Re: Montreal for Super League : Sun May 15, 2016 8:34 pm  

moto748 wrote:

I asked, in my fluent French about 'rugby áwhich is rugby a á treize' in Northern France (football area, really), and was met with blank looks as if they'd never even heard of it.

I used to travel to France a lot in the early 90s, pas de calais is very under-rated. I found a back street bar in Calais that i'd pop into. IIRC it was called bar du rugby or possibly 'match', it was one of those typical small, smoky men only joints.
It was adorned with rugby memorabilia of the 15 a side variety and they definitely knew what rugby a treize was.
As far as expansion, any sustainable expansion outside of the traditional heartlands is good an should be embraced.

Re: Montreal for Super League : Mon May 16, 2016 7:18 am  

wire-quin wrote:

It will never be credible internationally until there is a successful team in London

You are probably correct.

Re: Montreal for Super League : Mon May 16, 2016 10:53 am  

As a principle i like the idea of a northern hemisphere league involving teams from Canada and possibly the USA.

As a sport we have to be very cautious though. I don't think we can just put a Canadian team in unless we return to franchising, they should earn the right through promotion like every other club assuming the model stays the way it is now. If they were put in they would have to be protected from relegation otherwise it is a pointless venture.

Long term I'd love to see a northern hemisphere competition with teams from the US, Canada, Celtic nations and other European countries however it would have to run as a franchise with feeder leagues in each country, this then runs the risk of alienating a lot of clubs and their supporters.

It's about time the RFL set a long term direction and plan for the sport and actually stuck to it, this HAS to include a set international calendar.

Re: Montreal for Super League : Mon May 16, 2016 11:29 am  

Trainman wrote:

As a principle i like the idea of a northern hemisphere league involving teams from Canada and possibly the USA.

As a sport we have to be very cautious though. I don't think we can just put a Canadian team in unless we return to franchising, they should earn the right through promotion like every other club assuming the model stays the way it is now. If they were put in they would have to be protected from relegation otherwise it is a pointless venture.

Long term I'd love to see a northern hemisphere competition with teams from the US, Canada, Celtic nations and other European countries however it would have to run as a franchise with feeder leagues in each country, this then runs the risk of alienating a lot of clubs and their supporters.

It's about time the RFL set a long term direction and plan for the sport and actually stuck to it, this HAS to include a set international calendar.

I agree.

The major plus point with franchising should have been the option of being to add any new/strong clubs that could sustain a competitive club in the comp, together with dropping any failing franchises.
Unfortunately, we have now moved to a whole new convoluted system which in theory allows for promotion and relegation but, this becomes an automatic barrier/deterrent for any new players.
Of course, many wold argue that clubs should be in the top flight on playing merit and maybe this is right but, it all depends on whether we want the game to expand and compete seriously for advertising and TV revenue.

Lets face it, despite being told that we have a cracking TV deal with Sky, we are getting very little from advertising and TV rights compared with other sports.

What we have done with the sport over the past few years, is to reduce the number of clubs in the top flight and make it more difficult for any additional clubs to join the party and this is at a time when the party line, is to expand the sport

Re: Montreal for Super League : Mon May 16, 2016 12:49 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

I agree.

The major plus point with franchising should have been the option of being to add any new/strong clubs that could sustain a competitive club in the comp, together with dropping any failing franchises.
Unfortunately, we have now moved to a whole new convoluted system which in theory allows for promotion and relegation but, this becomes an automatic barrier/deterrent for any new players.
Of course, many wold argue that clubs should be in the top flight on playing merit and maybe this is right but, it all depends on whether we want the game to expand and compete seriously for advertising and TV revenue.

Lets face it, despite being told that we have a cracking TV deal with Sky, we are getting very little from advertising and TV rights compared with other sports.

What we have done with the sport over the past few years, is to reduce the number of clubs in the top flight and make it more difficult for any additional clubs to join the party and this is at a time when the party line, is to expand the sport

The problem was that there weren't enough strong clubs to sustain a 14-club league. In the future there might be.

Admitting clubs into League 1 seems like the right way to go, allow them to earn their way to SL.

One thing that does need looking at is the Salary Cap. We have clubs competing with each other in the Qualifiers on different caps, and Toronto will have a different cap to anyone else. We need to try and make it as consistent as possible, perhaps even levelling the max cap across all 3 leagues, but with clubs only able to spend a max of 50% of their revenue on player wages? I'm not sure, but doesn't seem fair at the moment.

Re: Montreal for Super League : Mon May 16, 2016 4:10 pm  

Doom&Gloom Merchant wrote:

The problem was that there weren't enough strong clubs to sustain a 14-club league. In the future there might be.

I agree about the cap. It either needs to go back to what it was intended for, that is only allowing a club to spend a proportion of its income or to be a flat level for all clubs in all divisions.

Admitting clubs into League 1 seems like the right way to go, allow them to earn their way to SL.

One thing that does need looking at is the Salary Cap. We have clubs competing with each other in the Qualifiers on different caps, and Toronto will have a different cap to anyone else. We need to try and make it as consistent as possible, perhaps even levelling the max cap across all 3 leagues, but with clubs only able to spend a max of 50% of their revenue on player wages? I'm not sure, but doesn't seem fair at the moment.

Re: Montreal for Super League : Mon May 16, 2016 7:40 pm  

vastman wrote:

Some of you people are gone with the fairy's, what dream world do you live in.

We couldn't manage to maintain a SL team in London, Paris or even Sheffield yet you actually think a team from Canada (filled with NRL rejects) could actually work - what a set of mugs. I truly despair.

Superleague teams sorted, what about the canadian team!

Re: Montreal for Super League : Thu May 19, 2016 8:53 pm  

JEAN CAPDOUZE wrote:

Montreal and Toronto, along with Toulouse, could be the salvation of rugby league in the Northern Hemisphere. These three clubs could finally turn rugby league into a credible international game.


I look forward to the day, 20 years from now, when we talk about the Big Six: Australia, New Zealand, England, France Canada and the USA. Papua-New Guinea and Fiji will be just outside the Big Six.

Well Jean, 20 years is an awful long time, and there's a reasonable chance I won't still be here then, but I've copied this and put a reminder in my calendar for May 2036. Let's see how things lie then!!

Re: Montreal for Super League : Sun May 22, 2016 7:44 pm  

Willzay wrote:

Go on then King Idiot, explain how Saints or Wigan have kept Wakefield afloat for "centuries".

Because, people tune into Sky to watch us, no one cares about watching Wakefield except the 45 rugby league fans in wakefield. This means that SKY get the audience share they crave which means Wakefield get money from the SKY deal.

Kind regards

King James

[Wildthing]

Re: Montreal for Super League : Sun May 22, 2016 8:07 pm  

Lebron James wrote:

Because, people tune into Sky to watch us, no one cares about watching Wakefield except the 45 rugby league fans in wakefield. This means that SKY get the audience share they crave which means Wakefield get money from the SKY deal.

Kind regards

King James

By 'us' do you mean St Helens?