Jump to content

The Toulouse Olympique Effect


Recommended Posts

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

Catalan were protected the first year. They finished bottom, if we had done in the p and r way then all subsequent events never would of happened. 

That's cool. But literally nothing to do with the point made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, ShropshireBull said:

If you say so, but if we answer those concerns and then are told "it´s hypothetical" (which of course until it is tried it will be ) then it´s a bad faith arguement. It´s as bad faith as suggesting a fully professional Elite 1 should spring out of thin air. I´ll say no more. 

I don't agree with the points binosh is making - but I agree with your recent posts even less, which are getting more bizarre by the day, including celebrating using 5k grounds as being far better than the likes of Wigan getting 11k. 

One of the big issues is that people make too many bold claims about expansion. In reality it will take decades to make big changes. There is no huge pot of gold sitting in either France or Canada over the next decade - and that's fine, its OK to think long term, in fact it's exactly what we should be doing. 

We need to stop making OTT claims - we saw it with TWP about how they were the saviour of the sport over here. It's nonsense, not needed and just gets people's backs up. 

And let's be honest, the anti-expansionists have history in their favour - we have failed in most cases. 

Maybe more realistic expectations, longer term planning, and not shooting down those who are cynical could be a better approach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Toronto got bigger crowds in the 2nd tier. Paris got bigger crowds in SL. 

Cas v Widnes got 20k in the Championship Grand Final 15 years ago but not many argue that means Cas add value. 

I think Toulouse do add value, but being snarky with people who don't and dismissing them and trolls and arguing in bad faith reflects badly on you, not them. 

The really important factor here is that the RFL (the UK governing body) has admitted Catalans, Toulouse, Toronto and Ottawa into the UK pyramid - their remit is the UK game - they have to demonstrate the benefits to the UK game of these decisions. 

Looks like Dave & I are on the same page, that last sentence hits the nail on the head. SL/RFL must have a plan to keep letting teams enter a UK comp from different countries.

If Sky have said by the time the next TV deal is up for renewal to have any increase we want at least 2 overseas clubs in SL then I see the benefit & strategy and I wouldn’t have the same opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave Woods BBC Rugby  League correspondent has his say..

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-league/58967704

"It involves matters much greater than drafting the new rules...the original and existing games have their own powerful appeal to their players and public and have the sentiments which history inspires"  - Harold 'Jersey' Flegg 1933

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."  - Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Si tu( Remi Casty) devais envoyer un fax au Président Guasch? " Un grand bravo pour ce que vous avez fait,et merci de m 'avoir embarqué dans cette aventure"

gallery_02-am31503_5b827265940b7_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, binosh said:

So let me get me this straight.

RL in England & it’s core 20 clubs have taken many years to get to a point whereby it’s top league is fully professional with a multi million pound TV deal. 
Men in suits in the 80’s had the vision and the drive to make the game professional, push boundaries and negotiate multi- million pound deals for the good of the 150+ year old English game and we are now accepting requests from french teams to join our league structure and receive SKY funding without so much as challenging them on what benefits they bring with them to SL? And we allow them to opt out of the challenge cup? 
 

And you’re OK with that? Brilliant.

Carry on as normal everyone.

I'm saying that every club, irrespective of where they are from, should be treated equally by the rules and procedures of the competition. 

Toulouse and Catalans are not "taking" Sky TV money any more or any less than any other club are. They're not "taking" from the sport any more or any less than any other club is. This should not be seen as "our" sport or an "English" competition. It should be seen as a sport for anyone who wants to and can demonstrate that they can participate and compete in it, and a sport in which they can do so fairly and equitably, rather than having unique and unreasonable barriers or expectations put in front of them due to some "what did the Romans ever do for us?" mindset.

You want to keep asking "what are the benefits?" for clubs in the UK from Toulouse but as others have said, it's a bad faith question. The real question is around what all clubs are doing, what all clubs are investing in, and what all clubs are innovating in to make this competition as good as it can possibly be. 

Why should UK clubs benefit from something that isn't of their own doing, their own investment or their own initiative? Just looking at these expansion clubs, as if we expect them to just turn out their pockets, and asking "how are you making it worth our while?" is fundamentally wrong. It's up to the entire competition, M62 clubs included, to determine how best to commoditise the league with these - or any other - clubs involved. 

You cite these clubs opting out of the Challenge Cup, neglecting to mention that two clubs were asked to front-up a bond to subsidise a poorly-run English operation that can't work out how to sell one of the UK's protected sporting events. If that's how commercially pathetic the English game is, maybe we need more French clubs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole ding dong of whether Toulouse will bring "additional benefits" or "value" to SL and English clubs is rather a game of ######-for-tat. No doubt its good for some and not so good for others.

Here's an idea. Why don't SLE/RFL define what is meant by "additional benefits" and "value"... creating a list of criteria that we should expect from a new SL club...

Here's the best bit yet. Why don't we base that on a benchmark to compare against. Then we know exactly whether Toulouse bring enough "additional benefits" or "value" to qualify for a spot in SL according to what matters most to our competition.

Shockingly, we might then be a little more confident that the additional team is contributing more than the benchmark criteria set...
If we think the additional team has such a good score in terms of "additional benefits" or "value" then we might even want to protect that asset from being able to slip out of our grasp.

 

What happens in uncertain/volatile markets? Prices people are willing to pay for an asset tend to drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/10/2021 at 12:51, ShropshireBull said:

If every year you are worried about relegation then Toulouse cannot afford to risk to many points by playing youth. It´s only now that Catalan are financially secure and in terms of team ability strong enough not to fear relegation they risk more French lads. We should also remember that Catalan were ringfenced. 

 

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

The point which you jumped on so didn´t read was someone complaining about a lack of French players. I pointed out if you have p and r you cannot complain about the lack of french players. You then pointed out Catalans had more whilst ignoring they were protected from relegation, thus proving the point we started with. 

You missed the point of my post then. 

You claim Catalans are now using more French lads, despite having only 5 in their GF squad. 

They used more French lads when they struggled a bit more and came close to relegation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, tiffers said:

This whole ding dong of whether Toulouse will bring "additional benefits" or "value" to SL and English clubs is rather a game of ######-for-tat. No doubt its good for some and not so good for others.

Here's an idea. Why don't SLE/RFL define what is meant by "additional benefits" and "value"... creating a list of criteria that we should expect from a new SL club...

Here's the best bit yet. Why don't we base that on a benchmark to compare against. Then we know exactly whether Toulouse bring enough "additional benefits" or "value" to qualify for a spot in SL according to what matters most to our competition.

Shockingly, we might then be a little more confident that the additional team is contributing more than the benchmark criteria set...
If we think the additional team has such a good score in terms of "additional benefits" or "value" then we might even want to protect that asset from being able to slip out of our grasp.

 

What happens in uncertain/volatile markets? Prices people are willing to pay for an asset tend to drop.

But isn't the whole question here around why it's somehow incumbent on any newly-promoted or newly-admitted club to provide those benefits? 

Surely if the criteria of benefits is defined as "crowd growth" or "increased media coverage", surely that applies to all 12 clubs, not just one club that, for no other reason than geography, we're holding to a higher standard?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

But isn't the whole question here around why it's somehow incumbent on any newly-promoted or newly-admitted club to provide those benefits? 

Surely if the criteria of benefits is defined as "crowd growth" or "increased media coverage", surely that applies to all 12 clubs, not just one club that, for no other reason than geography, we're holding to a higher standard?  

 

Ultimately, if a team gets promoted and meets the minimum criteria, there doesn't need to be a discussion on what benefits they bring, whether they are Toulouse or Fev, or London. It may be interesting to debate on forums but that's about it. 

The discussions about benefits need to be had at the point of admitting teams into the RFL infrastructure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I agree with all of that - they are exactly the reasons I support expansion - but many of them are still a bit abstract, and do rely on a leap of faith somewhat. 

Things like perception of the comp are exactly right - but to naysayers this is easily dismissed if it doesn't then bring in the direct sponsors and tv deals etc. Things like 'strengthening the French team' are great, and again strategic things that we should be working towards - but Catalans hasn't strengthened the French team at all and England have had no benefits whatsoever. In fact whenever anyone brings this point up this is dismissed as not being a prime objective of French expansion at all. 

Your final paragraph is the challenge - it is chicken and egg - sometimes you have to go for these things with a slight leap of faith to get the benefits - and not everyone believes that is the right thing to do. IMHO it is the difference between a visionary and a bean-counter. We could continue to play safe (and imho still deliver growth if we do that well) but for me the bigger prize is if we are bold and aim for these exciting ventures. But I find that difficult to quantify - and we know that it is higher risk (by the amount of failures).

So whilst I agree with your list, and my personal view is that they are worth taking the risk on, I can absolutely understand why others don't think the millions of quid some of these things cost are worth it. I don;t believe it is right to dismiss them as trolls or flat-cappers (that isn't aimed at you btw) - one of my old bosses is very smart, and an RL fan, but he just doesn't buy into expansion, he always takes the pee out of me on this - and he has a fair list of failures and challenges that support his view to him. I still think he is wrong mind. 

On your last point about no downside - I think the risk here is that it all depends on how you do it. We have facilitated expansion before by relegating UK teams, we have made a mess with the Toronto expansion - these things are downsides - not expansion in itself, but how we do it. Once again, Ill finish off by saying we should ever be doing any of this without a plan. 

I think that's fair and think that we are pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet.

I just don't see the growth you do domestically. Any growth to me would only see us reaching where we were, in terms of things like attendances, some years ago. Yes welcome but hardly a game changer. I do think bar some fresh teams and new backers of clubs we have hit our ceiling somewhat and lets face it there are still few contenders to challenge the big 6 SL teams on just about any metric. With the recent TV deal cut I do fear that all of the talk coming from the game's leaders is of managed decline and cutting a shrinking pie less ways rather than looking to create a strong, vibrant competition. The game simply doesn't have the money to fund new SL teams in London, Cardiff, Newcastle or wherever and has shown never shown any inclination to do so even when times where good.

For me just trundling along with more of the same isn't what I want to see and I do feel a certain staleness about the game, whether that is loop fixtures, the makeup of the league or the same status quo with little to challenge them. I accept others feel differently but its also obvious that many feel the same. I do see huge growth in France and fresh money but do completely accept that is a leap of faith but it should be a plan and strategy in my opinion. Catalans have shown that if the money and fanbase is there you can challenge the status quo, both on the field and financially, and enhance the competition. If growth is restricted domestically, which I think it is, then you look at where you can grow and make significant improvements to the competition. I wont repeat much of what I have said previously in my last post and previously on various threads but you get the gist why.

I personally see little difference in relegating an English team and replacing them with a French team but realise others feel differently. Again though my strong preference is for a 14 team SL with 2 French spots. English clubs can still have P&R from the Championship and French clubs could agree to do likewise from elite 1 (in reality this wouldn't happen obviously). If in time France gets stronger and things like TV deals come off then that can be increased. Others may disagree but at least that is a plan. I think its quite easy to come up with a perfectly viable strong, coherent strategy for how to grow the game and competition but while we have leaders that try and placate everyone and maintain their position we will always struggle. Again I completely understand why others will disagree but for me a completely new approach is needed and that certainly does not mean shafting any English club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, binosh said:

You’re first sentence is nearly there, Toulouse being in SL puts more french eyes on the sport, what is the plan to capitalise on this? Are the french authorities working with Bein sports on a TV deal to throw into the mix? How does more french eyes on the game get us a better TV deal with SKY in 2 years which is ultimately the goal?

If you said to me putting Catalans & Toulouse into SL with no relegation for 3 years meant that Bein sports were happy to sign a French TV deal for £5 million per year for 3 years meaning that SL had the finances to expand to 14/16 franchise clubs all with circa £1.8 million per year funding, adding in Newcastle or York and 2 promoted teams to grow the sport in the UK and help achieve an increase in the SKY deal then that would be a tangible benefit to SL and I could see the benefit, but the fact remains swapping Toulouse for Leigh or London or Toronto or whoever it is, is still just shuffling deckchairs on the titanic and in 2 years time unless something changes SKY have clearly stated that the ship called SL is going down.

Unless we do something different.

You are getting this around the wrong way still. Why is it the job of Toulouse, Catalan and/or the French authorities to bring in TV revenue to SL? Their presence offers the opportunity. It’s up to the SL authorities to take it!

Now I could completely appreciate it if your concern was around the likelihood of SL taking advantage of that opportunity. Historically, SL hasn’t demonstrated it could take advantage of any great opportunity. In fact, it would appear most great opportunities have been squandered since SL began.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

But isn't the whole question here around why it's somehow incumbent on any newly-promoted or newly-admitted club to provide those benefits? 

Surely if the criteria of benefits is defined as "crowd growth" or "increased media coverage", surely that applies to all 12 clubs, not just one club that, for no other reason than geography, we're holding to a higher standard?  

 

Completely agree.

These standards should be a minimum for all member clubs. Without de-railing this thread. This is the entire weakness of a P&R system. A club can perform well in 1 measure (on the pitch) thus dictating that they earn a seat at the top table.
They might have a wealthy owner bank rolling, no corporate income, no fans and play down the local park. But because one person has bankrolled and won the right to be in the competition then they are deemed worthy of it. The whole competition is not better off in that scenario.

Whereas a prescribed set of criteria means the RFL/SLE can slowly, strategically, over time drive the standards up across many measures of success if there are consequences to not keeping up with the minimum expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

You are getting this around the wrong way still. Why is it the job of Toulouse, Catalan and/or the French authorities to bring in TV revenue to SL? Their presence offers the opportunity. It’s up to the SL authorities to take it!

Now I could completely appreciate it if your concern was around the likelihood of SL taking advantage of that opportunity. Historically, SL hasn’t demonstrated it could take advantage of any great opportunity. In fact, it would appear most great opportunities have been squandered since SL began.

This is right. The French Federation are not a stakeholder here, they have no interest (technically speaking) in driving revenues for SLE. 

Now there are a couple of ways to address this kind of thing. Firstly yiu could make SLE a proper organisation that sets effective strategies and goes at this kind of thing, but it was the RFL who admitted Toulouse and before that Toronto so we have this weird conflict. 

Secondly, we could set up SLE as a joint venture with other governing bodies to give responsibility and control across territories. 

I'd prefer a grown-up SLE, but that requires investment. It is clear Elstone was doing this, but clubs bottled it and have run bavk to the RFL yet again, and even fans who complain and want change did nothing but moan about the game spending money paying wages etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, binosh said:

Because they cling onto the only TV they can in the nearest country because they generate no domestic income.

Certainly not the case in both Pro 14 (could make an argument about Italian teams there I suppose) and the welsh teams in the EFL. 
 

All about it being the best league which can logistically provide the most suitable opposition. In the process strengthening the national team of those respective countries. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Dont feed the troll guys...

Go on then explain why if someone has a different opinion to yourself they are Trolls, is it that are you such a bigoted antagonistic and  prejudiced against anyone who doesn't agree with you. 

This is a site where people discuss matters coming from different angles, if you don't like it keep away or start threads off with an instruction of disagreeing is not welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw I personally believe that the way RL can grow is via the international game. I may be apart here but I firmly believe a stronger World Cup is far more stronger attraction to ‘outsiders’ than the height of the domestic game. 

Toulouse’s ascent grows a level of coverage previously not forthcoming. It’s a completely different kettle of fish from a Toronto type set up where this has been a build of multiple years efforts with an existing youth system in place for years. They’ve earned it the hard way. 
Logistically it’s relatively easy trip for the clubs and the same challenges exist for say a bus ride in heavy traffic or a trip down south to London 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

You can’t change history to prove your argument Harry.  

RL as a ‘game’ was banned.  This includes all related amateur teams, schools and any players playing both codes.  Certainly the international game in France came back into its own but without infrastructure or money.  This is without even considering the prejudices.

Even now, RL is not permitted in all schools but the Dragons/TO success, plus 2025 WC should kick start it further forward.  If it does, we all win.  Players identified by British clubs as good enough can be identified/bought/loaned and vice versa.  Improvement in the pro game means more money into the semi pro/amateur game as well as Pole Espoirs, other colleges and schools.  That, in turn, creates a more marketable product and TV interest, imo, and more money all round.

 

 

Who's changing history?

I have read Mike Rylance's "The Forbidden Game, all I said was that In the 1950's there was a resurgence of French Rugby League, now tell me I am wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tiffers said:

Completely agree.

These standards should be a minimum for all member clubs. Without de-railing this thread. This is the entire weakness of a P&R system. A club can perform well in 1 measure (on the pitch) thus dictating that they earn a seat at the top table.
They might have a wealthy owner bank rolling, no corporate income, no fans and play down the local park. But because one person has bankrolled and won the right to be in the competition then they are deemed worthy of it. The whole competition is not better off in that scenario.

Whereas a prescribed set of criteria means the RFL/SLE can slowly, strategically, over time drive the standards up across many measures of success if there are consequences to not keeping up with the minimum expectations.

Framing the Future had a set of criteria that club's had to attain but when it was all collated and push came to shove the Rugby League backed down and did not follow through on some club's and allowed them to remain in SL.

Further to this, if you remember at the unvieling of Mr Elstone, Leneghan stated that there would be a 1 up 1 down system in operation but depending on the promoted club being able to meet certain conditions, this should have been published before the next season began but it never transpired simply because all the incumbent SL club's would most definitely not be able to meet all the criteria that would need to be adhered to, it would have been wonderful to see the conditions that would have been laid down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Who's changing history?

I have read Mike Rylance's "The Forbidden Game, all I said was that In the 1950's there was a resurgence of French Rugby League, now tell me I am wrong!

What you said was ‘the game kicked on ‘ after WW2 and related to the international success.  The ‘game’ in France, barring the international team absolutely did not.  Vichy, RU pillaged the finances and wrecked the infrastructure.  Because they did on for a time doesn’t mean the actual game wasn’t damaged.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, binosh said:

That’s the narrowest view in the world and completely misses the point. 

Where is the funding for all the other Elite 1 teams and improvement of the wider game? 

I WANT TOULOUSE IN SL!! but give me one tangible benefit to the game other than improvement of french youngsters and and a cosmopolitan destination.
 

Yep, completely narrow view mine 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/10/2021 at 19:41, Just Browny said:

No, that's unnecessarily divisive. Any club who we allow into Super League, presumably because we believe they can add something, deserves the chance to succeed and grow in it.

but Kevin Sinfield (above) is right.

The Championship is a competition for part time teams, not really for professional clubs.  It has no broadcast funding, and virtually no media coverage.  It should be for English teams really.  Forcing French (or Canadian) clubs to play in it achieves nothing other than costing all participants loads of money unnecessarily.

Perhaps going to a SL2 of 10 clubs (ie 2 leagues of 10) will change this longer term, but in the short term I am not sure what the solution is.  TO XIII should of course not be able to turn up, come last, invest nothing, and be allowed to remain in the league (an extreme example).  But putting them into the Championship again would be a waste of time for all concerned, and also a huge waste of (much needed) funds.

Hopefully they will be strong enough to maintain their position, but it could be tricky as we don't know yet how many clubs will be relegated (it is like an amateur competition in this repect!)  We have seen this season, that they were wasted in the Championship as they were playing in 50 or 60 point mismatches almost every week.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'm saying that every club, irrespective of where they are from, should be treated equally by the rules and procedures of the competition. 

Toulouse and Catalans are not "taking" Sky TV money any more or any less than any other club are. They're not "taking" from the sport any more or any less than any other club is. This should not be seen as "our" sport or an "English" competition. It should be seen as a sport for anyone who wants to and can demonstrate that they can participate and compete in it, and a sport in which they can do so fairly and equitably, rather than having unique and unreasonable barriers or expectations put in front of them due to some "what did the Romans ever do for us?" mindset.

You want to keep asking "what are the benefits?" for clubs in the UK from Toulouse but as others have said, it's a bad faith question. The real question is around what all clubs are doing, what all clubs are investing in, and what all clubs are innovating in to make this competition as good as it can possibly be. 

Why should UK clubs benefit from something that isn't of their own doing, their own investment or their own initiative? Just looking at these expansion clubs, as if we expect them to just turn out their pockets, and asking "how are you making it worth our while?" is fundamentally wrong. It's up to the entire competition, M62 clubs included, to determine how best to commoditise the league with these - or any other - clubs involved. 

You cite these clubs opting out of the Challenge Cup, neglecting to mention that two clubs were asked to front-up a bond to subsidise a poorly-run English operation that can't work out how to sell one of the UK's protected sporting events. If that's how commercially pathetic the English game is, maybe we need more French clubs? 

Because Sky say so. If don’t like it, close the door on the way out. It’s Our league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.