A misleading stat there comparing annual turnover and Sky's annual contribution with only a single game income from away fans! A fairer comparison is multiplying that by the number of home games (14) which gives £490k ie about 25% of the Sky income so not to be sniffed at.

If we're talking about improving the current teams then getting more home supporters is far more important...

Far from strengthening the "heartlands", IF we end up with 4/5 N. American sides plus Toulouse in SL, the "heartlands" will be about done.
You would still have Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Wire and Hull FC, with the rest either "demoted" to The Championship or gone for good.

Some, like you, may say that they deserve it but, I think this idea will kill the whole game over here and probably lead to the remaining SL sides wanting to switch to Union.
You would see even lower crowds, plus an additional circa £500,000 cost for the overseas games.
Therefore without a significantly better deal, even the "strong" will wither and die

I had a magical weekend recently. I might only be a cowboy and a binman but i can afford the odd break here and there. I saddled up my hog and rode out to Mablethorpe for a few days (thursday-Sunday) and had a lovely time.
The town of Mablethorpe is quaint and there were plenty of people in the pubs for me to talk to about my favourite sports team The Keighley Cougars. I made a lot of great friends while i was there, and i look forward to my next trip.

My hog is a wheely bin btw.

None of this is answering the question of what "focusing on the heartlands" means in the context of taking this sport forward. It's OK to be against overseas expansion, but it's not unreasonable for people to ask those making that argument to explain what the alternative actually is.



I wouldn't put it so bluntly, but clubs aren't and shouldn't be exempt from the realities of the modern world. Every business, sports or otherwise, needs to keep evolving their product to reflect the demands and expectations of the market. It's one of the reasons why Jamie Oliver lost 22 restaurants last month. RL clubs don't deserve to be exempt from this reality just because they're RL clubs or because it's "hard to do".


On what basis? If Leeds, Wigan, Warrington or Hull can be profitable playing alongside overseas clubs, why would they move to another code where
a) the cost base is higher
b) the market is crowded
c) the current situation at Yorkshire Carnegie suggests that there isn't much of a market for professional RU in this part of the world?


Why are smaller crowds a given? If Leeds v Toronto or Wigan v New York can be sold as a big event to the local public, why should we expect smaller crowds?



The whole crux of this debate is about how we offer more to broadcasters and sponsors to get more revenue into the game. I go back to the underlying point - expansion doesn't have to be the way to do this and expansion isn't the end goal, but nobody on this forum who is shouting "focus on the heartlands" seems to have a suggestion on how we offer that added value to broadcasters and sponsors to justify that revenue.

Seen a few people pushing for Nottingham on social media, and while it is indeed a good nightout there and the City is new territory for the game the City Ground has had a refurb for 25 years (ahead of Euro 96) and with unreserved seats would only fit 28k.

Not entirely new territory, there used to be a second tier side down there back in the 80's / 90's