Sylvain Houles says Toulouse should be exempt from relegation

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, Scubby said:

The same probably applies to Toulouse in that they are being penalised yet a club from the same country are not. It is pretty shaky ground.

I have never understood why that is the case, an in depth explanation should be given by who ever thought it was a good idea to apply it, the mere fact that it does exist just shows that those who run SL are completely narrow minded and could I also add financially desperate. Exactly the same as the reduced funding last season.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Harry Stottle

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Correct , in Leigh's case the extra money probably wouldn't have made any difference , as strengthening would have needed to have come from the southern hemisphere , and the pandemic was making that difficult 

IMO Toulouse should not have to pay anything other than their own travel costs 

People see clubs like Wakefield and Salford as an easy target but it is pretty weird that those 2 clubs (and others) get a 1/12 vote on the conditions a potential relegation rival has upon entry. 

[Jughead]

25 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Total fabrication Juggy as well you know, your whole gripe along with others is that you can't stand anyone having a difference of opinion to yours.

Yes I am all for maintaining P&R how does that just effect Leigh Centurions, also I am firmly against locking any team in SL whilst others can effectively suffer jeopardy, if any team can not be relegated what is point of them playing for points, just wipe their points gained or lost from the records and let the other teams get on with it, if saving them from relegation is a way of saying they can experiment with players because the result is meaningless, then allow the other teams the same privaledge against them if the result doesn't matter.

This is a thread about Toulouse, it’s been turned into yet another thread about Leigh (by the same people) and promotion and relegation. It’s boring. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Jughead

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Scubby said:

People see clubs like Wakefield and Salford as an easy target but it is pretty weird that those 2 clubs (and others) get a 1/12 vote on the conditions a potential relegation rival has upon entry. 

How would you alter the governance Scubby, who would you put in that could be independent and not have ulterior motives influenced by their own requirements, I wouldn't trust the "fun boy three" who unvield Mr Elstone as an Independent Chief Exec then played the puppet masters and pulled his strings in the background.

[Jughead]

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

The answer is go to 14 and have one season where 3 teams are fighiting for their lives,  then the two that stay up can build plus another team will get a crack. 

We would have a Toulouse,  a traditional team and a growing team. Everyone wins. 

If you question is “what should we not do” then you’re right, that is the answer. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Jughead

[Scubby]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How would you alter the governance Scubby, who would you put in that could be independent and not have ulterior motives influenced by their own requirements, I wouldn't trust the "fun boy three" who unvield Mr Elstone as an Independent Chief Exec then played the puppet masters and pulled his strings in the background.

Rugby League is a national sport with substantial government funding, it should have an independent commission to decide stuff like this and other things based on integrity and fairness.

If not, SL need to break away completely. They have tried that now twice and failed miserably.

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Jughead said:

This is a thread about Toulouse, it’s been turned into yet another thread about Leigh (by the same people) and promotion and relegation. It’s boring. 

So I have just took the trouble to look back over the thread, it hasn't been about P&R really, relegation yes because Sylvain wants it abolishing for his club.

PS who do you support?

Edited May 2, 2022 by Harry Stottle

[Davo5]

27 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Correct yes they did earn there place in SL and good luck to them, now I will ask you a question when were they informed they were to "be shafted"

But the comparrison is the reduced funding probably costing Leigh as much as Toulouse footing the travel costs of the other teams.

So not really a fair comparison then,one was earned on the pitch,the other was a vanity project by an egomaniac who not only accepted the reduced funding but even offered to do it for free.

[kiggy]

10 hours ago, clogdance said:

You got my drift didn't you though ? Toulouse had to agree to pay the away clubs travel costs to be allowed into the Super League. If this is going to prove too much for them, then so be it. 

Not quite, they were told they would still be liable for the travelling costs after they had won promotion.

Not being able to recruit earlier and the issues with Ford and Killer 2 weeks before the season started were sort of the nail in the coffin for their first half of the season.

If Leeds were in a similar position would the Leeds chairman be saying the same thing? Or would the RFL be stepping in to avoid a "proper" team from being relegated.

For what it's worth I believe all teams promoted should be given 2 years to help, French or not. The gap is too great.

[Balmainboy]

Agree on the independent commission. Only hard choices confront RL in England - need proper structures in place to make them. Ban anyone who works on the commission for working for a club X years before and after their term. Isn't perfect but way better than allowing clubs in top grade to vote on the structure and funding of the game. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

So not really a fair comparison then,one was earned on the pitch,the other was a vanity project by an egomaniac who not only accepted the reduced funding but even offered to do it for free.

If Leigh win promotion this season, I am sure you will find something amiss, you just can't help yourself, awaits the confused emoji.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How would you alter the governance Scubby, who would you put in that could be independent and not have ulterior motives influenced by their own requirements, I wouldn't trust the "fun boy three" who unvield Mr Elstone as an Independent Chief Exec then played the puppet masters and pulled his strings in the background.

 

7 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Rugby League is a national sport with substantial government funding, it should have an independent commission to decide stuff like this and other things based on integrity and fairness.

If not, SL need to break away completely. They have tried that now twice and failed miserably.

Independent commissions also make bad decisions, look at Australia. 

I think the governance needs sorting and the conflict of interest thing is a real hindrance. 

I mentioned this in another thread, but the central funding thing shouldn't even be an issue, it should just be a 12/14 way split after costs and RFL funding removed. I understand some of the rationale, but the downsides outweigh the benefits. 

What I would say is that the travel costs thing is a real genuine challenge. I'll say it again, this is the UK league we are talking about, and if we are going to admit international teams, then the inreased costs need to be paid - these are genuine bills that have to be paid. For a sport that commands around £0.75m in headline sponsorship, to spend the all of that on travel to France has to be justified. The ideal situation here is that this would be funded centrally, and if it can't be funded, it's a no, in the same way we don't have VRs at every game because we can't fund it. 

As much as governance can be tidied up though, it can't make things work structure wise, it feels like another day of reckoning is to come on that. 

[Davo5]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

If Leigh win promotion this season, I am sure you will find something amiss, you just can't help yourself, awaits the confused emoji.

What are you on about now,I really have better things to do than fuel your Leigh conspiracy theories,enjoy the rest of your bank holiday.

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

 

Independent commissions also make bad decisions, look at Australia. 

I think the governance needs sorting and the conflict of interest thing is a real hindrance. 

I mentioned this in another thread, but the central funding thing shouldn't even be an issue, it should just be a 12/14 way split after costs and RFL funding removed. I understand some of the rationale, but the downsides outweigh the benefits. 

What I would say is that the travel costs thing is a real genuine challenge. I'll say it again, this is the UK league we are talking about, and if we are going to admit international teams, then the inreased costs need to be paid - these are genuine bills that have to be paid. For a sport that commands around £0.75m in headline sponsorship, to spend the all of that on travel to France has to be justified. The ideal situation here is that this would be funded centrally, and if it can't be funded, it's a no, in the same way we don't have VRs at every game because we can't fund it. 

As much as governance can be tidied up though, it can't make things work structure wise, it feels like another day of reckoning is to come on that. 

Dave this is a bank holiday and a really long post. I really want to argue with you lol but..

TBF there's a couple of decent points in there so I will let it lie!

 

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

 

Any team that needs its flights to france paid for twice a year should not be in an elite division.

This does rather ignore the reality of life though that bills need paying. 

If you have a UK league (the RFL are the UK governing body) and then a proposal comes in to become an international league with 2 French teams (and in an alternate time line a Canadian team too), then the onus is on the proposer to have a business case that stacks up. 

If that business case states that clubs just have to pay £100k each and suck it up then that isn't good enough. The onus is on the RFL to bring a proposal to the table that washes its face - and to their credit, they did that, they negotiated the new party had a buy-in cost that involved covering travel costs. But fans don't like that. 

We can talk tougball we want, but that doesn't deal in realities that clubs are struggling to pay bills, they aren't just being a bit mean, but they are resistant to just being told to suck up the costs of these initiatives. 

For me, the best solution is the central body (maybe this new 3rd body) has to secure funding to make these things work, and it isn't just put onto existing clubs, or new clubs - we need to be mature enough to realise that to go with new initiatives the commercial income needs to be delivered to cover any increased costs. The current model just drives divisions and resentment and holds us back with poor governance and decision making. 

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, Scubby said:

 

TBF there's a couple of decent points in there so I will let it lie!

 

That must have hurt

[dkw]

If Toulouse have to pay for the oppositiin teams travel then the opposition teams should pay for Tolouses travel.

[Dave T]

Just now, dkw said:

If Toulouse have to pay for the oppositiin teams travel then the opposition teams should pay for Tolouses travel.

 

On a serious note, if costs are not covered then we just risk seeing Catalans, Toulouse, Toronto and any future clubs rejected at step one. 

I agree this isn't the perfect solution, far from it, but something needs to replace it, and that won't just be existing clubs forced to fund expansion schemes. 

We really need to work to a model where this new commercial body gathers investment to cover the costs. 

[Dallas Mead]

…..annnnnnnnnnd the couple of Leigh fans have shoehorned into another thread about a different team.  Awesome.

[Mattrhino]

One of the biggest problems for French clubs and French players is that once P&R came back Catalan had to pack thier team with more foreigners and scrap development of French players 

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

One of the biggest problems for French clubs and French players is that once P&R came back Catalan had to pack thier team with more foreigners and scrap development of French players 

Well if they can keep them there for 5 years they will qualify for France making the national team stronger under those silly eligibility rules.

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

One of the biggest problems for French clubs and French players is that once P&R came back Catalan had to pack thier team with more foreigners and scrap development of French players 

The numbers don't necessarily back that up. Their numbers go up and down and overseas players have been a big part of the club, as they are at many RL clubs. In reality, even without P&R Catalans would have a reliance on overseas players, as they rightly have aspirations of being a champion team, and that will require a mix of British and NRL players alongside French lads. 

They are continuing to develop youth alongside the elite team. 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

If Toulouse have to pay for the oppositiin teams travel then the opposition teams should pay for Tolouses travel.

[redjonn]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

This does rather ignore the reality of life though that bills need paying. 

If you have a UK league (the RFL are the UK governing body) and then a proposal comes in to become an international league with 2 French teams (and in an alternate time line a Canadian team too), then the onus is on the proposer to have a business case that stacks up. 

If that business case states that clubs just have to pay £100k each and suck it up then that isn't good enough. The onus is on the RFL to bring a proposal to the table that washes its face - and to their credit, they did that, they negotiated the new party had a buy-in cost that involved covering travel costs. But fans don't like that. 

We can talk tougball we want, but that doesn't deal in realities that clubs are struggling to pay bills, they aren't just being a bit mean, but they are resistant to just being told to suck up the costs of these initiatives. 

For me, the best solution is the central body (maybe this new 3rd body) has to secure funding to make these things work, and it isn't just put onto existing clubs, or new clubs - we need to be mature enough to realise that to go with new initiatives the commercial income needs to be delivered to cover any increased costs. The current model just drives divisions and resentment and holds us back with poor governance and decision making. 

I understand your comment but I can't get away from why we have non UK clubs in a UK league or is it a European league or Anglo French league.  If I knew what the real answer to what the RFL and SL think then I may better be able to argue the point.

The SL/RFL have decided to allow French teams in but penalise them by having to cover travel costs. I can understand for a semi-professional league as in the championship. 

Why don't they not allow French teams in.  Obviously two other clubs from UK could be in SL instead. Are we saying its because we find having French clubs more exciting... or whatever.   If their is a reason that our administrators think it adds to our league then we have a benefit so why have them paying travelling costs.

Again what do the RFL/SL think is the rational and hence benefit that UK league decided to have overseas clubs in the league.  I am asking about the original decisions and hence I assume they saw benefits... which brings me back as to why we penalise through travel costs if SL/RFL get  benefits - if so why don't RFL/SL contribute to their costs as they get benefits.

Edited May 2, 2022 by redjonn

[Mumby Magic]

No they shouldn't. (Repeating the same sentence yet again) Everyone knows the rules when they start. Clubs should have plans for SL. If we change during a season it shows how amateur we really are as a sport. 

Might copy then paste this paragraph when Leigh or Fev are promoted of McDermott or Beaumont pipe up.