North America is the answer

What a shame that aging eccentrics such as yourself are too stuck in their old ways of thinking to grasp the possibilities.

Possibilities ??
Anything in theory is possible but, we need to look at probabilities and certainty.
There are some on here (including yourself) who would dismantle the game in the UK and instead create a "satellite" club in any city in the world and mark it down as success and then in a few years time, wonder where all the players have gone.
There HAS to be some structure beneath the headline club or we are actually KILLING THE GAME.

When Toronto were formed there was great play made of their "search for a star" idea, where they were having trails accross different towns/ cities in N. America. Was there any progress here ??

I realise that any kind of junior structure will take lots of time (and money) but, just what are Toronto doing in this area or, is it all about SBW and keep building without foundations.

What substance is there to this claim? In what way does having Toronto, New York or any other non-heartland city in the game's top flight cause the people running the amateur scene in West Yorkshire or the Wigan / St Helens / Warrington triangle to pack it in?

Isn't it a huge positive that this sport could provide young men from those parts of Northern England an opportunity to live and work in some of North America's most exciting cities? That it can provide young people to see part of the world that they might otherwise struggle to see?

Or are well holding onto this ideal that what young people really grow up dreaming of is playing in front of less than 5,000 people at crumbling, ramshackle dumps along the M62?

The first North American Super League players probably haven't even been born yet. If they have, they're almost certainly still in pampers. If North American clubs are still around in two decades time, then let's start asking where the local players are. Until then, I don't think it's a bad thing that young players in the UK are being presented with opportunities to live and work in places like Toronto.

Although there would be opportunities for professional players in N. America, the junior sides would still be based in the UK, which although great for the remaining UK based clubs, would REDUCE options for youngsters, unless of course ALL of the academy sides were based in the UK but, what is the point in that ?
There has to be lot's of work done at ground level or we will destroy the game over here.
Fundamentally, you are saying that you are happy for the UK clubs to be the supply chain for the overseas expansion clubs, having lost their spot in the top flight, you still "expect" them to produce the players for the new clubs, sorry but that isn't right.
Although so many posters on here deride the support of the smaller clubs but, that support goes way deeper than turning up on a Sunday afternoon (of Friday night). It's those supporters that may have played the game and take their kids to the local club to train, because they have an interest in the sport.
If they perceive that the sport doesn't want them, they will invest their time and money in other things.
Although they were relegated from SL for a different reason, where do you think those 1000's of Bulls fans have gone and are they still taking their kids to the local clubs etc ?
Participation numbers are already on the decline and this move (N. America) will see those numbers fall further.

Unless their is a genuine plan to engage with schools etc in N. America and set up junior RL, we are kidding ourselves.

Yes, some shiny new clubs in N. America, filled with some of the best players but, the UK turned into a RL "ghost town".

This has all of the hallmarks of a RL "stunt", going for a quick fix, without any thought of the actual future of the game.

My take is that all English Superleague clubs have a "charitable foundation" which mixes charity work with the promotion of youngsters playing Rugby league in the local schools and junior leagues. This is funded by SKY money but supported and staffed by the clubs as they know that if the local junior base shrinks (or that shrinkage accelerates) the supply of players reduces. Superleague went to 14 at one point, reduced to 12 and now the direction is down to 10 as evidenced by various comments and proposals in recent years. Shane Richardson has been the latest to say our game isn't capable of finding the players for any more than 10 quality squads.

I'm not taking any sides here just pointing out that if we remove Salford, Castleford, Huddersfield and Wakefield, (and take away any way back for Widnes and Bradford) do we think the loss of development foundations at these clubs/towns won't affect junior playing numbers? If we only have Hull, Leeds Wire Wigan and Saints in a 10 club Superleague with Toulouse Catalans, New York, Ottawa and Toronto do we think people who are into RL in an active way running junior ARL will want to do that for the benefit of overseas clubs who elbow out their own clubs just because they are rich. I can't think of many clubs as well locally populated with RL enthusiasts as Castleford, but I fear replacing them with Ottawa, won't see dads and lads flooding to Lock Lane in the hope young Malcolm Junior will one day play in Ottawa. I think the angry dad will more likely pack it in and encourage the lad to play soccer instead. My question of you is do you think the six clubs and their business sponsors and local supporters that I name will be happy to all go part time for good to accommodate overseas clubs???

Rather than send their kids to the local RL club, they will take them elsewhere and there is a ripple effect here, brothers, sisters, grandparents.
etc.
Loads of people knock my club, Trinity, for their poor support etc but, when Wakefield were "relegated" at the inception of SL, many fans stopped going to ANY games, myself included (although I returned after a 2 year exodus but, many others never have.
If you cr4p on people, they dont forgive you and neither should they.
I've said on here s many times that IF we are serious about expansion and it's sooooo good for the game, then, increase SL to 14 clubs and bring back London and include Toulouse and let's just see what benefit this is to the sport, both in terms of losing the stupid loop fixtures and increasing the diversity of the game.
Some of the dreamers suggest s TV deal in N.America but, this is just fantasy and they also bang on about increased sponsorship opportunities.
So, lets have these clubs in the top flight a.s.a.p. and see what actually happens.
Yes, it would necessitate an increase in monies from Sky but, surely, with all of the new advertising opportunities, this would be a given or, are we dreaming about these too.

I do apologise, I can see your point and could see New York being a catalyst for these clubs to become something bigger than what some call a bunch of Union players playing a bit of League for fun. There's only one way to find out and that's give them a chance. I don't see the "stronger" position though unless the backers have multi-millions to burn like Mr. Argyle. I also don't see that Toronto have achieved all they set out to achieve. All this "expansion" is very interesting and I clearly remember Mr. Perez looking to achieve player development through grid iron player conversions and also bring TV income to share with us here from NATV deals, not only did Mr. Perez state these were his goals on TV to Dave woods, Mr. McDermott also admitted not long ago neither aim has (yet) been achieved. Don't you recall these interviews?

This whole argument seems confused.

If what you are saying is that an expansion club "reduces the supply of players" from the clubs that lose their place in SL to those expansion clubs, then I don't think the argument is particuarly sound. The clubs oft-discussed as those "at risk" from expansion are not providing a the bulk of the playing talent. Some do not even run their own academy structures.

If the argument is that not having (for arguments sake) Wakefield, Castleford and/or Feathersone in SL reduces junior partcipation at amateur and junior level (where most of the participation is) then again, with respect, I don't see it. I don't see coaches at places like Stanley, Castleford Panthers, Fev Lions going to tell the kids there "sorry lads, we're packing up?". Of course not.

There are lots of reasons why we have falling levels of participation, but expansion clubs aren't one of them. If anything, the threat that expansion clubs might raise standards could be a key driver in getting more people playing this game.

As for your point about "RL ghost towns", I'm not sure what your suggestion is here - that we should resist change so that we don't upset clubs that have had more than long enough to work out how to get it right? If you haven't noticed, that very approach has got the sport where it is today, with declining participation, declining profile and declining relevance.

You completely miss the point.
All of the clubs that you (and I) mention have a support base and whilst not every supporter will have kids or Grandkids that go to an amateur club, it's reasonable to suggest that kids get taken along to the local club because either their parents or friends have an interest in the sport.
If you lose swathes of fans in the UK, you WILL further reduce participation levels within the sport and on the basis that your average new Canadian fan doesn't currently take their kids to the local amateur club (because there aren't any), in terms of getting people into playing the game you are going backwards.
There may be some increase, due to the greater exposure but, their will be some drop off as well.
The British psyche of watching RL is to try and go to as many games as possible and whilst there are those who pick and choose and only go to "big games", those who want to go every week, just wont be able to do so.
Every club, with the recent exception of KR, sees a huge drop off in supporter numbers when they drop down a league and if we jettison 4/5 clubs from SL we ARE damaging intake into the game, without any replacement.
It's a downward spiral.
There has to be junior rugby set in motion in expansion areas, just as London did (with some success), if not, we are killing the game.

I don't think anyone really misses the point, the thrill of the idea of RL "expanding" to places we used to dream of playing is hard to let go of when it's seemingly withing our grasp. Sadly expansion isn't as easy as setting a new club up - you have to also expand the player pool and you have to expand the TV money as a result or it's just more snouts in the same trough.

The interest in the game in terms of playing it and watching it here is clearly generated by pro-level English clubs who undertake significant development of the playing side and who attract a good number of fans for what is a minority sport. The idea you can drop several of them out of Superleague destroy their development systems and TV income that pays for them and somehow their followers will be happy to go on being engaged by the game, is just more of the same wishfull thinking.........

All these post are too long, and most folk couldn't give a fook. Just get to the point in short.

Having a team in a new location is exciting, but it needs to be remembered that without the century+ of development through schools and grass roots amateur clubs in the heartlands, then these new teams will run out of players.

If Toronto had started off with a team full of Canadian union converts with a smattering of NFL players, they'd still be playing in C1. The illusion that they started at the bottom is exactly that, an illusion. I've yet to see a successful club built from the top down...well, not one that isn't losing money by the barrow load.

Aha! The first criticism that you have ever made of Gutterfax/Call Me God/AXE2GRIND. It's been a long time coming.

BTW, what is a "fook?"

YOU!!





BTW - It's not criticism at all ,I do get what is being said, but all these paragraphs are just not necessary.

You owe me a new keyboard

So being French is the same as being a "fook?"

Bradford's success in SL brought through star players from their academy, Burgesses, Whitehead, Bateman etc on their demise the best lads left and the academy stopped producing any pro level players, contrast the interest in RL in Bradford during the years they were competitive and crowds going over 20,000 with the interest now with crowds going towards 2,000. Then you need to ask yourself if kids in Bradford are turning to Rugby league in the numbers they were doing 10 years ago. Are they??

If TWP reach the heights of success and support Bradford did ask yourself how many players they will produce?? Or how many fans they will bring here? What do you think??, or whether they will be able to buy them in from Bradford? Repeat that with more overseas clubs in Superleague replacing M62 clubs and the crowds will fall here and the player supply will reduce alarmingly.This isn't "expansion" is it?? It's contraction of the player development system and crowds. The only thing TWP expand is travel distances and costs - think about it and it will become clear?

The Burgesses were born into a family of Leeds fans and played their junior rugby in Dewsbury. Had they not been signed by Bradford because they were struggling, it's a huge leap to suggest that they'd have been lost to the game.

Like I say, there are lots of reasons why junior participation is falling, but foreign expansion is way, way down the list. Talk about dealing with societal changes, demographic changes, competition from other sports and activities, the declining relevance of RL nationally first and then, once you've addressed those, maybe foreign clubs are next on the agenda as reasons for falling participation.

As for the "how many fans do they bring here" thing, that's old ground. It's systematic of the zero-growth thinking endemic in the English game that the issue of away fans keeps coming up as reasons for rising/falling crowds. There's no excuse for clubs not looking to fill the away end with locals - not a single one

Expansion can be an easy, lazy excuse if you want it to be, but it can just as easily be a huge positive. How many other sports offer a talented kid from the North of England the chance to live in and play professional sports in New York?

Overseas expansion is not a factor in falling participation, yet.
However, IF we have 4/5 N.American sides, in a 12 club top flight, who, for whatever reason, dont produce any juniors, there will be a huge problem and to deny it, is just being massively naïve.
The strength and weakness in RL has been it's ingrained roots in the North of England, with it's local rivalries and having a tight knit sport.
It's inability to expand beyond these roots, has largely been due to the power and spread of Union, which has ensured that RL is the (very) poor relation to a game which has a much wider base and if you go back 20/30 years, there was no plan to advance the game, which has left the sport "tailed off" in last position.
There were huge mistakes made within the games administration, in allowing the demise of the international game, something which has only started to be addressed in recent years and some huge strategic errors.
There needs to be a well planned and open strategy to move us forward but, right now, we are "throwing everything" at the N. American dream.

If it were closer to home, say in Europe, it would be fantastic for the game but, the logistics of progressing the game over there are an extremely difficult, maybe impossible fit - even the concept of a transatlantic league is flawed but, lets see how it unfolds.

What we MUST do is ensure that we dont completely kill the game in the UK while chasing this very unlikely dream, because if things go wrong over there, it will be too late to rescue the professional game in the UK.

That's an enourmous IF. SL has even changed it's regulations. What you're proposing would go against point 2.7 of [url=https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/JF1O6j0KVqhvV9xGT7q-9NlJwhcwkN3_ff0v8dsdrr4/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3GJLI6HII%2F20191204%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20191204T091504Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEPX%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJIMEYCIQDhHCBNy2BYaBFNInwiR3pBGRNEa9Lj%2Bgq1sBU5YdoELAIhAOTcrgiIsQgAQhjHup3RRxMX5f2LzYJZdaPh19iFsbCjKtACCD0QAhoMNDQ5MjI5MDMyODIyIgz%2B4G3DuoguM5P9Bh0qrQLwwCBchuQPphF4BYcWwRuv42kWpqgrgFVyg2QKWCq5V11e6bOHFaweJ9bZOWVtDBvsD5yYx2KbazPT4BF%2BC3i2GrcOOmVZjfzjYqmDgiQ6goD0grTdo8li58oySRL1L7NjWycQh3SKlkSerg1ftbWB3m%2Bdn1rllv2tqrOazR0zcZ5znKNrBLIeyClmAMK09uMxU9wQkyjKR0cflwwlKDT3syN116EeTv4hu61uAlEmpJxjibLE99FkCwWJOZTcnSG%2BrHkc6%2BWTGZAREXhKl3vD7fEiHcK5yGKVgw%2FdKi443MCI5xZgIbujUUtHkkW9l10amUZ3ZN7J2AHKv3yV%2BbLeAeiyR0Ou8uhYyl5rK7ECx7p9bXLvf6QCpRlslMSnzMOMYvcAY5hxE5gLqdJIML7vnO8FOs4ChqQEv%2FxvTUGdxd%2BzAb3RKDrqfpj468SGTwq1jeC3%2BOq%2BLKQsE4ZBukPOpiMT6qKsr%2FHKMjy1iOnVBBlMcgASw%2BNT0hT2evZlFxuVU8ugAHRzkJZbLkSrr8YQhHc0T2p60q%2Bs5MViL0swoqrSWH97tVP%2FzsiN9gipjrfOi0zj%2BEOcQ3GtBXkydrgxWNm1G7ClbVFYii7CsuVhKqNlMc8bRlDcWRzmftr9Ux3veIm6H9w6dZATLqXaW07ZGmv5MnlrnLp0SuVbf3hOLhek6BcqU8EuZKRpcpGKP0yhCRYSXURHUDnsTX%2B8CxSz%2Fa%2FcL3Gg%2BgkIeHp2crzr1OIy9P7OhIx83Sx5HG7wZs0FNaxUEK9MVhd25PQbyf0v8F7E9Yj9JXWW8BeTlQkFeCyd02TMcOIMjaI%2FVW9Jkq3USLTWmaPQxYWfoFhBv95BA6%2B8HA%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=76bca33dc5763ea550d4d4eacd301a376f36ead7dae8109b5fd152d8535acd11this document[/url filed with Companies House by Super League Europe in October this year.


I disagree. If we're blaming rugby union or the state of the game, we're missing the point entirely.

The failure to grow the sport is a combination of parochialism, a hostility to outsiders and zero-growth thinking. Rugby union is not responsible for any of that. The answers are looking back at us in the mirror.

I'd say the local rivalries are a strength, but not necessarily [ithe [/istrength - or at least they shouldn't be. The strength should be the quality of the product, the talent on offer and the competition. The local rivalry element is just a layer on top of that.



The only people who seem to be throwing anything, never mind "everything" at the North American dream is David Argyle. Ricky Wilby and Eric Perez. Those three people do not represent any sort of "we". The cost to any club has, at worst, been nil.



Nobody is saying that North America doesn't come with risks. But the risks of progressing with NA are nothing compared to the risks of not continuing how we are.



And we're back to this "focus on the heartlands" argument - which would be fine if anyone making that argument could actually explain how that takes the sport forward. "Focusing on the heartlands" has got the sport where it is today. What this whole argument seems to boil down to is "I don't want new clubs raising standards to a level my club isn't willing/able to reach and they might take my clubs place". Well, sorry, that isn't a way to run a professional sport.

No, I'm not saying focus on the heartlands, just protect them until we know where the hell the game is going.
As for "running a professional club", if Toronto were English and not fielding the range of academy sides etc, they wouldn't be allowed to compete in the top flight - due to their geographical location, they are coming to the party without bringing anything, other than pockets stuffed with cash.
Clearly no club trained players ?? academy sides ?? unable to play a full set of "home" fixtures ??

This level of dispensation would not be granted to ANY UK club and you know it.

The precedent set with Toronto is that anyone with a pile of cash can set up a "club" anywhere in the world and dictate their own criteria, rather than comply with the hard and fast rules that are enforce for every other club.??

No other sport would roll with this but RL, as usual, is desperate for a quick fix.

btw, your link doesn't work.

Quote ="wrencat1873"No, I'm not saying focus on the heartlands, just protect them until we know where the hell the game is going. As for "running a professional club", if Toronto were English and not fielding the range of academy sides etc, they wouldn't be allowed to compete in the top flight - due to their geographical location, they are coming to the party without bringing anything, other than pockets stuffed with cash. Clearly no club trained players ?? academy sides ?? unable to play a full set of "home" fixtures ?? This level of dispensation would not be granted to ANY UK club and you know it. '" Who is the "we" that decides which direction the game is going in your eyes? The Super League clubs decided that it should be them but they, along with Elstone, seem to have made barely any progress in coming up with a growth strategy beyond a shot clock and a new logo. Everything is focused not on growth, but protectionism. Whilst every sport around us has grown, RL continues to retreet into its shell, fearful of what the outsiders might bring. Quote As for "running a professional club", if Toronto were English and not fielding the range of academy sides etc, they wouldn't be allowed to compete in the top flight - due to their geographical location, they are coming to the party without bringing anything, other than pockets stuffed with cash. Clearly no club trained players ?? academy sides ?? unable to play a full set of "home" fixtures ??'" They're bringing new fans to the sport, new demographics to the sport, wider media reach to the sport and they're bringing marquee talents to the sport. How many heartland clubs can you say are ticking even one of those boxes, let along all of them? Do you see Toronto Wolfpack holding press conferences outside vending machines that look like a committee meeting at the Phoenix Club? No, because they get it. As I said above, to expect the club to start producing players after less than three years is an impossible expectation. Look at other expansion sides - London, Melbourne as an example - it's going to be a generation before we see the first Canadian SL-standard player. There are clubs in SL, or making claims that the should be in SL, that don't run academies, that have barely contributed to the elite player talent pool, clubs that can't play home games because the football club says no. These dispensations HAVE been granted to UK clubs, and you know it. Quote btw, your link doesn't work.'" Serves me for relying on a GOV.uk site. It's the resolution doc here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history

Quote ="wrencat1873"No, I'm not saying focus on the heartlands, just protect them until we know where the hell the game is going. As for "running a professional club", if Toronto were English and not fielding the range of academy sides etc, they wouldn't be allowed to compete in the top flight - due to their geographical location, they are coming to the party without bringing anything, other than pockets stuffed with cash. Clearly no club trained players ?? academy sides ?? unable to play a full set of "home" fixtures ?? This level of dispensation would not be granted to ANY UK club and you know it. '" Who is the "we" that decides which direction the game is going in your eyes? The Super League clubs decided that it should be them but they, along with Elstone, seem to have made barely any progress in coming up with a growth strategy beyond a shot clock and a new logo. Everything is focused not on growth, but protectionism. Whilst every sport around us has grown, RL continues to retreet into its shell, fearful of what the outsiders might bring. Quote As for "running a professional club", if Toronto were English and not fielding the range of academy sides etc, they wouldn't be allowed to compete in the top flight - due to their geographical location, they are coming to the party without bringing anything, other than pockets stuffed with cash. Clearly no club trained players ?? academy sides ?? unable to play a full set of "home" fixtures ??'" They're bringing new fans to the sport, new demographics to the sport, wider media reach to the sport and they're bringing marquee talents to the sport. How many heartland clubs can you say are ticking even one of those boxes, let along all of them? Do you see Toronto Wolfpack holding press conferences outside vending machines that look like a committee meeting at the Phoenix Club? No, because they get it. As I said above, to expect the club to start producing players after less than three years is an impossible expectation. Look at other expansion sides - London, Melbourne as an example - it's going to be a generation before we see the first Canadian SL-standard player. There are clubs in SL, or making claims that the should be in SL, that don't run academies, that have barely contributed to the elite player talent pool, clubs that can't play home games because the football club says no. These dispensations HAVE been granted to UK clubs, and you know it. Quote btw, your link doesn't work.'" Serves me for relying on a GOV.uk site. It's the resolution doc here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history

Your determined to argue the NA dream passionately, but your not answering the counter points or how we got where we are now. RL started off in 1896 in competition with RU, and over the years many attempts have been made to expand all over the country and abroad. Far from "[ifocusing on the heartlands[/i" the fact is the "heartlands" is the only place RL has worked in the Northern Hemisphere. Elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere Union is the game that has beaten us so the reality is we have to make the best of those heartlands. Your view of TWP as a success is not reality either....

1. They haven't even had a smell of a paying TV deal and admit there's no prospect of one.
2. They failed on any player development and not only admit this but don't bother with it now.
3. They have lost £5M failing on their own measures of success and are set for those losses to climb to £10M this season.

With respect we can't move our conversation on if you keep ignoring the above realities, not even TWP are denying the above is how it is........

I'm not necessarily saying that TW are a success yet. They have had successes, but that it's two early to call a three year-old club a "success".

On your three specific points:

1. The argument that TW opens up opportunities for new media markets is true and has some proof points behind it - RL is now being televised in parts of the world that it wasn't three years ago. That is, by any measure, a form of success. Yes, the difficulty is now finding broadcasters willing to pay for those rights, and that is the challenge (although one I suspect that the heartland clubs will soon come up against). Reading an interview with the TW chairman in TRL, there is a nod that the situation with Sky complicates things, but to what extent I'm not sure.

However, TW offers an opportunity to tap into other media markets. Whether that opportunity is realised is another issue, but it's an opportunity that we don't have with expansion.

2. I've said further up the thread. The first North American players that will be of SL standard are, most likely, not even born yet. If they are, they're still in pampers. It took London Broncos a generation (and a lot of development officers) to bring the first southerners into SL. It took Melbourne Storm not far off two decades before the first Victorians were playing in the NRL.

You could level the "not bothering with player development" accusation at a host of heartland clubs. If we're going to hold TW to certain standards on player development, we have to acknowledge the timescales involved.

3. If we're basing eligibility for a Super League place on profitability, then we're going to have a very small competition. Yes, TW are reliant on Argyle's continued benevolence (for now), but the same applies to a host of SL and RFL clubs.

Again, I'll reiterate - North America has risks - massive ones in fact. But there are even greater risks by continuing as the sport has done for the best part of 20 years. The sport has regressed, comparative to other sports, in every conceivable measure and it's fantasy, in my eyes, to suggest that the people responsible for that (the club owners across the game) are also the people who can fix it.

London are in the 2nd tier and the Storm have not one victorian in their 2020 squad.....there are 2 forms of development.....both are 100% reliant on benevolence and neither are as yet, a success.

As a fan, I'd take the saracens route every day. When London were being run by the useless cricket admin, we looked at the site that saracens now call home, but instead moved to the barnet car park.....since then we've gone backwards....Saracens on the other hand have gone all in, won trophies and are now staring at fines, relegation and their owner is still "all in".....we play at a wedding venue and because a few lads with cockney twangs play for us, we're a success?

if it takes 30 years to grow a player, the point that you are ignoring is IF New York replace say, Wakefield, where do they get their players from if wakefield is no longer a player pathway for young men?

I blame the Internet BTW. The world was much smaller when RL folk had to rely on John Drake for their fix, but now everyone's a marketing expert and a geographical genius in terms of finding new players