He made negative reference to expansion in his recent little speech giving support to Bradford. This follows his speech of not long ago about how Superleague should be 12 teams (presumably including Bradford, and all others located along the M62 corridor). The man really should stick to what he does best: making money.

Some would argue that is what he is seeking to do by advocating a reduction in the the size of SL by ditching Broncos and (possibly) Dragons. Plays well with a home crowd does that.

Some reckon he's still miffed that the French had the audacity to come to Langtree Park and win earlier in the season!!!



Thanks for the vote of confidence. It's appreciated.

To be fair McManus was really talking about professional rugby league (Superleague) and not grass roots rugby. As a successful ex investment banker he was really talking about club liabilities and the structure of rugby league.
As a chairman of our club who has saved this club from extinction, processed a brand new stadium and placed a plan for the future, I have more regard for him than the eggheads of the RFL who still advocate that professional rugby league expansion has been a success.

Yes, we all know that already. And that was my point.


Doubt that. Bradford has proven to be the biggest liability going and yet he wants to keep them in Superleague. He was speaking to his own agenda which is parochial and backward looking.


Well that's simply because you are as parochial as he is. I'm not. I can see the bigger picture and just because he put money into the club - and I'm sure David Hughes in London has probably invested at least as much but seen far, far less return for his money - does not give him immunity from criticism or comment or indeed having fans wish he'd button it.

Absolutely. Actually, I'd love it if next season under Rea London had a stormer of a season. That would really put paid to the tosh that some fans (and chairmen) speak.

The SL experiment in London has clearly been an abject, cataclysmic failure of the greatest order and I struggle to see on any level how anyone could reasonably argue otherwise. It is nothing but an utter embarassment and a weeping sore of credibility at the top level of our sport. The handful of players that the game has gained from London (which is the only reasoned argument for the continuing existence of a London SL club anyone can seem to come up with) would still be there with a similarly funded Cooperative league side.

What a load of rubbish.

Completely agree. They aren't new kids on the block like Catalans, who are an example of the complete opposite. Anyone who argues otherwise isn't looking at the facts.

Give over.
Catalan have been a heartland team for 60 years.

RL didn't begin in 1996.

Catalan have been an outstanding success in SL judged by any standards - the absolute antithesis of the London disaster on every level. Cats must remain a part of SL no matter what it's future structure ends up as.

Who said it did? What part of the section I quoted beginning with 'The [uSL[/u experiment in London' did you not understand?

Come on Rogues, it's time you let go of the good ole days.

Yes! His time at the Saints has clearly been an unmitigated disaster! After all he only saved the club from bankruptcy, oversaw by far the most successful period in the team's history and built us the best dedicated RL stadium in the UK. I say get rid now while there's still time!

Catalunya may have been a heartland for 60 years but the Catalan Dragons have only been a team at all since 2000.

Is this your own egoistic ethos of seeing a bigger picture. Yes, McManus wants to keep Bradford in superleague but he actually said it was for the sake of the
10000 supporters that exists there and their input to rugby league, hardly a self agenda. Also if you look at the bigger picture the new owners of Bradford will restructure with reduced liabilties, the very thing Mc Manus has been promoting.

McManus has put a lot more than money into our club, think about it, and to be honest your self opinion viewpoint of him comes across as an insult.

Every time you think certain posters can't get any more clueless and any numptier they somehow manage it anyway...

If it wasn't for McManus Saints simply would not be in existence today, never mind having been consistently the best team in the league for the entire length of his tenure and having just moved into the best dedicated RL stadium in the country right in the middle of the worst recession in living memory, overwhelmingly due to his efforts. How any supposed "Saints fan" could start to have a go at him and his competency to run the club because, shockingly, he wants to keep the second biggest RL city in the country's team and their 10,000 fans in the top flight maybe at the expense of some failed embarrassment with no fans in London with no self interest at all except for the [iobvious to all[/i overall good of the game just... defies... belief...

What an utterly stupid response. Childish nonsense.

Point me to where I said 'get rid' of him? Go on. Yeah, that's right, I didn't even imply that.

Point me to where I said his time at Saints has been an unmitigated disaster? Go on. Yeah, that's right, I didn't even suggest it. Not even a remote mention of anything close to it.

McManus spoke to the press about Bradford, making a negative swipe at expansion teams. I said he should stick to what he does best: making money. That's what I actually said, which is completely different from your pathetic monologue above.

The code 13 article is very good PR but lets get this straight, they are playing more RL in schools, that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

When I was in school I played basketball. I've never been or intend to go to a match to watch basketball and have only watch on TV for about 10 minutes in my entire life.

Kids playing RL in school is not a sign of expansion, it's a sign we have pumpe enough help and money in to get it on the PE schedule in more schools. As an ex teacher if the UK bowling commision came to the school and offered coaching and help getting bowling on the PE schedule then it's more likely that it would get on the schedule as you would grab any extra help or funding you can get.

So the schools part of it only helps if those kids leave school and play RL. The adults figure is more encouraging, but it does not say where those adults are playing.

Any PR like this looks good until you take it apart and ask the serious questions, if 29,000 of those extra adults are playing in Yorkshire and Lancashire then it proves zip about expansion.

The only stat tied to expansion geographically is 2 community coaches. The rest could be schools anywhere and adults anywhere.


Also Macmanus did not say expansion was bad, he said with hindsight we have pumped more money in than we should have. Lets not confuse issues, the money put into grassroots expansion is not what he is talking about here, it's the millions put into expansion clubs for 1, 2 or 3 seasons only to drop them.

Gateshead, PSG, Crusaders etc etc If those millions had been put into places like sheffield, doncaster, I would also say north wales we would have a larger region and a better stronger base. But like he says with hinsight, he does not say he thought it at the time.

As for Catalan, it's not an expansion of RL, That area of france was a hot bed of RL. It's like creating a SL club in Cumbria and claiming expansion. It's not there is a base of fans and players there already. Catalan was actually creating a club where there was demand, rather than creating a club and hoping demand comes.

I'm not against expansion, but I do feel it's more important to expand from your base, rather than creating outposts one there own where no local rivalry can be built. The local rivalry is part and parcel of RL. South Wales had zero rivalry, North Wales could have had a rivalry with Widnes. Wrexham is great for England v Wales rivalries. I do hope they come back as they got decent crowds for only 2 years with no original base to speak of.

Therefore the club is not in an expansion area.

London have had rugby league for about 30 years. That is an expansion area.

That is naive. He has also said in the press that he wants the league down to 12 teams. Put the two together and of course he thinks expansion is 'bad' (ie not a good idea). I wonder which teams he would drop to get back to 12? Definitely London because that's in an expansion area. But which other one? All the rest are from heartlands areas. There has even been a team in Salford since the 1930s but maybe that's an expansion area in McManus's mind so perhaps he would ditch Salford too.

He should stop making public comments about other clubs. His business is Saints and that's what he should still to commenting upon in public.

I think you are missing the point in a big way on what McManus is trying to put across the professional establishment.
McManus is probably one of the most qualified in judging future projections and is just voicing his concern on the financial and structure shape of Superleague.
He will never in public, do what you have done based on supposition, name certain clubs to exist outside Superleague.
We are in a period of less sponsorhip, less media prescence, less quality players coming through. There is also a concern about the present salary cap competing against the RU and NRL cap values and income streams.
This environment is what McManus is talking about with his concern whether a 14 team structure can survive under these constraints, and not a self judgement on dropping the likes of London or Salford as you imply........thats for the RFl to consider by process.

To start with, I fully understand what he is saying. What you appear to be unable to appreciate is that I simply disagree with him saying it to the press. If indeed he wanted to put his point across to the 'professional establishment' then the place to do that is in the appropriate forum, not the press.

He has made negative comments about other clubs and you can couch that how ever you want to, he has still done so and I don't think it is his place to do so to the press.

He isn't the only chairman who does this of course: the two Hull chairmen like the sound of their own voices as well as does the Leeds chairman. Others, though, keep their thoughts to themselves and get on with the job of running their respective clubs. Those chairmen are, in my view, showing a more professional approach.

You disagree with me, and that's fine. But that is my view.

Wrexham was an appallingly botched missed opportunity - the only expansion area RL has ever entered at the top level that showed any real enthusiasm for the game and managed to develop any kind of a real fanbase and it was tossed away and allowed to die after 2 seasons. A crying shame...

The answer is more than London and that was an isolated season. If the likes of Leigh, Workington , etc had the forebearance, investment and general rule bending London have enjoyed they would be probably be averaging at least 3 or 4 times that of the London club and producing many more homegrown players.

All this talk about reducing the league to 12 clubs, wonder how those who back this such as McManus would agree to 14 club names in a bag and the two not pulled out are sent down to the Championship? very much doubt it!

Club Chairman should back their club, nor sure about running it! at one time you would not be able to name many chairmen in rugby league as they did not like to take the limelight.

Because that would make loads of commercial sense wouldn't it. If your kicking clubs out you kick out the weakest ones.