Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Manfred Mann

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


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

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Edited by GUBRATS
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Manfred Mann
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours 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.

I don't believe I have the right to attend every game but I want the best chance I have of watching MY team. I am not bothered about watching Toronto versus Toulouse on tv. Yes, I might enjoy the rugby but how can I have passion for it when I am not bothered who wins ?

I show my support for RL by getting out there on the terraces and paying my money to the gateman .... and not just by paying an annual subscription to watch teams I have no affinity for from the comfort of my armchair.

In reply to any earlier comment to me which said I could afford to travel further afield if I drank less beer and saved up .... I don't drink and although I already do have enough money, thank you, there are also other things worth spending it on rather than having to travel abroad for a fixture just because other people want the game to look good to those who have never bothered to do what I do and go to watch it live.

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I don't believe I have the right to attend every game but I want the best chance I have of watching MY team. I am not bothered about watching Toronto versus Toulouse on tv. Yes, I might enjoy the rugby but how can I have passion for it when I am not bothered who wins ?

I show my support for RL by getting out there on the terraces and paying my money to the gateman .... and not just by paying an annual subscription to watch teams I have no affinity for from the comfort of my armchair.

In reply to any earlier comment to me which said I could afford to travel further afield if I drank less beer and saved up .... I don't drink and although I already do have enough money, thank you, there are also other things worth spending it on rather than having to travel abroad for a fixture just because other people want the game to look good to those who have never bothered to do what I do and go to watch it live.

So after all that, in short, you already do have the ability to watch them and the money to watch them, you just don't want to travel far too watch them?

Am I right?


Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I don't believe I have the right to attend every game but I want the best chance I have of watching MY team. I am not bothered about watching Toronto versus Toulouse on tv. Yes, I might enjoy the rugby but how can I have passion for it when I am not bothered who wins ?

I show my support for RL by getting out there on the terraces and paying my money to the gateman .... and not just by paying an annual subscription to watch teams I have no affinity for from the comfort of my armchair.

In reply to any earlier comment to me which said I could afford to travel further afield if I drank less beer and saved up .... I don't drink and although I already do have enough money, thank you, there are also other things worth spending it on rather than having to travel abroad for a fixture just because other people want the game to look good to those who have never bothered to do what I do and go to watch it live.

Thanks for the reply.

You can see my point surely that if we base growing the game around whether away fans can travel to see every game that their team plays, we are not going to get very far geographically? Add the fact that the English are renowned for not wanting to travel to far.

Respect to you for getting out their to support your team, but can I ask how many games you go to, because you would be able to see your team play at home on average every second week, therefore it wouldn't really matter if they travel to Toronto or Toulouse once a year, depending on who your team is.

Share this post


Link to post
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 ' 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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!


RL1.JPG.6a10be03c5528650e188f078de012540.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Omott91 said:

Thanks for the reply.

You can see my point surely that if we base growing the game around whether away fans can travel to see every game that their team plays, we are not going to get very far geographically? Add the fact that the English are renowned for not wanting to travel to far.

Respect to you for getting out their to support your team, but can I ask how many games you go to, because you would be able to see your team play at home on average every second week, therefore it wouldn't really matter if they travel to Toronto or Toulouse once a year, depending on who your team is.

I go to every game I can, both home and away, which is about 80% of m,y team's matches in a season. However, that figure would be dramatically reduced - as would the money I am putting into the game - if away games were played in far-off lands

I am certainly not against expansion but I also want to try and  preserve the local sides.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I go to every game I can, both home and away, which is about 80% of m,y team's matches in a season. However, that figure would be dramatically reduced - as would the money I am putting into the game - if away games were played in far-off lands

I am certainly not against expansion but I also want to try and  preserve the local sides.

It's okay. Expansion means that other people also get to put money into the game as well.

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...