There are more than a 1,000 such blokes in London.....and I'd hazard a guess in Perth WA as well, but the NRL aren't interested in WA whilst you and your cult think North America is the answer

North America is the answer

What a shame that aging eccentrics such as yourself are too stuck in their old ways of thinking to grasp the possibilities.

Possibilities ??
Anything in theory is possible but, we need to look at probabilities and certainty.
There are some on here (including yourself) who would dismantle the game in the UK and instead create a "satellite" club in any city in the world and mark it down as success and then in a few years time, wonder where all the players have gone.
There HAS to be some structure beneath the headline club or we are actually KILLING THE GAME.

When Toronto were formed there was great play made of their "search for a star" idea, where they were having trails accross different towns/ cities in N. America. Was there any progress here ??

I realise that any kind of junior structure will take lots of time (and money) but, just what are Toronto doing in this area or, is it all about SBW and keep building without foundations.

What substance is there to this claim? In what way does having Toronto, New York or any other non-heartland city in the game's top flight cause the people running the amateur scene in West Yorkshire or the Wigan / St Helens / Warrington triangle to pack it in?

Isn't it a huge positive that this sport could provide young men from those parts of Northern England an opportunity to live and work in some of North America's most exciting cities? That it can provide young people to see part of the world that they might otherwise struggle to see?

Or are well holding onto this ideal that what young people really grow up dreaming of is playing in front of less than 5,000 people at crumbling, ramshackle dumps along the M62?

The first North American Super League players probably haven't even been born yet. If they have, they're almost certainly still in pampers. If North American clubs are still around in two decades time, then let's start asking where the local players are. Until then, I don't think it's a bad thing that young players in the UK are being presented with opportunities to live and work in places like Toronto.

Although there would be opportunities for professional players in N. America, the junior sides would still be based in the UK, which although great for the remaining UK based clubs, would REDUCE options for youngsters, unless of course ALL of the academy sides were based in the UK but, what is the point in that ?
There has to be lot's of work done at ground level or we will destroy the game over here.
Fundamentally, you are saying that you are happy for the UK clubs to be the supply chain for the overseas expansion clubs, having lost their spot in the top flight, you still "expect" them to produce the players for the new clubs, sorry but that isn't right.
Although so many posters on here deride the support of the smaller clubs but, that support goes way deeper than turning up on a Sunday afternoon (of Friday night). It's those supporters that may have played the game and take their kids to the local club to train, because they have an interest in the sport.
If they perceive that the sport doesn't want them, they will invest their time and money in other things.
Although they were relegated from SL for a different reason, where do you think those 1000's of Bulls fans have gone and are they still taking their kids to the local clubs etc ?
Participation numbers are already on the decline and this move (N. America) will see those numbers fall further.

Unless their is a genuine plan to engage with schools etc in N. America and set up junior RL, we are kidding ourselves.

Yes, some shiny new clubs in N. America, filled with some of the best players but, the UK turned into a RL "ghost town".

This has all of the hallmarks of a RL "stunt", going for a quick fix, without any thought of the actual future of the game.

My take is that all English Superleague clubs have a "charitable foundation" which mixes charity work with the promotion of youngsters playing Rugby league in the local schools and junior leagues. This is funded by SKY money but supported and staffed by the clubs as they know that if the local junior base shrinks (or that shrinkage accelerates) the supply of players reduces. Superleague went to 14 at one point, reduced to 12 and now the direction is down to 10 as evidenced by various comments and proposals in recent years. Shane Richardson has been the latest to say our game isn't capable of finding the players for any more than 10 quality squads.

I'm not taking any sides here just pointing out that if we remove Salford, Castleford, Huddersfield and Wakefield, (and take away any way back for Widnes and Bradford) do we think the loss of development foundations at these clubs/towns won't affect junior playing numbers? If we only have Hull, Leeds Wire Wigan and Saints in a 10 club Superleague with Toulouse Catalans, New York, Ottawa and Toronto do we think people who are into RL in an active way running junior ARL will want to do that for the benefit of overseas clubs who elbow out their own clubs just because they are rich. I can't think of many clubs as well locally populated with RL enthusiasts as Castleford, but I fear replacing them with Ottawa, won't see dads and lads flooding to Lock Lane in the hope young Malcolm Junior will one day play in Ottawa. I think the angry dad will more likely pack it in and encourage the lad to play soccer instead. My question of you is do you think the six clubs and their business sponsors and local supporters that I name will be happy to all go part time for good to accommodate overseas clubs???

Rather than send their kids to the local RL club, they will take them elsewhere and there is a ripple effect here, brothers, sisters, grandparents.
etc.
Loads of people knock my club, Trinity, for their poor support etc but, when Wakefield were "relegated" at the inception of SL, many fans stopped going to ANY games, myself included (although I returned after a 2 year exodus but, many others never have.
If you cr4p on people, they dont forgive you and neither should they.
I've said on here s many times that IF we are serious about expansion and it's sooooo good for the game, then, increase SL to 14 clubs and bring back London and include Toulouse and let's just see what benefit this is to the sport, both in terms of losing the stupid loop fixtures and increasing the diversity of the game.
Some of the dreamers suggest s TV deal in N.America but, this is just fantasy and they also bang on about increased sponsorship opportunities.
So, lets have these clubs in the top flight a.s.a.p. and see what actually happens.
Yes, it would necessitate an increase in monies from Sky but, surely, with all of the new advertising opportunities, this would be a given or, are we dreaming about these too.

I do apologise, I can see your point and could see New York being a catalyst for these clubs to become something bigger than what some call a bunch of Union players playing a bit of League for fun. There's only one way to find out and that's give them a chance. I don't see the "stronger" position though unless the backers have multi-millions to burn like Mr. Argyle. I also don't see that Toronto have achieved all they set out to achieve. All this "expansion" is very interesting and I clearly remember Mr. Perez looking to achieve player development through grid iron player conversions and also bring TV income to share with us here from NATV deals, not only did Mr. Perez state these were his goals on TV to Dave woods, Mr. McDermott also admitted not long ago neither aim has (yet) been achieved. Don't you recall these interviews?

This whole argument seems confused.

If what you are saying is that an expansion club "reduces the supply of players" from the clubs that lose their place in SL to those expansion clubs, then I don't think the argument is particuarly sound. The clubs oft-discussed as those "at risk" from expansion are not providing a the bulk of the playing talent. Some do not even run their own academy structures.

If the argument is that not having (for arguments sake) Wakefield, Castleford and/or Feathersone in SL reduces junior partcipation at amateur and junior level (where most of the participation is) then again, with respect, I don't see it. I don't see coaches at places like Stanley, Castleford Panthers, Fev Lions going to tell the kids there "sorry lads, we're packing up?". Of course not.

There are lots of reasons why we have falling levels of participation, but expansion clubs aren't one of them. If anything, the threat that expansion clubs might raise standards could be a key driver in getting more people playing this game.

As for your point about "RL ghost towns", I'm not sure what your suggestion is here - that we should resist change so that we don't upset clubs that have had more than long enough to work out how to get it right? If you haven't noticed, that very approach has got the sport where it is today, with declining participation, declining profile and declining relevance.

You completely miss the point.
All of the clubs that you (and I) mention have a support base and whilst not every supporter will have kids or Grandkids that go to an amateur club, it's reasonable to suggest that kids get taken along to the local club because either their parents or friends have an interest in the sport.
If you lose swathes of fans in the UK, you WILL further reduce participation levels within the sport and on the basis that your average new Canadian fan doesn't currently take their kids to the local amateur club (because there aren't any), in terms of getting people into playing the game you are going backwards.
There may be some increase, due to the greater exposure but, their will be some drop off as well.
The British psyche of watching RL is to try and go to as many games as possible and whilst there are those who pick and choose and only go to "big games", those who want to go every week, just wont be able to do so.
Every club, with the recent exception of KR, sees a huge drop off in supporter numbers when they drop down a league and if we jettison 4/5 clubs from SL we ARE damaging intake into the game, without any replacement.
It's a downward spiral.
There has to be junior rugby set in motion in expansion areas, just as London did (with some success), if not, we are killing the game.

I don't think anyone really misses the point, the thrill of the idea of RL "expanding" to places we used to dream of playing is hard to let go of when it's seemingly withing our grasp. Sadly expansion isn't as easy as setting a new club up - you have to also expand the player pool and you have to expand the TV money as a result or it's just more snouts in the same trough.

The interest in the game in terms of playing it and watching it here is clearly generated by pro-level English clubs who undertake significant development of the playing side and who attract a good number of fans for what is a minority sport. The idea you can drop several of them out of Superleague destroy their development systems and TV income that pays for them and somehow their followers will be happy to go on being engaged by the game, is just more of the same wishfull thinking.........

All these post are too long, and most folk couldn't give a fook. Just get to the point in short.