Re: Toulouse or not To Lose ? : Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:08 pm  

belgianxiii wrote:

I dunno how good a one-off "sub world club challenge" would fair. The cup format did not work with the treize tournoi.

I agree with you in that I am not pleased with the view that TO is in the Championship with a view to SL, would be better to have a French club that aspired to be a Championship club. Then again, TO can trial it and see if it works, if it does then another LER club could join the championship, this time without the need to look to SL as the next step. So in this trial way TO is good for the SL, beyond the media attention they generate.

I would say, further, that if Celtic (I assume they're who you're talking about) were not in SL now, then they would be drawing in for the Championship now. All the media attention that they currently get in SL would be attention going to the Championship.[/quote]

No because if Celtic were not in SL they would most likely not exist , or if they did they would end up being very similar to how Gateshead were 6/7 years ago , starting from the bottom up again but sticking to the same rules as everybody else

The other option would be for them to continue having rules ' bent ' for them which would be damaging to the credibility of the competition they were in

Sorry ' pet ' or ' gimmick ' clubs dont fool anybody , they make our so called ' sport ' look ridiculous in the eyes of people we are trying to attract to our clubs

Toulouse and everything else? : Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:24 pm  

The site and this thread gets better. I have just spent half an hour poring over it ('cos I can't read very fast).
But on a serious note, there seems to be very little incentive for the teams to get to the top of the league at the moment (No promotion from NL1 to Super League). Come back at me if you want and say I am mad, but with £24.5 million being brought into the game from Sport England, much of it should be fed down through the leagues, so that all teams can look forward to the future. What about a play-off series for the NL 1 top 6 teams, which would generate interest and revenue, Toulouse or not Toulouse- that is the question. With a substantial cash prize and Cup for the winners of the competition. This money then to be invested through the club, in order to prepare it for an application to Super League? The best team wins and there can be no argument of fixing or teams being prepared for Super League. Just a thought ?

Re: Toulouse and everything else? : Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:00 pm  

carlos innuendo wrote:

The site and this thread gets better. I have just spent half an hour poring over it ('cos I can't read very fast).
But on a serious note, there seems to be very little incentive for the teams to get to the top of the league at the moment (No promotion from NL1 to Super League). Come back at me if you want and say I am mad, but with £24.5 million being brought into the game from Sport England, much of it should be fed down through the leagues, so that all teams can look forward to the future. What about a play-off series for the NL 1 top 6 teams, which would generate interest and revenue, Toulouse or not Toulouse- that is the question. With a substantial cash prize and Cup for the winners of the competition. This money then to be invested through the club, in order to prepare it for an application to Super League? The best team wins and there can be no argument of fixing or teams being prepared for Super League. Just a thought ?

The Sport England is for grass roots development , it cannot be used to fund anything via the NL/Championship clubs

There is a top 6 play off already [ has been for 8/9 years ] to get to the GF

Re: Toulouse or not To Lose ? : Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:10 am  

Starbug wrote:

No because if Celtic were not in SL they would most likely not exist , or if they did they would end up being very similar to how Gateshead were 6/7 years ago , starting from the bottom up again but sticking to the same rules as everybody else

The other option would be for them to continue having rules ' bent ' for them which would be damaging to the credibility of the competition they were in

Sorry ' pet ' or ' gimmick ' clubs dont fool anybody , they make our so called ' sport ' look ridiculous in the eyes of people we are trying to attract to our clubs

This would be the Gateshead thunder who have 7 overseas players would it? playing by the same rules are they?

its clear where you prejudice lies, you might aswell be honest about it you fool no one

: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:20 am  

Pepe wrote:

...Or because the RFL had guaranteed an NL1/Championship club would be given a 2012 SL licence?

It could be. It would be absolutely shocking if they did, I would go so far as to say it would be an outrage. If TO join the SL in 2012, fine, but the spirit (if not the word) of the deal was that a UK Championship club would get promoted and if TO join in the place that was reserved for a UK club (as oppsed to "along with"), then I will join you in recrimanations of the RFL.

Of course, 3 years is far ahead from now, TO could fall on their face or they could prove to be the dominant side in the Championship, while all other clubs underacheive spectacularly. In that (unlikely) scenario it would seem odd to add one of the other clubs at the expense of a curent SL club - but this is crystal ball stuff, so pointlessly speculative.

: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:35 am  

Starbug wrote:

... cost a lot of money , money that is in short supply in the Championships

I dont see how thier inclusion will help clubs in Championship 1

Also having a team excempt from relegation is wrong

We will have to see whether they lose or generate cash over the next 3 years - possibly the credit crunch was not the best time for this move, but who could have predicted that.

Championship 1 get a share of TV revenue, the TV revenue is based on what SKy decide it's worth, which is influenced by having a French club in the top tier.

A team exempt from relegation is not wrong, if you're ann oyed about the travel costs for a Championship side, what would it be like for a Championship 1 side? If they could be relegated you'd be complaining about that too! Anyway, this isn't something we need to discuss until they actually use their relegation immunity.

Re: Toulouse or not To Lose ? : Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:37 am  

Starbug wrote:

No because if Celtic were not in SL they would most likely not exist , or if they did they would end up being very similar to how Gateshead were 6/7 years ago , starting from the bottom up again but sticking to the same rules as everybody else

Celtic in the Championship in 2009 is very much crystal ball stuff from both of us. Would the big money have walked or would he have stuck it out for another 3 years? I reckon the latter, you disagree, we will never know. Not really worth arguing about.

Re: Toulouse or not To Lose ? : Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:13 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

This would be the Gateshead thunder who have 7 overseas players would it? playing by the same rules are they?

its clear where you prejudice lies, you might aswell be honest about it you fool no one

Not ' over the moon ' about it no , I was aware they had this many yes , are they paying out for recent SOO players on amatuer terms ? no

But to tell the truth all I care about at the moment is the survival and future growth of all the clubs we already have in the Championships

Maybe I have more sympathy for a club that has ' done its time ' in the lower league , I will not apologise for it , it is expansion of the sport much more than Toulouse or even Celtic for that matter and if they eventually do find a big money backer and go on to SL then fine

As long as the clubs in the ' lower ' league are in good financial positions then no problem

: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:30 pm  

belgianxiii wrote:

It could be. It would be absolutely shocking if they did, I would go so far as to say it would be an outrage. If TO join the SL in 2012, fine, but the spirit (if not the word) of the deal was that a UK Championship club would get promoted and if TO join in the place that was reserved for a UK club (as oppsed to "along with"), then I will join you in recrimanations of the RFL.

Of course, 3 years is far ahead from now, TO could fall on their face or they could prove to be the dominant side in the Championship, while all other clubs underacheive spectacularly. In that (unlikely) scenario it would seem odd to add one of the other clubs at the expense of a curent SL club - but this is crystal ball stuff, so pointlessly speculative.

We have already seen ' the word ' of the RFL in the transparent Licence decisions , and to tell the truth I no longer care if Leigh ever get another shot at SL as long as we see a better more constructive approach to the NL/Championsips

I wont be holding my breath

: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:55 pm  

belgianxiii wrote:

It could be. It would be absolutely shocking if they did, I would go so far as to say it would be an outrage. If TO join the SL in 2012, fine, but the spirit (if not the word) of the deal was that a UK Championship club would get promoted and if TO join in the place that was reserved for a UK club (as oppsed to "along with"), then I will join you in recrimanations of the RFL.

Of course, 3 years is far ahead from now, TO could fall on their face or they could prove to be the dominant side in the Championship, while all other clubs underacheive spectacularly. In that (unlikely) scenario it would seem odd to add one of the other clubs at the expense of a curent SL club - but this is crystal ball stuff, so pointlessly speculative.

I wouldn’t be shocked at all by it. In fact I fully expect it to happen. I expected the licence criteria to be robust and honest. I expected Widnes’ application, put together at great expense to the club, to be either thrown out for being a new club with only 7 - 8 months financial records, or accepted and judged fairly. Widnes’ financial part of their bid would have to have been robust, but a £500,000 guarantee seems just about as robust as you could get. Yet they failed Widnes for only having 7 months worth of financial records. The question asked by many, including Halton MP Derrick Twigg in Parliament, was why didn’t the RFL simply tell the club not to waste it’s money applying this time around, as it is impossible to gain a licence after only 7-8 months in business? It just makes no sense at all!

Now, I’m not just having a whinge about why Widnes didn’t get a licence. I am largely over the anger, but it illustrates perfectly why I have little faith in anything the RFL say. There is a clear agenda of expansion, even if the RFL lack the courage to come out and say so directly.

The initial offer of a guaranteed place in SL 2012 – for an NL/Championship side that meets the criteria – looks, to me, to have only been put forward by the RFL to placate the top four or five clubs, with SL aspirations, in order that they accept the new Licence system, which banishes them all for a minimum of 3 years from SL. At least, so they thought, they’ll have one more shot at it in 2011.

Once the RFL made that promise it meant they either had to demote a current SL club or expand SL to 15 clubs in 2012. Either way, a very difficult choice would have to be made. So this would mean, if they want to carry on with an expansionist agenda, it would be far easier to promote an expansion club by using the ‘Guaranteed Championship place’. The fact is there may not be one current SL club that deserves to be demoted in 2012. In that case they would have to expand SL to 16 clubs in order to accommodate both a heartland and an expansion club. I doubt there will be enough talent and money for that to be a viable option. Perhaps SL could be expanded to 15, at a push, but not 16 imo. I think they would expand to 15 to accommodate an expansion club, but not a traditional club, especially with Toulouse and Gateshead in the Championship.

This time the RFL had the luxury of being able to promote an expansion club along with a heartland club. If they wish to do that again, they’ll probably have to kick two current clubs out, or kick out one club and expand to 15. Unless a couple of current SL clubs go pop, over the next three years, I pretty sure that two clubs will not be kicked out. So that leaves option 2. The RFL have already admitted that they may have to expand the league to 15 clubs, in order to comply with their promise, but I think they may be basing that on the possibility they may have no club they can demote in 2012. Imo the only reason TO didn't get the same deal as Les Catalans instead is because of these possible complications.

Imo a Yorkshire club will be booted out of SL 2012 and Toulouse will take their place in a 14 club SL, providing they don’t go into financial meltdown. Even if you think Toulouse will bring some benefit to the Championship, in the form of interest and finance, the massive cost to the RFL of transporting 11 clubs back and fourth from the South of France for three years will vastly outweigh any such benefit, (not to mention the on-going problems many amateur players will have getting time off work to travel to France over the next three years). I don’t see this money being on offer after the next round of licences and Toulouse will either be promoted to SL in 2012 or end up back in their own French league.

If I’m honest I genuinely thought that Toulouse were a far better bet for expansion than the Crusaders, and was surprised when they didn’t get the nod ahead of them. I can only assume that this is the only way the RFL thought they’d have a chance to get them both over time. I’ve no axe to grind with either club, I hope they both do well, I just don’t trust the RFL. Experience has shown them to be dishonest and totally ruthless with the future of smaller, heartland clubs. Unfortunately this gets lost in a barrage of name-calling. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the way the RFL are managing expansion is nothing more than a xenophobic old flat capper to some people on these boards.


I hope you are right, and the RFL do the honorable thing, but the word honour and the RFL just don't sit right to me.