scotchy1

Coach
  • Content Count

    6,132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

scotchy1 last won the day on January 23

scotchy1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,940 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. scotchy1

    If money was no object...

    If money was no object there would be no expectation or necessity for a return In that case I'd probably go for French Polynesia or florida and they could play in my back garden. If we are talking about a big initial investment the obvious answer is London. Build a stadium as a base and you are close to home free just on none match-day use
  2. scotchy1

    Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

    This alternative is a farce but capitulating and giving up the planned run in to the world cup and instead having this farce in 12 months time would be even worse. We were offered nothing tangible in return for the change, just the possibility we could organise something, a possibility that already existed. The Australian offer was give up the planned run in for the world cup in exchange for the mystery box. Based on everything we know it would he extremely naive to think the mystery box didn't contain something crappy, if anything at all.
  3. scotchy1

    Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

    But we did have something planned in. A lions tour. What use is an extra 12 months when you have only managed to go backwards in 2 years. Swapping the years changes the planning for the build up to the World cup for nothing other than the vague possibility that maybe, just maybe, there will be jam tomorrow.
  4. scotchy1

    Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

    We had longer than that to book them for this year. The lions tour was confirmed in May 2017 it's now February 2019 and we have no games booked in. At the time Australians asked to change we had the promise of a lions tour in 2019 and a home ashes series in 2020. What they offered was An ashes series in 2019 and if we wanted go out and make something else happen in 2020 with some other teams we could if they were interested. I'm struggling to see why that was in any way shape or form better than what we had then or even the position we are in now.
  5. scotchy1

    Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

    Theirs also had no real plan for next year. It's all jam tomorrow. Exchanging an ashes tour a year before the world cup for the hope that we would be able to organise something else for 2020 even though we failed miserably to do that for 2019. An ashes tour this year with a shorter runway would have most likely meant we were having this conversation in 2019.
  6. scotchy1

    Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

    We are playing them next year when all those benefits are even more apparent. We don't gain anything by playing them this year as opposed to next.
  7. scotchy1

    Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

    But there is no benefit to giving in. This year is an absolute mess but it's not time that has made a mess of it. We have 1 ashes series, whether that's this year or next year we are going to be left with a 'bad year' we only lose by having it next year rather than this. The fact is we have had years to sort this year's fixtures out and failed massively to find anything. There was and is no reason to assume that the extra time we would get by swapping the years wouldn't simply leave us in this position in 12 months time.
  8. scotchy1

    Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

    The kiwis and Tonga are no further forward than the lions tour last year There was no benefit to accepting the Kangaroos change of plans when they proposed them we have had ages to get something organised and haven't been able to and no doubt we would be in the same position next year
  9. scotchy1

    Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

    4 nations with NZ Tonga and France isn't anywhere near the size of an ashes series. Not just in terms of attendances but tv viewers too. In 2020 we can plaster ticket sales adverts all over the games. England v Australia tv viewership in an ashes tour will be measured in the millions. It's the creates advert we could wish for. We could have played a 4 nations this year. We still could. The NRL have no faith in selling this Pacific concept so are begging the Kangaroos to subsidise it by dropping their payments
  10. scotchy1

    Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

    We had an ashes series booked in for 2020 as part of the build up for the 2021 world cup. We can either have that ashes tour next year and something halfassed this year or the ashes this year and something halfassed next year. There isn't really anything we can organise now for next year that we couldn't do for this year.
  11. scotchy1

    Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

    And do what next year?
  12. There is your inherent contradiction. That we arent different in the eyes of the public their marketing of the name rugby is to our detriment. If we arent different in the eyes of the public then it doesnt matter. The answer is we don't need to differentiate. The need to differentiate is a chippy RL outlook. Most people even in this country arent RU and not RL or RL and not RU. Most are neither, many more are both. The only market we miss by being one homogenous brand of "rugby" are those who would watch RL but not RU and also wouldnt be able to decipher the cues to discover this was RL and not RU. Thats not a particularly large segment to lose. Its pretty tiny. So we are rugby, they are rugby. We dont need to prove we arent them, nor they us.
  13. There are numerous versions of cricket. T20, The Hundred, One-Day, 40 over, 50 over, test match, 4 day, 3 day. There are at least two versions of hockey that i know of. Soccer is a UK name not one coined by the americans and the we havent changed the name of Football to appease the NFL. It is still called football. If our game is the better game, and RU are spending billions on advertising the name "rugby" why do we want to avoid all that free advertising they are doing for us?
  14. They don't, they dont think of it as anything. They dont think of it at all. But even if they do, your argument makes less sense. It isnt a battle. If RU is some behemoth winning big tv and lucrative media deals why should we be scared of being confused for them? There is an inherent contradiction in your argument. That somehow RU's success makes Rugby a toxic name for us. If RU is some all-consuming runaway train, why wouldnt we want to hitch a free ride? If they are successful and growing massively why are we at great pains to avoid being confused for it?
  15. The thing is, that isn't the case. We imagine that people hearing 'rugby' think of RU and this is somehow bad for us.Most people simply aren't familiar enough with the game to care which one it is And the differential is actually in our favour at the moment. More people are likely to confuse us with them than them with us. We don't really need to avoid people making that mistake. Because of they do it's far more likely someone looking for RU is exposed to our game than the other way around. If we are confident in our sport, lean in to it. Plaster rugby everywhere on our branding. If people get it wrong, they get a pleasant surprise.