The General 'Toronto Wolfpack' Discussion Thread

[Eddie]

27 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Go to the chipshop, they should be utilizing some of Tuesdays 'old newspapers' now, it's old news being kept alive by a few on here who have seen their own ariss.

There’s not much else to talk about tbf, other than this shambles of a season (not SL’s fault) and when might the championship and L1 start - not very exciting. 

[The Future is League]

20 hours ago, The Lad said:

If any club makes the same mistakes as Toronto wolfpack they should be kicked out and I think this desition sets a precedent for future punishments, it's funny that your question implies that you feel Toronto wasn't treated fairly when the worry was that Toronto wolfpack would be given special treatment. 

Have not Salford just been given special treatment?

[winnyason]

7 hours ago, SL17 said:

So he wasn’t in agreement at the costs the club would incur by paying for travelling clubs, yet willing to pay for a season over here!

Look let's forget about them I mean I want an insular m62 league kick out all the expansion clubs. This is our league let's make it smaller and just for us what could go wrong ? 

[whatmichaelsays]

7 hours ago, SL17 said:

Not really sure of your comment or what point you are trying to make.  TWP did advertise putting balls into kids hands! Do you have a link to the actual development work?

I could leave there. If you think placing balls in kids hands is expansion good luck. Most are born with it in their hands. That’s roots not built on 9000.

"Most are born with it in their hands" - Are you genuinely trying to say that kids can't be influenced into rugby? That external influences, like development, marketing, exposure and familiarity can't increase the number of people taking an interest in a sport?

"Pack it in lads! Lay off the development workers - turns out that liking RL is a genetic condition that comes with being born within 10 miles of Billinge Lump!"

[Eddie]

18 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

"Most are born with it in their hands" - Are you genuinely trying to say that kids can't be influenced into rugby? That external influences, like development, marketing, exposure and familiarity can't increase the number of people taking an interest in a sport?

"Pack it in lads! Lay off the development workers - turns out that liking RL is a genetic condition that comes with being born within 10 miles of Billinge Lump!"

Keep this quiet, if the SL clubs see it they’ll see some savings. 

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

"Most are born with it in their hands" - Are you genuinely trying to say that kids can't be influenced into rugby? That external influences, like development, marketing, exposure and familiarity can't increase the number of people taking an interest in a sport?

"Pack it in lads! Lay off the development workers - turns out that liking RL is a genetic condition that comes with being born within 10 miles of Billinge Lump!"

Rugby League can only be played in a prepared surface at organized clubs (long gone are the days that kids would congregate on the local field to organise themselves), unike the popularity of the borefest round ball game that can be played on any surface and it doesn't even have to be football they utilise.

The only way our sport will grow in popularity is a concerted effort by the governing bodies to spread the game, bring back development officers, give assistance to community club's, and ensure that pro and semi pro clubs do their utmost to get kids involved. Without all that we will wither away far far quicker than rejecting clubs from other continents who for years and generations would be totally reliant on others providing player's for them to utilise, the game is walking on a cliff edge at the moment as far as development of new player's is concerned, I say this not as a bystander looking from afar but as someone who was once very much involved and albeit just an observer these days I still get along to witness a shadow of its former self.

It's not just the Billinge Lump, it's around the Slag Heaps of Knottingley, the Docks in Hull, the Hills of West Cumbria, the Heavy Woolen of West Yorkshire that needs a good dose of attention  if we don't sort those places out first and foremost there will be no performer's to take the Circus on the Road to far off shores.

 

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Rugby League can only be played in a prepared surface at organized clubs (long gone are the days that kids would congregate on the local field to organise themselves), unike the popularity of the borefest round ball game that can be played on any surface and it doesn't even have to be football they utilise.

The only way our sport will grow in popularity is a concerted effort by the governing bodies to spread the game, bring back development officers, give assistance to community club's, and ensure that pro and semi pro clubs do their utmost to get kids involved. Without all that we will wither away far far quicker than rejecting clubs from other continents who for years and generations would be totally reliant on others providing player's for them to utilise, the game is walking on a cliff edge at the moment as far as development of new player's is concerned, I say this not as a bystander looking from afar but as someone who was once very much involved and albeit just an observer these days I still get along to witness a shadow of its former self.

It's not just the Billinge Lump, it's around the Slag Heaps of Knottingley, the Docks in Hull, the Hills of West Cumbria, the Heavy Woolen of West Yorkshire that needs a good dose of attention  if we don't sort those places out first and foremost there will be no performer's to take the Circus on the Road to far off shores.

 

Getting kids into the community game is far from "the only way" to make this game popular and, frankly, it's not the horse to bet the farm on. It's a piece of the puzzle granted and necessary to increase the talent pool, but an increasingly small one in the context of increasing popularity and one that actually only really appeals to those who already have an association with the sport (how many times have I told you Harry, people like you and I are not the "new" customer that the game needs to attract - we're already bought in). There are a myriad of reasons why the community game is in decline and I genuinely don't see that there is that much of a willingness or ability to tackle some of those issues. 

The problem is that getting people, especially young people, engaged with the community requires a level of commitment that is increasingly difficult to get - both from the players and from parents. For the kids, there are just too many distractions whilst for parents, there is an increasingly pervasive perception that this sport is too dangerous, or too much of a burden on their time. 

I've got a three-year old and I'd love him to play the game if he wants to, but pretty much from day one I've had grandparents in my ear banging on about how rugby is "dangerous" and how he'll "get hurt". My wife is already asking how much if our weekends will be spent stood in cold, muddy fields. Now, I'm someone who played the sport so understands the risks and a bit of mud doesn't bother me, but how many conversations like that are going on in households across the very areas you mention? Probably more than you'd like to think, particuarly when you consider demographic changes in those very areas and the decline in the number of people there who have a genuine association with the sport. 

The issue isn't that you need "a prepared surface" either. Look at the sports that have the highest levels of youth participation - swimming, gymnastics, athletics, basketball - they all require some sort of prepared environment. But the long-term trend shows a sobering stat for RL - youth participation in contact sports is etiher declinine, or growing at a slower rate than non-contact sports (football aside). 

The community game also can't compete with those other distractions vying for the attention of those kids. They don't meet and hang out in parks and playgrounds any more - the meet up and hang out on Facebook and Fortnite. You don't have to like that change in culture, but you have to at least accept and respond to it as a sport, because it's a far bigger threat to the community game in Leigh, Dewsbury or Batley than a club in Canada. 

So yes, it sort of does start with "putting a rugby ball in a kids hand" - because even if that kid doesn't go on to turn out for their local U12s, it at least plants a seed. It builds a recognition and a connection so that hopefully, one day, that kid goes on to be someone who has some sort of connection to the game. They might play the game, watch the game on TV, turn up to the stadium, go onto the internet and talk to other weirdos who like the game - or a combination of all of that. But a kid who picks up that ball and just grows up to watch the game on TV is no less valuable than someone who goes on to play and volunteer at their local community club. 

[Harry Stottle]

42 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Getting kids into the community game is far from "the only way" to make this game popular and, frankly, it's not the horse to bet the farm on. It's a piece of the puzzle granted and necessary to increase the talent pool, but an increasingly small one in the context of increasing popularity and one that actually only really appeals to those who already have an association with the sport (how many times have I told you Harry, people like you and I are not the "new" customer that the game needs to attract - we're already bought in). There are a myriad of reasons why the community game is in decline and I genuinely don't see that there is that much of a willingness or ability to tackle some of those issues. 

The problem is that getting people, especially young people, engaged with the community requires a level of commitment that is increasingly difficult to get - both from the players and from parents. For the kids, there are just too many distractions whilst for parents, there is an increasingly pervasive perception that this sport is too dangerous, or too much of a burden on their time. 

I've got a three-year old and I'd love him to play the game if he wants to, but pretty much from day one I've had grandparents in my ear banging on about how rugby is "dangerous" and how he'll "get hurt". My wife is already asking how much if our weekends will be spent stood in cold, muddy fields. Now, I'm someone who played the sport so understands the risks and a bit of mud doesn't bother me, but how many conversations like that are going on in households across the very areas you mention? Probably more than you'd like to think, particuarly when you consider demographic changes in those very areas and the decline in the number of people there who have a genuine association with the sport. 

The issue isn't that you need "a prepared surface" either. Look at the sports that have the highest levels of youth participation - swimming, gymnastics, athletics, basketball - they all require some sort of prepared environment. But the long-term trend shows a sobering stat for RL - youth participation in contact sports is etiher declinine, or growing at a slower rate than non-contact sports (football aside). 

The community game also can't compete with those other distractions vying for the attention of those kids. They don't meet and hang out in parks and playgrounds any more - the meet up and hang out on Facebook and Fortnite. You don't have to like that change in culture, but you have to at least accept and respond to it as a sport, because it's a far bigger threat to the community game in Leigh, Dewsbury or Batley than a club in Canada. 

So yes, it sort of does start with "putting a rugby ball in a kids hand" - because even if that kid doesn't go on to turn out for their local U12s, it at least plants a seed. It builds a recognition and a connection so that hopefully, one day, that kid goes on to be someone who has some sort of connection to the game. They might play the game, watch the game on TV, turn up to the stadium, go onto the internet and talk to other weirdos who like the game - or a combination of all of that. But a kid who picks up that ball and just grows up to watch the game on TV is no less valuable than someone who goes on to play and volunteer at their local community club. 

Well Michael that is very long winded way of predicting the game is doomed, even my broad wipe with the brush of suggesting involvement by the governing bodies to get some involvement to reverse the trend if only in the area's that already have familiarity and a foothold within the game is more achievable than - what is precisely your solution to get kids playing in greater numbers - and what is the point of planting seeds for the next generation of supporters if there are no players to watch? We know it is not going to happen overnight but if the decligning numbers keep on with the same rate it won't take very long, if the trend gathers momentum it will reach 'critical' in 25 to 30 years.

I was involved with junior development from the turn of the 80's and what you refer to as "the grandparent and parent" concern as always been evident - from expierence I have had lads pass through my teams who have gone on to be pro's and even internationals but had the parents fears been the allowed they would never have picked a ball up originally, and taking that one step further in a society of blame, litigation and fear of most things that move is RL a good fit in North America?

So, you have given many reasons why participation in younger people is in decline, but not one suggestion to arrest it, have you any solutions?

 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well Michael that is very long winded way of predicting the game is doomed, even my broad wipe with the brush of suggesting involvement by the governing bodies to get some involvement to reverse the trend if only in the area's that already have familiarity and a foothold within the game is more achievable than - what is precisely your solution to get kids playing in greater numbers - and what is the point of planting seeds for the next generation of supporters if there are no players to watch? We know it is not going to happen overnight but if the decligning numbers keep on with the same rate it won't take very long, if the trend gathers momentum it will reach 'critical' in 25 to 30 years.

I was involved with junior development from the turn of the 80's and what you refer to as "the grandparent and parent" concern as always been evident - from expierence I have had lads pass through my teams who have gone on to be pro's and even internationals but had the parents fears been the allowed they would never have picked a ball up originally, and taking that one step further in a society of blame, litigation and fear of most things that move is RL a good fit in North America?

So, you have given many reasons why participation in younger people is in decline, but not one suggestion to arrest it, have you any solutions?

 

Engage with youngsters on a platform they use and make the game more popular. Towns in the north of England aren't popular - especially with the way we sell them.

[whatmichaelsays]

39 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well Michael that is very long winded way of predicting the game is doomed, even my broad wipe with the brush of suggesting involvement by the governing bodies to get some involvement to reverse the trend if only in the area's that already have familiarity and a foothold within the game is more achievable than - what is precisely your solution to get kids playing in greater numbers - and what is the point of planting seeds for the next generation of supporters if there are no players to watch? We know it is not going to happen overnight but if the decligning numbers keep on with the same rate it won't take very long, if the trend gathers momentum it will reach 'critical' in 25 to 30 years.

I was involved with junior development from the turn of the 80's and what you refer to as "the grandparent and parent" concern as always been evident - from expierence I have had lads pass through my teams who have gone on to be pro's and even internationals but had the parents fears been the allowed they would never have picked a ball up originally, and taking that one step further in a society of blame, litigation and fear of most things that move is RL a good fit in North America?

So, you have given many reasons why participation in younger people is in decline, but not one suggestion to arrest it, have you any solutions?

 

I'm not saying the game is doomed. I'm saying that in order to avoid doom, it needs to respond to the current climate and engage young people in ways that they will respond to (see my comment on the Eddie Hearn thread for one such way of doing this). RL's problems aren't unique - what's unique is that people in RL seem to think that it can solve them by doing the stuff it has always done.  

If you want to push me on how I'd get more kids playing, I'd start with giving them the motivation to play - stars they can look up to, players they want to emulate. That means delivering the best TV product that we can, the best social media product that we can, putting RL people in the places that young people are looking and then making sure as many people as possible see it and can be inspired by it. RL doesn't have that at the moment. 

I'd make it easier for people to actually play the sport. As I said, not everybody wants to give the commitment that the community game demands, so let's minimise that commitment. I play 5-a-side football every week, but that doesn't mean I want to join my local amateur club, train Tuesday and Thursday nights and play on Sunday. Push short-form versions of the game that are more accessible and played more on an individual's terms. Push versions such as touch and tag much more heavily than we currently do and give the elite clubs targets to do this in necessary. Make it easy for a kid who sees a Super League game to find a club or a form of the game that (s)he can play at - whether they live in the heartlands or not. The RFL doesn't even have a tool on it's website that will show you the nearest club to your postcode (or if they do, it's well hidden) - why?  

I'd look to minimise parental concerns by pushing the skill, rather than the strength, aspect of the game from elite level downwards. The game needs to move away from this image of "a game for tough guys" and more towards "a game that anyone can play". We all know that it is, but does the wider public? We've all seen those half-time kids games where a team has one kid that is twice the size of the rest, and the tactic is basically to "give it to the big lad" - who learns anything in that? Who benefits? How does it keep the other kids engaged? And while you're at it, clean the game up at the lower levels. If you're a parent and your local club is Queens, are you really going to take them there to play?

Yes, we all might get excited by the big hits, but remember that we're the odd balls here. To most people, that's not a great selling point and in many respects, it actually takes away from more appealing aspects of the game. As I've said before, I think the elite game needs to push short-form versions to appeal to new audiences and to give us more of those 'Instagrammable' moments that kids want to replicate.

Again, the "TLDR" version of this is that you can't assume that the stuff that got the likes of you and me excited about this game is the stuff that is going to get our kids, and other people's kids, excited about it. The world has moved on and whilst the fancy city centre bars are packed out with people paying £12.50 for a flavoured gin in an oversized glass with weeds poking out of it, RL is acting like the delapidated working men's club wondering why the function room is still empty on "Meat Raffle and John Smiths for £1.50 a pint" night. 

[Hela Wigmen]

https://mobile.twitter.com/M_Shaw1/status/1324335253138321409

More of exactly the same, really, and nothing we didn’t already know.

[FearTheVee]

16 hours ago, Eddie said:

Interesting comments from LiVolsi here, regarding not being asked for proof of funds https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/nov/04/consortium-behind-plans-revive-toronto-wolfpack-unhappy-with-rejection-super-league-carlo-livolsi

So he says nobody mentioend it, despite him saying he was fully aware it would be needed from day 1 and having a plan to share details, but only after a yes vote?

And this wolf Grooming lark, seriously don't make me laugh.

So what we were being asked to go with is a Toronto team playing in York and maybe at soe point playing in Toronto, with the big carrott of a share of the undoubtedly enormous profits stemming from a grooming brand which is hoping to drive market share through its connections to the sport of Rugby League, playing in a small Yorkshire city under the Toronto banner.

And I'll show you the numbers once you say yes.

Thanks for your time - there's the door Carlos.  Can people not see how ridiculous this is?!?

[Damien]

An interesting article in the Sun that raises yet more questions about this decision. I would like to know a lot more about this report because anything I have heard so far doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all:

But one of them, commercial vice-president Jon Pallett, slammed the decision and its effects, particularly an independent report that found there was no commercial benefit of having a team in Canada, even though TV rights there were thought to have already been sold before they were promoted.

Questions over the role of Andy Anson and Matthew Wheeler in compiling it – and any links they have from Elstone’s time in football – have been raised. Wheeler refused to comment when approached by SunSport.

Pallett said: “This was positioned as an independent report, however it was produced using only two external contributors, both being based in the UK and both being former business associates of Super League executives.

“Super League have been clear on their desire that the Wolfpack not be re-admitted for a number of months now and the report was used to instruct other clubs to vote against.

“Clearly there were some financial issues before the pandemic. However, I genuinely believe that the greatly increased revenue from a Super League season, along with additional investment that would have come from shareholders, means the team would have been able to navigate those challenges.

“I personally do not feel the extent of these pandemic related issues was considered. The voting process to exclude the Wolfpack was indicative of the wider issues I personally feel rugby league faces at this time.

“I cannot help but feel that the decision will always be looked back on as a massive missed opportunity for the sport.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/13109532/some-of-the-numbers-in-toronto-wolfpacks-failed-super-league-bid-revealed/

[EastLondonMike]

Whats the old saying? Rugby League never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

More thoughts and views on the Toronto sage on the latest golden Point podcast. With Jon Wilkin as guest.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3cpu0Vw5u5z6AhGFnwh353?si=glLuqWafSxG6Yn8ot5BVqw

[The Future is League]

49 minutes ago, Damien said:

An interesting article in the Sun that raises yet more questions about this decision. I would like to know a lot more about this report because anything I have heard so far doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all:

But one of them, commercial vice-president Jon Pallett, slammed the decision and its effects, particularly an independent report that found there was no commercial benefit of having a team in Canada, even though TV rights there were thought to have already been sold before they were promoted.

Questions over the role of Andy Anson and Matthew Wheeler in compiling it – and any links they have from Elstone’s time in football – have been raised. Wheeler refused to comment when approached by SunSport.

Pallett said: “This was positioned as an independent report, however it was produced using only two external contributors, both being based in the UK and both being former business associates of Super League executives.

“Super League have been clear on their desire that the Wolfpack not be re-admitted for a number of months now and the report was used to instruct other clubs to vote against.

“Clearly there were some financial issues before the pandemic. However, I genuinely believe that the greatly increased revenue from a Super League season, along with additional investment that would have come from shareholders, means the team would have been able to navigate those challenges.

“I personally do not feel the extent of these pandemic related issues was considered. The voting process to exclude the Wolfpack was indicative of the wider issues I personally feel rugby league faces at this time.

“I cannot help but feel that the decision will always be looked back on as a massive missed opportunity for the sport.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/13109532/some-of-the-numbers-in-toronto-wolfpacks-failed-super-league-bid-revealed/

The best chance of Rugby League ever breaking into the most lucrative sports market in the world was destroyed by insular people who think that the game should only be played alongside the M62

[Lowdesert]

54 minutes ago, Damien said:

An interesting article in the Sun that raises yet more questions about this decision. I would like to know a lot more about this report because anything I have heard so far doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all:

But one of them, commercial vice-president Jon Pallett, slammed the decision and its effects, particularly an independent report that found there was no commercial benefit of having a team in Canada, even though TV rights there were thought to have already been sold before they were promoted.

Questions over the role of Andy Anson and Matthew Wheeler in compiling it – and any links they have from Elstone’s time in football – have been raised. Wheeler refused to comment when approached by SunSport.

Pallett said: “This was positioned as an independent report, however it was produced using only two external contributors, both being based in the UK and both being former business associates of Super League executives.

“Super League have been clear on their desire that the Wolfpack not be re-admitted for a number of months now and the report was used to instruct other clubs to vote against.

“Clearly there were some financial issues before the pandemic. However, I genuinely believe that the greatly increased revenue from a Super League season, along with additional investment that would have come from shareholders, means the team would have been able to navigate those challenges.

“I personally do not feel the extent of these pandemic related issues was considered. The voting process to exclude the Wolfpack was indicative of the wider issues I personally feel rugby league faces at this time.

“I cannot help but feel that the decision will always be looked back on as a massive missed opportunity for the sport.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/13109532/some-of-the-numbers-in-toronto-wolfpacks-failed-super-league-bid-revealed/

Mirrors the way I feel about it.  This followed by the allowed HKR and St Helens withdrawals/refusal put SL in a bad light.

It also creates an image of a toothless RFL as being nothing but an administrator.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'm not saying the game is doomed. I'm saying that in order to avoid doom, it needs to respond to the current climate and engage young people in ways that they will respond to (see my comment on the Eddie Hearn thread for one such way of doing this). RL's problems aren't unique - what's unique is that people in RL seem to think that it can solve them by doing the stuff it has always done.  

If you want to push me on how I'd get more kids playing, I'd start with giving them the motivation to play - stars they can look up to, players they want to emulate. That means delivering the best TV product that we can, the best social media product that we can, putting RL people in the places that young people are looking and then making sure as many people as possible see it and can be inspired by it. RL doesn't have that at the moment.

Nail hit on head there.  The proverbial 64,000$ question is, how can RL ever give today's kids the stars and players they can look up to and want to emulate without the likes of Toronto, London, New York, etc in a glamorous competition of the sort they can see in other sports competing to get them interested?

[Hela Wigmen]

14 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Nail hit on head there.  The proverbial 64,000$ question is, how can RL ever give today's kids the stars and players they can look up to and want to emulate without the likes of Toronto, London, New York, etc in a glamorous competition of the sort they can see in other sports competing to get them interested?

Kids aren’t bothered about the geography of clubs, they’re bothered about the super stars and the super star squads. 

[silcoates]

11 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Nail hit on head there.  The proverbial 64,000$ question is, how can RL ever give today's kids the stars and players they can look up to and want to emulate without the likes of Toronto, London, New York, etc in a glamorous competition of the sort they can see in other sports competing to get them interested?

Yes of course.But you can't con the public.You can't call them Toronto and New york  if they are full of british players.This is not the premier league in football,soccer.This is rugby league .When is it going to sink in with some people?

[whatmichaelsays]

28 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Nail hit on head there.  The proverbial 64,000$ question is, how can RL ever give today's kids the stars and players they can look up to and want to emulate without the likes of Toronto, London, New York, etc in a glamorous competition of the sort they can see in other sports competing to get them interested?

For me it isn't even really an issue of the locations we play in. Don't get me wrong, it can be part of the solution, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all and thinking it is is setting the game up for more false dawns and more failure. 

You don't need to put "pins in maps" and you don't need to wait for the next Argyle or Hughes to come along with a bundle of cash and a choice of city. When we frame the issue of expansion as a geographic one, we turn it into a problem that one half of the game thinks it cannot solve because we've tried it before, whilst the other half of the game doesn't want to solve it because it's presents an existential threat to their club. Framing this issue as a geographic one also gives a free-pass to the existing clubs - it sends a message that they don't have a responsibility and a role to play in solving this problem. 

I said it in the Hearn thread, but RL's lack of media exposure, it's ageing audience, it's poor commercial performance and, to some extent, it's geography are all symptoms of the problem that hasn't been addressed - and that's relevance. The game just isn't relevant to enough people. That's why it struggles to move up the news agenda, struggles for the attention of new fans and struggles for the attention of sponsors and investors. 

To me, where the clubs are based is secondary. Putting pins in maps isn't expansion. Making RL something that more people want to watch, buy and enjoy is expansion and I'd pose the question that I raised in the Hearn thread. I'd ask Elstone, Rimmer and every club owner to think about the fan that they want to attract through the turnstiles for the first time, or to tune into RL on TV for the first time, five years from now - and then tell me what that person is doing today. How are they spending their time? What are they spending their disposable income on? What sports do they watch and how do they watch them? What media do they use? What social networks are they using?

Those are the questions they should know the answer to, but I'll bet my house that barely any of them do. 

[Big Picture]

8 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Kids aren’t bothered about the geography of clubs, they’re bothered about the super stars and the super star squads. 

Yes they are bothered about super stars and super star squads, and none are those are ever found in small regional leagues like the misnamed "Super League".  More and more they're all found in glamorous multinational competitions like the Champions League, UEFA Euro League, Heineken Cup, NBA, NHL, etc.  Tony Collins calls that the next stage in the evolution of pro sports.

6 minutes ago, silcoates said:

Yes of course.But you can't con the public.You can't call them Toronto and New york  if they are full of british players.This is not the premier league in football,soccer.This is rugby league .When is it going to sink in with some people?

Yes you can call them Toronto and New York, just as you can call big soccer clubs Manchester, Liverpool, FC Barelona, Paris Saint-Germain etc. regardless of how many foreign players they have.  The name is from where they are based, not where their players are from.

[Hela Wigmen]

9 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Yes they are bothered about super stars and super star squads, and none are those are ever found in small regional leagues like the misnamed "Super League".  More and more they're all found in glamorous multinational competitions like the Champions League, UEFA Euro League, Heineken Cup, NBA, NHL, etc.  Tony Collins calls that the next stage in the evolution of pro sports.

Yes you can call them Toronto and New York, just as you can call big soccer clubs Manchester, Liverpool, FC Barelona, Paris Saint-Germain etc. regardless of how many foreign players they have.  The name is from where they are based, not where their players are from.

Kids aren’t bothered by the geography of clubs though. What you’re alluding to is how these sports and their competitions are marketed and pushed into these kids’ lives. 

[Big Picture]

2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

For me it isn't even really an issue of the locations we play in. Don't get me wrong, it can be part of the solution, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all and thinking it is is setting the game up for more false dawns and more failure. 

You don't need to put "pins in maps" and you don't need to wait for the next Argyle or Hughes to come along with a bundle of cash and a choice of city. When we frame the issue of expansion as a geographic one, we turn it into a problem that one half of the game thinks it cannot solve because we've tried it before, whilst the other half of the game doesn't want to solve it because it's presents an existential threat to their club. Framing this issue as a geographic one also gives a free-pass to the existing clubs - it sends a message that they don't have a responsibility and a role to play in solving this problem. 

I said it in the Hearn thread, but RL's lack of media exposure, it's ageing audience, it's poor commercial performance and, to some extent, it's geography are all symptoms of the problem that hasn't been addressed - and that's relevance. The game just isn't relevant to enough people. That's why it struggles to move up the news agenda, struggles for the attention of new fans and struggles for the attention of sponsors and investors. 

To me, where the clubs are based is secondary. Putting pins in maps isn't expansion. Making RL something that more people want to watch, buy and enjoy is expansion and I'd pose the question that I raised in the Hearn thread. I'd ask Elstone, Rimmer and every club owner to think about the fan that they want to attract through the turnstiles for the first time, or to tune into RL on TV for the first time, five years from now - and then tell me what that person is doing today. How are they spending their time? What are they spending their disposable income on? What sports do they watch and how do they watch them? What media do they use? What social networks are they using?

Those are the questions they should know the answer to, but I'll bet my house that barely any of them do. 

Of course you don't put "pins in maps", you choose cities carefully and strategically based on what they bring to the table in terms of their appeal to broadcasters, sponsors, and the public.  You want cities which either have established rivalries in other sports which can be leveraged and also lend themselves to natural new rivalries.  London and New York are both big cities and the two main financial capitals in the world, so London vs. New York would make a natural rivalry.  That's not "pins in maps", it's strategy.

RL's lack of media exposure, it's ageing audience and it's poor commercial performance are all directly related to its top teams all being located in smallish towns, economically disadvantaged which are likely considered backwaters by most of the minority of Brits who've ever even heard of them.  If you asked 1000 (a sample big enough to be accurate within 3%, 19 times out of 20) Londoners are aren't displaced northerners what they think of Wigan or St Helens the results might shock you.

If Tony Collins and I are right in considering the internationalization of team sports at club level to be the next stage in the evolution of pro sports, then RL needs a league which can deliver that to solve the problem of its poor media exposure, crowds, TV audience and commercial performance because that's where the bar is now.

[RobertAM]

I just hope the "Elstone papers" ie his commissioned report on the viability of RL in Canada/North America is released publicly. I can grudgingly accept that LiVolsi's submission may not have thrilled the majority of SL owners with the decision on WP re-entry being denied based on that. However an "in depth" research document being done in 30 days by close chums of Elstone's and based in the UK  in the midst of a pandemic seems implausible and smacks of "here is my conclusion now support it with facts". This has implications for the Aces, NYRL, Monte Gaddis Cleveland efforts, the CRLA and any other supporter/fan of the sport and I'd like to know if any or all of these groups were contacted in the 30 day period. I hope RL journalists demand that this document be released. 

[whatmichaelsays]

12 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Of course you don't put "pins in maps", you choose cities carefully and strategically based on what they bring to the table in terms of their appeal to broadcasters, sponsors, and the public.  You want cities which either have established rivalries in other sports which can be leveraged and also lend themselves to natural new rivalries.  London and New York are both big cities and the two main financial capitals in the world, so London vs. New York would make a natural rivalry.  That's not "pins in maps", it's strategy.

RL's lack of media exposure, it's ageing audience and it's poor commercial performance are all directly related to its top teams all being located in smallish towns, economically disadvantaged which are likely considered backwaters by most of the minority of Brits who've ever even heard of them.  If you asked 1000 (a sample big enough to be accurate within 3%, 19 times out of 20) Londoners are aren't displaced northerners what they think of Wigan or St Helens the results might shock you.

If Tony Collins and I are right in considering the internationalization of team sports at club level to be the next stage in the evolution of pro sports, then RL needs a league which can deliver that to solve the problem of its poor media exposure, crowds, TV audience and commercial performance because that's where the bar is now.

But unless you already have clubs in those locations, or you have an investor willing to base their club where you want them to, it is a "pins in maps" approach. At the moment, we don't have a club in New York. What we have is a bloke with a crate of beanie hats to sell, so we can't build any sort of strategy around a club in New York as we sit here today. 

Is playing in cities preferable from a marketing perspective to playing in towns? Yes, but the game is currently played predominantly in towns, so let's work to overcome those biases. The clubs that play rugby league are not "towns", they're brands - so sell that. The players wearing cherry and white don't represent Wigan Town, they represent Wigan Warriors - and that's what you sell and that's what you make it easy for people to buy. Ask your same person on the street what the hell a Saracen or a Harlequin is or what they think of Wasps and you'd probably get equally blank looks. 

There is nothing, nothing at all, about being in the north that stops rugby league reaching new audiences, nothing about being in the north that stops it attracting commercial partners, nothing about being in the north stops RL going viral on social media and nothing about being in the north that stops it being newsworthy. It all comes down to making the sport more relevant to more people.