Supporters of a certain age will remember the bitter conflict in the game down under with the NRL resisting a SL take over similar to ours. Apparently many UK supporters wrote in support of the NRL's fight. I even have a response from Ken Arthurson, the NRL Executive Chairman, thanking me and the rest of the 'pommie' supporters for our interest !!!!
The NRL won that battle but it left scars.
I wonder if the NRL interest in the London Broncos could be the start of the demise of SL and maybe the fulfilment of the NRL's control of the worldwide game?
No because London will never work no matter who owns or runs it, how many chances have they had nobody down South cares of the tiny weeny sport of RL. In Aus RL is their second sport but over here RL is still a Northern game.
Football, Union, Snooker, Darts, Bog Snorkling, Cheese Rolling, Morris Dancing, Caber Tossing, Shove Halfpenny, Dominoes plus the women's versions of all these are more popular. Let us Northerners watch our Northern sport and look after it.
No because London will never work no matter who owns or runs it, how many chances have they had nobody down South cares of the tiny weeny sport of RL. In Aus RL is their second sport but over here RL is still a Northern game.
Football, Union, Snooker, Darts, Bog Snorkling, Cheese Rolling, Morris Dancing, Caber Tossing, Shove Halfpenny, Dominoes plus the women's versions of all these are more popular. Let us Northerners watch our Northern sport and look after it.
It'll never work? They're still around forty-five years since their birth!
They remain in situ despite being surrounded by clubs of the round ball game!
How many teams have come and gone in RL since that day on the banks of the Thames in 1980? As recently as earlier this season, Cornwall went **** up, disrupting the fixture schedule in League 1.
They've not got legions of fans, but those that are there have the same loyalty and love of their club as yours for the Chemics, and mine for the Lions. Should we just abandon 'em?
"They've moved from ground to ground!" You could well be shouting at me, but so have Sheff, so have we, and (touch wood) they now seem settled now in SW19.
Would (will?) they be an asset to SL? That remains to be seen, but no matter which division they're in, I welcome the Broncos!
Spelly.
PS - Did you ever answer my questions regarding your intentions to attend the test matches? If so, I missed it!
It's not really a question about having London (or Toulouse or any other far flung 'expansion' team) in SL.
The question should be, how long can the sport - which already has precious few financial resources - can continue to subsidise these clubs?
And to what end I have to say. What exactly are the benefits of including these teams?
Has anybody ever bothered to try and calculate the cumulative losses attributed to having the luxury of these teams in the Premier competition?
The money being lost to the game must be huge.
As far as a 'takeover' by the NRL is concerned, then I doubt it will ever happen.
I think the recent change around in mindset and personnel amongst the sport's heirarchy, is evidence enough of that.
It's not really a question about having London (or Toulouse or any other far flung 'expansion' team) in SL.
The question should be, how long can the sport - which already has precious few financial resources - can continue to subsidise these clubs?
And to what end I have to say. What exactly are the benefits of including these teams?
Has anybody ever bothered to try and calculate the cumulative losses attributed to having the luxury of these teams in the Premier competition?
The money being lost to the game must be huge.
As far as a 'takeover' by the NRL is concerned, then I doubt it will ever happen.
I think the recent change around in mindset and personnel amongst the sport's heirarchy, is evidence enough of that.
I'm at a loss to understand your questions mate.
Are London and Toulouse (your word) subsidised more than the Pinks have been? I think not!
Both have played SL football, and London have played at Wembley. My mob can lay claim to neither of those achievements.
I am, and always have been an expansionist, and refuse to accept we're an M62 Corridor game.
Were there similar "outpost" claims / objections when Worky and 'Haven joined the league after Adolf had been sent packing? These places were far less accessible then than they are now, as the M6 wasn't even thought of.
Is the "takeover" on? I have similar doubts to you on that one.
Spelly.
Spelly, does your grandson still go to matches ?
Spelly, does your grandson still go to matches ?
Yeah mate. Home and away with his grandad! First took him as a six year old, and he's now 25!
Also heading to OT, Wembley, Everton and Headingley with me as well!
Spelly.
The major financial resource of the SL, no matter what size, is Sky TV. This money tree is withered and dying with the UK game becoming ever more reliant on private funding.
The future of the professional game is now dependent on this.
The Vegas extravaganza is the NRL dipping its toe into a 'world' connection with the UK game becoming less attractive as a growth area. They have expanded the Southern Pacific countries standards where we struggle to help founder clubs in our own country.
Much may depend on the 'Ashes' tour to convince the public that we are still competitive at an international level, but I can't see Sky being moved to up their bid tbh.
The major financial resource of the SL, no matter what size, is Sky TV. This money tree is withered and dying with the UK game becoming ever more reliant on private funding.
The future of the professional game is now dependent on this.
The Vegas extravaganza is the NRL dipping its toe into a 'world' connection with the UK game becoming less attractive as a growth area. They have expanded the Southern Pacific countries standards where we struggle to help founder clubs in our own country.
*Much may depend on the 'Ashes' tour to convince the public that we are still competitive at an international level, but I can't see Sky being moved to up their bid tbh.
*Everton sold out, Headingley sold out (both long since) with Wembley looking like a more than decent crowd too. All three are live on the Beeb also, which is great exposure for the game we all love.
As I've said a million times, I'm the eternal optimist (and I know it's a long shot) but if we can finally come out on top of the Green and Gold Machine in a series this time, it could be the shot in the arm RL needs.
Comments like "The sport's on it's ****!" "Rugby League is dying!" abound, and I'm the first to admit all is not well, but the chance to silence the doom mongers is just around the corner! I for one can't wait, so...............
COME ON ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS - I wonder if Prisoner is going? 😀
It's not really a question about having London (or Toulouse or any other far flung 'expansion' team) in SL.
The question should be, how long can the sport - which already has precious few financial resources - can continue to subsidise these clubs?
And to what end I have to say. What exactly are the benefits of including these teams?
Has anybody ever bothered to try and calculate the cumulative losses attributed to having the luxury of these teams in the Premier competition?
The money being lost to the game must be huge.
As far as a 'takeover' by the NRL is concerned, then I doubt it will ever happen.
I think the recent change around in mindset and personnel amongst the sport's heirarchy, is evidence enough of that.
I'm at a loss to understand your questions mate.
Are London and Toulouse (your word) subsidised more than the Pinks have been? I think not!
Both have played SL football, and London have played at Wembley. My mob can lay claim to neither of those achievements.
I am, and always have been an expansionist, and refuse to accept we're an M62 Corridor game.
Were there similar "outpost" claims / objections when Worky and 'Haven joined the league after Adolf had been sent packing? These places were far less accessible then than they are now, as the M6 wasn't even thought of.
Is the "takeover" on? I have similar doubts to you on that one.
Spelly.
The Salford situation is completely different, plus we all know that you dislike them anyway.
Once their financial worries were floated pre-season, they should have been stood down immediately and if necessary, expelled from the competition.
The damage they have done to the reputation of the Sport doesn't bear thinking about.
It also begs the question of who was telling the truth when the IMG ratings were announced. How can a club go from hero to zero financially in a matter of days?
That particular question does need to be answered.
Regarding the rest of my argument, as always, I speak from a 'wider' perspective.
The Sport cannot afford to subsidise clubs by way of reduced attendances. How much gate money drifts out of the game over the season when none of these clubs ever take any kind of support to away games?
Do the maths. I think you will be shocked.
And, yes, the expansion clubs have had some success, after all, isn't that why they are taking part? But, for every Toulouse and Catalan Dragons, there is a Cornwall (who?), Toronto, Mansfield Marksmen, Scarborough Pirates or Kent Invicta et al.
What do these teams really bring to the party?
The rest of the country doesn't care about RL.
As far as Cumbria is concerned.
They were an established RL area with clubs and spectators who knew and understood the sport.
If the RFL had introduced a proper strategic plan for the sport right at the start of Super League, then I believe that area would be flourishing today, competing in SL, watched by the many and not the few, and continuing to produce the players of the future.
Well I think our biggest problem in the game is that we are too insular
we do not see the bigger picture - I welcome a London team but not going into SL as an ‘independent choice’
every team should earn its way into the top league, whatever it is called
london have been going many years, starting at Fulham with a lot of ex Widnes players, great crowds to start with and the wheels fell off
not the first London team either - spelly May recall tooting and Mitch am and another, along with London high field ?
Cumbria has been ignored for many years - they have a great amateur set up
the game is in real trouble now, but the plaster of the ashes tests will sort it all !
It's not really a question about having London (or Toulouse or any other far flung 'expansion' team) in SL.
The question should be, how long can the sport - which already has precious few financial resources - can continue to subsidise these clubs?
And to what end I have to say. What exactly are the benefits of including these teams?
Has anybody ever bothered to try and calculate the cumulative losses attributed to having the luxury of these teams in the Premier competition?
The money being lost to the game must be huge.
As far as a 'takeover' by the NRL is concerned, then I doubt it will ever happen.
I think the recent change around in mindset and personnel amongst the sport's heirarchy, is evidence enough of that.
I'm at a loss to understand your questions mate.
Are London and Toulouse (your word) subsidised more than the Pinks have been? I think not!
Both have played SL football, and London have played at Wembley. My mob can lay claim to neither of those achievements.
I am, and always have been an expansionist, and refuse to accept we're an M62 Corridor game.
Were there similar "outpost" claims / objections when Worky and 'Haven joined the league after Adolf had been sent packing? These places were far less accessible then than they are now, as the M6 wasn't even thought of.
Is the "takeover" on? I have similar doubts to you on that one.
Spelly.
The Salford situation is completely different, plus we all know that you (1 dislike them anyway.
Once their financial worries were floated pre-season, they should have been stood down immediately and if necessary, expelled from the competition.
2) The damage they have done to the reputation of the Sport doesn't bear thinking about.
It also begs the question of who was telling the truth when the IMG ratings were announced. How can a club go from hero to zero financially in a matter of days?
That particular question does need to be answered.
Regarding the rest of my argument, as always, I speak from a 'wider' perspective.
3) The Sport cannot afford to subsidise clubs by way of reduced attendances. How much gate money drifts out of the game over the season when none of these clubs ever take any kind of support to away games?
Do the maths. I think you will be shocked.
And, yes, the expansion clubs have had some success, after all, isn't that why they are taking part? But, for every Toulouse and Catalan Dragons, there is a Cornwall (who?), Toronto, Mansfield Marksmen, Scarborough Pirates or Kent Invicta et al.
4) What do these teams really bring to the party?
5) The rest of the country doesn't care about RL.
As far as Cumbria is concerned.
They were an established RL area with clubs and spectators who knew and understood the sport.
If the RFL had introduced a proper strategic plan for the sport right at the start of Super League, then I believe that area would be flourishing today, competing in SL, watched by the many and not the few, and continuing to produce the players of the future.
1) That's the (very) polite way of putting it mate!
2) "Embarrassing" is a word I've used more than once about their situation.
3) I think (with Toulouse, and Catalans) it's a case of dosh, or lack of it. As you know, I go home and away with the Lions. But if I lived across la Manche, I certainly wouldn't be able to afford to pay for flights and hotels every fortnight.
4) Plenty in my opinion.
5) So should we abandon those darn the smoke who love their team like we love ours?
We're never gonna see eye to eye on this, but I'm loving the arguments mate!
Spelly.