Jump to content

What if RL had taken a different development approach


Damien

Recommended Posts

I have often thought that Rugby League has spread itself far too thinly with insufficient resources to really achieve anything meaningful. As far as I can see it has always been a very scattergun approach with development officers here there and everywhere at various times and then disappearing with any good work lost. Similarly clubs have been set up, often in isolation, and left to wither on the vine due to either insufficient volunteers, players, money or support (or a combination of all these). Also marketing efforts have usually been wasted with events and internationals in places with little or no effort to then capitalise on them. Since I have watched RL countless millions have been wasted in this fashion.

 

This has led me to wonder where would Rugby League be if say in 1980 the RFL adopted a more targeted approach. Obviously this can be tweaked up or down and made more or less ambitious depending on the exact finances but basically the gist is would RL in the UK be in a better position if where every year it used all the resources at its disposal to absolutely blitz a new area for say a period of 3-5 years and set up real foundations. This would be with the aim of setting up a main team for each town and a minimum of 2-4 feeder amateur clubs in the town, depending on its size, and 6 in the big cities. By this I mean development officers in all schools, setting up schools competitions, buying pitches and facilities for amateur clubs, development officers and staff to assist with the setting up and running of these clubs etc. The thinking of 3-5 years in that this is sufficient time to get juniors up through secondary school and into open age level and is enough time for new clubs to become established and embedded in their communities. In the bigger cities this could be backed up by internationals etc. This blitz approach would start from the heartlands, often in areas that have no RL, moving out. This would mean growth is more organic and would mean it is very easy for new clubs to get fixtures, play in existing leagues and would mean little travelling time.

 

With a 3-5 year cycle it would mean just 3-5 areas being funded like this in any one year. To date in 36 years it would have meant 36 new towns would have been hit like this. For example starting in the North West the following could have a town team playing in a national league similar to League 1 now with thriving amateur teams below them:

 

Bolton

Liverpool

Manchester

Blackpool

Southport

Lancaster

Preston

Blackburn

Burnley

Stockport

Chester

Stoke

Stafford

Telford

Birmingham

 

That is only 15 areas but you get the gist. A simultaneous approach starting the other side of the Pennines would have seen another 21 areas which would have meant Carlisle and Newcastle in the North all the way down to London would all be covered. I even think a similar approach starting today would be much effective than a lot of the wasted work that goes on at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think we need to strengthen the heartland areas first and then move on to areas where there is an RL presence such as London, Newcastle etc. If the heartlands are strong and some other areas can strengthen then it gives RL a good platform to expand from

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have often thought that Rugby League has spread itself far too thinly with insufficient resources to really achieve anything meaningful. As far as I can see it has always been a very scattergun approach with development officers here there and everywhere at various times and then disappearing with any good work lost. Similarly clubs have been set up, often in isolation, and left to wither on the vine due to either insufficient volunteers, players, money or support (or a combination of all these). Also marketing efforts have usually been wasted with events and internationals in places with little or no effort to then capitalise on them. Since I have watched RL countless millions have been wasted in this fashion.

 

This has led me to wonder where would Rugby League be if say in 1980 the RFL adopted a more targeted approach. Obviously this can be tweaked up or down and made more or less ambitious depending on the exact finances but basically the gist is would RL in the UK be in a better position if where every year it used all the resources at its disposal to absolutely blitz a new area for say a period of 3-5 years and set up real foundations. 

 

You can find something in this "model for development" if you look back to Celtic Crusaders. TV money, private money and IIRC some government money went in to probably the best area (a working class Rugby minded area with historical links to RL) to develop RL outside the M62.

 

Within the 3-5 years real foundations were set up and real results achieved.

 

But once the investment dried up as the private investor pulled out and the government funding of JARL ceased it all fell away to virtually nothing. Even in the best conditions for growth where there was "free money" going in, a 3-5 year model is not enough to sustain growth.

 

MONEY the RFL have a little spare money, about enough each year to pay Wayne Rooney a weeks wage, and they keep that to use it to declare how "profitable" they are, when in reality they are hand to mouth. The private owners have money but they put that in their clubs and some put it into development of the game in their own areas. It's debatable that what we think of as strong heartlands are really that, whether it be places like Widnes, Leigh or Halifax. Despite years of £Millions of TV money and rich owners money the game was £68.000.000 in real debt (cue the debt deniers) by 2014. Less than nothing left for expansion.

 

PLAYERS as we are seeing in Cumbria there is a decline in people wanting to play the game. Whilst development officers can get kids playing they are after all a "captive audience" and even soccer has great difficulty retaining young people in the game once they hit 15 or 16 years old. Superleague areas are the best at keeping people playing the game, but that doesn't mean they are achieving growth, rather staving off decline.

 

In the end there's no money and little sustained interest in our game to be found outside the heartlands, every penny we can get needs to go into preserving the game in central Lancs, central Yorks and Humberside. I don't think we should try to open up more shops when the ones we have are struggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we'd have been better off focusing on say two strong leagues playing a full season down south and the Midlands rather than a league of 6 teams of union players every region. The CLS already looks like being scrapped

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very valid points on both the grow and defend sides here. With more sponsorship deals starting to roll in, and the BBC taking more interest (see Eng France on red button), hopefully both sponsorship and broadcasting deals can be uplifted.

With Magic seemingly at home in Newcatle now, and scope for more regular Emgland games in the likes of London and Coventry, I'd like to see the RFL make higher performing League 1 (Skolars, Cov, Newcastle) teams a focus. Offer development 2 development officer roles per team available , so you get established pros willing to move to these clubs, and they spend their days improving outreach to clubs and youth teams. Essentially boosting good work being done by those clubs. Say £20k per officer, who also have their semi-pro contract. So £120k a year. Not massive, but could make a difference and get these clubs established in the Championship and a wider player pool with a nice geographic spread. Could also be rolled out to Cumbria to give game a boost there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first considerations in any plan is to know where you are and where you want to be in a given time frame. The problem with RL is they haven't got a clue as to where they want to be, in concrete well defined terms. So they have been bumbling about going from one vague idea to another for years.

 

You maybe left out how to pay for such a plan?

 

The RFL accommodated expansion in their plan when Gausch, Samuels and Hughes were footing the bills, and will do this again with TO and Toronto, they accommodated grass roots development when Sports England were footing the bills.

 

The record is there is nothing wrong with the RFL's plans and vision as regards expanding the player base and the professional club base.

 

The money is the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first considerations in any plan is to know where you are and where you want to be in a given time frame. The problem with RL is they haven't got a clue as to where they want to be, in concrete well defined terms. So they have been bumbling about going from one vague idea to another for years.

The RFL have published strategic plans on more than one occasion. The current one contained goals that were easy to measure. Are you aware of their cirrent strategic plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have often thought that Rugby League has spread itself far too thinly with insufficient resources to really achieve anything meaningful. As far as I can see it has always been a very scattergun approach with development officers here there and everywhere at various times and then disappearing with any good work lost. Similarly clubs have been set up, often in isolation, and left to wither on the vine due to either insufficient volunteers, players, money or support (or a combination of all these). Also marketing efforts have usually been wasted with events and internationals in places with little or no effort to then capitalise on them. Since I have watched RL countless millions have been wasted in this fashion.

 

This has led me to wonder where would Rugby League be if say in 1980 the RFL adopted a more targeted approach. Obviously this can be tweaked up or down and made more or less ambitious depending on the exact finances but basically the gist is would RL in the UK be in a better position if where every year it used all the resources at its disposal to absolutely blitz a new area for say a period of 3-5 years and set up real foundations. This would be with the aim of setting up a main team for each town and a minimum of 2-4 feeder amateur clubs in the town, depending on its size, and 6 in the big cities. By this I mean development officers in all schools, setting up schools competitions, buying pitches and facilities for amateur clubs, development officers and staff to assist with the setting up and running of these clubs etc. The thinking of 3-5 years in that this is sufficient time to get juniors up through secondary school and into open age level and is enough time for new clubs to become established and embedded in their communities. In the bigger cities this could be backed up by internationals etc. This blitz approach would start from the heartlands, often in areas that have no RL, moving out. This would mean growth is more organic and would mean it is very easy for new clubs to get fixtures, play in existing leagues and would mean little travelling time.

 

With a 3-5 year cycle it would mean just 3-5 areas being funded like this in any one year. To date in 36 years it would have meant 36 new towns would have been hit like this. For example starting in the North West the following could have a town team playing in a national league similar to League 1 now with thriving amateur teams below them:

 

Bolton

Liverpool

Manchester

Blackpool

Southport

Lancaster

Preston

Blackburn

Burnley

Stockport

Chester

Stoke

Stafford

Telford

Birmingham

 

That is only 15 areas but you get the gist. A simultaneous approach starting the other side of the Pennines would have seen another 21 areas which would have meant Carlisle and Newcastle in the North all the way down to London would all be covered. I even think a similar approach starting today would be much effective than a lot of the wasted work that goes on at the moment.

Where have got all this from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need to strengthen the heartland areas first and then move on to areas where there is an RL presence such as London, Newcastle etc. If the heartlands are strong and some other areas can strengthen then it gives RL a good platform to expand from

We've been strengthening the heartlands since 1895 but clubs still go by the wayside or are badly run. When do we say enough is enough or tell people to get a grip and run things properly. The whole ethos of our sport in the U.K. is wrong and is badly run.

<In my experience, there is very little support provided outside of the heartlands anyway so you are barking up the wrong tree.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to say something similar. If after all this time, these 'heartlands' need strengthening, how valid is it to refer to them as 'heartlands'?

 

As the definition of "centres of support" fits, quite valid

 

To refer to the M62 as the heartlands may be inaccurate as the M62 goes by Manchester and Liverpool hardly heartlands.

 

To say the game is "strong" up here may be to ignore that even in Leeds and Bradford it's heavily outweighed by soccer.

 

That's always the elephant in the room (as is Union) when people struggle with the question why isn't everyone playing and watching Rugby League.

 

The more subtle elephant may be the fact that so many people don't want to play it, but most have kicked a soccer ball about.

 

Still but for "bad management" Rugby League would be the only sport in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the OP.

 

Hit. Nail. Head.

 

Unless, or until, the RFL can find a way to fund bricks and mortar for clubs then most development will come to nought when the Development Officers disappear.

 

For clubs to grow and thrive an essential requisite is a place to call home - a permanent base. I'm not talking about new builds; most towns and cities have sports facilities that need a little TLC. Agree the lease with the Authority, fund some renovation work (including provision for a bar), and move in (or create?) a RL club. Clearly a fulltime Development Officer would be required for a couple of years to assist the club in properly embedding itself in the community.

 

As the OP said, it should be done in clusters. Clubs would support one another's development, logistics of playing would be simpler and cheaper, and a longer term aim would be a pro club in the area. Imagine (an example only!!) a Year 1 Reading/Aldershot/Slough/Guildford/Bracknell cluster in the South East and a Nottingham/Leicester/Loughborough/Derby/Burton cluster in the East Midlands.

 

The 'Heartlands' should also be included - Year 2 Cumbria/Greater Manchester etc etc as an example.

 

How much? 10 x up to £100,000. A million a year, plus Development Officer costs (£25k?).

 

Year 1 - 10 X £100k + 10 x Y1 DOs £25k = £1,250,000

Year 2 - 10 X £100k + 10 x Y1 DOs £25k + 10 x Y2 DOs £25k = £1,500,000

Year 3 - 10 X £100k + 10 x Y2 DOs £25k + 10 x Y3 DOs £25k = £1,500,000

Year 4 - 10 X £100k + 10 x Y3 DOs £25k + 10 x Y4 DOs £25k = £1,500,000

ETC ETC

 

A ten year commitment and by 2028 you could have upwards of a hundred clubs with proper roots and a much better chance of permanency!

 

Pie in the sky? Almost certainly. Fifteen million over a decade is small change for some sports, whilst for such as RL it would be game changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ten year commitment and by 2028 you could have upwards of a hundred clubs with proper roots and a much better chance of permanency!

 

Pie in the sky? Almost certainly. Fifteen million over a decade is small change for some sports, whilst for such as RL it would be game changing.

 

You can't make people play RL if they do not want to

 

Why do we assume people will play it regularly if a development officer asks them to?

 

Few enough play in SL areas

 

It's not just a lack of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't make people play RL if they do not want to

Why do we assume people will play it regularly if a development officer asks them to?

Few enough play in SL areas

It's not just a lack of money.

I agree that you can't make people play RL if they don't want to but there would be plenty who would play if they were introduced to the sport. I wouldn't have ever played if I wasn't introduced to the game as a child. Obviously money is a factor but if the money was there playing numbers would increase

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea in principle - but I agree with others on here that it would need to be a 7-10 year plan as you wouldn't be able to touch the surface in 3-5 years.

Sport England would be the obvious choice to fund something like this, but it would be a very hard sell as they don't seem to like funding things for more than 5 years, and a bigger problem would be tackling their particular aims at that time. A small percentage of tv money could also be used to show commitment from the RFL.

There are lots of ways the RFL could look to rebuild grassroots RL but somebody at some point needs to engage with the existing player base, and club committees to see what they want.

We see some fantastic suggestions on the forum alone, so why doesn't anyone act on these suggestions to formulate a plan and submit it to the RFL?

I've a gut feeling the local open age amateur leagues in west Cumbria will return to winter shortly, it's not that they don't enjoy playing in summer, but there are so many other distractions it is killing the game. It's also causing divided loyalties with those lads who also play rugby union in the off season choosing to stay with the ru club til the end of their season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the OP.

 

Hit. Nail. Head.

 

Unless, or until, the RFL can find a way to fund bricks and mortar for clubs then most development will come to nought when the Development Officers disappear.

 

For clubs to grow and thrive an essential requisite is a place to call home - a permanent base. I'm not talking about new builds; most towns and cities have sports facilities that need a little TLC. Agree the lease with the Authority, fund some renovation work (including provision for a bar), and move in (or create?) a RL club. Clearly a fulltime Development Officer would be required for a couple of years to assist the club in properly embedding itself in the community.

 

 

Now is the ideal time for this sort of approach, local authorities are trying to off-load responsibility and costs for anything and everything.

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't make people play RL if they do not want to

 

Why do we assume people will play it regularly if a development officer asks them to?

 

Of course you can't force people to play RL, no one suggested you could.

 

But yes, in my experience, a Development Officer can encourage sufficient numbers to play the sport outside of school to make a local club a viable proposition. I saw how effective it was at my old (now sadly defunct) club, and I compare it to the current situation where it's likely that next year there'll be ZERO junior/youth teams in the whole of South London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you can't force people to play RL, no one suggested you could.

 

But yes, in my experience, a Development Officer can encourage sufficient numbers to play the sport outside of school to make a local club a viable proposition. I saw how effective it was at my old (now sadly defunct) club, and I compare it to the current situation where it's likely that next year there'll be ZERO junior/youth teams in the whole of South London.

 

How was this effective when you state the club went defunct??

 

The Broncos coaches warned that London going out of SL would see the amateur game decline, it appears to me the best idea for London isn't so much development officers but a Superleague club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always going to be easier to encourage someone to try a new sport if they don't have to do anything more than turn up and learn.

This is what a Development Officer can do, they can pull together all the basics to form a team(s) - as it's their job to - meaning people who are open to new sports can try it out without needing to worry about doing any of these things themselves.

Using Australia as an example, in 2000 the number of participants in both schools and junior leagues was just over 120,000. The establishment of the National Development Officers has seen those numbers swell beyond 500,000 in the following 15+ years (more if you then include Tag and Touch).

Through Development Officers, it has become easier for Rugby League to get into schools or recruit in new markets because rather than relying on volunteers or enthusiasts to do all the ground work, someone who is paid to do it, is doing it.

With volunteers becoming harder and harder to find, and thosewho do put their hands up, needing support just to maintain status quo, this really is an area the RFL has to find a way to help fund with the clubs, otherwise the few 'hotspots' of RL will be the only places the sport will be played below the Pro game.

PACIFIQUE TREIZE: Join the team by registering as a fan today at pacifique13.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was this effective when you state the club went defunct??

The Broncos coaches warned that London going out of SL would see the amateur game decline, it appears to me the best idea for London isn't so much development officers but a Superleague club.

Not quite. The Midlands had a 9 team junior league when we had development officers but there's nothing now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

we need to wipe the board clean and start again and go to Sport England with a new development plan that fits the needs of RL in the U.K., not what ticks Sport Englands aims at this particular time.

It will be very difficult to sell to the national body, but if proper foundations and structures are put into place, then the game can flourish again. While I am all for expanding the game away from the traditional areas, at present we need to stop the rot in the traditional areas as we will have huge problems if the game is allowed to wither and die in these areas.

Everything needs looked at, from the way we bring coaches into the game, to putting in proper support networks and classes that allow coaches to develop their skills, as opposed to the current system which just sees coaches given their ticket after a four day course and left to get on with it. Little wonder there are so few coaches moving into open age rugby, and even fewer good coaches!!

In my opinion, EVERY PLAYER who signs on as a professional should have to undertake a coaching qualification at their club and there should be a coaching link ups with the local amateur clubs within their catchment area.

We need to adopt a long term view to try and improve the standards of rugby league players which will benefit the professional clubs in due course as well as strengthen the amateur game.

There should be a team of development officers who can saturate an area over a 4-6 month programme, linking in with schools, local clubs and colleges using a pre-designed template. The RFL to identify key local individuals to train up during this development programme to deliver courses, support coaches etc, and offer a full support network after the development team have moved on.

These local individuals should also receive expenses payments as well as being invited guests to the big RL games. We need to start rewarding the people who do all the work.

The game does have a future, but it needs to have a plan of action

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.