I wasn't "supposing" which is what the rest of your response was. I simply quoted a fact....2,200+ fewer fans attended leigh v Batley than attended Toronto's visit.....I can "suppose" that the crowds/interest may drop of, but for now, it hasn't!
Leigh took 45k less on the gate this week as opposed to last.....and their gate v Toronto was bigger than the gate they got for the visit of Wakefield last year in the the top flight....which was their lowest gate that year........lower than the visit of Catalan?

And???

It would seem that another nail has been hammered in the oft used "away fan" stance in rejecting anyone outside of a local bus route when discussing new teams.
I have an increasing feeling that Toronto are all smoke and mirrors and that the "backers" are hanging out for the SKY TV money to cover their costs, but I refute any claim that away fans are a factor in selecting teams to join comp.....away fans are an added bonus and those clubs that rely on them deserve to fail.

Fully agree, and I've said the same many, many times the past 18 months or so (usually in response to anti-Toronto posts).

It's the weakest argument in the locker. Away fans are a nice bonus, but as you say shouldn't be relied upon. It's an argument used by fans of clubs that have bumbled along for decades, holding back the top clubs, not adapting or innovating, not creating or improving their own revenue streams.

That's why they're nervous. They see innovation coming over from the Atlantic, the ability to market to a brand new audience, the ability to sell the dream to outside investors who've never seen a game and the ability to forge landmark sponsorship deals.

In fairness, my response was in relation to Toronto helping generate larger crowds, which I agreed was the case in League 1 (due to their star studded team, plying against part timers) and I was trying to make the point that this wont always be the case.
Indeed, IF they gain promotion to the top flight, they will become "the same" as the other 12 clubs, assuming that they have to abide by the same salary cap, and wont be responsible for clubs achieving their highest attendance figures, which HAS been the case in League 1.
I do hope this is clear and I do AGREE that clubs are responsible for generating their own home attendances.

Also, I really dont agree that any of the smaller clubs are holding anyone back, surely if these clubs are under performing, they will be "easy beats".

Everything in life goes in cycles and sport should be about on field performance, if not, it becomes contrived, some may say fixed, at which point, it is no longer sport.

A prime example is the Salary Cap. It's gone backwards vs Inflation over the past 15 years or so, and alarmingly backwards compared to the NRL & Union. This is because we don't have enough clubs that generate the required revenue levels to enable us to raise the cap, those clubs have stood still year after year, and therefore other clubs are held back to a pitiful c£1.8m salary cap.

It has been a process that has been going on over the course of the last 20 years.

The salary cap is around £1m less in real terms than it was in 1999. That is due to the way that the clubs have voted and, in general, the trend has been for the smaller clubs to vote against increases to the salary cap (even inflation-linked increases), citing cost pressures as the main reason.

So what we have are a group of clubs that have grown their revenue streams, that have worked to increase commercial revenues, ticketing revenues, have invested in ecommerce, have invested in generating non-matchday revenue, have invested in the matchday experience and have invested in facilities and talent development. But those clubs limited in how they can divert the fruits of that investment onto the on-field product due to essentially being handicapped in terms of which talent they can attract and retain, because that talent is being paid less in real terms than it was nearly 20 years ago.

Meanwhile, we have another group of clubs that have managed to 'close the gap' on the top clubs not by doing some or all of those things that the other group are doing, but instead by voting in a way that makes it harder for the top clubs to attract top talent from overseas, and/or to retain the talent that they've already got and have developed themselves.

I know its a contencious issue for some when people say that standards in Super League have slipped (I personally think that they have), but the reason why this debate about expansion and globalisation keeps cropping up is because we have a group of club chairmen that no longer want to run at the pace of the slowest man. They want to grow their clubs, they want to grow their audience, they want to grow revenues, and they don't want to be hamstrung by clubs who vote in particular ways either because they can't keep up, or because its easier/cheaper to keep the bigger clubs on a leash.

This isn't an issue of ditching clubs because their face doesn't fit or because they're unfashionable. This issue is the result of 20 years of clubs not making an equal contribution to the development of the sport, and simply using a couple of hundred "away fans" as a justification for their right at the top table. If more clubs brought more to the table, this debate wouldn't even exist.

Nailed it.

The salary cap should never have stood still and it's fundamentally wrong for clubs to be cutting their spend on wages (in real terms).
However, this is something voted on by ALL clubs and not determined just by Wakefield.
Perhaps we should name and shame those who have voted against an increase.

Also, it's interesting just how few clubs have gone fore marque players.
You would have thought that all of the clubs who have been "held back", would have jumped at this option ??

It's really easy to scapegoat certain clubs and blame them for some of the games failings.
However, it's the game as a whole that is struggling and if you jettison the lower income clube, will it really take away the "drag" on the game, I dont think so.

Worth remembering that 2 of the clubs with shiny new (ish) stadia are among the worst supported clubs in SL
Although, IF we end up with the new world order (5 English, 4/5 N.American and 2 French clubs) perhaps you may be able to, once again, try and jettison those unfashionable clubs.

Will this be moving the game forward or destroying the very game that our predecessors fought so hard to create.
We may actually be fulfilling the Union boys dreams, without them actually dirtying their hands.

5 pro clubs in the UK would be a major backward step as there would be little left for anyone else.
It like a Tory power grab.

What are you waffling on about?

It may be waffle but, if you try and work out where "we" are heading, it wont be too far off the mark.
Unless we are going to expand SL to 16/18 clubs, the inclusion of 4/5 N.American clubs, plus 2 from France, necessarily means cutting the number of British clubs in SL.
What do you think would happen to clubs in "The Championship" with all of the money being sucked in by the few "top" UK clubs.

There are probably a few reasons, but it comes down to the downward pressure on standards, rather than an upwards one in my view.

Many clubs rely on the benevolence of their owner. Neil Hudgell already underwrites many of Hull KR's operating costs and Ken Davy underwrites Huddersfield's costs, and so they are not going to vote in a way that pushes that cost liability upwards as they try to compete with Hull FC or Leeds. It's beneficial for both of them to vote in a way that pushes Hull FC's and Leeds' spending power downwards, because it's easier to do that than to invest in improving their own.

The result of that is that Leeds and Hull FC, as successful clubs, have no need to take on the additional costs of a marquee player (and no doubt the various challenges that come with one). They're already successful clubs, they still have better squads than most of the league, so the need to increase their cost base isn't there. They don't need to go out and spend a fortune on Cooper Cronk or Jonathan Thurston, because they can beat the competition with Richie Myler and Mark Sneyd (and in the case of Leeds at least, maintain a high statium utilisation rate).

But whilst that's good for the bottom line, it's not necessarily good for the top line, and that's also important. If the standard of the product declines and the top talent continues to leave, then it makes the product less attractive, crowds and commercial revenue suffers, and participation declines.

And that creates the situation that we're in now

It's complete waffle.

You're scaremongering over a fictitious league structure that you've made up to try and add ammunition to your already weak argument.

Superleague has ONE French club. The Championship has ONE French club and ONE North American club, only one of which is realistically in a position to challenge for SL. That's it.