RP London

what are you wanting in terms of "a bit more tangible"? IMG said they needed to get grading in to then be able to move forward on other plans. I think there has been quite a lot of action in terms of getting things together for the "great spreadsheet" and also the platforms etc that can then promote the clubs that are moving forward. Yes we want more results but its from here on in really, we should see more statistics around engagement, viewers etc and then hopefully, that can turn into some success with sponsorships etc.. those are the real results in the end. Its why I ask the question of what you are thinking as not sure myself what "results" are worthwhile at the moment..

But jeopardy is great, its fab watching people go through this hell, as long as its not me. The reality of professional sport now when you dont have the strength of the football pyramid is that people will lose an awful lot, and the knock on of losing jobs and houses can be losing family etc, and it really isnt entertaining to watch if you start to think of it like that. If the tier down is such a big jump then there does need to be though put into what happens, most "pro" sports are doing away with it now.

Its not like I went back and edited their actual post or made claims they were saying something they actually werent by snipping a post down taking out pertinent information..

again, just to be accurate.. while I agree with you that its quite vague etc the last paragraph does give a timescale

Just to be fair to him here's that quote with the next 2 paragraphs, the last one showing that what you said is not really accurate.

I wondered the same... Naval gazing seems to be something RL is very good at. oh and not waiting long enough for things to bed in before naval gazing and changing it.

I've sorted your post for you

Those Thunder shirts are nice..

You are aware of the issues that women in these positions can face aren't you? Sometimes being "the one" is the hardest thing to do even if you are surrounded by others that are likely to be feeling the same. To be the first person to ask a question in a room of people wondering the same thing is difficult, if you could lose your job by misjudging the room makes it all the more difficult. I am surprised to read the above in this day and age as an "excuse" for saying it didnt happen. You may well be right that there is nothing in it but the above is 100% not evidence for that.

Thanks for this, I remember playing Manchester Knights when I was at South London Storm. One thing though there is a big difference between running an amateur side and a pro one, especially if we're just looking at a rebrand of a club already there. If we were to go from, for example, 3,000 to 5,000 because of a rebrand and increased coverage etc then it would be worth it. If it went from 3 to 3 1/2 then maybe not.

It's nice that, would prefer they pay their bills though.

Devils advocate; So how many do you lose? (Not many in the grand scheme) How many could be gained (don't know, whats the appetite in Manchester etc) Many look at what we lose.few seem to look at what we gain (As per devils advocate, this may be the wrong example but IMHO we look at what we could lose rather than what we could gain far too much). Blue ocean thinking would be nice but RL just looks at red ocean

Yes games on the road, if we have loop fixture that's how to make them work... No not much better than magic

To be fair it's nice to be able to say to the kids "but in my day" I honestly thought I'd never get the chance (or at least this early)

A none diverse board, a "jobs for the boys" mentality, a sport that does not have governance independent from the clubs.. To be fair, the Salford situation seems minor if we cannot move into the 21st century at some point.

They'll go onto admin and then the takeover will happen.. that's my bet anyway.. but I have been down the pub!

Wouldn't have been mentioned on this thread without it

Exactly.. 100% agree.. I really don't understand the other argument. They'll go down to 5 as they are still "showing every game live" but not paying for 1 and pocketing the cost as profit.. I can't see them having an issue at the moment.. come the next contract though this whole debacle could cost us in trust.

That's a really odd take on it.. the first paragraph especially.. they are showing 6 because they can as they are already paying for the production, however the ones not on a main channel make them no money at all.. they show 2 for profit... I don't know why that isn't the clear sight on this to be honest.. everything else is irrelevant.. profit on 2 cost on 6.

Right its a Friday night lets all go to the pub and hope that come monday this has all been sorted... it will wont it?? Well i'm off there now anyway even if no one else joins me!

Mate, it will. What else is going to happen? are we back to people taking legal action.. that would be just a fantastic addition to the shoot (replace some vowels) show that is going on at the moment... in the end we will just be sat here singing Cher songs... or we move forward knowing that next year will be better.

That is different to what you were saying to Gav at this point.. there is a difference to an agreement and "they want 6 games". The agreement may well be that they will show them, they may not be at all fussed if they only have 5 as long as they have the ones that are revenue generating, in fact they may be very happy to just have 5 and pocket as profit the money they would have spent on production. As I have said a number of times, without the contract we just dont know. I think some reflection on both parts would be good as your gung ho on the fact that SKY would want 6 and Gav is gung ho on the fact that they dont... neither of you actually know.

if its marketed right there could be a whole new set of fans brought into both sides... may not be the sort we want or the publicity we want afterwards but still "no publicity is bad publicity"?

indeed but that contract could read (for all we know) "you MUST cover those games and provide the footage to RL commercial for £0" At which point they do think "brill, no production costs, now we just pocket that money as profit". Without the contracts we are all just speculating, no single view has any more weight to it than any other. I personally think that this could be seen as "no big deal" by sky in terms of this contract. It almost certainly will have an effect on the next one in terms of trust and the way the RFL handle this and what they can promise (re the thread about Nigel Wood) will potentially see future issue for sure.

sorry that is not evidence to say categorically that Gav is wrong... without the actual contract in front of us that is not provable.