Which Two Clubs to Take SL to 14?

[RayCee]

If the NRL took a major stake in SL and wanted 14 sides, which two would be invited? I would have thought Toulouse one. The other from London, York or Fev. My pick York as London need to sort their location out and Fev too small.

[Mr Frisky]

Toronto and New York 

[RayCee]

Just now, Mr Frisky said:

Toronto and New York 

If they wanted to push NA, maybe. I don’t think either are really ready for SL, one insolvent and the other still an embryo.

[Gerrumonside ref]

Perhaps let nature take its course having seen numerous failed attempts to artificially expand.

 

[RayCee]

2 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Perhaps let nature take its course having seen numerous failed attempts to artificially expand.

 

When the ARL expanded in the past, it was by invitation, or as you put it, artificially expand. Most succeeded. 

[Hela Wigmen]

Mogadishu and Caracas. 

Fourteen would be a terrible move. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 minute ago, RayCee said:

When the ARL expanded in the past, it was by invitation, or as you put it, artificially expand. Most succeeded. 

Different context though.  

The U.K. is not Australia and expansion in our sporting and cultural environment is much, much harder.

I can well believe it must be tempting to conceive of the failures here and successes  there as competency based, but I don’t think the argument adds up.  

If only it were that simple.

 

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Different context though.  

The U.K. is not Australia and expansion in our sporting and cultural environment is much, much harder.

I can well believe it must be tempting to conceive of the failures here and successes  there as competency based, but I don’t think the argument adds up.  

If only it were that simple.

 

I agree the markets are different. However, I was assuming the NRL would be thinking they could succeed if there was enough money to execute it properly. I think the UK model of expansion fails due to doing things under financially constraints. The TWP failure was due to this very issue. They seemed to think the owner had bottomless pockets and would take the opportunity to improve their finances at his expense. The problem was he didn’t and another embarrassment for RL expansion in the NH.

[Eddie]

If it was left to the same ‘independent’ panel and their 8 hours of talks we’d get Swinton and Hunslet. 

[Liverpool Rover]

Toulouse would probably be one, London if the move to Plough Lane is sorted would probably be the other and I would imagine that they would look at York and Newcastle or even South Wales.

The difference if the NRL were involved is that they would give the new clubs support unlike the RFL who have always admitted clubs from new areas and then did nothing to help them. The RFL have always been hamstrung financially but even if they had the money they wouldn’t have done anything as they would say that it isn’t their job.

[Damien]

9 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Perhaps let nature take its course having seen numerous failed attempts to artificially expand.

 

How do you define artificially? Is it just putting a team straight into Super League?

Toronto worked their way up through the pyramid and earned promotion on the field but were in a new RL area. Would you deem that to be artificial? 

[Eddie]

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

Toulouse would probably be one, London if the move to Plough Lane is sorted would probably be the other and I would imagine that they would look at York and Newcastle or even South Wales.

The difference if the NRL were involved is that they would give the new clubs support unlike the RFL who have always admitted clubs from new areas and then did nothing to help them. The RFL have always been hamstrung financially but even if they had the money they wouldn’t have done anything as they would say that it isn’t their job.

Not only did nothing to help them, in the recent case they actively wanted to ruin them. You couldn’t make it up. 

[Hela Wigmen]

I don’t get why fourteen has suddenly become the magic number. I can only hazard a guess that it’s seen as a route to losing loop fixtures from the calendar and if that’s the case, it creates more problems than it actually solves and adds to the mediocrity of Super League rather than making it better.

Whether you use the criteria that has been outlined for the twelfth place of Super League, the criteria used during the previous licencing period or a hybrid of the two, you’re going to have five or six clubs who tick the boxes and get their place in Super League. 

You then have another couple of clubs who probably tick nearly all the boxes but have a black mark over their name in terms of one or two things, one that can’t just be rectified in the space of a year or two.

You then have another handful of 5-6 clubs, who are either current Super League sides or Championship sides, who tick some boxes but not all.

You then have another 2-5 clubs who at this time only tick a couple of boxes but have ambitions to start ticking more boxes over the next 5-10 years and are growing slowly and organically without being parachuted into leagues. 

By extending the league to fourteen, you’re putting too many teams in who aren’t ticking enough boxes of the criteria just to lose playing five teams three times instead of two and if we’re doing that, what’s the point of the criteria in the first place?

I’ve got no problems with looking to expand to fourteen in time but it, like absolutely everything to do with Rugby League, needs to be as part of a strategy and a plan to shape the future of the game. That’s before you even discuss the infamous “E word”, expansion. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

21 minutes ago, Damien said:

How do you define artificially? Is it just putting a team straight into Super League?

Toronto worked their way up through the pyramid and earned promotion on the field but were in a new RL area. Would you deem that to be artificial? 

No, I think that was probably organic growth in that case, just a very sad end for all concerned.

[Davo5]

10 hours ago, RayCee said:

If the NRL took a major stake in SL and wanted 14 sides, which two would be invited? I would have thought Toulouse one. The other from London, York or Fev. My pick York as London need to sort their location out and Fev too small.

Why limit it to 2 clubs,wouldn’t the likes of Featherstone,Toulouse,London,York & Newcastle not bring more to the table than perennial strugglers Wakefield,Hull KR.

[Kirmonds pouch]

9 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

Toronto and New York 

Seriously, you actually do believe in this nonsense? God preserve us.

I was working in NY last year and you know what, nobody and I mean nobody had heard of RL. None had even heard of Rugby. Sone didn't even know that the UK, Britain and England were essentially the same place.

Yet people like you think that the good folk of NY are going to embrace RL, a game that the people of Sheffield couldn't even be bothered with. 

What planet are you people on, have you any idea as to the cost of launching a pro game in the states would cost and just haw little interest there would be! The cost is way beyond SL and the NRL and I can't think of any NY entrepreneurs who'd touch it with a barge pole.

Jesus Christ, they can't really make soccer work there after forty years and that's the biggest game on the planet.

Get real.

[Saint Toppy]

While the NRL appear to be better at running their game than the RFL they are by no means perfect, they've had spectacular failures in the past with expansion, Perth for one.

Then look at the Titans, for most of their existence they've been a basket case of a club, teetering on the brink on multiple occasions. Then look at the debacle of removing Souths from the competition only to readmit them 3 years later.

While I have no doubt an NRL buy in to SL will benefit the game over here I don't think they'll arrive with some magic wand and solve all the games problems

I also don't think an expansion to 14 teams is the right option at the moment - too many other issues to sort out first with 12 clubs. Lets get a stable, sustainable 12 team competition going first, then expand later.

[Oxford]

9 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Mogadishu and Caracas. 

Fourteen would be a terrible move. 

HW such optimism and positivity are overwhelming.

 

3 minutes ago, Kirmonds pouch said:

Seriously, you actually do believe in this nonsense? God preserve us.

K P such optimism and positivity are overwhelming.

[Oxford]

1 minute ago, Saint Toppy said:

While I have no doubt an NRL buy in to SL will benefit the game over here I don't think they'll arrive with some magic wand and solve all the games problems

ST such optimism and positivity are overwhelming.

[Kirmonds pouch]

7 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Why limit it to 2 clubs,wouldn’t the likes of Featherstone,Toulouse,London,York & Newcastle not bring more to the table than perennial strugglers Wakefield,Hull KR.

What a load of rubbish. What did London bring. Fev, York  have had twenty years to get in SL so why would they bring anything.

Funny isn't it that after a bad 18 month Trinity are perennial strugglers yet for the previous three seasons were doing very well.

Trinity have stayed in SL for 20 years, they have done so because fundamentely they are a better club than any of those mentioned and are there because they win enough games.

I'd love to know how you think any of your list would do better or 'bring more to the table' as you laughingly put it.

Trinity and HUL KR are not the struggling clubs, Featherstone,Toulouse,London,York & Newcastle are, if you could think you'd realise that.

Pathetic post.

[Saint Toppy]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

ST such optimism and positivity are overwhelming.

Its called realism

[Hela Wigmen]

6 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Why limit it to 2 clubs,wouldn’t the likes of Featherstone,Toulouse,London,York & Newcastle not bring more to the table than perennial strugglers Wakefield,Hull KR.

Featherstone, Toulouse and London certainly would tick some boxes, not all. As would a handful of Super League clubs. How you then separate them becomes interesting.

I think York and Newcastle are further behind though in time could well be looked at in the future. 

[Sports Prophet]

9 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Different context though.  

The U.K. is not Australia and expansion in our sporting and cultural environment is much, much harder.

I can well believe it must be tempting to conceive of the failures here and successes  there as competency based, but I don’t think the argument adds up.  

If only it were that simple.

 

Why is expansion any easier in Australia (or for the benefit of those on other forums, Oceana) than it is in Europe and further?

[Scotchy1]

I think question is why 14 to start with? 

If we need more teams, why not have 16 or 20?

If we look at it the other, why not rationalisation to 10 or 8 or 6 and more game against NRL clubs?

Im not sure about this obsession we seem to have with going to 14. We see arguments that half the league arent up to it yet also that we should add more in to that mix rather than consolidate or replace. 

[Oxford]

4 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Its called realism

Only in Miserable World!