NARL (Merged threads)

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

The people who decide to axe the none heartland clubs, development officers or play no internationals etc etc etc.

Those people.

Literally all of those are financial rather than inward looking. 

To flip those three things - RL has admitted Paris, London, Gateshead, Perpignan, Toulouse, Coventry, Toronto etc into the UK structure over the last 25 years. Other UK sports aren't doing that. 

The development officers thing is a challenging one, but it was a flawed process (from Sport England and the RFL) that saw millions invested in them expecting instant results which led to millions being cut when it didn't happen. If those millions don't come in, what do we pay Dev Officers with? 

Internationals - one of the most frustrating ones, but we expect to deliver the biggest WC ever later this year, on the back of an excellent on in 2013. Far more work to do, but plenty to be positive about too. 

Despite the poor execution (due to being skint), if you list these things, it doesn't support some of the criticisms. 

[gingerjon]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Despite the poor execution (due to being skint)

There's a pretty compelling argument that one of the reasons we're skint is because of consistently poor execution.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

There's a pretty compelling argument that one of the reasons we're skint is because of consistently poor execution.

There is yes.

I do think they are linked, but too often we embark on projects without the right level of funding up front. I really do think if we were going to look at this objectively, we probably shouldn't have even attempted many of the things on the lists. 

I actually think over-ambition has been a real challenge for the sport rather than being inward looking.

We are often frustrated with the NRL's expansion attempts, but they won't just rush into anything unless these things have strong funding plans to cover the huge losses these things require. 

But, looking at the expansion teams we have had in over this period, we shouldn't be too disheartened, we should accept that this stuff is risky, and we have little money. But by doing this stuff we have Catalans in SL and a strong Toulouse knocking at the door. All successful businesses and business people have plenty of failures to their name.

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

I don't think RL fans are responsible for state of the sport today. 

I'm saying many of them do not want upstart clubs coming along and being successful. It's not scepticism, they just don't want outsiders.

I think there is a big difference between "upstart clubs" and expansion. By upstart i would say the likes of toronto who come in all guns blazing as the "saviours of the game" with money to burn.. and no your right people dont like that, personally i can look beyond it and hope it works as it could be good for the game, but people dont like that in football or in any sport from what i have seen/experienced. However, I think those like Coventry and Newcastle are greeted with open arms at most clubs and people enjoy having them there. 

The English default (for a massive stereotype) is to dislike and distrust the loud and the brash.. that works here as much as anywhere else. But i dont see that same attitude against those doing the "hard graft" of expansionism.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

I think there is a big difference between "upstart clubs" and expansion. By upstart i would say the likes of toronto who come in all guns blazing as the "saviours of the game" with money to burn.. and no your right people dont like that, personally i can look beyond it and hope it works as it could be good for the game, but people dont like that in football or in any sport from what i have seen/experienced. However, I think those like Coventry and Newcastle are greeted with open arms at most clubs and people enjoy having them there. 

The English default (for a massive stereotype) is to dislike and distrust the loud and the brash.. that works here as much as anywhere else. But i dont see that same attitude against those doing the "hard graft" of expansionism.

I also think a lot of people really don't give a toss. 

I'd say the vast majoirty just crack on and watch the Rugby, whether on Sky or in person.

[Smudger06]

No one had any problems with Toronto, as in the club itself or its Canadian based fans. 

People expressed their doubts and concerns regarding ownership, and these were immediately and relentlessly attacked, every time by fanatical expansionist bandwagoners, mostly UK based. Its hilariously funny, that the Parksider bloke was right all along and didn't gloat, just disappeared to pastures new. 

What was bonkers, these ownership issues were getting more and more obvious, way b4 covid but the devout Argylists were having none of it and got even more angry at anyone and everyone who dared ask a question....

[Smudger06]

2 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

No other major sport needs to do that, because they have long established teams in those places - and more besides. That RL doesn't is not a plus point.

I think the key phrase is long established, that's what it takes.....let's hope Newcastle & Coventry etc can become long established.......

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Well maybe RL does need someone loud and brash. 

And I'll have to agree to disagree about Coventry and Newcastle being greeted with open arms. While they're struggling perhaps but not if they don't remember their place.

I dont disagree loud and brash may be what is needed.. 

I dont agree with your last paragraph though and what is "their place"?

[RP London]

 

Just now, Johnoco said:

Not winning anything.

i dont remember any animosity at wembley when we won the challenge cup in 1998.. on the contrary there was so much support for Sheffield that it was quite an amazing day to be a sheffield fan... 

all my experiences (with expansion clubs and being an rl supporter) is that most rl fans are supportive of expansion and want to see them succeed (not at their own clubs expense of course) as long as they do it in a sustainable way (which is what most people mean by "the right way" when they use that phrase)

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

No other major sport needs to do that, because they have long established teams in those places - and more besides. That RL doesn't is not a plus point.

There are tonnes of places they don't have pro teams, they don't go setting up new teams and putting them in top divisions. 

[OriginalMrC]

While the RL community is largely supportive of 'expansion' teams as a Coventry fan I wouldn't say the club has been welcomed with open arms. There is a significant minority who think we have no right to be in the game. There is also an undercurrent that Coventry are not equals with other teams. I suspect there are chairmen at a few clubs who'd happily stick the knife in if they could. 

When the Bears win a match against an established team it's quite often because they had an off day, put in a disgraceful performance etc. rather than due to a good Bears performce. On one occasion the result was not even reported by the losing team, it was as if it never happened! 

There's also the thing about journalists who quite often make suggestions that clubs like Coventry bring nothing to the game. There has been lots of discussions about cutting clubs from the game with Coventry pretty much always mentioned! This all builds negativity in the sport and unfairly creates division between established teams and those considered as expansion teams. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

All those places have pro teams.

This is a genuine question - for whimsy purposes - but which sport has pro teams in all of Paris, London, Gateshead, Perpignan, Toulouse, Coventry, Toronto ...

Soccer doesn't have a pro team in Perpignan. RU doesn't have one in Gateshead. Cricket doesn't have one anywhere other than London.

[Dave T]

42 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

All those places have pro teams.

Let's keep it to England for this example.

Super League had 12 teams in England - but wanted to expand as it didn't have a top level team in the North East - so put in Gateshead. 

The RU Prem has 12 teams in England but has never gone down the route of putting a top flight team in say, Liverpool. 

Your point is fair that we are in different starting places, but in the UK established sports leaguesjust don't do this top-down expansion route. Pro-14 (or whatever number is running at now) is probably the one comp that has taken a more radical approach - personally I think their approach is interesting and we can learn stuff from them, but it's not really a like-for-like comparison.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

While the RL community is largely supportive of 'expansion' teams as a Coventry fan I wouldn't say the club has been welcomed with open arms. There is a significant minority who think we have no right to be in the game. There is also an undercurrent that Coventry are not equals with other teams. I suspect there are chairmen at a few clubs who'd happily stick the knife in if they could. 

When the Bears win a match against an established team it's quite often because they had an off day, put in a disgraceful performance etc. rather than due to a good Bears performance. On one occasion the result was not even reported by the losing team, it was as if it never happened! 

There's also the thing about journalists who quite often make suggestions that clubs like Coventry bring nothing to the game. There has been lots of discussions about cutting clubs from the game with Coventry pretty much always mentioned! This all builds negativity in the sport and unfairly creates division between established teams and those considered as expansion teams. 

Please don't take this the wrong way, I am genuinely interested in your post - but is the attitude to a defeat based on the results rather than the geography? I don't know how accurate the site is, but rugbyleagueproject.org suggests that over the last 6 years you guys have had a handful of wins, with very few of them against let's call them 'older' teams. I can see a win against Keighley, Workington and Hunslet - plus London Skolars. 

We do see this kind of phenomenon where teams only lose to underdogs because they were rubbish themselves in all divisions, also including established teams. If you ask the fans of the lower teams in all divisions I'm sure they would all say they get little credit when they win.

[OriginalMrC]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Please don't take this the wrong way, I am genuinely interested in your post - but is the attitude to a defeat based on the results rather than the geography? I don't know how accurate the site is, but rugbyleagueproject.org suggests that over the last 6 years you guys have had a handful of wins, with very few of them against let's call them 'older' teams. I can see a win against Keighley, Workington and Hunslet - plus London Skolars. 

We do see this kind of phenomenon where teams only lose to underdogs because they were rubbish themselves in all divisions, also including established teams. If you ask the fans of the lower teams in all divisions I'm sure they would all say they get little credit when they win.

It's a good point but no its not just that. Its not the lack of credit, its that teams feel ashamed to lose or even be run close. I do understand that getting results on the pitch makes a difference and until the Bears do it consistently then this attitude will prevail. 

[tms]

https://56828651-2e19-4a71-b35a-fe1699f49b4c.filesusr.com/ugd/2d6565_36f12ce2eea94719b3d0bc6b00f17d91.pdf

[Cumbrian Mackem]

24 minutes ago, POR said:

https://56828651-2e19-4a71-b35a-fe1699f49b4c.filesusr.com/ugd/2d6565_36f12ce2eea94719b3d0bc6b00f17d91.pdf

Ok. Sure you are

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, Johnoco said:

You saw for yourself how much a team who started from the bottom and got promoted to SL were begrudged but are choosing to ignore it. 

Coventry and Newcastle might currently not get much resentment but that's because they currently offer no threat to the status quo. But should they get ideas above their station and maybe want to be a top SL side or maybe get a rich owner,  well then they would soon find out they are not welcome in reality.

Newcastle, in their Gateshead Thunder guise, received plenty of resentment when they entered SL. 'Oh they should start at the bottom' they said. 

Lots, and I mean lots, of RL fans are happy with the big fish in a small pond scenario. I didn't read that in the paper btw, I have learnt it from experience. Anyway, they have won the day and they will be able to keep RL to themselves.

Much of this ' resentment ' was from Leigh fans , of which there are quite a few on the various MBs , and as I've outlined above much of it was due to the recruitment policy that Toronto used to build a squad , as I put , they tried to buy the club initially , I can only speculate as to the motive for that , but I'd guess it wasn't to own a SL club based in Leigh , no matter which club had been targeted in that way , it would have resulted in a similar response from the fans of that club 

But this thread isn't about Toronto , it is about the NARL , and as I asked yesterday but haven't seen anybody comment on it yet , is/was it an attempt to expand the game for the games same , or an attempt to create a product to sell at a profit ?

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, RP London said:

You have been on this board long enough to know me and know my views and how much I bang on with DOs and internationals (and as an eagles fan about dumping clubs). However, the argument has been how RL Fans are the cause for all of this and how RL Fans are to blame for this which is not the case and most RL Fans have the same view that dumping DOs is a bad idea, that internationals are the way forward etc. There are some that would like to see money spent in their own area rather than expansion areas, of course there are, but that is exactly the same with any spending decisions in any walk of life.

I dont disagree those in power need to fund development and expansion more and better. They are not completely blind to this and do do some (magic weekend, world cup double header etc) but they must do more, of course they must. Their decisions to cut funding are terrible and short sighted and their attitude to the international game is a joke. 

However, the discussion was around the fans being to blame and that is what we were defending as it just isnt the case, fans turn out and support when these things are done right and not at late notice on a wednesday night at the LSV (using the example so often trotted out)

And yet I was there at the LSV on that Wednesday night , although I did leave for the pub at half time

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Johnoco said:

Well maybe RL does need someone loud and brash. 

And I'll have to agree to disagree about Coventry and Newcastle being greeted with open arms. While they're struggling perhaps but not if they don't remember their place.

Time for Dereck to take over the RFL then ? , Good call

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

 

When the Bears win a match against an established team it's quite often because they had an off day, put in a disgraceful performance etc. rather than due to a good Bears performce. On one occasion the result was not even reported by the losing team, it was as if it never happened! 

You've never beaten Wigan , have you ? 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

It's a good point but no its not just that. Its not the lack of credit, its that teams feel ashamed to lose or even be run close. I do understand that getting results on the pitch makes a difference and until the Bears do it consistently then this attitude will prevail. 

Wigan don't lose unless it's their second team playing , fact

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

I have no idea about the NARL and didn't really pay attention if I'm honest. Pretty much all I know about it comes from this thread. 

I am speaking more generally and basing it on many years of following RL. 

So it's a thread ' drift ' , so you can moan about Toronto ? 

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Derek Nimmo might be better.

Which club has he poured a fortune into ?

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Johnoco said:

No.

Just about  you.

In that case at least comment on the points I made , as I said Toronto targeted Leigh , so don't expect Leigh fans to be happy about it , if Dereck had accepted Mr Argyles offer to buy Leigh , what do you think his long term motive would have been ?