Lowdesert Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_22834-rfl-media-briefing-part-1.html http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_22835-rfl-media-briefing-part-2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scubby Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Very interesting. Was encouraged by the comments on the international game and England Was disappointed with the responses in regards sponsorship and attendances. Modest sponsorship growth year on year is not going to land sales executive bonuses any time soon. Sorry, but we can't dismiss the fall in crowds as 'We're not concerned, we can be over obsessed by attendance figures. There is quite a bit of scope to make Super League bigger.' I remember the RU Premiership clubs stating they wanted the competition to be averaging 10k within the first 8-10 years of professionalism. RL folk on forums like this were laughing and pointing out how RL club crowds were bigger. Well RL in the UK has stood still and other sports are leaving us behind - so as a game we should be concerned. We should be setting targets for attendances and planning how to achieve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henson Park Old Firm Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 he needs to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Whilst on one hand I dont mind the calm manner against the usual hysteria, for example he is right about our obsession with crowds and minor fluctuations - i do find it all a bit too wishy washy. Uncertainty about pretty much every topic, reserves, Internationals, World Club Series - not a whole lot of leading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 4 of Us Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Not sure what to make of this one "It’s not as broken as people think." Isn't that like being "a little bit pregnant"? http://www.wiganstpats.org Producing Players Since 1910 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted July 21, 2016 Author Share Posted July 21, 2016 A few things stand out for me. The Knights programme is on hold. We know that as nothing's happened, but I thought this was the way to go. Can't help feeling a lot of good work has been wasted. Doesn't seem they are too focussed on sponsorship. FU where mentioned but no other plans mentioned where discussions have been made or are in motion. The International section brings some hope. Good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Was disappointed with the responses in regards sponsorship. Modest sponsorship growth year on year is not going to land sales executive bonuses any time soon. Well...... Doesn't seem they are too focussed on sponsorship. They have been focused on it heavily since the booze and fags companies used to sponsor RL 40 years ago. This is free money if you can get it. I'd suggest that if he has little to say about it, he can't get it. Wood cannot make big companies sponsor RL, one year IIRC all he could manage to get was Stobarts on a no cash but adverts deal. The question was never really how bad that deal was it was whether the RFL had missed a better one and TBH I don't think they did, I think we are having to take the scraps. If we were on BBC all the time giving our sponsor exposure we may get a big deal but it's tucked away on SKY where we do get £200M, we can't have it both ways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Was disappointed with the responses in regards attendances. Sorry, but we can't dismiss the fall in crowds as 'We're not concerned, we can be over obsessed by attendance figures. There is quite a bit of scope to make Super League bigger.' He's a PR man and anyone who thinks attendances aren't important should think a bit harder and smarter. His attempt to get crowds up through jeopardy didn't work. He's now stuck. Some clubs like Oldham, Workington, Halifax, Sheffield, Leigh, Bradford, London, Wakefield and Widnes relied/rely on attendances. Without decent crowds to pay the bills seven of the nine failed and Wakey would have done but the structure saved them. To say we focus too much on crowds is to say we focus too much on our customers, what business really would ever say that. It's PR guff like the annual reports and like people on here say he has to say that rubbish. But it's truly daft for anyone on here to actually swallow it.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Sorry, but we can't dismiss the fall in crowds as 'We're not concerned, we can be over obsessed by attendance figures. There is quite a bit of scope to make Super League bigger.' I remember the RU Premiership clubs stating they wanted the competition to be averaging 10k within the first 8-10 years of professionalism. It may be what he's referring to is Toulouse and Canada Scubmeister. He's allowed them to spend full cap, I assume he hopes they will grow the Superleague game in the northern hempishere...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 I think when the most lively threads on discussion forums are about crowds and 1% fluctuations he has a point. Interesting when Parky wants to bash the rfl and structure he uses crowds, but when others use Leeds and Magic to discuss crowd growth he shoots them down and everybody is doing everything perfectly. Almost as though the approach is to argue with whatever view people have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleD Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Anyone else think that Wood is positioning himself for an international (RLIF permanent role)? He seems to have a lack of focus/interest in some of the domestic matters, or maybe that's just my take on it. Hopefully change will be afoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted July 21, 2016 Author Share Posted July 21, 2016 Anyone else think that Wood is positioning himself for an international (RLIF permanent role)? He seems to have a lack of focus/interest in some of the domestic matters, or maybe that's just my take on it. Hopefully change will be afoot Think there was a thread on Woods position a few months ago? For me, it's time for a change. Not that he's done good or bad, but the role needs fresh blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 It is interesting to hear the comments on the Salary Cap and the Reserves and I think he highlights a major issue that the RFL have. They ultimately do not have the control or power to control these things, and nor should they. With this in mind, surely these things should be nothing to do with the RFL at all and they should be funded and administered by SLE and run by the General Manager and his team. The fact that it is setup like a JV causes problems. I would like to see the RFL focus solely on the things they control, including the England team and development pathway, major events, disciplinary, refs etc. All other things should be taken out of their control and delegated. Let SLE find their own sponsors and partners, sort out their structure, manage their cap, sort out reserve structures etc. The RFL gets a lot of stick for things I think they struggle to control, so put the ownership with people who are most passionate about it and most likely to make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roughyedspud Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 "The strategy for the international federation is to run the best World Cups it can, and then run a second global tournament in the intervening period, and that still leaves two years for bi-lateral Test matches for England, Lions tours, Kiwis or Kangaroos tours. I think we can get to that." finally...actual confirmation.... OLDHAM RLFC the 8TH most successful team in british RL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 In my opinion, this post from CKN earlier today sums up our game exactly. Unless and until the game gets a grip in this, Woods can strategise, plan etc as much as he likes. The only sponsor I can see that fits is the Sun! "A case in point: Rugby LEAGUE typically markets itself to the C1C2DE market while Rugby UNION markets itself at the ABC1 market but looking slightly snootily down at C1s. Nowt wrong with that except that the ABC1 market has far more disposable money to pitch up for £90 seats at Twickers on top of their debenture fees (£7000 for a 10 year debenture for guaranteed rights to buy tickets for that seat, you get none free). Rugby league fans get huffy if they see international tickets priced at more than the bus fare to get to the ground." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amber Avenger Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Whilst on one hand I dont mind the calm manner against the usual hysteria, for example he is right about our obsession with crowds and minor fluctuations - i do find it all a bit too wishy washy. Uncertainty about pretty much every topic, reserves, Internationals, World Club Series - not a whole lot of leading. I feel like with very little alterations you could have read the vast majority of the conversations at that briefing at any point within the past 15 years. We can do better at the international game but we aren't sure of a long term schedule. The current format (8s, but could have been Franchising, top 5/6 playoffs etc) must be working well because the clubs vote for it. We'll try and get the WCC in Aus soon, but looks like it will be here next year. We're already looking for a new title sponsor for next year. This year's magic weekend was good, but we still aren't sure where next year's is. All fine stuff to a point - but same old story (both positive and negative). SQL Honours Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009 CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scubby Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Whilst on one hand I dont mind the calm manner against the usual hysteria, for example he is right about our obsession with crowds and minor fluctuations - i do find it all a bit too wishy washy. Uncertainty about pretty much every topic, reserves, Internationals, World Club Series - not a whole lot of leading. A bit too wishy washy is an understatement. Reserve teams? "Erm, yeah you can run them if you like but you don't have to". Salary cap? "Well, since Leigh got shirty we've just let it slide" Sponsorship? "Modest increases..." Attendances? "Stop going on about attendances" Super League "Our 3x8 Vision we spent a year promoting will be here next year..... at least" World Club Series "Yeah, we don't even know how many teams or where it will be....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleD Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 It is interesting to hear the comments on the Salary Cap and the Reserves and I think he highlights a major issue that the RFL have. They ultimately do not have the control or power to control these things, and nor should they. With this in mind, surely these things should be nothing to do with the RFL at all and they should be funded and administered by SLE and run by the General Manager and his team. The fact that it is setup like a JV causes problems. I would like to see the RFL focus solely on the things they control, including the England team and development pathway, major events, disciplinary, refs etc. All other things should be taken out of their control and delegated. Let SLE find their own sponsors and partners, sort out their structure, manage their cap, sort out reserve structures etc. The RFL gets a lot of stick for things I think they struggle to control, so put the ownership with people who are most passionate about it and most likely to make it work. Really? I thought RFL were the overarching body? Surely they can assert that a reserves is a standard minimum requirement and amend the salary cap - they've just done this already and have made tweaks in previous years. I think the majority of SL clubs need to approve it, but that doesn't mean the RFL can't enforce. The problem with what you say about SLE doing their own thing is that all clubs will not agree on proposals anyway which is why it needs leadership from a central body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoneslessBishop Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Makes sense Dave. Seems like the clubs don't want to take that responsibility though. Koukash's call for a vote of no confidence was the perfect opportunity to negotiate that level of seperation. An opportunity missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoneslessBishop Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 To be fair Scubby he could have been more non-commital. On Super 8s, he could have stopped at stating it benefits in making the Championship more attractive and the growth in full time teams, but he has brought pressure and accountability on the RFL by stating the litmus test is on getting a team promoted, and by stating it will still only definitely be in place for 1 more year, made that pressure more immediate than he maybe needed to, so I applaud that as brave. Similarly he could just have stated he wanted to more internationals, but has has committed to mid-season internationals, which will be at odds with most clubs, so again, relatively brave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 1. Really? I thought RFL were the overarching body? Surely they can assert that a reserves is a standard minimum requirement and amend the salary cap - they've just done this already and have made tweaks in previous years. I think the majority of SL clubs need to approve it, but that doesn't mean the RFL can't enforce. 2. The problem with what you say about SLE doing their own thing is that all clubs will not agree on proposals anyway which is why it needs leadership from a central body 1. If the RFL flex their muscles all that happens is the SL clubs flex their muscles back. The structure may put the RFL in top position on paper governing the game but the power lies with Superleague that provides the fare for the TV contract and around 10 rich men that subsidise superleague clubs. People may be blind to this power struggle but the RFL only rule with the Superleague's co-operation. It's in neither's interest to split, it's in both's interest to agree but the comments post the structural changes that everyone was happy now were the most naive things I've read on here. Latest power struggle that took place openly in the press was over the general mangers job, SL won that. The RFL in practice can't enforce Reserves across the board, something that could tip Widnes and Wakey over the top, however Warrington are using diplomacy to gently persuade other clubs that a reserve team only costs £35,000 a year and clubs get 50 times that from SKY. 2. That isn't how it is. The RFL didn't provide leadership for the new structure, SL clubs actually voted it in 7-6, and that is a cast iron "fact" but again it seems people can't grasp these things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleD Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 1. If the RFL flex their muscles all that happens is the SL clubs flex their muscles back. The structure may put the RFL in top position on paper governing the game but the power lies with Superleague that provides the fare for the TV contract and around 10 rich men that subsidise superleague clubs. People may be blind to this power struggle but the RFL only rule with the Superleague's co-operation. It's in neither's interest to split, it's in both's interest to agree but the comments post the structural changes that everyone was happy now were the most naive things I've read on here. Latest power struggle that took place openly in the press was over the general mangers job, SL won that. The RFL in practice can't enforce Reserves across the board, something that could tip Widnes and Wakey over the top, however Warrington are using diplomacy to gently persuade other clubs that a reserve team only costs £35,000 a year and clubs get 50 times that from SKY. 2. That isn't how it is. The RFL didn't provide leadership for the new structure, SL clubs actually voted it in 7-6, and that is a cast iron "fact" but again it seems people can't grasp these things Not sure there's any point responding but firstly yes the RFL can enforce a reserve competition and the fact that clubs couldn't unanimously agree to the new structure is exactly why power should not be held with SLE and they should not be be a separate entity from the RFL allowed to determine their future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Parksider Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Not sure there's any point responding but firstly yes the RFL can enforce a reserve competition and the fact that clubs couldn't unanimously agree to the new structure is exactly why power should not be held with SLE and they should not be be a separate entity from the RFL allowed to determine their future You do need to respond if you want to do what it says on the tin and have a lively debate? So do you want to back your idea the RFL can make all the clubs hold a reserve competition?. Is this assertion based on a theory that if Wood sends an edict out to the 12 SL chairmen to say they must do this, then in theory they will do this? I do like your point that "the fact that clubs couldn't unanimously agree to the new structure" ls something you accept as such, the clubs voting 7-6 for the structure with Catalans abstaining and Bradford and London who voted for now gone. Your response puts us nicely in agreement about the "rebels", On the issue of Power being held by the SL clubs when they cannot agree anything unanimously are you anti-democracy? Do you believe in dictatorship? Should Mr. Wood wield absolute power? Where do you believe that would take us if Wood asserted such a power and started dictating to the likes of Lenegan, McManus, Pearson, Hudgell, Davey, Fulton, Caddick, Koukash, Moran, Gaush, who collectively put tens of £Millions into the game (Fact)? What does Wood put into the game. Give me a fact? This is lively debate DoubleD over to you good sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleD Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 The RFL need to show leadership. The clubs get a vote as it is. Why should I back up my assertions when you never do? The RFL can impose what they want when they're the overarching body, much like the reduction in interchanges from next year. The lack of confidence in the RFL leads to the ridiculous situation where the RFL has to implement a general manager as a token gesture to appease the clubs And no we are not in agreement about the rebels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 The RFL need to show leadership. The clubs get a vote as it is. The RFL can impose what they want when they're the overarching body, much like the reduction in interchanges from next year. The lack of confidence in the RFL leads to the ridiculous situation where the RFL has to implement a general manager as a token gesture to appease the clubs And no we are not in agreement about the rebels. It is easy to keep saying that, but the RFL can't just make whatever changes they want. Votes are required for major changes, and they can't just railroad clubs into certain changes that they don't agree with. If they do this, we simply end up with risk of a breakaway, which pretty much nobody wants, no matter how many times Parky talks about rebels. Ultimately, Super League clubs are there for the purpose of putting a Super League team out on the field. There are a thousand different ways of doing that - some will just use a multi millionaire and buy a team at the expense of everything else, some get the infrastructure right, some believe in youth and developing their own players, some will steal from rivals. They are all valid ways of being a strong SL team - it is not for the RFL to be too prescriptive imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.