Quote:
>Well I guess that Paul typifies the type of "new" supporter being attracted
>to RL.
Careful. It can be dangerous to make such sweeping assumptions about people
you don't know.
Quote:
>He claims in his message that he has no idea of amateur RL >but knows
>about amateur RU. (there has to be a distinction made, though for several
>years now RU has NOT been an amateur sport. My local RU club have had some
>kind of professionalism in their ranks for years and they aren't even a
>"League 1" side.
>Occasional spectators are OK, but RL isn't soccer and never will be. What
>do occasional supporters put back into the game except gate money and a
>replica shirt every two years?
Well even that's better than them not being there at all, surely?
Quote:
>RL cannot exist in a professional vacuum,
>despite Lindsays best efforts, because most players still come from ARL at
>some time in their development. It is an obvious fact that we cannot
>continue for ever on teams made up of has been Australians! It seems to me
>that RL must do nothing to antagonise the very people who every week keep
>the sport alive at whatever level.
But neither can the game just stand still. The aim must surely be to attract
what you refer to as occasional spectators into the game to start with, and
then turn them into permanent supporters. No one is "born" a rugby league
fan, and the game cannot, IMO, simply rely on existing levels of support to
sustain it as you appear to be suggesting. RL has to attract new fans and
players all the time, and when they do turn up, all RL people should welcome
them to the game instead of sneering at their apparent lack of knowledge
about the finer points.
True enough, the amateur game is the backbone of RL, but it is possible to
modernise things and retain their support and involvement at the same time.
Bradford Bulls, for example, have established a genuine partnership scheme
for amateur clubs in their area (The Bulls Connection - ring 01274 733899
for details), whereas in the good old bad old days so many people love to
hark back to, professional clubs would do as little as they could to support
the amateurs.
Quote:
>I would be very careful about putting too much faith into summer rugby and
>the idea that they will sign all our best players. For one thing RU's new
>found professionalism is built on very shallow foundations and is
>unsustainable in its present form. The professionalism of under the table
>payments which has existed for decades was not enough to lure our best
>players and will not be in the future.
Kid yourself if you want to. The old rules of shamateurism prevented RL
players going to RU as much as it prevented traffic the other way. Now both
sports are openly professional, it is open season. RL has to make itself
more attractive to a much wider audience, not only to generate income to pay
and retain players, but to attract high profile sponsorship and media
coverage. If RL is content to remain geographically restricted, then why
should major companies want to spend their sponsorship money advertising to
a minority audience, and why should national media want to take an interest
in a regional sport?
Quote:
>The whole idea of summer rugby and expansion is built on the premise that
>the Murdoch millions will continue to roll in. This is patently not going
>to happen, especially when Murdoch realises in years to come, that RL is no
>more of a national game with all his money than it was without it.
The decision to switch to summer was being debated before the Murdoch backed
SL was even thought of.
Quote:
>RL
>continues to fail miserably in non traditional areas despite none of them
>ever playing on a level playing field in terms of the rules set out for
>them. Sheffield Seagulls and London have survived, but not without a
>ridiculous amount of money being pumped in and even under those
>circumstances the Seagulls struggle to get a decent following in one of the
>biggest, most sport mad cities in the country. Added to which, 14 years
>down the line and there is still NOT a thriving amateur game in the
>Sheffield area.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, if you can't even get the club's name
right (Seagulls?) I'm not sure I'll
take your word for how well the amateur game is doing in Sheffield. I'm
pretty sure there is more of a grass roots interest in RL in Sheffield now
than there was *before* the EAGLES club was formed. That's progress. And as
for the crowds, they get more than many RL clubs who have been around a lot
longer and have a stronger amateur base, so what does that say about the
more "traditional" RL clubs?
As for RL failing in non traditional areas, I suppose its failed in London
to such an extent that Richard Branson now wants to be involved and, like
Sheffield, their crowds are bigger than many traditional RL clubs. Some
failure!
Quote:
>Can anyone seriously believe that RL would succeed in Southampton? Or for
>that matter Newcastle?
Yep. Why not?
Quote:
>People connect Newcy with a working class area but
>theres way more to it than that. Who remembers Mansfield Marksman? Not
>many of you, I bet.
They had a ***team, no money, no real backing from the RFL and played in
the second division. Expansion on those terms will inevitably fail. Doesn't
mean that people in those areas have wrong shaped brains or something, and
that they can't possibly ever take to RL because its not in their genes.
Quote:
> I agree, crowds of 500 in Batley on a frozen cold day
>in January are not exactly good for the image of the sport but neither is
>Paris playing in a huge stadium in front of 17000 spectators none of whom
>have paid to get in.
Oh come on, talk sense please!! You are seriously suggesting that the sight
of 17,000 people going bananas over a game of RL played in a fantastic state
of the art stadium in Paris is a bad thing?
Quote:
> The real impact of "Super League" in Paris could be
>seen from that last few home games. Hahahaha.
You mean when PSG beat Oldham at the Charlety Stadium in front of a crowd of
6,714 in their final home game, and ended the season as SL's fifth best
supported club on average? Maybe you should check a few facts like this
before you make yourself look ridiculous.
Quote:
>Rugby League continues to survive in "traditional" areas despite economics
>because it is a game that people are born to. It is in their ***. RL
>cannot be transplanted into an area successfully, and as soon as Murdoch
>realises that we are all screwed......
RL will be screwed if attitudes like yours prevail. You make
unsubstantiated statements and pass them off as fact because it suits your
own tunnel vision outlook on RL to do so. RL as a sport didn't even exist
until 1895. If people have to be "born" into the game and cannot possibly be
introduced to it in other areas by other means, then how the hell is it more
popular in Australia right now than it is in its birthplace of the north of
England? How did it become the national sport of Papua New Guinea? How did
the game manage a 10 nation World Cup in 1995? And here in England, how come
there is a thriving amateur scene in places like Gateshead and Hemel
Hempstead, neither of which are in Lancashire or Yorkshire, according to my
map book?
Face it, you don't have to be born near the M62 to be able to understand and
love Rugby League. It doesn't belong exclusively to one group of people.
It's a game for anybody and everybody.
John
Rugby League - The Greatest Game on the Web
http://SportToday.org/
by