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!!!
>>>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
>>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.
>>Making the sport popular is (or should be) part of the job of the
>Exactly - and what are they doing to ensure this - playing a few games is,
>IMHO, not enough
What would you suggest?
>>If you think it's impossible to get people interested we may as well give
>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.
>>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.
>>Whether you agree with franchising or not, it is at least a different
>>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
>>My reservation about it is that the people organising it are those that
>>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.
> 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%
>>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.
>>By the very nature of franchising you are always talking about introducing
>>game into areas where it is not established. That is the aim from the
>>It is not forcing its way in, it is being set up with a view to saying,
>>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
>>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
>>be surrounded by established clubs like those above means the supporter
>>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.
>>Bigger crowds means bigger potential sponsorship and all the attendant
>>that are supposed to accrue from expansion.
>If the crowds don't come, the club will fail
And if they do it will succeed.
>>Another way to look at it is, what do Wakefield etc have to offer SL? If
>>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
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.
> 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
>>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.
> 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.
>>No one is forcing anything on anyone. RL is trying to set up a club(s) in
>>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.
>>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.
>>The one thing summer RL has going for it (IMO) is that in areas such as
>>there will be no competition from either RU or Soccer for a large part of
>>season so I reckon there must be enough potential fans to make a club
>>in a city able to pull in 8 to 10 thousand (more if they market it
>>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.
>>Look at melbourne again. No one forced the public to go. They just did
>>its going great. What we have to do is to make sure any franchise we set
>>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.
Wigan RLFC - getting back to being Simply the best -
(remove the letter t from clarat if replying via email)