Jump to content

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, redjonn said:

maybe, if taking a strategic view investing to help further building France RL would be a better choice than having x3 NA teams eventually in SL Europe.

Should limit the number of NA clubs in SL or remove P&R all together....

That’s not strategy. It’s accommodating clubs. Shoehorning clubs in means others being pushed to the back of the queue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SL17 said:

That’s not strategy. It’s accommodating clubs. Shoehorning clubs in means others being pushed to the back of the queue.

 

Maybe that is what is needed for growth. Football isn't popular because Liverpool weren't accommodated to protect Accrington Stanley from being "pushed to the back of the queue". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SL17 said:

That’s not strategy. It’s accommodating clubs. Shoehorning clubs in means others being pushed to the back of the queue.

 

Not if the league is expanded to 14 teams.

Expanding the number of professional teams in France clearly is a strategy

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DoubleD said:

Not if the league is expanded to 14 teams.

Expanding the number of professional teams in France clearly is a strategy

and in my opinion better than accommodating NA clubs... thus any resource, whether time, energy or monies or any other accommodations should be prioritised that way over and above NA...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Oldbear said:

Not a fan of inviting anyone in, but if we have to go down that route there are surely a host of questions that need to be answered before anyone is invited in. As for Ottawa there is also the question of international travel restrictions, not a lot of point inviting a team from this side of the water if they can’t play at home and currently Canada plans to stick to its current restrictions and quarantine requirements and thats before we even get into the cost issue.

Ontario has lost to much money due to lost tourism and events they can not afford another summer of no pro sports or festivals with that said i think pro teams will be allowed to travel only on charters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Jayme2020 said:

Ontario has lost to much money due to lost tourism and events they can not afford another summer of no pro sports or festivals with that said i think pro teams will be allowed to travel only on charters.

Fair enough, but at who's cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Fair enough, but at who's cost?

The NHL/NBA/MLB only use charters MLS has a rule only a set amount of times each team can use charters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that promotion and relegation had been abandoned permanently. But is it only for 2020?

Edited by Manfred Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Maybe that is what is needed for growth. Football isn't popular because Liverpool weren't accommodated to protect Accrington Stanley from being "pushed to the back of the queue". 

NITPICKING ALERT!

Liverpool replaced Accrington FC (not Stanley) who decided to leave the Football League to join the Lancashire League. Stanley Villa became Accrington Stanley after FC's demise.

Your point is a good one, though. The Football League brought in teams that expanded their geographical spread when equally strong (if not stronger) heartland clubs were knocking on the door. Expansion into a nationwide game was seen as crucial. Which explains why association football is a widespread and wealthy game, and why rugby league has lost ground even in its heartlands.

Edit: not forgetting, of course, that Liverpool were from the heartlands, playing at the former ground of founder member Everton. 

Edited by Methven Hornet
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Methven Hornet said:

NITPICKING ALERT!

Liverpool replaced Accrington FC (not Stanley) who decided to leave the Football League to join the Lancashire League. Stanley Villa became Accrington Stanley after FC's demise.

Your point is a good one, though. The Football League brought in teams that expanded their geographical spread when equally strong (if not stronger) heartland clubs were knocking on the door. Expansion into a nationwide game was seen as crucial. Which explains why association football is a widespread and wealthy game, and why rugby league has lost ground even in its heartlands.

Edit: not forgetting, of course, that Liverpool were from the heartlands, playing at the former ground of founder member Everton. 

You got that edit in quick , so the FL s expansion was putting a new club a few hundred yards from an existing member club ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DoubleD said:

Not if the league is expanded to 14 teams.

Expanding the number of professional teams in France clearly is a strategy

The league will never be expanded to 14. Therefore France along with NA require a different strategy. Clearly you don’t see the obvious sat behind your tinted glasses.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Maybe that is what is needed for growth. Football isn't popular because Liverpool weren't accommodated to protect Accrington Stanley from being "pushed to the back of the queue". 

It isn’t football. It’s Rugby League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Manfred Mann said:

I thought that promotion and relegation had been abandoned permanently. But is it only for 2020?

Then you thought wrong. Unless you mean yaw ion. Is your board becoming boring.

😂😂😂😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, redjonn said:

and in my opinion better than accommodating NA clubs... thus any resource, whether time, energy or monies or any other accommodations should be prioritised that way over and above NA...

And that is where we reach the impasse.

Many on here, including myself, that want to encourage expansion if it meets existing set criteria would love to see increased investment into the French game.  BUT, the RFL or FFRX111 do not have the income to either put additional human, physical or financial resources into further developing the French game.

Over the years both on here and Facebook people have said why can’t the money being put into Toronto, Ottawa or New York be put into the French game.  These people fail to grasp the fact that the investment in Toronto, Ottawa and New York is a personal choice from private individuals who choose to fund clubs in those cities and not in France.

One starter point might be to hold an annual international in France on Bastille Day and ring fence any profit to fund development in France.  It might only be a drop in the proverbial ocean but it’s a start.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SL17 said:

The league will never be expanded to 14. Therefore France along with NA require a different strategy. Clearly you don’t see the obvious sat behind your tinted glasses.

It already has been previously and with the right conditions under a new tv deal it will again, with the removal of loop fixtures 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SL17 said:

It isn’t football. It’s Rugby League.

Its professional sport. Indeed RL was partly invented as a professional sport to halt the spread of professional football.

Share this post


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

Its professional sport. Indeed RL was partly invented as a professional sport to halt the spread of professional football.

Call it what you want..I  have no time comparing sports in order to better our own. If you want new structure then simply bin the product and go again.

Edited by SL17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SL17 said:

Call it what you want..I  have no time comparing sports in order to better our own. If you want new structure then simply bin the product and go again.

Its not about a new structure its about more clubs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SL17 said:

Call it what you want..I  have no time comparing sports in order to better our own. If you want new structure then simply bin the product and go again.

So are you saying that RL cannot learn anything from other sports?


Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

So are you saying that RL cannot learn anything from other sports?

Why would we need to when we're so cash rich with a growing player and spectator pool and with sponsors lining up to throw more money at us?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 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
33 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

So are you saying that RL cannot learn anything from other sports?

I've got a sneaking suspicion he's suggesting such idiocy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

And that is where we reach the impasse.

Many on here, including myself, that want to encourage expansion if it meets existing set criteria would love to see increased investment into the French game.  BUT, the RFL or FFRX111 do not have the income to either put additional human, physical or financial resources into further developing the French game.

Over the years both on here and Facebook people have said why can’t the money being put into Toronto, Ottawa or New York be put into the French game.  These people fail to grasp the fact that the investment in Toronto, Ottawa and New York is a personal choice from private individuals who choose to fund clubs in those cities and not in France.

One starter point might be to hold an annual international in France on Bastille Day and ring fence any profit to fund development in France.  It might only be a drop in the proverbial ocean but it’s a start.

I agree the general point... but when talk starts about using central funding for Toronto/NA clubs then that's monies that should be prioritised to the strategy, in my case France.

We still as in RL/SL spend time, energy even if not monies on NA, which is wasted as it surely isn't RL priority to expand into NA rather than France at this stage.  Plus extra monies will be spent of travelling to and fro eventually which again could be a contribution to expansion into France plus spending that monies on travelling to France to fulfill extra fixtures their.

Yes an impasse, but that's because too many are consumed by something that would never have come out of any sensible expansion planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I agree the general point... but when talk starts about using central funding for Toronto/NA clubs then that's monies that should be prioritised to the strategy, in my case France.

We still as in RL/SL spend time, energy even if not monies on NA, which is wasted as it surely isn't RL priority to expand into NA rather than France at this stage.  Plus extra monies will be spent of travelling to and fro eventually which again could be a contribution to expansion into France plus spending that monies on travelling to France to fulfill extra fixtures their.

Yes an impasse, but that's because too many are consumed by something that would never have come out of any sensible expansion planning.

I think that is where there is a significant difference in perspective. Seeing the central funding as a sort of investment vs payment for the TV rights for the 12 super league clubs. 

For a while now we've trodden a path between the two, half the funding going towards Super League and the rest to the RFL, Championship and L1. With international club sides there's this new idea that clubs should earn TV money as an "investment", that is totally unapparrent with teams from the heartlands. Specifically the heartlands, as arguably all expansion clubs, domestic and international, have faced these higher expectations.

Share this post


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

I agree the general point... but when talk starts about using central funding for Toronto/NA clubs then that's monies that should be prioritised to the strategy, in my case France.

We still as in RL/SL spend time, energy even if not monies on NA, which is wasted as it surely isn't RL priority to expand into NA rather than France at this stage.  Plus extra monies will be spent of travelling to and fro eventually which again could be a contribution to expansion into France plus spending that monies on travelling to France to fulfill extra fixtures their.

Yes an impasse, but that's because too many are consumed by something that would never have come out of any sensible expansion planning.

Para 1.  If the SL Clubs had said that the share of TV income that was denied to Toronto would be used exclusively to grow the game in France then that would have probably be welcomed by all.  BUT, the SL clubs decided to keep it for themselves so that is no fault of Toronto.

Para 2.  How much time has been spent on NA by the RFL?  Would the RFL willingly put that time into developing the game in another country I.e. France. What money has been spent by clubs travelling to NA.  If Toronto are picking up the tab are we just talking about the cost of the coach to and from the airport and a couple of days of money for food and drink?

Para 3.  You are right about the lack of sensible planning.  The RFL/SL had no idea how to react to Toronto.  They were damned if they supported the venture and damned if they did not.  They bumbled, and fumbled, their way along hoping it would all sort itself out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I think that is where there is a significant difference in perspective. Seeing the central funding as a sort of investment vs payment for the TV rights for the 12 super league clubs. 

This difference is probably a big factor in TWP and SL disagreement over that money.

What needs to happen is to define that a certain amount of the money Sky gives SL/RFL/whoever, X amount is for exclusive TV rights, Y amount is for community investment, Z amount is for the league or whatever else.

The amount that is for TV needs to be split equally, since each team makes up an equal part of the league that is being broadcast.

Edited by TheReaper
  • Like 2

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...