Sport Today

by **Phil Arundel** » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00

I think this is probably going to cause some controversy, but, here goes
anyway :)
I would like to ask everyone who thinks SL expansion into RU areas such as
Wales, Scotland, etc a few questions

1) Why would this benefit Rugby League

2) Does your reasons for it benefiting RL rely on the assumption that the
sport will be popular in the area.

3) If so, then I would ask how you can make that assumption - RL has been
around for 100 years, and if its not popular in an area by now, how are a
couple of games supposed to make people suddenly switch to a sport they've
chosen to ignore thus far

4) I assume people reading this think RL is a better sport then RU (as do
I)- has the thought ever crossed your mind that some people may just prefer
RU to RL - its all about freedom of choice

5) With the Salary cap in place, what will happen to a club that is
franchised into SL, and does not manage to attract the crowds straight
away - how are they going to pay for top players to get the results that
will bring in the crowds, and how would it be good for SL if a club in a new
area finishes bottom every year (presuming that no relegation will occur,
which seems likely)

6) How can an untried club forced into an area where RL's not been popular
offer more to the sport than a club such as Wakefield, Keighley, Hull KR or
any number of 1st and 2nd division clubs that have a proud tradition in the
sport.

I'm not a luddite, and understand the need to progress in the sport, but,
IMHO this mad desire to force our opinions on others is not the way forward.
Any comments?

by **AJ KIN** » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00

Phil

I guess that like everyone else you would like to see expansion work, but
believe deep down that this just isn't the way to go about it. If so, then
I have to agree with you.

The single issue that brings it home to me is the general failure to
succeed with American Football in UK. This is a product (that word again)
that has a great deal of attraction to ***agers - lots of colour, glam and
razzmataz- yet still can't attract a consistent audience.

Whilst we all love the sport the fact is that Rugby League does not yet
have a suitably positive image outside of the traditional areas. Similarly
RU has a very limited audience appeal outside of international games. We
are both minnows in a pool totally dominated by Soccer.

The only way for expansion to succeed is to build upon the grass roots that
exist in such places as Hemel Hempstead.

Failing that appoint Peter Mandelson to be CE of the RFL.

Alf

Quote:

> I think this is probably going to cause some controversy, but, here goes
> anyway :)
> I would like to ask everyone who thinks SL expansion into RU areas such
as
> Wales, Scotland, etc a few questions

> 1) Why would this benefit Rugby League

> 2) Does your reasons for it benefiting RL rely on the assumption that the
> sport will be popular in the area.

> 3) If so, then I would ask how you can make that assumption - RL has been
> around for 100 years, and if its not popular in an area by now, how are a
> couple of games supposed to make people suddenly switch to a sport
they've
> chosen to ignore thus far

> 4) I assume people reading this think RL is a better sport then RU (as do
> I)- has the thought ever crossed your mind that some people may just
prefer
> RU to RL - its all about freedom of choice

> 5) With the Salary cap in place, what will happen to a club that is
> franchised into SL, and does not manage to attract the crowds straight
> away - how are they going to pay for top players to get the results that
> will bring in the crowds, and how would it be good for SL if a club in a
new
> area finishes bottom every year (presuming that no relegation will occur,
> which seems likely)

> 6) How can an untried club forced into an area where RL's not been
popular
> offer more to the sport than a club such as Wakefield, Keighley, Hull KR
or
> any number of 1st and 2nd division clubs that have a proud tradition in
the
> sport.

> I'm not a luddite, and understand the need to progress in the sport, but,
> IMHO this mad desire to force our opinions on others is not the way
forward.
> Any comments?

by **John Hull** » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00

It all depends whether you think RL has a choice. Even in its strongest
areas in the UK, crowds have been drifting away from the sport as they have
from all spectator sports since the last war. As Bradford discovered, it was
a choice of playing on until the last Northern fan died and then shutting
down for good, or attracting a whole new audience from a new generation.

It depends on how you explain why current fans like RL, but cannot see how
the Scots or Welsh might like it. I'm not convinced that isn't a kind of
snobbery or even bigotry, and is the sort of attitude that's been putting
the Scots and Welsh off for years. Yes, they've been told, they'd be allowed
to love the game, but only if they understood that they could never have a
team of their own or even play it except when paid by St Helens to do so.

What has restricted RL growth more than anything is this limited vision of
its own supporters, who assume that no-one outside of the traditional areas
could enjoy league. It's as if we all know, deep down, that the hundred
years was just an aberration and we might as well give up and start having
line-outs again. Or perhaps Meadowhall and not Don Valley really is the
place to be on a Saturday afternoon.

Why shouldn't we "force our opinions on others"? Why should we just shrug
our shoulders and forget about the people who've fought for League for the
last century and are still fighting, for example in France? This sort of
defeatism is just what Fran Cotton and his like want to hear. It means they
have beaten us, after all, because we admit that no-one could be persuaded
to love the game we do.

We'd much rather reduce the game to something truly regional, like
cumberland Wrestling, or knurr and spell. For at least we'd be champions,
and there'd be no danger of the head offices moving to London; or of people
from Surrey playing.

What is this idea that a struggling club in Paris or Swansea is somehow
different from a struggling club in Huddersfield? There's a classic piece of
RL logic. The Giants might be losing, but at least they're losing in
Yorkshire so that's O.K.

To survive, the game needs income from sponsors. To get that in abundance,
it needs a national presence. The alternative is to be sponsored by local
companies only. Again, that will reduce the scale of the sport at a
professional level.

Of course people might prefer RU. The difference is that RU is aggressively
marketing the game and trying everything to get more people involved. We
witter like a bunch of hens about whether we should play one match in
Edinburgh, while the RFU launches a massive publicity campaign about the All
Blacks and sends them up to Old Trafford and the McAlpine Stadium to play.
They don't doubt they can persuade people to watch RU, which as a sport is a
tragically terrible spectacle as Newcastle proved again yesterday.

There are people out there who might go to either RU or RL, or even both.
What they decide will based not on the relative merits of the laws, but on
the fact that RU is inviting them along whereas RL people mutter and mumble
and generally give them the impression that they're not wanted.

Why can't RL go in and MAKE itself popular? Why not fill the media with
stories about how good the game is, and how we really want people to have
the chance to watch and play? Why not make sure there's at least one really
good match photo in the papers with match reports? Why can't RL get its own
people into place at the BBC?

I suppose the answer you are suggesting is merely, why should we bother
because we're beaten anyway?

John

Quote:

>I think this is probably going to cause some controversy, but, here goes
>anyway :)
>I would like to ask everyone who thinks SL expansion into RU areas such as
>Wales, Scotland, etc a few questions

>1) Why would this benefit Rugby League

by **Phil Arundel** » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Phil

>I guess that like everyone else you would like to see expansion work, but
>believe deep down that this just isn't the way to go about it. If so, then
>I have to agree with you.

You have understood me perfectly (something I can't do myself sometimes!
;-) )

Quote:

>The single issue that brings it home to me is the general failure to
>succeed with American Football in UK. This is a product (that word again)
>that has a great deal of attraction to ***agers - lots of colour, glam and
>razzmataz- yet still can't attract a consistent audience.

Could be something to do with forcing a sport into an area that has no
history of it.......

Quote:

>Whilst we all love the sport the fact is that Rugby League does not yet
>have a suitably positive image outside of the traditional areas. Similarly
>RU has a very limited audience appeal outside of international games. We
>are both minnows in a pool totally dominated by Soccer.

Very true, but, personally I can't see the attraction....

Quote:

>The only way for expansion to succeed is to build upon the grass roots that
>exist in such places as Hemel Hempstead.

Just the point I was trying to make

Quote:

>Failing that appoint Peter Mandelson to be CE of the RFL.

Now there's an idea...

Quote:

>Alf

>> I think this is probably going to cause some controversy, but, here goes
>> anyway :)
>> I would like to ask everyone who thinks SL expansion into RU areas such
>as
>> Wales, Scotland, etc a few questions

>> 1) Why would this benefit Rugby League

>> 2) Does your reasons for it benefiting RL rely on the assumption that the
>> sport will be popular in the area.

>> 3) If so, then I would ask how you can make that assumption - RL has been
>> around for 100 years, and if its not popular in an area by now, how are a
>> couple of games supposed to make people suddenly switch to a sport
>they've
>> chosen to ignore thus far

>> 4) I assume people reading this think RL is a better sport then RU (as do
>> I)- has the thought ever crossed your mind that some people may just
>prefer
>> RU to RL - its all about freedom of choice

>> 5) With the Salary cap in place, what will happen to a club that is
>> franchised into SL, and does not manage to attract the crowds straight
>> away - how are they going to pay for top players to get the results that
>> will bring in the crowds, and how would it be good for SL if a club in a
>new
>> area finishes bottom every year (presuming that no relegation will occur,
>> which seems likely)

>> 6) How can an untried club forced into an area where RL's not been
>popular
>> offer more to the sport than a club such as Wakefield, Keighley, Hull KR
>or
>> any number of 1st and 2nd division clubs that have a proud tradition in
>the
>> sport.

>> I'm not a luddite, and understand the need to progress in the sport, but,
>> IMHO this mad desire to force our opinions on others is not the way
>forward.
>> Any comments?

by **Phil Arundel** » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>It all depends whether you think RL has a choice. Even in its strongest
>areas in the UK, crowds have been drifting away from the sport as they have
>from all spectator sports since the last war. As Bradford discovered, it
was
>a choice of playing on until the last Northern fan died and then shutting
>down for good, or attracting a whole new audience from a new generation.

Agreed - but Bradford have attracted new fans with only one club thats not
from the heartlands, and
even London would not claim credit for that!

Quote:

>It depends on how you explain why current fans like RL, but cannot see how
>the Scots or Welsh might like it. I'm not convinced that isn't a kind of
>snobbery or even bigotry, and is the sort of attitude that's been putting
>the Scots and Welsh off for years. Yes, they've been told, they'd be
allowed
>to love the game, but only if they understood that they could never have a
>team of their own or even play it except when paid by St Helens to do so.

Sorry, I don't agree - the point I was making was that RL is being arrogant
by assuming that everyone in the country would love RL if only they knew
about it. Some people simply do not like it, and thats their perogative. I
live in Featherstone, and could go and watch Wakefield RU if I wanted. I
don't, because I prefer RL, and the point I was making was that you can't
force a sport on people who don't want it.

Quote:

>What has restricted RL growth more than anything is this limited vision of
>its own supporters, who assume that no-one outside of the traditional areas
>could enjoy league. It's as if we all know, deep down, that the hundred
>years was just an aberration and we might as well give up and start having
>line-outs again. Or perhaps Meadowhall and not Don Valley really is the
>place to be on a Saturday afternoon.

>Why shouldn't we "force our opinions on others"? Why should we just shrug
>our shoulders and forget about the people who've fought for League for the
>last century and are still fighting, for example in France? This sort of
>defeatism is just what Fran Cotton and his like want to hear. It means they
>have beaten us, after all, because we admit that no-one could be persuaded
>to love the game we do.

No, I think the game should expand, but dumping a franchised side into an
area that traditionally has not liked rugby league is not, IMHO, the way to
do it

Quote:

>We'd much rather reduce the game to something truly regional, like
>cumberland Wrestling, or knurr and spell. For at least we'd be champions,
>and there'd be no danger of the head offices moving to London; or of people
>from Surrey playing.

I'm not a xenophobe, and would love to see RL as a national game, but, see
my comment above

Quote:

>What is this idea that a struggling club in Paris or Swansea is somehow
>different from a struggling club in Huddersfield? There's a classic piece
of
>RL logic. The Giants might be losing, but at least they're losing in
>Yorkshire so that's O.K.

I don't think the Giants should be in SL, and, if it was run properly, they
would be relegated at the end of the season. No relegation is another
example of the many problems in SL today. (IMHO)

Quote:

>To survive, the game needs income from sponsors. To get that in abundance,
>it needs a national presence. The alternative is to be sponsored by local
>companies only. Again, that will reduce the scale of the sport at a
>professional level.

Agreed

Quote:

>Of course people might prefer RU. The difference is that RU is aggressively
>marketing the game and trying everything to get more people involved. We
>witter like a bunch of hens about whether we should play one match in
>Edinburgh, while the RFU launches a massive publicity campaign about the
All
>Blacks and sends them up to Old Trafford and the McAlpine Stadium to play.
>They don't doubt they can persuade people to watch RU, which as a sport is
a
>tragically terrible spectacle as Newcastle proved again yesterday.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here - I've maintained for years
that the problem in RL is the atrocious marketing, and Lindsey (sp?) et al
think they can fix it all with a couple of games

Quote:

>There are people out there who might go to either RU or RL, or even both.
>What they decide will based not on the relative merits of the laws, but on
>the fact that RU is inviting them along whereas RL people mutter and mumble
>and generally give them the impression that they're not wanted.

Sorry, I can't agree with that.

Quote:

>Why can't RL go in and MAKE itself popular? Why not fill the media with
>stories about how good the game is, and how we really want people to have
>the chance to watch and play? Why not make sure there's at least one really
>good match photo in the papers with match reports? Why can't RL get its own
>people into place at the BBC?

Why not indeed - why not ask Lindsey

Quote:

>I suppose the answer you are suggesting is merely, why should we bother
>because we're beaten anyway?

Not at all - as I said earlier, I would love to see RL as a national sport,
but the way it is being run and the ideas being suggested at the moment will
not achieve this aim - they will ultimately destroy the sport

Quote:

>John

>>I think this is probably going to cause some controversy, but, here goes
>>anyway :)
>>I would like to ask everyone who thinks SL expansion into RU areas such as
>>Wales, Scotland, etc a few questions

>>1) Why would this benefit Rugby League

by **Yorkshrm** » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>5) With the Salary cap in place, what will happen to a club that is
>franchised into SL, and does not manage to attract the crowds straight
>away -

Ask Paris .......

Paul G

by **Vibrating Bum-Faced Goa** » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00

: >5) With the Salary cap in place, what will happen to a club that is
: >franchised into SL, and does not manage to attract the crowds straight
: >away -

: Ask Paris .......

Except that Paris averaged higher crowds than most of the current Super
League clubs. Go, as they say, figure.

--
Chris Russell, Computer Officer
University of Bradford Computer Centre
Tel: +44 1274 235463

Shut up and eat your vegetables.

by **Yorkshrm** » Tue, 19 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Except that Paris averaged higher crowds than most of the current Super
>League clubs. Go, as they say, figure.

Chris ..... my dear fellow ...... you don't have to take everything so
literally !! (You're not a programmer by any chance ....?)

The point I was trying to make is that Paris were hustled into SL by Lindsay
and his cronies; struggled (on the field) for a couple of years; and then at
the first sign of rockiness were dumped like a hot potato. Would you put money
into an RL franchise on this basis ? Would you buy a used car from these men
....?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough first time round; I'll try to do better in
future ......

Paul G

by **WiganRLf** » Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00:00

On Mon, 18 May 1998 18:24:45 +0100, "Phil Arundell"

Quote:

>I would like to ask everyone who thinks SL expansion into RU areas such as
>Wales, Scotland, etc a few questions

>1) Why would this benefit Rugby League

I don't actually think the acceptance criteria for franchises is that they come
from established RU areas. Most areas of the UK probably have RU teams of
varying standards ranging from "professional" (Wales) down to just starting out
(Scotland).

So what are you saying? RL should only try to expand in areas where there is
no RU?

That's probably impossible so IMO if franchises are the way its going to be
done the only way to go is with the best franchise bids. If they happen to
come from established RU areas so what?

We should stop worrying about RU and get on with our own thing.

Therefore IMO what you are really asking is why would expansion benefit RL.

Quote:

>2) Does your reasons for it benefiting RL rely on the assumption that the
>sport will be popular in the area.

Yes, you have to hope the sport will be popular but not because its an RU area.
That, IMO, is purely coincidental.

Making the sport popular is (or should be) part of the job of the franchisee
and SL.

What establishing RL in somewhere like Wales *may* do is provide a player base
from those wishing to have a go, unless you assume they are all RU bigots.

That fact *may* be included in a franchise bid as a plus point but it has
little to do with making the sport popular as you (I think) mean.

Quote:

>3) If so, then I would ask how you can make that assumption - RL has been
>around for 100 years, and if its not popular in an area by now, how are a
>couple of games supposed to make people suddenly switch to a sport they've
>chosen to ignore thus far

If you think it's impossible to get people interested we may as well give up on
expansion.

Look at Melbourne in Australia. A hotbed of Aussie rules that has had a couple
of games in the past and its now got a brand new team doing very well in the
competition and the Mebournians (?) are lapping it up.

Why can't that happen over here?

IMO people are now more receptive to new sports. I bet there is a fair
following of RL on Sky in South Wales (and other parts of the country). So
if they are given the opportunity to watch the game *at top level* on a regular
basis then IMO there is a good chance of long term success.

Whether you agree with franchising or not, it is at least a different approach
to those that have failed in the past.

My reservation about it is that the people organising it are those that have
presided over past failures.

That does not mean it could not be made to work. We have to hope.

Quote:

>4) I assume people reading this think RL is a better sport then RU (as do
>I)- has the thought ever crossed your mind that some people may just prefer
>RU to RL - its all about freedom of choice

Fine, but I am sure there are enough people interested to watch top grade RL if
the sport is presented to them in the correct way. I don't care if they watch
RU or not.

Quote:

>5) With the Salary cap in place, what will happen to a club that is
>franchised into SL, and does not manage to attract the crowds straight
>away - how are they going to pay for top players to get the results that
>will bring in the crowds, and how would it be good for SL if a club in a new
>area finishes bottom every year (presuming that no relegation will occur,
>which seems likely)

Easy, sponsorship on a large scale form the consortiums running the franchise,
and what is more I really doubt new clubs will be restricted to the salary cap
limits on start up. SLE already want London to be allowed to run at 65% and
more for new clubs.

Quote:

>6) How can an untried club forced into an area where RL's not been popular
>offer more to the sport than a club such as Wakefield, Keighley, Hull KR or
>any number of 1st and 2nd division clubs that have a proud tradition in the
>sport.

By the very nature of franchising you are always talking about introducing the
game into areas where it is not established. That is the aim from the outset.
It is not forcing its way in, it is being set up with a view to saying, "come
and watch this".

As to what does such a club offer over the likes of Wakefield etc, for one
thing potentially bigger crowds I would have thought. The very fact they won't
be surrounded by established clubs like those above means the supporter base
won't be split like it is for those above.

Bigger crowds means bigger potential sponsorship and all the attendant things
that are supposed to accrue from expansion.

Another way to look at it is, what do Wakefield etc have to offer SL? If they
were promoted next year they would do a Huddersfield, no doubt.

Compare Huddersfields record to that of Melbourne in Australia and tell me
which approach has proved the more successful so far?

The establishment of a new team in an RL desert (Melbourne) has won hands down.

Quote:

>I'm not a luddite, and understand the need to progress in the sport, but,
>IMHO this mad desire to force our opinions on others is not the way forward.
>Any comments?

No one is forcing anything on anyone. RL is trying to set up a club(s) in a
new area (which may or may not have top level RU).

People can go if they wish.

The one thing summer RL has going for it (IMO) is that in areas such as Wales
there will be no competition from either RU or Soccer for a large part of the
season so I reckon there must be enough potential fans to make a club located
in a city able to pull in 8 to 10 thousand (more if they market it correctly)
in the winter sports off season.

Look at melbourne again. No one forced the public to go. They just did and
its going great. What we have to do is to make sure any franchise we set up is
as successful as that one.

Dave

--
Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

(remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

by **Phil Arundel** » Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>On Mon, 18 May 1998 18:24:45 +0100, "Phil Arundell"

<-snip->Therefore IMO what you are really asking is why would expansion
benefit RL.

Quote:

>>2) Does your reasons for it benefiting RL rely on the assumption that the
>>sport will be popular in the area.

>Yes, you have to hope the sport will be popular but not because its an RU
area.
>That, IMO, is purely coincidental.

Hoping it will be popular is not enough - you have to be sure, as far as
possible, before money is wasted

Quote:

>Making the sport popular is (or should be) part of the job of the
franchisee
>and SL.

Exactly - and what are they doing to ensure this - playing a few games is,
IMHO, not enough
<-snip->

Quote:

>If you think it's impossible to get people interested we may as well give
up on
>expansion.

I don't think its impossible - just that I think the SL are making bold
assumptions and not doing enough to make sure the popularity is built up

Quote:

>Why can't that happen over here?

Because of the people who are running SL?

<-snip->

Quote:

>Whether you agree with franchising or not, it is at least a different
approach
>to those that have failed in the past.

Different does not mean better

Quote:

>My reservation about it is that the people organising it are those that
have
>presided over past failures.

Exactly the point I was trying to make

<-snip->
what is more I really doubt new clubs will be restricted to the salary cap

Quote:

>limits on start up. SLE already want London to be allowed to run at 65%
and
>more for new clubs.

Why don't they introduce a rule that says franchisees can't be beaten - it
simply does not do the credibility of the sport any good at all to have
different rules for different teams.

Quote:

>By the very nature of franchising you are always talking about introducing
the
>game into areas where it is not established. That is the aim from the
outset.
>It is not forcing its way in, it is being set up with a view to saying,
"come
>and watch this".

And what contigency plans are there for the circumstance in which the fans
say "Sorry, not interested"

Quote:

>As to what does such a club offer over the likes of Wakefield etc, for one
>thing potentially bigger crowds I would have thought. The very fact they
won't
>be surrounded by established clubs like those above means the supporter
base
>won't be split like it is for those above.

What about potentially smaller crowds?

Quote:

>Bigger crowds means bigger potential sponsorship and all the attendant
things
>that are supposed to accrue from expansion.

If the crowds don't come, the club will fail

Quote:

>Another way to look at it is, what do Wakefield etc have to offer SL? If
they
>were promoted next year they would do a Huddersfield, no doubt.

That's a very bold assumption - what about Salford and Hull, both of whom
are doing OK, IMHO. I think you are doing the Wakefield team and fans a
great disservice. I remember when Wigan were a (below) average side, what is
there to suggest another team could not achieve the success Wigan have had?
(I am not a Wakefield fan, BTW)

Quote:

>Compare Huddersfields record to that of Melbourne in Australia and tell me
>which approach has proved the more successful so far?

Huddersfield shouldn't be in SL, and, IMHO, are in SL because of their
ground - they did not win the 1st division. IMHO, Huddersfield are more
indicative of what will happen if you allow franchising. I noticed you
didn't compare Melbourne to Hull, who are doing OK for their first season,
or Salford, who are a well established side now.

<-snip->

Quote:

>No one is forcing anything on anyone. RL is trying to set up a club(s) in
a
>new area (which may or may not have top level RU).

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Clubs should be in SL based on
ability, not location.

Quote:

>People can go if they wish.

And people can stay away too - this fact seems to be ignored by the
advocates of franchising

Quote:

>The one thing summer RL has going for it (IMO) is that in areas such as
Wales
>there will be no competition from either RU or Soccer for a large part of
the
>season so I reckon there must be enough potential fans to make a club
located
>in a city able to pull in 8 to 10 thousand (more if they market it
correctly)
>in the winter sports off season.

What do you base these figures on - have SL done any decent market research,
or are they just hoping?

Quote:

>Look at melbourne again. No one forced the public to go. They just did
and
>its going great. What we have to do is to make sure any franchise we set
up is
>as successful as that one.

One success thousands of miles away does not guarantee success here

<-snip->

by **WiganRLf** » Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00:00

On Tue, 19 May 1998 12:23:16 +0100, "Phil Arundell"

Well I know snipping is good usenet practice but give me a break, you have
snipped most of the context in the arguments I put!!!

Quote:

>>>2) Does your reasons for it benefiting RL rely on the assumption that the
>>>sport will be popular in the area.

>>Yes, you have to hope the sport will be popular but not because its an RU
>area.
>>That, IMO, is purely coincidental.

>Hoping it will be popular is not enough - you have to be sure, as far as
>possible, before money is wasted

If you take a sport to a new area you can never be sure it will succeed
regardless of what market research or whatever you do beforehand.

At some point you have to take the plunge.

The question is do you want to expand to new areas or not? If yes then there
is a risk.

Quote:

>>Making the sport popular is (or should be) part of the job of the
>franchisee
>>and SL.

>Exactly - and what are they doing to ensure this - playing a few games is,
>IMHO, not enough

What would you suggest?

Quote:

><-snip->

>>If you think it's impossible to get people interested we may as well give
>up on
>>expansion.

>I don't think its impossible - just that I think the SL are making bold
>assumptions and not doing enough to make sure the popularity is built up

That may be so, but sticking with the likes of the Cougers et al is not going
to expand RL, which is what the aim is supposed to be.

Quote:

>>Why can't that happen over here?

>Because of the people who are running SL?

Again, that maybe true but it does not mean it can't happen.

Quote:

>>Whether you agree with franchising or not, it is at least a different
>approach
>>to those that have failed in the past.

>Different does not mean better

No it does not, but what are your alternative suggestions for expanding the
game? Please don't say starting a team in div 2 because that has failed
already.

Quote:

>>My reservation about it is that the people organising it are those that
>have
>>presided over past failures.

>Exactly the point I was trying to make

But we are stuck with these lot, so we can only hope they can make a go of it.

Quote:

><-snip->
> what is more I really doubt new clubs will be restricted to the salary cap
>>limits on start up. SLE already want London to be allowed to run at 65%
>and
>>more for new clubs.

>Why don't they introduce a rule that says franchisees can't be beaten - it
>simply does not do the credibility of the sport any good at all to have
>different rules for different teams.

London have had and continue to have different rules. If you want new teams to
succeed in a country where RL is a long way behind the national sport (unlike
Australia) you have to allow them some sort of startup period IMO.

I see nothing wrong with it. It may soon be time to end Londons status but I
don't see a problem repeating the exercise with other new sides.

Quote:

>>By the very nature of franchising you are always talking about introducing
>the
>>game into areas where it is not established. That is the aim from the
>outset.
>>It is not forcing its way in, it is being set up with a view to saying,
>"come
>>and watch this".

>And what contigency plans are there for the circumstance in which the fans
>say "Sorry, not interested"

I assume the same as if the expansion were being tried (and had failed) by
other means than franchising. The worst that can happen is the club goes
under. Its happened many times before in RL history. It will probably happen
again.

Quote:

>>As to what does such a club offer over the likes of Wakefield etc, for one
>>thing potentially bigger crowds I would have thought. The very fact they
>won't
>>be surrounded by established clubs like those above means the supporter
>base
>>won't be split like it is for those above.

>What about potentially smaller crowds?

What about them? I assume franchises have to put forward expected crowd
figures based upon market research in their area. I don't know if that is the
case but I expect it figures somewhere.

if they are wrong, then that is tough and is part of the risk you take.

Quote:

>>Bigger crowds means bigger potential sponsorship and all the attendant
>things
>>that are supposed to accrue from expansion.

>If the crowds don't come, the club will fail

And if they do it will succeed.

Quote:

>>Another way to look at it is, what do Wakefield etc have to offer SL? If
>they
>>were promoted next year they would do a Huddersfield, no doubt.

>That's a very bold assumption - what about Salford and Hull, both of whom
>are doing OK, IMHO. I think you are doing the Wakefield team and fans a
>great disservice.

I was just using Wakefield as an example. IMO the standards of SL are going up
beyond the capabilities of teams promoted from div 1. If you put promotion and
relegation back on the agenda then the best, IMO, you will get is the yo yo
syndrome seen in premiership soccer. No good to anyone.

Quote:

> I remember when Wigan were a (below) average side, what is
>there to suggest another team could not achieve the success Wigan have had?
>(I am not a Wakefield fan, BTW)

If they can convince SLE/RFL of that there is nothing to stop them applying for
a franchise.

Quote:

>>Compare Huddersfields record to that of Melbourne in Australia and tell me
>>which approach has proved the more successful so far?

>Huddersfield shouldn't be in SL, and, IMHO, are in SL because of their
>ground - they did not win the 1st division. IMHO, Huddersfield are more
>indicative of what will happen if you allow franchising.

I don't think so because the Giants suffer from being considered an established
side. If there were a new franchise in, say south wales, they would not be
restricted to the salary cap etc as mentioned above. The giants suffer from
the worst of both worlds IMO. Sub-standard players and no means of securing
the services of better ones.

Quote:

> I noticed you
>didn't compare Melbourne to Hull, who are doing OK for their first season,
>or Salford, who are a well established side now.

Salford came up at the right time before standards began to be raised so had
time to get sorted.

Hull have started OK but that is because they invested in better players than
they had in div 1, as a franchise would be able to do (if you see what I mean).
Why could they do this? Because they would also fulfill franchising criteria
IMO in terms of income and crowd figures.

Quote:

><-snip->
>>No one is forcing anything on anyone. RL is trying to set up a club(s) in
>a
>>new area (which may or may not have top level RU).

>Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Clubs should be in SL based on
>ability, not location.

No. That is not how they are working it. You may not like it, it may not even
be just, but that is the way its going.

Quote:

>>People can go if they wish.

>And people can stay away too - this fact seems to be ignored by the
>advocates of franchising

But they can stay away from new clubs in new areas stuffed into the bottom of
div 2. This has been tried and failed.

Quote:

>>The one thing summer RL has going for it (IMO) is that in areas such as
>Wales
>>there will be no competition from either RU or Soccer for a large part of
>the
>>season so I reckon there must be enough potential fans to make a club
>located
>>in a city able to pull in 8 to 10 thousand (more if they market it
>correctly)
>>in the winter sports off season.

>What do you base these figures on - have SL done any decent market research,
>or are they just hoping?

Don't confuse me with SL :-). I am hoping I don't have a clue what research
the franchisees or SL have done.

Quote:

>>Look at melbourne again. No one forced the public to go. They just did
>and
>>its going great. What we have to do is to make sure any franchise we set
>up is
>>as successful as that one.

>One success thousands of miles away does not guarantee success here

Nothing is guaranteed but to decide to do nothing which is what you seem to
advocate will achieve precisely that.

One factor you have not considered is time. Sponsors these days will not wait
for a club to go from div 2 to SL. They will also not invest in the off chance
a club may succeed.

They want a more immediate return (as do Sky).

It all points to franchising being a reality, so we had better get used to it
even if it seems unjust to div 1 established sides.

Dave
--
Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

(remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

by **John Hull** » Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00:00

Phil,

There is no gene for liking Rugby League. It is not a genetic variation
limited to the citizens of Featherstone. It is quite possible for people
who haven't even visited Yorkshire to like the game. However, the message
given to them by RL and RL people for so long has been that they are
excluded at birth.

If as you imply RL can never be liked by Scots or Welsh, or even perhaps
Londoners or people from Leicestershire, there is little point in worrying
about getting national media attention for SL. By your logic, you could
have sports sections in every newspaper full of reports, photos, and stories
about League, and lots of League news on the radio and TV and it would not
attract a single extra person to the sport.

How do you propose creating interest in League in Scotland without a
Scottish side in the competition? Do you really think people are going to
rush to play a sport without a team within 150 miles?

How do you encourage new teams to start, while threatening them with
relegation from SL in the first season if they don't win?

John

Quote:

>Sorry, I don't agree - the point I was making was that RL is being arrogant
>by assuming that everyone in the country would love RL if only they knew
>about it. Some people simply do not like it, and thats their perogative. I
>live in Featherstone, and could go and watch Wakefield RU if I wanted. I
>don't, because I prefer RL, and the point I was making was that you can't
>force a sport on people who don't want it.

by **AJ KIN** » Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> On Tue, 19 May 1998 12:23:16 +0100, "Phil Arundell"

> Well I know snipping is good usenet practice but give me a break, you
have
> snipped most of the context in the arguments I put!!!

><SNIP> (sorry)
> >Hoping it will be popular is not enough - you have to be sure, as far as
> >possible, before money is wasted

> If you take a sport to a new area you can never be sure it will succeed
> regardless of what market research or whatever you do beforehand.

> At some point you have to take the plunge.

> The question is do you want to expand to new areas or not? If yes then
there
> is a risk.

And this is the point where some basic market research is needed. Do we
know what the potential market might really be in any particular area?
Let me make another suggestion: Maybe RL isn't as attractive to the average
punter as we believe it to be and, no matter how good the promotion there
is only ever going to be a niche market in any particular area.This may be
indigestible to some of us but with such knowledge you could at least
formulate a strategy. Otherwise the whole of RL will be pissing into the
wind (excuse the vernacular)
<SNIP>

Quote:

> That may be so, but sticking with the likes of the Cougers et al is not
going
> to expand RL, which is what the aim is supposed to be.

> >>Why can't that happen over here?

> >Because of the people who are running SL?

Once again this is really a glib statement. It assumes that if better
people were running the game (I wish) then the crowds will come flocking.
We still don't understand the market. There are still plenty of people who
prefer lager to real ale, despite the differing perceptions of quality vs
function.

Quote:

> No it does not, but what are your alternative suggestions for expanding
the
> game? Please don't say starting a team in div 2 because that has failed
> already.

Please check out attendances at Div1 and 2 level. It might impress a
Scottish 2nd div soccer team, but that's all.

Quote:

> London have had and continue to have different rules. If you want new
teams to
> succeed in a country where RL is a long way behind the national sport
(unlike
> Australia) you have to allow them some sort of startup period IMO.

> I see nothing wrong with it. It may soon be time to end Londons status
but I
> don't see a problem repeating the exercise with other new sides.

What purpose, other than some strange form of vengeance would this serve?

Quote:

> And if they do it will succeed.

> >>Another way to look at it is, what do Wakefield etc have to offer SL?
If
> >they
> >>were promoted next year they would do a Huddersfield, no doubt.

> >That's a very bold assumption - what about Salford and Hull, both of
whom
> >are doing OK, IMHO. I think you are doing the Wakefield team and fans a
> >great disservice.

OK let's look at the traditional teams, starting with Dewsbury, where the
current level of gates would have led to closure twenty years ago. We're
working in a whole new environment as far as spectators are concerned.
Remember that everyone who reads this newsgroup is NOT TYPICAL. We're all
sad anoraks in one way or another, not because of IT but because of RL.
Nurse, nurse!!

<***y great snip>
Alf

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Dave
> --
> Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -

> (remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)

by **John Drak** » Wed, 20 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

-----Original Message-----

Newsgroups: rec.sport.rugby.league
Date: 18 May 1998 18:24
Subject: Calling All Expansionists

>I think this is probably going to cause some controversy, but, here goes
>anyway :)
>I would like to ask everyone who thinks SL expansion into RU areas such as
>Wales, Scotland, etc a few questions

>1) Why would this benefit Rugby League

Why wouldn't it? For a start, if RL becomes a sport played at the highest
level all over Britain, it
is more likely to attract the media coverage most of its existing fans
crave, and through its
increased media profile, would probably begin to attract significantly
bigger sponsorship deals,
placing the sport on a firmer financial footing. In addition, you'd no doubt
end up with more people
wanting to play RL, where previously those people would never have even
considered it.

>2) Does your reasons for it benefiting RL rely on the assumption that the
>sport will be popular in the area.

Well if it isn't popular, it isn't going to benefit RL, so obviously, yes.
That's not to say I think you can just plonk the game in a new area and "hey
presto!" it becomes automatically popular. Success has got to be worked for.
That's why previous expansion attempts have failed in Britain, because they
have been ill thought out, badly funded, with no strategy in place. Plonked,
in other words...

>3) If so, then I would ask how you can make that assumption - RL has been
>around for 100 years, and if its not popular in an area by now, how are a
>couple of games supposed to make people suddenly switch to a sport they've
>chosen to ignore thus far

Your question pre-supposes that anyone of an expansionist mind in RL shares
the optimism of SLE that
moving into new areas is easy, and can be achieved at the drop of a hat (or
a few fixtures into new
territory). A couple of games is clearly not enough. But just because SLE
and, in the past, the RFL,
have botched attempts at expansion, doesn't mean it cannot ever work, or
that RL cannot ever be
popular outside the north of England. If that were the case, it wouldn't be
played in Australia, and
it certainly wouldn't be the national sport of Papua New Guinea.

>4) I assume people reading this think RL is a better sport then RU (as do
>I)- has the thought ever crossed your mind that some people may just prefer
>RU to RL - its all about freedom of choice

Of course people may prefer RU to RL. But in areas such as those targeted by
SLE, it is hardly about
freedom of choice. How can people choose RL, if we are not prepared to let
them have the opportunity
to make that choice by presenting our game to them? Given the opportunity,
they may decide they hate
RL. Conversely, they may love it. IMO, we have to find out, by taking the
game to new areas, rather
than make the choice on their behalf and assume they would not like RL. I
mean, why wouldn't they,
it's a fine sport :-)

>5) With the Salary cap in place, what will happen to a club that is
>franchised into SL, and does not manage to attract the crowds straight
>away - how are they going to pay for top players to get the results that
>will bring in the crowds, and how would it be good for SL if a club in a
new
>area finishes bottom every year (presuming that no relegation will occur,
>which seems likely)

IMO, a new club in a targetted development area should be established from
the outset with a
competitive squad of players and a sound financial base, which does not rely
solely on income
generated through turnstiles to guarantee its survival. For an example of
how to expand into an area
generally accepted to be hostile to RL, but still make a success of it, use
Melbourne Storm as a
case study. Good team, good results, good crowds, lots of positive publicity
and success for RL, in
the hometown of Aussie Rules no less. All achieved while Australian RL was
in the process of tearing
itself apart in the latter stages of the ARL v SL war. Setting up a club in
Wales or suchlike ought
to be a doddle compared to that.

>6) How can an untried club forced into an area where RL's not been popular
>offer more to the sport than a club such as Wakefield, Keighley, Hull KR or
>any number of 1st and 2nd division clubs that have a proud tradition in the
>sport.

You use the phrase "where RL has not been popular", I would use the phrase
"where top class RL has
not been played yet, and therefore its popularity has never been measured".

How can an untried club in such a situation offer more to the sport than
existing teams...? By
broadening the base of interest in RL beyond its existing boundaries,
bringing with it increased
media awareness, greater levels of public interest and, as a result of all
this, more sponsorship
dosh which currently goes to other sports with a wider national appeal than
RL currently has.
Wakefield, no disrespect intended, could win the SL title, and no one
outside of Wakefield would
give a monkeys. Same also applies to Bradford, Leeds, Wigan, and the rest,
so my comments are not
meant to be interpreted as anti-non-SL teams, just an illustration of how
insular the existing RL
"world" actually is.

And then there's Rupert. He paid 87 million (of which *every* pro club has
had a slice) for a
European Super League. He got the First Division, with added Broncos. Love
him or loathe him, he
could probably sue for breach of contract :-)

To get old Rupe to write another cheque, sometime soon, and keep the game
solvent, we're probably
going to have to offer something in return which will sell satellite dishes
for him beyond the M62
motorway. A game with national, not regional appeal, in other words.
Of course, we could look for another sponsor, but they are hardly beating a
path to the door of SLE
or the RFL.

>I'm not a luddite, and understand the need to progress in the sport, but,
>IMHO this mad desire to force our opinions on others is not the way
forward.
>Any comments?

I don't think it is forcing our opinions on others to play RL games in new
areas. When SL goes on
the road in July, SLE won't be frog marching the public into the grounds and
holding guns to their
heads making them watch the game. If they go, it will be their own free
choice to do so, and RL can
learn a lot from their reactions and feedback to what they see. In many
ways, it's the first time RL
has ever carried out anything which could be regarded as market research or
market testing, rather
than blindly rushing into an area and making a balls of it.

Will people outside the heartlands turn out to support RL? Well, thanks to
SL on the Road, we are,
at last, about to find out. Hopes may be realised, or illusions shattered,
but either way, we'll all
be wiser for it :-)

John

Rugby League - The Greatest Game on the Web
http://greatestgame.simplenet.com
Remove "nospam" from address to reply

by **Phil Arundel** » Thu, 21 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Phil,
<-snip->
>How do you encourage new teams to start, while threatening them with
>relegation from SL in the first season if they don't win?

I don't know the answer - I wish I did. All I know is I've got a terrible
feeling about the way SL is going about expanding.

Quote:

>John

<-snip->