Re: Why has RL never taken off in Manchester and Liverpool? : Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:07 pm  

SaleSlim wrote:

Smokey - I CBA quoting every individual piece of nonsense you've spouted on here but I'll highlight a few major points. Btw, my observations come from a guy that was born and bred in Salford and has lived here for 36 of my 39 years.

Manchester's diverse ethnic population.... has ALMOST no interest in Rugby League. I'm sure there are a FEW exceptions to the rule but that's the case in any sport. I was brought up in Higher Broughton, an area heavily populated by the Orthodox Jewish community. They have little to no interest in sport. As pointed out to you by Cronus, this is the same with Manchester/Salford's, Asian, Afro-Carribean, Polish etc communities as well. It would be great if they had an interest but they don't. We have a few student fans from Salford/Manchester Uni but again I would hazard a guess that a lot of those had at least a passing interest in some form of rugby before they first attended a Salford match. Salford moving to Manchester won't allow a new club to suddenly tap into this goldmine of new fans eager for a slice of the RL pie. A more consistent/successful Salford team will bring bigger crowds to Salford as we are seeing already this season.

Kallum Watkins has a Jamaican mother, is from Salford, became an RL fan in Salford, played his amateur RL in Salford, is a professional Rugby League player. Being of Afro-Carribean origin, nor any other, is a barrier or indicator of involvement in, support of, or affiliation with Rugby League.

You and Cronus, have, managed to make my point for me. There could not be a better example of the parochial outlook that i am talking about that you two arguing that a sport with the history Rugby League does, would find the Afro-Carribean community as a demographic we struggle with rather than an opportunity. Perhaps if Salford, and others, were to look at places outside of their immediate areas, and demographics other than white-working class, they wouldnt struggle with attendances so much and the game would be in a much healthier place.

The "Man Utd aren't even from Manchester" argument - Jesus f*cking Christ, are people still churning out this poop?! It's a petty jibe that City fans normally throw out thinking it upsets Utd fans. Trafford is in Greater Manchester and the Old Trafford ground happens to be located around 3 miles from Manchester City Centre and on the doorstep of the heart of Salford (a massive football stronghold). Out of interest, how far is Elland Road from Leeds City Centre? Moving Salford to Manchester would just alienate hardcore Salford fans who associate with their hometown (home city) club and who would have no affinity to a Manchester based club.

Those fans who think franchising in Manchester is a viable replacement for Salford Rugby Club are the sort of fans who look down on us as they see us as small fry in the RL world. Small crowds, lack of any success for decades..... readily disposable (like Wakey etc) in Rugby League's pursuit of a formula that will bring the masses flocking in and turn us into some sort of super sport that Rugby League will never be.

Toulouse and Toronto are the way forward for now. Let's grow the French game and get behind what Toronto are trying to achieve as they could be the golden ticket to growing our great game, not moving an established club 5 miles down the road into a neighbouring city.

You have managed to grab the wrong end of the stick here to such an extent im not even sure its a stick you have grabbed.
Where have i suggested Salford move to Manchester, In fact i used Man Utd as an example of how they dont need to be in Manchester. Have you forgotten, im the one here arguing that clubs shouldnt be bound by their geography, that they should expand? I can understand why City fans think it annoys you, you seem wierdly defensive about it.

Re: Why has RL never taken off in Manchester and Liverpool? : Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:08 pm  

Uncle Rico wrote:

I will save Smokey the trouble...you just don't understand

There is an outstanding level of either stupidity or irony here, im not sure which it is but im in awe of it.

Re: Why has RL never taken off in Manchester and Liverpool? : Sun Mar 26, 2017 2:55 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

There is an outstanding level of either stupidity or irony here, im not sure which it is but im in awe of it.

I started this reply earlier but got called away, hopefully I can still remember what I wanted to say.

Smokey, sometimes you are your own worst enemy!

I often find you make a great point (which makes me think), but others, challenge it, expand it or simply try and discuss it (as people do on a forum) and that is when you have issues!

It is a discussion board, yet you seem set in that your opinion is the only correct one, get annoyed with any discussion (sometimes even when it agrees with your point) and quickly desend into a lot of 'whataboutery' where even you no longer know the point you were making.

Eg in this thread someone mentioned Manchester had a large student population, your response was something about 4 universities close by in Leeds The number of universities is not important (some have less than 100 students), the point was number of students and that is what the poster intended. You can try and twist the numbers all you like but Manchester (by numerous measures) has the largest student population in Europe! (Manchester Uni or Manchester Met each have 10k students more than Leeds )

I love Leeds as a city, but haven't spent much time there so willnot/cannot compare it to GTR Manchester. Others on this thread who have more experience than me have tried to explain that the 2 cities are different, but your argument is they are not:

If the same applies to both cities as you state, why does Manchester have 2 of the richest and most famous soccer clubs in the world and Leeds have none?

To try and prove your point that ethic diversity was not an issue you used as an example a player of colour, and stated that Asians are well represented in Leeds, yet a quick look through Leeds website does not find 1 Asian fan or player.

In your posts you have confused challenges and opportunity. Several posts in this thread talked about the challenges of having a varied ethic, student population, but the only one who has suggested that is not an opportunity is you.

Maybe, occasionally think others have a valid point. You might be wrong and do what people do on a forum - have an open mind and discuss.

Re: Why has RL never taken off in Manchester and Liverpool? : Sun Mar 26, 2017 12:15 pm  

I know people keep mentioning Leeds, but that particular city simply isn't as well known, or as famous, as Manchester and Liverpool across the UK or worldwide.

Re: Why has RL never taken off in Manchester and Liverpool? : Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:17 pm  

Kiyan wrote:

Eg in this thread someone mentioned Manchester had a large student population, your response was something about 4 universities close by in Leeds The number of universities is not important (some have less than 100 students), the point was number of students and that is what the poster intended. You can try and twist the numbers all you like but Manchester (by numerous measures) has the largest student population in Europe! (Manchester Uni or Manchester Met each have 10k students more than Leeds )

I love Leeds as a city, but haven't spent much time there so willnot/cannot compare it to GTR Manchester. Others on this thread who have more experience than me have tried to explain that the 2 cities are different, but your argument is they are not:

If the same applies to both cities as you state, why does Manchester have 2 of the richest and most famous soccer clubs in the world and Leeds have none?

To try and prove your point that ethic diversity was not an issue you used as an example a player of colour, and stated that Asians are well represented in Leeds, yet a quick look through Leeds website does not find 1 Asian fan or player.

In your posts you have confused challenges and opportunity. Several posts in this thread talked about the challenges of having a varied ethic, student population, but the only one who has suggested that is not an opportunity is you.

Maybe, occasionally think others have a valid point. You might be wrong and do what people do on a forum - have an open mind and discuss.

The student population isnt a valid point. It is nonsense. You are highlighting a difference of 10k students as somehow important in regions of 2.5m and 2.2m. And forgetting that Headingley is literally the heart of the Leeds student population. Headingley stadium is part of the Leeds Beckett Campus for heavens sake. It makes no sense to pretend there is some reason why Leeds can be hugely successful in an area of the city where the student population is based but RL in Manchester can't make in-roads in to the student population of the city because there are 10k more students.

I used Bradford as an example of a club based in a area well represented by Asians.

I havent confused challenges and opportunity. I dont believe we have any demographic challenges. All we have seen in this thread is people saying oh these clubs can't grow in to Manchester cos of the jews, because of Asians, because of Afro-carribeans, because of students, Yet the game is popular in a similar sized city 60 miles away with a large jewish population, with a large black population, which is based in a University and next door is a club based in a city famous for its Asian population, now we get "yeah but its just different". Whats different? What magic is happening in those 60miles that means it becomes more difficult or challenging to connect to these communities? Are Manchester black people somehow less predisposed to Rugby League than Leeds Black people? Is there some fundemental difference between Manchester Jews and Leeds Jews? Cos that seems to be the argument being made here and it seems pretty absurd.

Re: Why has RL never taken off in Manchester and Liverpool? : Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:17 pm  

JonnoTheGreat wrote:

I know people keep mentioning Leeds, but that particular city simply isn't as well known, or as famous, as Manchester and Liverpool across the UK or worldwide.

I dont really think that is having much of an effect on RL attendances.

Re: Why has RL never taken off in Manchester and Liverpool? : Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:08 pm  

I'm a Mancunian and I and many others are big rugby league fans.

Broughton/Belle Vue Rangers won one championship and two Challenge Cups which is more than some top level clubs have ever managed to win. By the time they folded that was one more major honour than St Helens had won. They once got a 24000 crowd in a game against New Zealand which is more than some top level clubs have ever got for a game. This club has been resurrected with new backers and some serious future ambitions - Manchester Rangers. I'd bet anyone that in two decades time Rangers have a larger support than Huddersfield.

People kid themselves though when they say Salford and Manchester aren't part of the same place, with Trafford too. All three share the same "Town" or city centre, the same accent, the same culture of music bands and venues and sports like footy and boxing and MMA...you can walk from Whalley Range into Old Trafford into Odsall and you haven't left one distinct city and gone into a distinct borough that isn't a city and then into another distinct city, no matter what the map says, you've just walked into three different areas in the same city.

Re: Why has RL never taken off in Manchester and Liverpool? : Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:41 pm  

wiganermike wrote:

A general lack of success (they tended to be near the foot of the league) for the clubs within those cities and other nearby towns and the existence of more illustrious neighbours probably combined to kill off most. Go back to the period following 1895 and we had clubs during the next fifteen years in towns like Stockport, Runcorn, two in Salford, around half a dozen at one stage in Leeds and its vicinity, one in Birkenhead as well as places like Morecambe and Lancaster plus the original Liverpool City. There were also more clubs in towns within what we know as the heartlands in places like Tyldesley and Brighouse. Include junior clubs (what we would call community clubs now) and there were teams in places like Radcliffe and Walkden. With a need to attract and keep paying audiences to fund costs of paying players in order to keep going such support would gravitate to those with success. Hence successful Leeds and Hunslet outcompeted the other Leeds clubs (though Bramley somehow soldiered on), Wigan and Leigh saw off Tyldesley and so on.

The clubs close to Manchester had Salford and Broughton Rangers (the other club in Salford) to contend with on their doorstep and these were two of the more successful clubs in the early 1900s. There were also Oldham and Swinton to contend with, with both being strong too. In soccer which was a growing threat as a counter-attraction there was Bury who twice won the FA Cup as well as growing clubs like Newton Heath. The clubs that persisted tended to be those which had fairly regular success to sustain interest. Later attempts in Manchester such as Belle Vue Rangers (the relocated Broughton Rangers who had been outcompeted in Salford) and much later Trafford Borough had to try to make a dent ,with uncompetitive teams, to compete with the two soccer giants. By that stage even a successful RL club (trophy-wise) would probably have failed to make much impact against those two. Soccer due to its successful clubs was and is now too engrained in the cultural psyche for other sports to garner much interest.

Those close to Liverpool had Everton who were already famous and successful to compete with as well as Liverpool. Given that the soccer teams won things and the RL teams were cellar dwellers they never really had a chance to catch the populace's interest. By the time Liverpool Stanley had their brief success in the mid thirties the soccer clubs had had a fifty year head start. I think this also coincided with Dixie Dean's era which would have made them even more invisible in that city.

This about sums it up.

I'd also like to point out that around Manchester there are many rugby union clubs: TraffordMV, Ashton-upon-Mersey, Manchester Sale, Bowden, Kersall, Didsbury, Heaton Moor, Sedgely Park, Eccles, Broughton Park, Auldwinians, Manchester, North Manchester... that's just off the top of my head, there are probably numerous more. Around the same areas for rugby league you have NOWHERE NEAR as many clubs as RU.

You could argue that Manchester is a rugby union city when it comes to the two codes of rugby.

Re: Why has RL never taken off in Manchester and Liverpool? : Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:47 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

All this historical stuff and talks of "soccer cities" is very interesting an' all, but the fact is simple: nobody with a desire to run a RL club there rich enough to start one exists. It would fly, if you threw enough money at it, but at present there's no-one that will.

If the Toronto guy was based in Liverpool, for example, and not Toronto, he is the sort of guy (and his backers) who could do it. You just need the desire, vision, balls and resources.

This is a big one too.

Re: Why has RL never taken off in Manchester and Liverpool? : Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:54 pm  

Smokey..... that response to my post is laughable. So you're basically accusing me of being a narrow-minded racist? Trust me, I know my city better than you do and I also know a lot about the people that live here. The points myself and Cronos have made are pretty much spot on and I haven't got the time or energy to indulge your drivel any further. If it makes you happy to believe the nonsense you post then I guess I'll leave you to it..... banging my head against a brick wall isn't a favourite pastime of mine.