No, there is not enough playing strength in France to start its own 10-12 team Super League. The French plan is to have a few French clubs admitted to Super League over time. I don't know how many the French Federation and the RFL want to see admitted over time. Maybe they haven't even thought it through yet. Personally I would like to see six French clubs, with one admitted every three years till we get to six. Then you have a French conference within Super League (French clubs playing each other twice and playing the English clubs once each year), and a good French TV contract to supplement the Sky contract.

That is as far as we can go for the forseeable future, unless it takes off in such a big way that other nations get interested (e.g. if Barcelona FC decides to sponsor a Spanish Catalan rugby league team for Super League, or if the game takes off in Italy). But even then the European concept of Super League, with 6 French teams and maybe Barcelona and an Italian team part of the British dominated competition, would be a bigger sponsorship winner for rugby league than a big but geographically skewed British competition (with 10-12 northern heartland teams, 4-6 southern and midland teams, and two Welsh teams) just as the Heineken Cup is bigger than Guiness/Aviva.

i would love to see a league as big as the football premier league but our game is not as big as that tosh, its just theres never atmosphere at any ground when catalans are over ere and that to me says some home fans stay at home especially if the games televised also and the point is to attract fans not lose them, and how much is it costing every fortnight to fetch 20-30 guys over?? i remember been sat in the west stand at kc and there was 4 catalan fans there where as if it was leigh, oldham, halifax or fev the north stand would be packed making for a good atmosphere. my opinion dont take offence pal.

That's strange, because the game against Catalan hasn't been our worst supported fixture over theist five years. Last year it had a bigger crowd than against Widnes and 9 less than against Salford. If there are away fans at these game, this tells me they aren't staying home.


They're a far bigger club than any of the teams in the Championship. They can afford it.
Teams in the Championship complain about having to go to Gateshead or London!


The North Stand isn't even packed when Leeds come to town, so to say Halifax or Fev would pack it out is ludicrous.
Salford rarely bring many more than 100.
Huddersfield and Widnes don't bring many more.

This whole away fan argument is just parochial thinking. At the end of the day, only the big clubs and local clubs have a big away following to the KC. The rest barely even register. I wouldn't stop development of the game for the sake of an extra 100 paying away supporters once every season. If that was the case, we might as well just have argue of Hull FC, Hull KR, Skirlaugh, West Hull, East Hull, Dockers, Myton, Haworth Park, Hull Wyke, Cottingham, etc. and live off local support forever!

the crowds against catalan is big because of the offers fc put on like tickets for a fiver or give away 1000 tickets youth teams and there parents, as for catalans if it was to swap name wiv halifax the likes of menzies & dureau would be living n playing there RL in yorkshire meaning fans can afford to travel along the M62 and clubs like fc wouldnt have to give up thousands ov pounds away trying to boost the gates. and rugby is about local support, its funny hull as a small area as 2 well supported clubs.

Is this a fact or an assumption?


Really?!
I thought they'd choose where they like? They may want to go to a much bigger club that wouldn't play in front of less than 5,000 fans every other week?
Would Halifax even be able to afford them? Or are we again just assuming?


It's a nice theory, but there are a lot of people who go to actually watch a game of rugby and not shout at some town from down t'road. I much prefer watching Hull play Catalans than Widnes or Salford because I know it's going to be a good game.


Rugby can be about whatever your argument wants it it be about. Doesn't make it true.

Professional sport is about money. An M62 league will not bring in money. The money you talk about with a few lost home fans is pittance to the money that sponsorship and TV bring in.

There's a reason why we don't have a Yorkshire league and a North West league.

No, it's not 'parochial'. It's about fans wanting the full package when they're paying £20 a ticket - that being a good contest and a good atmosphere. And while low visiting numbers isn't the whole argument - but it's part of it.

So, in twenty years we have teams in France, Spain, Holland and Italy, with an average of 10 visiting fans per game. Teams consisting of a couple of locals, a dozen Aussies and a token Brit or two. Massively spiralling travel costs for clubs and fans, a lame atmosphere at many games that also looks terrible on TV and turns even home fans off, and loss of revenue for clubs in visiting spend. In what way does that benefit anyone? The only answer to these arguments appears to be 'parochialism'.

Not wanting more overseas clubs in SL is not 'parochialism'. It's about wanting the SL product to be at its best, and that won't happen with more clubs built on sand and watering down the product. The home game can only be taken for granted for so long before people start to drift away when these 'expansion' clubs visit - as is happening in small numbers at the moment, recognised by clubs having to put in special offers when they visit.

And further, what about the national sides? We dilute the number of elite players per (home) nation to allow a couple more European sides and we reduce the numbers of elite players available to our international squads, weakening our prospects against Antipodean opposition. France might gain a few additional players, but is that worth the negative impact elsewhere? No.

I see nothing, absolutely nothing, beneficial in dragging in more European clubs other than 'expansion' for the sake of expansion, a retirement club for Aussies and a tick on a few people's CVs.

To answer the op, it would be great to have 0 French teams in SL but, for the French to have its own top level comp (on a par with SL).
Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen any time soon.
Therefore to try and strengthen the French game further, it would make sense to add another French team and then build from there.
Yes, there are issues with travel, for both players and fans alike and it will mean home fixtures without opposition fans but, this is a price worth paying for the long term growth of the game.
What this does for promotion from the CC, who knows but, if over the next 3-5 years we could have another team equal to Catalan, then it would be worthwhile.

well said.

Having spent the afternoon at the DW watching Wigan vs Wakefield, tell me again how no visiting fans isn't already an issue?

I didn't say it wasn't. It is.

What I'm against is increasing the number of clubs without travelling fans.

And I've always said lack of travelling fans isn't the entire argument, only part of it.

Exactly. And, no offence to these towns, but focusing your efforts on the likes of Wakefield, Castleford, Widnes, Halifax is madness. There isn't the market there for those teams to grow.

If Toulouse could turn into another Catalans then that's a massive boost for Rugby League.

Not only do you have another 18 or so Frenchmen playing at the highest level possible (in this hemisphere at least), which would improve the national game, but it's another big club.

If the OP is right and the French are already negotiating a tv contract based on two French SL clubs then why wouldn't we want them in the league? Rugby League is cash starved - injecting more cash via a tv contract and sponsorship is the only way forward.

I wouldn't expand the number of teams in the SL to accomodate Toulouse though, I'd relegate one.

As for the other expansions, and why they've 'failed', well Cardiff and London were a bridge too far. There isn't an interest in Rugby League in either city - although London is now producing some talent, which is encouraging. If anything we need to target Birmingham/the Midlands if we were to artificially expand again in England. It's close enough that our enthusiasm might rub off on them.

It's a really small part of it.

1,000 travelling fans from HKA going to St Helens say, at a score a pop is 20 grand. 4 Boncos fans the following week and St's are down 20k.....St Helens turn over 5 million a year....away fans are a small part of any debate about expansionism.

But at the end of the day, there are already clubs in SL with p*ss poor travelling support from the heartlands that don't attract big home attendances either. So why not replace them and expand the player pool as well as the league average?


That's a completely different argument though. If we could attract teams from all these nations, you'd be able to split the leagues.
But regardless, how come the Heineken Cup attracts great crowds? How come it's just RL where fans don't want to travel past their doorstep?


Who's suggesting clubs built on sand? Are Toulouse (established 1937) built on sand? Were Salford, Bradford, Wakefield and Widnes just unlucky? Are Cas and Rovers in a great position for the SL "at its best".

I've been far more entertained at Hull vs Catalans games than a lot of the traditional clubs like Widnes, Salford and Huddersfield (up until recently).


1. How can reducing the number of clubs dilute the number of elite players? It would do the opposite!

2. Having more players doesn't mean more quality. It's the intensity of the competition that matters, and because the player pool is so diluted the quality is awful. There needs to be more players produced by more areas to make the league more competitive and a higher quality, not more teams in the same area sharing the same players and having to put up with the drebs of what's left after the bigger clubs soak up the best talent.
Better quality league, better intensity, better preparation. Or should we just have a league of 30?

3. England having a genuine competitive test series during the season will prepare the England team better, increase exposure and profile if the game in the media which brings in more money. I'd say that's a positive impact, not negative.


Say what you like about the expansion clubs, but Catalans have 17 quality French players in their squad, and a lot more quality overseas players than the likes of Salford, Wakefield, Castleford and Widnes.

You see nothing beneficial because you refuse to see the benefits. You've based your argument on away crowds, back tracked to say it's only a part of the problem. What's the other part? And what problems would these overseas sides have that the poorer heartland clubs don't have?

que ?

Are you expanding the player pool? You're condemning a current club to the depths of Championship rugby and introducing another club to SL. That's simply replacing one group of players with another. Whether they're from Toulouse or Castleford is irrelevant.


Because RU is more popular and they support their cup competitions. Frankly, I don't care, we're not RU and any comparison simply because our sports are distant relations and our balls are the same shape is irrelevant.


Celtic, anyone? I realise Toulouse are a long-standing club but I have no doubt whatsoever their squad suddenly fill with journeymen Aussies a couple of their better French players. Toulouse have a decent shot at it, but it's when people start spouting more start-up expansion my blood boils.

Yes, Catalans games can be entertaining, but you might as well watch at home. There's no atmosphere, little excitement of the opposition and TV gives you better angles. At least if Widnes, Salford or Hudds bring their limited numbers of fans they strike up an atmosphere and build up the game and matchday experience.


Strange logic. So you remove a couple of English SL clubs, condemning them to a slow death in the Championship, you suddenly have fewer home nations players at the top level. England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all find their pool of elite players much reduced. You're living in some dream land that imagines the competition will suddenly become so much more intense with these changes. It simply won't happen. A few of the more mediocre players might disappear but the increase in standards would be miniscule.

And France gain a few more players. Whoopeedoo.


And so they should!! They're the ONLY professional RL club in a country of 65 million!! That's no argument whatsoever.


Nope, I'm not and you're displaying ignorance with that statement. As I've repeatedly said, low travelling numbers is only part of the argument. Yes, lack of travelling fans also means loss of potential income for the home club. It may not be huge, but multiply it by 3, 4, or 5 games and it soon starts to bite.

Then also consider the additional travelling costs to clubs and fans, the loss of interest in home games as fans are turned off with a flat atmosphere and a team they're not interested in full of journeymen Aussies. And the cost to French fans coming to the UK, for that matter. Then add in the fact we've condemned an existing SL club or clubs to a slow and depressingly inevitable decline in the Championships at a time when we need to be vigorously promoting our limping game in the heartlands, and the cost spirals.

As for those benefits you're scraping the barrel for, they are spurious at best.

The best argument I've heard for another French club in SL: "erm, why not? France might gain a few players."

At the moment, for some clubs, it's numbers of home fans that needs looking at never mind away fans.
London, Salford and Cas are all struggling for viable numbers.
On the flip side, Catalan seem to do ok for support and whilst they do get more away fans from other clubs than they take to away games, for obvious reasons, they do pretty well.
Its up to individual clubs to try and attract home fans, although I do agree that some of the atmosphere is lost without away fans.

It's not irrelevant in that the Toulouse club will have mostly French players rather than English players, getting experience of full time professional rugby league, giving more local French juniors something to aspire to rather than dropping the game once they reach adulthood, thereby giving the French national team a bigger playing pool to select from. International sport is far more marketable and profitable than club sport, and a strong Toulouse team plus a stronger French national team can generate new streams of income to our game that Castleford or any other small northern club cannot.



So its Avignon or Paris or Lyon that your against entering Super League, but not Toulouse?

Yes. You are introducing a new team from a new area that will bring in new players that weren't previously a part of the player pool.
They will replaces an old team from a current area that is currently sharing a player pool with several other clubs. Should that club go, those players will still be produced and will still have not one but several clubs locally they can go to. The worst players will be replaced, the deadwood will be cut, and the overall improvement of the league will begin to happen.


Why is RU more popular? Is it perhaps because they introduce international competitions and grow the international game, whereas we have parochial fans who want to keep the game firmly on their doorstep?
What were the club crowds like in 1995-6 when the Heineken Cup started? A lot smaller than RL's.
Even around a decade later, they were very similar to RL's, but the HC games were becoming huge. Now union is getting pretty large crowds across the board. They've invested in expansion at club level and international level. That's why it's more popular.
We haven't. We have fans that want to introduce more small northern towns to compete in our elite league to help improve away attendances, ignoring home attendances.


I seriously hope Crusaders entry to SL isn't your only argument against more French inclusion? They are completely seperate situations.
Any new club will likely have a number of outsiders in the squad whilst they develop their own players. How many players at Hull KR and Widnes are local to them?

It's good that you've now agreed that Toulouse have a decent shot. What makes them have a decent shot and not others in France? These aren't "start up" expansion sides we're talking about. These are clubs with nearly a decade of history.


I wouldn't use "strike up the atmosphere" to describe the experience of those clubs fans at the KC. They do their bit, but there are next to none there to make it striking. It is a very similar experience, and money-wise is most likely also very similar.


The amusing thing is, you've not only created a strawman, but you've also agreed with my actual point! It's like you could see I was right, but wanted to feel I said something different to balance it out!

I never said "suddenly" and "much more". You're trying to overhype what I said to disprove my point.
Any improvements would take time, but they will come. You yourself have even agree that a few mediocre players would disappear, and that there would be an improvement (whether you've described it as minuscule or not is irrelevant).

Quality, not quantity. Too many people seem to think that chucking more English players in SL sides will improve the national side's chances, and they believed this so much that they were advocating having no overseas players whatsoever. It's just not true. Playing in higher quality competitions help develop players, not simply having more players.


Indeed. Greater international competition. Greater prep for England. Greater media interest. Greater international tournaments with greater contenders. Great idea.


Why should they have better quality overseas players than English clubs exactly?
And to argue that they're the only club in country of 65m is ignorance of the pull one club in a southern corner of a country can attract. It's the same dumb comment that people stick out there when saying London can draw from 13m people. Not every Frenchman wants to play for Catalans, just like not every Englishman wants to play for (for example) Bradford.


Yet potential extra TV income and sponsorship and media profile for the competition could easily displace a couple of hundred (being generous) extra away fans a couple of times a season.
The problem is lack of home fans, not away fans.


Which again already happens with some of the smaller northern clubs (overseas players and lack of away fans).
Not all fans have to go to every away game. It's as simple as that. It doesn't stop other sports having European competitions. Why should it stop ours?


Hyperbole.
Whilst I would like to see some form of regular P&R return, to say it condemns then to a slow death is hyperbole. The first license given since the initial announcement was Widnes. The next is likely to be Fev. Et they're condemned? If they're not good enough, they're not good enough. If they are, they'll get a license. Fev haven't sat on their hands in condemnation have they.


You have already admitted that there would be less mediocre players and a small improvement.
You have ignored any potential financial gains from new markets.
You have ignored improved international competition.
You have dismissed that other sports have regular European fixtures and don't rely on away fans as "they're more popular", despite when those competitions starting they weren't more popular at club level than RL.

Simply put, your best argument is "there will be less away fans".

The sport NEEDS more money. It is not going to get this from crowds alone and seriously has to look at new avenues have income from new markets, otherwise all our top players will leave either for NRL or union. You are in a dreamworlds if you think condensing the sport to 14 small towns and cities along the M62 will achieve this.

Expand or die.
But expand smart.

Don't look at the likes of London, Crusaders, Gateshead and Paris as expansion models to follow. Look at Catalans.

If we can build up the French game, they can eventually split and form their own league. We can then have a proper European cup.

For me, a max of 3 non-heartland clubs would do. Beyond that, non-heartland club should replace non-heartland club as circs demand. And in any case, were we ever to get to a situation of having four well-run clubs producing the bulk of their own talent - for argument's sake let's say London, Catalan, Toulouse and a Welsh set-up - there'd be a good opportunity for them to set up an alternative, possibly more lucrative competition and leave the heartlands behind.

You can't set up a professional league with just 4 clubs. It requires at least 10 well-established and stable clubs to earn a TV contract that will sustain a competition. Until you have 10 well established non-English heartland clubs in Super League you cannot break away the non-heartlands to form a new league. It makes no economic sense to them.

In the scenario that I have proposed you would get to six French clubs only in 2027. You would then also need at least another 4 non-heartland clubs taken from, for example, London, Hemel, Oxford, Coventry, North Wales and South Wales for the second professional league to be viable. But it is not clear to me that this is a better idea, both financially and[i for the development of the game in Britain[/i, than a bigger single Super League of 20-24 clubs (containing 10-12 northern England heartlands), with two TV contracts (one British and one French).

at the end of the day if SL if 14 clubs you want the best 14 clubs that there are in it. This means they have a sound financial base, a stadium that is not falling down and a good home following of supporters. We dont have that at the moment so we have some work to do.......

I didn't mean set up a league with only 4 pro clubs, the point I was trying to make was that if four of (say) a league of ten non-heartland clubs were well run, the rest indifferently, then that league would be pretty much on an equal footing to what exists at present.

Three plus a welsh club. Time to au Revoir London.

What would be the benefit of that though? Why would we want a heartland league and a non-heartland league?

Personally, my preference would be for 2 conferences of 10 with 12/14 heartland team, and 6/8 none-heartland teams.

Because each could grow at its own pace for a while. The expansion league could market itself without the limitation associated with the inclusion of half a dozen or more towns of moderate size in northern England, which would satisfy one side of the argument. The other side would also presumably agree on the basis that they were no longer subsidising expansion clubs incapable of growth due to the notional handicap referred to above.