Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
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

7 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.

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, I have not seen any of Toronto's games in this country live on TV, they kick off at 3:00 on Sundays the same as all the other Championship fixtures in which I am useually in attendance cheering my team on.

Apologies to anyone infirmed who can't get out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

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

Of course but not necessary "as well" ..... if I, and others, are not able to travel to these foreign-based teams to watch the game (eg Work commitments which might be disrupted due to the longevity of the trips) then although others are putting in their money, many who would normally do are not.

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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 ? 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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 ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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?

Not exactly .... Even if I wanted to watch my team playing in Toronto, Toulouse, etc then a thing called work might get in the way due to the time it would take to get to those matches as opposed to more local away grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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.

I agree with the above.

It perhaps waits to be seen if that level of support will continue (and at other newish clubs) or could some of it just be the novelty factor of a new sport in the area ? Remember what attendances Fulham started with and what eventually happened.

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


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

Not exactly .... Even if I wanted to watch my team playing in Toronto, Toulouse, etc then a thing called work might get in the way due to the time it would take to get to those matches as opposed to more local away grounds.

Ah right. What about things called holidays? Or do you not want to go on holiday to watch your team play too?


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Ah right. What about things called holidays? Or do you not want to go on holiday to watch your team play too?

So I tell the rest of the family that I am taking my holidays to go and watch rugby instead of going with them somewhere ???

You don't know my personal situation regarding how many holidays I can take or when I can have them ... so until you do stop trying to organise my life to suit your own agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So I tell the rest of the family that I am taking my holidays to go and watch rugby instead of going with them somewhere ???

You don't know my personal situation regarding how many holidays I can take or when I can have them ... so until you do stop trying to organise my life to suit your own agenda.

But you want to organise rugby league to suit yours?

  • Like 1

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
Just now, gingerjon said:

But you want to organise rugby league to suit yours?

Why is it people don't actually read what is written on these forums and just try and put their own spin on it to suit their own point of view ?

I don't want to organise anything .. it is already organised the way I like it.  If others wan to change it then they are the ones who want it organised to suit them, maybe including yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

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" 

Agreed. Many on here are quite happy for teams such as Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, etc to go to the wall, yet if they do, the amateur game in those areas will also diminish; then so will the overall interest in the game and thus less youngsters will play, with eventually not as many players for the professional clubs to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
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,.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agreed. Many on here are quite happy for teams such as Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, etc to go to the wall, yet if they do, the amateur game in those areas will also diminish; then so will the overall interest in the game and thus less youngsters will play, with eventually not as many players for the professional clubs to choose from.

Ah, someone who can see the frailties of so called expansion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agreed. Many on here are quite happy for teams such as Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, etc to go to the wall, yet if they do, the amateur game in those areas will also diminish; then so will the overall interest in the game and thus less youngsters will play, with eventually not as many players for the professional clubs to choose from.

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Why is it people don't actually read what is written on these forums and just try and put their own spin on it to suit their own point of view ?

I don't want to organise anything .. it is already organised the way I like it.  If others wan to change it then they are the ones who want it organised to suit them, maybe including yourself.

Nope. You like it being organised to suit you. You are the one who wants it organised to suit them.

And then get weepy when that's pointed out.


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
22 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

So I tell the rest of the family that I am taking my holidays to go and watch rugby instead of going with them somewhere ???

You don't know my personal situation regarding how many holidays I can take or when I can have them ... so until you do stop trying to organise my life to suit your own agenda.

You know, you could always take your family? I'm sure they'd love a trip to the south of France, or Toronto! 

You want to organise rugby league to suit your own agenda. How amusing you'd throw the same accusation at me.

It's a bloody good job you don't follow football or rugby union, with all their European traveling. 

Your attitude is very much "if it doesn't suit me, it's wrong" and what suits you is on your doorstep. I'm sorry, but that's not the way the world works. Not in this day and age.

If you REALLY want to do something, you find a way. But you have no right or entitlement to be able to attend every game at your ease just because it used to be that way.

It appears your love for the game isn't as great as your love for an easy ride. That's your problem, not the game's.

  • Like 2

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

You know, you could always take your family? I'm sure they'd love a trip to the south of France, or Toronto! 

Oh, you know what my family want now do you ???

You might well tell your family what they must do, I don't.

Edited by RL does what Sky says

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...