Jump to content

Putting Leigh in SL is the biggest mistake RL ever made (Merged threads)


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I just want to understand the logic for putting Leigh in SL coz I still don't understand.  Toulouse has just signed a 9 year deal with Stade Toulousain that not just allows them to play at the ic

Toulouse will hopefully get promoted on the back of a winning season which also helps selling tickets and corporates for their first season in the big time. I have no problem with Leigh being promoted

If I were at Toulouse, I wouldn't have been too anxious to get a free ticket into $uperleague for 2021. Too many obstacles to international travel at the moment, too much uncertainty, too little

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Leigh were put into Super League for 1 reason and 1 reason only, to get relegated. Small time clubs like Wakefield, Hull kr, Salford and Castleford are happy with that as it preserves their Super League status for another year. 

Precisely, and given Mr Beaumont's tweeting too...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, yipyee said:

Your points a contradiction,

Newcastle and Toulouse improve Stadia, improves dwindling attendances, improves player pathways with 2 new academys, Toulouse even have a second string in the french league, Commecial improves as new areas therefore new sponsors spread across tge 12 teams, cenreal funding is an odd one, should this be shared from internationals, if so regular inrernationals with france would increase the central pot of both govening bodies. TV negotiations.. Well 2 french clubs would mean a free stream / production every week from France instead of every other week, thus making us more attractive to sky, not to mention the potential of increased interest within France

That’s lovely. I’m not talking about Toulouse and Newcastle directly anyway.

In Super League, there are issues with stadia, player pathways, player pool, the salary cap, commercially and surrounding funding. These things will all still exist if Toulouse and Newcastle were announced as taking part in Super League in 2022 and aren’t some form of “golden goose”. Belle Vue and Wheldon Road will still exits, player pathways at Salford and Leigh will still remain questionable, the player pool will still be as small as Newcastle would have to go fully professional and ties back into the pathways point, questions around whether the salary cap is big enough (and many other questions) will still exist, questions will still be asked commercially and of the funding of the sport.

None of these things are solved by Toulouse and Newcastle. They’re not solved by Featherstone and Bradford either. Dropping two sides into Super League, whether they’re not on the M62 or whether their glories come decades ago, doesn’t solve any questions. It asks more and really suits very few people. Using the same approach we have used for nearly every ‘new’ side that have joined Rugby League in the modern era and the same approach last time we went to fourteen, cannot happen again. 

A fourteen club Super League should be the aim but not for some time yet. Super League needs to sort Super League out before looking to expand. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JM2010 said:

I think adding more clubs to SL at the moment just spreads the player pool more thinly. 

Clubs like Newcastle can hopefully be added in the future as they might have 25+ community clubs feeding into their youth system which opens up a new source of players and allows them to be competitive rather than just signing players and juniors from the same pot as everyone else

Let me just put into perspective what those supposedly 25 new clubs would bring, your whole analysis is based upon the spread of the playing pool, so considering all the rest of the 'Heartland' area's who have numerous community clubs well in excess of 25+ can't produce enough player's for our professional ranks (supplemented by 90+ overseas player's) that new start up's with novice participation, very probably devoid of an 'elite' pathway structure it is going to take hell of a long time for the area to produce pro player's, I would suggest the idea is on par with all those who believed Toronto would be producing enough quality player's in 10 years. RL is an organic product it takes years to nuture and grow it doesn't happen overnight.

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

You seems to know more than me who live in  toulouse about toulouse olympique. 

Plenty of French RL SME’s on here usually based on conjecture or a drunken weekend 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PECETTO said:

You seems to know more than me who live in  toulouse about toulouse olympique. 

I can only comment on my experiences Pecetto , not making it up , although it seems on here , unless you can back up your statements with a government funded survey published that can be linked to , you are a liar 

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

No because the teams who would be involved are different.  Toulouse and Newcastle are both running academy systems and the commercial opportunities would be there to get part time playes who are good enough to movefull time.  Plus with a reduced TV deal I dont think RL can wait.  We need to strike soon. 

Carrying on from my post above, I would suggest that Elite 1 and 2 in France are of a much higher standard than just the Toulouse area (and Newcastle) will accomplish for a very very long time, they also have clubs under the Elite divisions, why is the game not much stronger in France and producing more top class player's?

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

That’s the sort of thinking that’s seen the game in a place where it’s currently at. You’re relying heavily on Toulouse and Newcastle being some form of metaphorical “golden goose”, completely ignoring the various issues the game has, hoping they’ll mysteriously vanish or sort themselves out, without their being any plan or strategy to address these issues and pinning your hopes on these clubs somehow growing the sport on and off the pitch, again, without any plan or strategy. 

If Ken Davy announced Toulouse and Newcastle right now for 2022, Super League clubs would still have issues around it for the following areas;

- Stadia. 
- Declining crowds. 
- Player Pathway. 
- Player Pool. 
- Commercially. 
- Central Funding. 
- TV negotiations.

Toulouse and Newcastle may have their club in order in some of those areas, that’s great but overall, not enough clubs in Super League presently do, so brushing that under the carpet and placing ill prepared clubs into Super League doesn’t actually help solve anything.

Without Super League getting its house in order first, any change to 14 would be as unsuccessful as the last time we expanded the league. 14 is a pipe dream. We don’t have 12 strong enough clubs for Super League, expanding would mean we’d have fewer strong clubs and would create more issues than it solves. We have 14 professional clubs at present (of which Newcastle isn’t one). Of the two outside Super League, one of them is unlikely to play a home game this year and the other is haemorrhaging the few fans it does have to move into a stadium that based off the projections we’re seeing, is unsustainable, at best. 

14 is the long term aim. Or at least should be. Getting our ducks in order should be the short to medium term aims. 

Great post Hela.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So I'm a liar ?

What year was this? Was this after they formerly linked up with Stade Toulousain in mid-2019? ST are pretty much the biggest rugby club in France and now they have a 10-year agreement.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Let me just put into perspective what those supposedly 25 new clubs would bring, your whole analysis is based upon the spread of the playing pool, so considering all the rest of the 'Heartland' area's who have numerous community clubs well in excess of 25+ can't produce enough player's for our professional ranks (supplemented by 90+ overseas player's) that new start up's with novice participation, very probably devoid of an 'elite' pathway structure it is going to take hell of a long time for the area to produce pro player's, I would suggest the idea is on par with all those who believed Toronto would be producing enough quality player's in 10 years. RL is an organic product it takes years to nuture and grow it doesn't happen overnight.

Couple of points there Harry.

Firstly, I said in the future, so if it takes 10 years then so be it.

Secondly, I don't think any clubs have 25 + community clubs in their catchment. Leeds and Hull might get near. 

Lastly, Toronto and Newcastle's junior pathway and development approaches are poles apart. Newcastle have a decent academy and are actively growing the community game whereas Toronto did neither.

I know we have differing opinions but that's what this forum is all about

 

 

Edited by JM2010
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Scubby said:

What year was this? Was this after they formerly linked up with Stade Toulousain in mid-2019? ST are pretty much the biggest rugby club in France and now they have a 10-year agreement.

No , it was before that , but what difference does that make , are we discussing ST ? 

It was my experience , or ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR ?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Firstly, as a club I really like Leigh and there previous SL average was a healthy 6,000 so they, maybe with Fev, are good examples of little towns who could add value  (but not when we are limited to a 12 club SL) 

What York, Toulouse and Newcastle have is a much bigger population centre and commercial opportunities.  Leigh will never challenge for SL but all three above could.  

Thought experiment: If Toulouse had been given the nod to join on same 1 million or so deal how much in commercial revenue could they have made with their huge business community and their 450,000 plus population? 

Which game will grow the sport more, Leigh vs Wigan or Toulouse vs Catalán?

And you are right about being careful about expansión but comparing París to Toulouse is to ignore the reality of the work that has gone on.  

Super League should be 14 teams with both French clubs locked in.  That's 3 sell outs in France, an extra SL place and a 27 game season.  Top 6 playoffs, straight knock out.  

You could sell that with your eyes closed. 

 

So, you're basing it on "what ifs"?

Because York, Toulouse and Newcastle have bigger population centres and commercial opportunities, it doesn't mean that that will automatically translate to a 2nd tier rugby league club with no on field success, nor do these teams instantly "grow the game", the game needs to be grown organically, not just fast tracking non heartland clubs because they have a bigger population than say, Batley, Leigh or Featherstone.

Everything you say is based on assumption with no real evidence that any of York, Toulouse, or Newcastle will ever be anything other than a mid size, but ambitious championship club.

I know I may sound like an anti expansionist, but I am far from it, I want the game to expand, I want to see vibrant clubs in major cities attracting investment and new support into the game, but it has to be done properly and over time, and as yet, there's absolutely no evidence to me that any of those 3 clubs are any better on or off the field than the current SL clubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

No , it was before that , but what difference does that make , are we discussing ST ? 

It was my experience , or ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR ?

Capitals always helps with making a point. Your experience is your experience (at that point in time) but things do develop. No one had heard of Salford City FC 5 years ago - they were in the 7/8th tier and playing on a park field with 20 spectators. They may be playing the likes of Sunderland, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday in a year or two. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

No , we were all full aware we had to ask for ' Olympic ' Rugby team , total blank faces whenever we asked , even literally a couple of hundred yards from the stadium 

Have you ever been ?

I’ve been twice and not had that issue 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Capitals always helps with making a point. Your experience is your experience (at that point in time) but things do develop. No one had heard of Salford City FC 5 years ago - they were in the 7/8th tier and playing on a park field with 20 spectators. They may be playing the likes of Sunderland, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday in a year or two. 

And at that time Toulouse were 80 years old and were in the Championship , as they are now , no comparison whatsoever 

Forget it , pointless offering an opinion , got some grass to cut 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, meast said:

So, you're basing it on "what ifs"?

Because York, Toulouse and Newcastle have bigger population centres and commercial opportunities, it doesn't mean that that will automatically translate to a 2nd tier rugby league club with no on field success, nor do these teams instantly "grow the game", the game needs to be grown organically, not just fast tracking non heartland clubs because they have a bigger population than say, Batley, Leigh or Featherstone.

Everything you say is based on assumption with no real evidence that any of York, Toulouse, or Newcastle will ever be anything other than a mid size, but ambitious championship club.

I know I may sound like an anti expansionist, but I am far from it, I want the game to expand, I want to see vibrant clubs in major cities attracting investment and new support into the game, but it has to be done properly and over time, and as yet, there's absolutely no evidence to me that any of those 3 clubs are any better on or off the field than the current SL clubs.

Some good points and it is the eternal question. However, SL does need pressure from outside putting on it to break the cycle.

At the moment, 4-5 teams are holding onto the hope that they are not the one to finish bottom - that is it in terms of their existence and ambition. If some clubs are knocking on the door with better facilities, similar crowds and a wider geographical footprint then it is either change or die. The only logic for Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone being in SL for example is if all three are booming entities with excellent crowds and facilities. If it is just to make up the numbers then pressure on their existence in SL is fair game isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

And at that time Toulouse were 80 years old and were in the Championship , as they are now , no comparison whatsoever 

Forget it , pointless offering an opinion , got some grass to cut 

Salford FC is 80 years old too. Don't forget to go right to the edges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

Couple of points there Harry.

Firstly, I said in the future, so if it takes 10 years then so be it.

Secondly, I don't think any clubs have 25 + community clubs in their catchment. Leeds and Hull might get near. 

Lastly, Toronto and Newcastle's junior pathway and development approaches are poles apart. Newcastle have a decent academy and are actively growing the community game whereas Toronto did neither.

I know we have differing opinions but that's what this forum is all about

 

 

On your second point I was relating to the WHOLE of the heartlands hence the reference to 90+ overseas required to swell the playing numbers.

My reference to TWP was that so many on this platform considered that the Toronto area would be producing enough quality player's to be clise to self sufficiency in a very few years, I believe it would take at least 3 generations to organically generate players of the required quality, yes Newcastle differs greatly from Toronto they have a 'kick start' in that the fame is not foreign to this country, I would love the Newcastle area to kick on but I think it will take a very long time. 

Nothing wrong with a discussion that is of different opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Some good points and it is the eternal question. However, SL does need pressure from outside putting on it to break the cycle.

At the moment, 4-5 teams are holding onto the hope that they are not the one to finish bottom - that is it in terms of their existence and ambition. If some clubs are knocking on the door with better facilities, similar crowds and a wider geographical footprint then it is either change or die. The only logic for Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone being in SL for example is if all three are booming entities with excellent crowds and facilities. If it is just to make up the numbers then pressure on their existence in SL is fair game isn't it?

I think we need to be patient and let these ambitious, "trendy" clubs grow, organically, hopefully in 10 years time then we could have 20 clubs strong enough to be able to make RL competitive, we need to work from the bottom up, get the game promoted, pushed and played in schools, colleges, universities, get communities involved in the game, rather than just expect them to buy season tickets and turn up, we need to forget about the Toronto/PSG/Crusaders model of just buying/creating a squad of players and letting them get on with it with no foundations to build upon.

The cycle will never be broken by just dumping non heartland clubs into the competition and expecting them to lay the golden egg, Newcastle, Toulouse, York and possibly other areas, including the South East are doing things the right way, who knows, IF the RLWC is a success then hopefully we learn from the mistakes of 2013 and push the game further to the masses on the back of it.

Only when half of the championship/L1 clubs are strong enough financially and organically, will we start to see the weaker SL clubs be displaced and their place taken by a stronger club from below.

We can't just plonk Newcastle in SL because they've got a big population, a nice ground and some new, local, companies may want to sponsor them, which is what people seem to be craving!

Edited by meast
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, meast said:

So, you're basing it on "what ifs"?

Because York, Toulouse and Newcastle have bigger population centres and commercial opportunities, it doesn't mean that that will automatically translate to a 2nd tier rugby league club with no on field success, nor do these teams instantly "grow the game", the game needs to be grown organically, not just fast tracking non heartland clubs because they have a bigger population than say, Batley, Leigh or Featherstone.

Everything you say is based on assumption with no real evidence that any of York, Toulouse, or Newcastle will ever be anything other than a mid size, but ambitious championship club.

I know I may sound like an anti expansionist, but I am far from it, I want the game to expand, I want to see vibrant clubs in major cities attracting investment and new support into the game, but it has to be done properly and over time, and as yet, there's absolutely no evidence to me that any of those 3 clubs are any better on or off the field than the current SL clubs.

I agree with this, except for equating York with the likes of Newcastle.

York isn't an expansion club, it is the reincarnation of a club which began playing RL in 1898 and were regularly in the top tier up to 1986.

You can be in York and only 15 miles from Castleford or closer to the M62 (peace be upon it) than east Hull.

There are flourishing community clubs in the city with long histories.

They have been through some difficult times and are now making good progress. It is similar to equating Oldham or Swinton to Newcastle if they were to have a resurgence.

York's story over the last few years is the organic growth you (and I) advocate following a period of stagnation. Good luck to them in carrying it on.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, should Leigh have been elevated then?

I think that it was the best worst decision, under the circumstances.

  • Thanks 1

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I agree with this, except for equating York with the likes of Newcastle.

York isn't an expansion club, it is the reincarnation of a club which began playing RL in 1898 and were regularly in the top tier up to 1986.

You can be in York and only 15 miles from Castleford or closer to the M62 (peace be upon it) than east Hull.

There are flourishing community clubs in the city with long histories.

They have been through some difficult times and are now making good progress. It is similar to equating Oldham or Swinton to Newcastle if they were to have a resurgence.

York's story over the last few years is the organic growth you (and I) advocate following a period of stagnation. Good luck to them in carrying it on.

Absolutely, I would love to see York flourish, an away game at York would be a welcome addition, but as much as they're doing things right, they are nowhere near to being an alternative to any of the SL clubs, yet some people seem to think that they've suddenly become the beacon of hope for rugby league.

They have done extremely well to build themselves up to where they are, from where they were, a bit like Huddersfield in the mid 90's we weren't ready for SL when we took over PSG's place in 1998 and it put us back few years, we lost support, we lost sponsors, our name was tarnished, and still is to some extent, it took us another 10 years to become a competitive force in SL.

By pushing York,and even Newcastle now when there is nothing to suggest they are even ready to compete at the top of the championship is just desperation from people, determined to see the end of clubs like Wakefield, Salford, Huddersfield, etc and we must be patient and let them develop and compete organically so we don't end up losing all the good work they've been doing from the game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • John Drake changed the title to Putting Leigh in SL is the biggest mistake RL ever made (Merged threads)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...