Did you read that in your tea leaves or, is it just a hunch.

Unlike others on here, I don't claim that I have inside information - I know nowt.

This is therefore pure speculation, but it wouldn't suprise me if we heard something along these lines before the start of next season.

Would not be a huge shock to move to 14. The quality below superleague has improved and Toronto have show that 13 full time teams is feasible.

14 would depend on whether their are a couple of teams that can financially manage a full super league cap and whether tv monies grow. Remember Toronto are getting no TV money.

Licensing would surprise me as for me last time it lowered standards with some teams happy to be garuanteed a pay day and did nothing to grow their sides or grounds with no pressure from the league below

Why are Toronto not getting a slice of the SL cake
Have they sacrificed this to allow them to take the proceeds of any Canadian / American TV deal or, is there a different reason ?

Whose the other 4?.

Not a chance unless the present incumbents can have a bigger slice of the TV cake. Most are brassic and need any cash extra they can lay their hands on.

That's why I said the TV money would need to grow.

Very significantly. The present incumbents really are brassic with even some of the 'top' clubs' accounts containing warnings about their future viability......

Just an idea for the mods, but maybe there should be a probationary period after registering for an account here before being allowed to post? Usually when folk make a first post on a forum, they don't launch into it as if they're a regular contributor.

As a newbie here, axe2grind, let's hear who you support and what you want out of the game?

Fax had an awful 2019 season, despite their brief elevation above the parapet in the CC semi. They have a(n almost) completely new management team in place, but still no "sugar daddie" to bankroll them. 2020 will be better (on the field hopefully, and off it, definitely), with a very realistic chance to make the play-offs.

Fax is a professional RL club, and your comment is perhaps a tad disingenuous?

Toronto? Best that they're out of the Championship, and let's see how SL deals with them next year is all I can say.

What was wrong in what they said??

Plenty of old times spout far less sense.

I think Tigertot is perhaps getting mixed up with the fact that you have a semi-professional first team set up.

But yes there is a professional Rugby League club in Calderdale - Halifax.

They certainly do, but the post just didn't read as if it was a newcomer to the board. Another multi-account? To say we're all supposed to be RL fans here, a lot of posters are very coy about their team allegiances!

My post was a response to a couple that raised my eyebrows. One from the once sensible Geoff Roebuck questioning why there isn't a pro RL team in Birmingham. the other from what I deduce to be a Fax fan suggesting it is because residents are only interested in cricket. Perhaps because of the high Asian population? I was merely pointing out that in Calderdale, in the heartlands, there isn't a pro (as in full-time) RL team either.

Whilst LilWaynebwoi is being pedantic, he is right Homme Vaste. Coventry City, Walsall, West Bromwich Albion and Wolverhampton Wanderers do not technically fall under the city/borough of Birmingham even though they are very close.

LilWaynebwoi is banned from games after his scrap at Widnes so often tries to out comments like yours.

That makes more sense, but the definition of "professional" is where players get paid for playing, which applies just as much to part-time as full-time clubs. You're correct that Calderdale doesn't have a club with wholly full-time players, but that applied to all RL clubs in the not so distant past. Just as an aside, FC Halifax Town, playing in (and currently leading) the Conference Premier went "full-time" this season.

Quote ="wrencat1873"Have you read this: https://www.statista.com/topics/3208/ru ... ingdom-uk/ Also, the inclusion of participation numbers for ladies and particularly girls playing both codes does skew the figures.'" In fairness, those numbers look more recent than the Sport England report I had, but PDFs and train WiFi don't mix. That said, I don't have an account to interrogate the numbers beyond the headline. Just to pick up on a few things though: Firstlt, it is important to look at longer-term trends, rather than a two-year time period. Over the longer term, RU has out-performed us in growth despite the PlayStation generation. The stats you point to also only split the codes in terms of adult participation, rather than child participation and it is worth considering that RL was starting from a fairly poor base. 2016-18 was a period where, in my experience at least, concepts such as touch, tag and Masters rugby were a lot more prominent. Secondly, I don't think it's fair to say that women and girls 'skew' the figures. We should be wanting more females playing the sport and although there has been some excellent work, there's a long road ahead. Womens's sport offers massive opportunities for the game to reach new people if it's done right. And let's also not forget that women and girls can play video games too. Even if we do entertain the "kids and their video games" argument (I don't entirely - I think there are lots of factors of which the ubiquity of games consoles is only one), what is the answer? To shrug our shoulders and say "huh, kids and their video games"? That's too lazy a response for me and it will ultimately lead to the death of the sport. Computer games have been around for generations - it's not a new problem. We need kids playing this sport - either we tackle the participation issue objectively and creatively, or we put another nail in the coffin.

Quote ="wrencat1873"Have you read this: https://www.statista.com/topics/3208/ru ... ingdom-uk/ Also, the inclusion of participation numbers for ladies and particularly girls playing both codes does skew the figures.'" In fairness, those numbers look more recent than the Sport England report I had, but PDFs and train WiFi don't mix. That said, I don't have an account to interrogate the numbers beyond the headline. Just to pick up on a few things though: Firstlt, it is important to look at longer-term trends, rather than a two-year time period. Over the longer term, RU has out-performed us in growth despite the PlayStation generation. The stats you point to also only split the codes in terms of adult participation, rather than child participation and it is worth considering that RL was starting from a fairly poor base. 2016-18 was a period where, in my experience at least, concepts such as touch, tag and Masters rugby were a lot more prominent. Secondly, I don't think it's fair to say that women and girls 'skew' the figures. We should be wanting more females playing the sport and although there has been some excellent work, there's a long road ahead. Womens's sport offers massive opportunities for the game to reach new people if it's done right. And let's also not forget that women and girls can play video games too. Even if we do entertain the "kids and their video games" argument (I don't entirely - I think there are lots of factors of which the ubiquity of games consoles is only one), what is the answer? To shrug our shoulders and say "huh, kids and their video games"? That's too lazy a response for me and it will ultimately lead to the death of the sport. Computer games have been around for generations - it's not a new problem. We need kids playing this sport - either we tackle the participation issue objectively and creatively, or we put another nail in the coffin.

Wait what? lilwayne had a fight at Widnes?

Firstly, I'd be keen to see your explanation of how I "launched into it" by pointing out that there were 4 amateur sides in Toronto (I stand to be corrected) prior to the creation of the Toronto Wolfpack. Was it the comment that they had done a fantastic job so far?

Next up, regardless of the fact that they could outspend all of the clubs in divisions 3 and 2, they have gone about their business (mostly) in a professional manner and have now achieved their stated goal 2 years early. At every turn there have been a queue of anti-expansionists willing to try and find fault with them, be it free tickets, supposed inflated gate announcements, beer-tent jibes, non-development claims, coseying up to Union and ignoring CRL, alleged unpaid bills to suppliers, crap accommodation/Travel arrangements. Anything and everything that can be claimed has been, but Argyle has thrown money at this experiment and to date, on the park, they have delivered and are in SL on merit.

Lastly, the accusation of me having multiple accounts is the usual defense of those with a differing opinion but with nothing to add. For the record, I have never held multiple accounts at the same time as I have trouble remembering my PIN number, let alone multiple log-ins. I applaud Toronto and Argyle for what has happened over the last 3 years. Will they still be in existence in 3 years time? Who Knows, but for now, they are in SL, not taking money from the UK Game and no longer ruining the Championship, which I believe will be a better competition for their absence 2020.

Oh, just to ensure my "fan status" meets with your approval, I support NZ Warriors, London Broncos, Petone Panthers & The Wellington Orcas, I sponsored the Kids program at Petone in 2018/19.

Back on topic. £1,900,000 split 11 ways is close to £173,000 a pop. Rather than hunt imaginary trolls, why not discuss how the other SL clubs will spend this money? Just a thought (to use your terminology)

Touche, I stand corrected and apologise. Please forgive my cynicism. Regarding your last point, I've still not seen a rationale for why TWP won't receive any central funding?

I would imagine that the cost of sending a team to Toronto, including back room staff (Physio/Trainer/Coach etc....) will be close to £30,000. Given that a few teams will be going over twice (some maybe a third time) in a season, the other SL clubs wouldn't be keen on that additional expense in 2020 as well as the added costs of running a reserve squad.
There will be a slight bounce in "away" fans compared to 2019 as they will attract a few more fans in their first year, but once the novelty wears off, then the clubs will have to market there home games v Toronto really hard.

I believe I read (but can't recall where) that some of the SL money being denied to Toronto was going to be used to bolster the central marketing of Super League itself, so it may well be that the £170k I mentioned may not be going to the clubs, but that SL will allocate them the funds depending on the number of trips required across the pond.

Either way, I believe that the Championship will be a pretty even competition in 2020 with any number of sides capable of winning. Toulouse need to shed the "bottlers' tag and get some consistency about them, Leigh will be stronger, especially if Marwan is drip feeding Delboy some funds, London will be there or there about, as will Fev, Fax and possibly York if they can build on last year.......meanwhile, in SL, I can't see past St Helens, Wire or Wigan.

You could probably throw bradford into that pot too.

have you got blinkers on

Bradford appear to barely have a pot to pi$$ in - let alone be a likely threat, looks like bad times again for them

Bradford appear to barely have a pot to pi$$ in - let alone be a likely threat, looks like bad times again for them