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

C'mon Harry, Newcastle get larger crowds than most of their heartland L1 counterparts and challenge a good number of them in the Championship, play at a great facility and run an academy. I don't see how there is a "or otherwise" there. They have passionate RL people there evidently and that should be encouraged.

Surely then precisely because London are doing it outside the traditional areas that makes them a special case? They have none of the benefits that most heartland clubs do in terms of deep familiarity with the game or its culture, a large local(-ish) player pool of amateurs at a relatively high standard, a local council that will help build them a facility etc. Yet they can compete in SL, survive relegation and keep producing youngsters to play the game. 

Yet despite those 40 years they still are treated as such, why? Probably due to the fact they are the only non heartlands English team the majority of supporters have come across. 

Its not that Wakefield are surplus to requirements at all. It's that they have been standing still for nigh on 50 years in an area where the game really is played in abundance and genuinely is more popular than Football. On the most recent RL backchat the Fev chairman (hardly seeming like someone who would be a bastion for expansion or otherwise) called Belle Vue an embarrassment to the game.

The potential in London is obvious and always has been, just like in Melbourne for the NRL. Problem is it takes a hell of a lot more money and investment to get it there. The argument, London and SE people don't like RL is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, due to our own insistence on our northern geographic concentration hardly any are ever exposed to it on anything like a regular basis to be able to form an opinion. Secondly, our test matches have always been best attended in London, and having been there is always a large number of southern voices knocking about. Finally the Broncos have made some pretty poor choices in terms of marketing and location over the years (Quins RL, having god knows how many different stadiums etc), yet we as a game have pinned our hopes for almost the entire south of England on them with almost no support.

Tommy need to go out now but just to say I must have termed it in a way you didn't  understand with regards to Newcastle, I think they are doing very well, and the area is progressing nicley, the bottom up approach seems to be working in that area,.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

There are some quite intelligent people it seems who write on this forum, but seemingly they have a brain storm when it comes to this issue of so called expansion, I have asked the question on numerous occasions,  "how do we sustain a player converyor belt in this country if we lose teams from our production area's we have here, at the expense of new teams originated in RL barren places" I am yet to recieve any coherent replies or suggestions, look at Manfreds suggestions of "Expansion" areas tell me how it will/can  be done, please enlighten me.

I agree that this is a perfectly valid concern and I understand the challenges facing the amateur game, but I'll try and answer it from two perspectives. I don't profess that these are the "right" answers, but I think they're valid perspectives. 

Firstly, whilst we are competing against much more for the attention of young people there are still, in my view, kids who do want to particpate in sport (participation in Rugby Union, for example, grew 26% at the same time participation in RL fell 10%). One of the issues is that both sport and society is making it hard to do this through things such as the erosion of playing spaces, by making good spaces prohibitively expensive, the impact of austerity and so-on - these factors are more acute in the RL heartlands than elsewhere. 

The term "barren places" is a bit of a loaded term in my view. Yes, they might be new to RL, but that doesn't mean that they are new to sport or new to a code of rugby / football. One of the biggest criticisms I see on social media about what Toronto are doing in their community work is that they are partnering with established rugby union structures. I think this criticism in unfair. 

Rugby in Canada and North America doesn't have the class-system baggage that it does in the UK. It could and arguably should be easier for Toronto or any other NA team to offer an opportunity for RU juniors to pursue a career in RL if they want to. These places aren't "barren", they're untapped. If you put a Steeden ball in the hands of a kid in Toronto, that kid will have just as much fun as one in Thatto Heath. 

Yes, a lot of this is very much a long-game approach and there is a lot of theory that may not reflect practice. It's possible that the first Canadian stand-off for Toronto isn't even born yet, but it takes a long time for any field (barren or not) to produce a harvest. The longer we leave it, the longer it will take. 

Secondly, we've never had a fully professional RL presence in Oldham, Swinton or Rochdale (to cite another poster's examples). We probably never will. To pin the success of the amateur clubs in these areas on the professional game is misguided. The reason why amateur clubs in these areas will fail, if they ever do, is because of a long and varied list of reasons related to demographic changes, population changes and leisure habit changes. 

But let's say that in 20 years time we have professional clubs in Toronto, New York and Boston. Do you not believe that could be a huge selling point for young people playing this game? The opportunity for young people to earn a living playing the sport they love in some of the world's most vibrant, exciting cities? I know I'd be inspired by that opportunity, and I'm sure many others would as well. If kids from Oldham, Swinton and Rochdale go on to become stars of this sport in Boston or New York, that's a fantastic thing in my view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Yes, some clubs rely on benefactors in sports other that RL. That doesn't make the situation in RL any more healthy. Nor does it prove one way or another the viability of Toronto or any other expansion club as sustainable long-term businesses. 

Not in North America they don't.  The business model of major North American pro leagues has made franchises in those leagues a profitable investment which makes money for their owners, decades of experience with it in at least five sports has proven that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not about being happy for them to go to the wall, its about building the number of clubs in total so that the game as a whole is stronger. Oldham, Rochdale and Swinton going to the wall has literally nothing to do with the success or failure of teams not based on the M62 corridor and more to do with the fact that the game as a whole isn't financially blessed.

Also, dare I say it, due to the game's small footprint and low profile.  In this era when the general sports follower in the UK sees continental-scale competitions like the Champions League, UEFA  League and Heineken Cup as standard fare, why would youngsters want to play a sport which doesn't have anything like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Also, dare I say it, due to the game's small footprint and low profile.  In this era when the general sports follower in the UK sees continental-scale competitions like the Champions League, UEFA  League and Heineken Cup as standard fare, why would youngsters want to play a sport which doesn't have anything like that?

I wouldn't disagree with the sentiment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not about being happy for them to go to the wall, its about building the number of clubs in total so that the game as a whole is stronger. Oldham, Rochdale and Swinton going to the wall has literally nothing to do with the success or failure of teams not based on the M62 corridor and more to do with the fact that the game as a whole isn't financially blessed.

Tommy you are the last person I would have thought I would accuse of being culpably ignorant, you really surprise me and that is said not in a discreditory way whatsoever, how you cannot envisage that if we do take the game to  multiple teams/areas/countries where Rugby League is a foreign entity, that it will not impact in the first case to player availability and secondly impact on area's and club's over here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.