This is the point I take real issue with, because to argue that the RFL are "distracted by overseas clubs" and "neglecting the heartlands" reinforces two very dangerous assumptions.

1. That the RFL is providing undue support to expansion clubs (be that financial or other resources) when there's more than enough evidence from failed expansion efforts to suggest that isn't the case.

2. That the heartland clubs are justified in relying too heavily on the RFL to perform tasks that fall very much within their remit - marketing, commercial, player development and media relations for example.

We hear a lot of people yelling "focus on the heartlands!" with very little explaination of what that means.

Does that mean marketing the clubs more? The clubs should be marketing themselves anyway.

Does that mean giving the clubs more money? Where is the return on investment in that? Most heartland clubs are absolute money-pits as they currently are - any money that you do give them will more than likely end up paying off last year's tax debt.

Does it mean throwing more money at youth development? If so, why can't our players of the future come from beyond the M62 corridor?

How does "focusing on the heartlands" make this sport more attractive to outside investment - from sponsors and broadcasters for example?

I'd be the first to acknowledge that overseas expansion to NA carries risks, but so does 'focusing on the heartlands'. The difference with NA is that whilst the risks may be higher, so are the [ipotential [/irewards. We have new clubs that are getting people talking about this sport and attracting new audiences that we often struggle to reach whilst, at the same time, we have 100+ year-old clubs going around and around in ever-decreasing circles because they can't work out that relying on dads and grandads to drag their reluctant kids to the next loop fixture isn't a sustainable model for attracting fans.

So come on you "RFL should focus on the heartland"-ers - what does this actually mean? And how does it actually tackle the key issues facing the sport?

There are so many things wrong with the game and with it's strategy for expansion, albeit, this is a closely guarded secret, but, when you get quotes saying "help deliver the RFL's vision" it does make you wonder what the agenda is.

Right now, it appears that if ANYONE comes along with a pocket full of money, "we" will encourage them to attempt to create a SL club.
On the surface this sounds like a half decent plan but, the reality is that dropping RL clubs into "barren" areas, usually ends in failure, which is usually down to the money running out or the new owner getting "bored" at how difficult it is to propel a club to the top of the sport.

Surely, a more "organic" approach would be better and IF we are serious about expanding the sport, why are we not investing time and effort into "creating" clubs in the Midlands, North East and Cumbria, which would give the sport wider coverage in the northern half of the country and then in 5/10 years time look again at where to move next.

We have a reasonably successful SL club in France and again, why is more help not being given to Toulouse. Indeed, why the hell weren't they (along with Toronto) promoted into SL when we had the latest re-structure.
This was a no brainer but, the men in suits with their global "vision" couldn't / wouldn't grasp the nettle and IF these two clubs offer so much to the sport and will help generate real additional income for the sport, why the hell wasn't it done. After all, Toronto will be blowing a fortune in the Championship and Toulouse probably need to be in SL to make a real go of things.

The major plus with Toronto has been the interest that they have been able to generate from a flat start and The RFL should seriously think about either hiring the people who have achieved this or, at the very least, fid out how they can o the same over here.

When you consider that clever publicity can make us interested in just about anything, why cant RL work out a formula to make the sport more attractive.

Unfortunately, it requires a sustained effort in advertising and clever work through social media and of course, money and these 3 things seem non existent in the sport of RL.

This I do agree with. I do was suprised when the press release about Hemel and NY used the phrase "our strategic vision". I don't necessarily expect the RFL to bare all in public (there are good commercial reasons not to), but it does need better communication on what, if anything, this means.



Isn't "creating" clubs incredibly similar to "expecting someone with deep pockets to create one"? At the moment we have encouraged clubs to work from the bottom (Coventry, Newcastle, etc) and there have been some successes, but to get these types of clubs to a position where they are going to make any meaningful impression on the sport's reach, commercial value or TV value is time that the sport simply does not have.

Cumbria cannot and will not be able to sustain a professional Super League club. The three clubs that are there already are money-pits as they are, and TV companies and sponsors aren't falling over themselves to 'break into' Whitehaven or Barrow.

And whether it's Toronto, London, Newcastle, Coventry or Hemel, the same tedious objections come up time and time again - "away fans", "travel for part time players" and so-on and so-on. The reality is that whatever the RFL expansion vision is, there will still be a core of the supporter base that won't be happy unless the RFL is putting more money into the same black holes.

The question stands - what does "focusing on the heartlands", "helping the traditional clubs" or "making the heartlands strong" (or whatever hue of that viewpoint you prefer) actually mean?



What does this "help" look like exactly? Is it money to Toulouse or the FFR? Is it development officers (which is th FFRXIII's role surely)? Is it marketing and promotional resources? The club's most recent home game attracted a crowd that's comparable to many Super League gates - they seem to be making a good fist of it with their own resources.



Here's the paradox though. People take issue with "guys with deep pockets" coming into the sport and putting teams in barron wastelands, but at the same time we want to learn from them, copy the good things they do and even hire them? The two are a contradiction. Either we want these people to invest in the sport (and we have to accept that they will invest on their own terms) or we don't.



That question needs to be posed to the clubs as much as it does the RFL.



Agreed. As I've said before we have 12 SL clubs and so we have at least 12 people with "marketing", "media" or "PR" in their job title. Most of those 12 people are not earning their salary.

Sorry Bramley but my IT skills mean that I cant break your post down as you have with mine. However, I'll go with this.

Cumbria, yes, the geographical limitations (lakes and mountain, plus, poor road network) do make it almost a non runner.

Toulouse, should have been promoted (along with Toronto) into a 14 club SL, end of.

Regarding either wanting guys with deep pockets or not ?

The point with this is that Toronto have, by themselves been able to generate significant interest in our sport and yet, despit paying some of the hierarchy at the RFL substantial amounts of cash, THEY are unable to generate ANY similar interest and the sport is crying out for some kind of media guru or, clever social media person.
Instead, we have "ourRL" which is so bloody amateur, it's embarrassing, it's unbelievable.
The ticket lines dont work, the live streams are hit and miss,, the advertising is less than zero etc, etc.
This is THE key area to get right and it's shocking.

I went to the England/ France game at Leigh this season and getting tickets was extremely difficult and instead of a sell out, the ground was barely half full.
Unable to sell 10,000 tickets for the first international since the world cup was criminal.

Fans of the game turn up IN SPITE of the poor organisation and not because of it.

Finally, regarding your point about the 12 SL clubs doing more. Yes, of course they can.
However, the strategy for selling the game should come from the top down and not bottom up and quite frankly, there is no strategy for selling the game or growing it properly. "We" are hanging on to the coat tails of a wealthy N. American guy and just hoping that it's a success but, we are playing a very dangerous game and the practicalities and costs of competing in a trans Atlantic league, when clubs can barely afford to travel accross the M62 are slightly bewildering and without an additional TV deal (or increase in the current Sky deal, which looks highly unlikely), we are volunteering significant extra cost for each club, with NOTHING in return. It really doesnt make commercial sense.
Maybe the secret plan, on the back of a fag packet in Red Hall will prove myself and the rest of the doubters wrong but, I seriously doubt it.

I will agree with you on the failings of the RFL - the game at Leigh is a great example of the system failing. However, I cannot agree with you that the clubs can't be held responsible for their own growth and their own affairs. The clubs have used the RFL as a convenient lightning rod for their own failings for years, and the fans still buy that lie

We don't need a media guru - we supposedly have 12 on the pay-roll of the SL clubs. If we don't, then the clubs should never have hired them.

You can't take what one owner at one club has done and say the the RFL alone should be responsible for replicating that across three levels of professional and semi professional leagues - it's setting up the RFL to fail. Every club has its own priorities, it's own markets and its own capabilities.

The clubs are the primary point of consumption for the sport. It's they who sell the tickets and the merchandise, they who bring in the audience, they should know their target audiences and the local demographics and they who develop the product on the field. It is THEY who should have their own respective strategies for growth. If they were successful at doing that, the sport would be in a much better position.

As a sport we've pegged one of the biggest expenses (player salaries) at practically the same level for 20 years. If clubs can't afford a bus fare across the M62 even with a £1m real-terms cut in one of their biggest expenses and a bigger TV deal, the thing that's wrong isn't the RFL.

Did you bash the keyboard while typing this?
I see you regularly mock the Wakefield education system, yet type barely legible bilge.

As for the actual content - well, it's obvious you are a troll so I won't look too deeply into it.

I think it's another account from the fake Frenchman.

It would seem so yes.

WTF have Wakefield got to do with this conversation ?? and you really need to check your maths
The comment that I passed was that without SL, Toronto or any other plastic teams wouldn't even exist.

It's not rocket science

Back to SL sides, who are duty bound to run academy sides ??

The crux of this issue is the practicalities, long term, of having N.American sides competing in a European SL.
They exist purely because of money and without roots or substance.

Tell you what, let's scrap the game altogether in the UK and have 2 sides in each continent around the world. Each one clocking up air miles galore and without any heritage whatsoever. Would you pay to watch it ??

We havent even touched on whether its right that someone from N.America should be able to takeover a club and hijack it's licence to play over here (New York).

What kind of "sport" are we all following because RL is turning into farce, a far cry from its inception, when decent working blokes just wanted some expenses for missing some shifts at work, where local clubs played against each other for the SPORT and entertainment of "the working man".

As for Wakefield being a "drain on the game"
They receive less than EVERY other SL club in central funding so, they may be doing the rest of SL a favour