Ackroman

This forum is like a rural parish council.......

SL should go to 14 and grow dependent on adding franchises. Ideally aiming for a league of 20 over the next 10 years or so. It's a strategy for growth based on external investment, not spreading the jam too thinly. P&R should only exist between the remaining non-franchised clubs and the winner of the championship. Champs and L1 merge into a seeded comp. with maximum number of f/t players in squads. I know there's an argument about building a squad for SL if you win the champ but that is the least bad scenario. Maybe P&R could happen every 2 years?

Leeds' pack looked lightweight, in the front row in particular. Loose forward was a blunt instrument, long gone are the days with forwards with goods hands, although Sam Kasiano showed a deft touch for the try. Ash Handley was Leeds' best player but from the off Cats were the dominant side. However quality was in short supply. FWIW it was effin freezin but me and the lad enjoyed it. Don't know where we'll try next.

Bollocking for Leon

Funny I was thinking about this myself this morning but more about the nick names clubs used to have or still have even though they have a newer moniker. Wire for example, or The Gallant Youths. Steam Pigs, etc

He was their coach for that world cup wasn't he?

I think Tony Fisher at Dewsbury signed 5 + saffers after the 1995 world Cup. Jaco Boysen Tim Fourie Kobus Van Deventer Gideon Watts Guy Coombe Pierre Van Wyke. I think only the top 3 really made an impact

You need to blockade the M62 with tractors, that'll make the French feel at home. I wonder what insulate Britain are doing next weekend?

Gout. Lots of fluids and ibuprofen

Awesome entertainment

Imposter syndrome - gotta be.

Well the natural conclusion from these studies of American sports and University investment is that there is a role for someone to look at how this works in RL. A whole game view on the sport. So for example maybe half a dozen clubs in the UK have the resources to attract naturally gifted individuals who have grown up in the right environment for RL. The right number of schools, community clubs and fan base. Pouring more money into those environments is potentially a waste because the socio-economic conditions for RL are already fulfilled. This extra money therefore gets "invested" in talent but often that talent is no better than what you can produce yourself because the environment is as good as it gets. The Leeds team that won everything was based on their own academy players, so why move away from that model? The Canadian RL ladies 9's model is based on this principle. Whereby fans are members of the League (not the club) and the League chooses where to put teams. So they select the type of stadium they want, the location for a fan base and potential participation. They re investing holistically in creating rivalry and competition. RL in this country has actually followed that principle where investment in SL by Sky has actually been in the League. However the clubs involved have chosen to invest in themselves. Probably one reason why Sky are miffed at the state of the comp now in relation to 15 or so years ago. So if I was influencing the clubs I would insist on a budget for the clubs for players, a budget for academies that are owned and run by the RFL, not the clubs - with a draft system. A budget for the league to invest in infrastructure - so for example you promote Bradford to SL as they have the pedigree in all areas but are weak on infrastructure - so that's where the League invest. Centralised ticketing & marketing so fans can buy tickets to league matches at any stadium as a set of packages. Targets for penetration into schools and community clubs by the RFL - not the clubs. I think there is a growing realisation that the modern youth follows individuals and not team so we have to look at developing stars of the game - not star clubs at the detriment of others. This should actually save money! The above top league works on a franchise basis but is inclusive, so you may start with 10 teams but plan to have 20 in 10 years time. Also I think the mistakes the game has made are now obvious when we look at how people consume entertainment. Owners of clubs have personalised their clubs when actually they are brands as far as young consumers are concerned. The fact Sky has asked for a re-brand has shown how poorly thought out this has been because all the owners have done is redrawn a badge! A proper re-brand invests and focusses on weaknesses and opportunities not in enhancing strengths which can become overcooked. RU has made this mistake by investing it's money in players so squads are now massive, allowing some of them to become impact players - looks good on TV but has created significant welfare problems with high impact injuries increasing. In RL it's to create a number of fixtures that put player welfare at risk and offers consumers the same 2 teams, too often weakening the ability to sell exclusivity. One podcast I listened to made a very good point that it doesn't matter how many teams are in the league, it's who they play and how often they play, as the play-offs smooth out discrepancies.

The Peter principle in action. Which one of those on the working committee have proved competent at this level before? Effin pointless

They don't need the money, so I'm not surprised. However what they do need (as an outsider) is to look at why their best players leave and don't come back.

I was just wondering how far I could go without going off topic. Is there anything in particular?

Some of you may know a guy called Malcolm Gladwell who runs a series of pod casts called Revisionist History. One of the podcasts looked at how different sports should invest in players. For example in basketball you could spend all your budget on 1 player because that 1 player can have a massive effect on the outcome of a game - effectively scoring all the points or hogging possession, so you only need a few brick walls to defend your own basket and then when you get the ball, give it to the best player. Similarly a sport like football does the same, investing massive sums on galacticos and then filling the team with also rans. Putting aside market conditions, statistically it was proven that team sports like football needed to invest at the weakest point, not the maximum because essentially you can't get any more out of Ronaldo than he can give (for example), whereas putting in more investment in those players with high potential was more beneficial, simply because the parts of the field where the ball goes is much bigger and no one player can influence all the pitch. In my opinion you could apply this to a sport (as Malcolm Gladwell did for Universities), whereby there are clubs (and institutions) that attract high investment (because that's cool or has kudos) but this has little effect on improving standards. So Harvard University can't make Harvard students improve any more than a few percent, whereas some low level University could improve it's standards by a much higher degree with the same, or even less investment. So in conclusion what RL could do is accept it cannot squeeze much more performance from the top clubs because they are maximising exposure in their community and have a team/product(s) to deliver on that. Whereas there are clubs in areas of huge potential that could benefit from the 1 million quid or so the top clubs don't really need. Would the top clubs buy that? No, because they make decisions based on feelings not facts. Better to play some dog rag pretending to be an equal than actually play an equal. By investing in the potential areas of RL we can improve the lot of all the clubs because the competition is far stronger. In fact the top clubs would be far better off letting the wealth do the work this way rather than trying to oversell rivalries that have little traction outside their geography or simply selling just their own brand. There's more I could add but the above is statistically proven and if it is not part of the discussion at board level in RL then they could at least listen to the podcasts. Far better than 5Live or God forbid, talksport.

Framing the future.

edited for effin extra F's

You can't just oil the big cogs for many, many reasons. Elite is elite by comparison to those who are not elite, used to be elite, aspire to be elite and maybe never will be elite. Too many SL clubs are far from Elite. That is fact. IMHO after listening to many, many podcasts in the last few weeks, I think there is a growing opinion that only the vision of the 90's (FTF) will work but to try and implement that when clubs in Non-Elite Super League can veto changes is nigh on impossible.

I totally agree.

Brian Noble made a valid point about how few sports have a credible second tier. The second tier can only work if it is funded appropriately so that when P&R happens a good like for like replacement takes place. Hence why the premier league teams look nothing like the ones that made up he original league and why the football championship is such a good comp.

I'm from Dewsbury and have been a fan on and off for years but I do see a massive contrast in how my son and daughter are involved in Newcastle Thunder's youth programs in comparison to how things work in my home town. My daughter is an U8 and has been involved in a number of festivals, 2 of which have been at Kingston Park. My son an U12, is in a plate final at Kingston park a week on Saturday, as well as having the same festival experience as my daughter. On both occasion's we have enjoyed cheap tickets to attend Thunder home games, one of which was Oldham. The crowd was significantly boosted, the kids loved it and we met loads of other parents etc. OK Newcastle's reach is as far as Catterick where my kids play and they have clubs that feed in from afar as Anlwick and closer to us, Yarm but the feeder system from these clubs is showing promise - with 3 kids in the academy from Catterick alone. The heavy woollen district has a similar sized captive audience but the 2 clubs being in such close proximity is diluting the offering and it's ability to fund marketing, ticket office etc. Unless the RFL centralise these functions - and I don't see that happening - then I think the clubs have to take the initiative. IMO it is now time to consider what Batley and Dewsbury can do together to form a senior mens team(s), ladies team, 9's and wheelchair side that is fed through an integrated community set up. Otherwise I believe the inevitable will happen for both clubs. I think Dewsbury's current plight is where they should be and Batley are punching well above their weight but that is not sustainable. Dewsbury and Batley's heritage is modest but important to about a thousand people. How many would be more interested in their future offering if they took a radical step?

For me there's too much compromise in SL. This is where we should allow for the least amount of wriggle room! Also with a 35% reduction in funding, why offer the same volume to sky at reduced quality? I would be arguing that for 35% we will offer less games but of a higher standard and will be coming up with other products to attract SKY etc to buy them. So I did a quick fag packet licencing test across about 10 criteria including strategic value and market penetration for all clubs. There are 10 clubs that have the potential of being in a super league. 2 are French, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield (Hull/Hull KR) and Newcastle. Then there are about 10 clubs knocking on that door, needing to improve community engagement, facilities or even a secure home. All 3 calder clubs, 2-3 strategically important teams such as the 2 London teams, Salford, Widnes, Barrow, Leigh and Hull/Hull KR. There are 13 or so clubs that can't compete with the above due to an even worse level of funding availability, facilities and community engagement/potential. For example I was surprised to find York in this group but the club is only just getting back on it's feet. And finally 3 clubs on the verge of extinction (IMO), all 3 in the heartlands. I could make a decision on the game using my basic formula and it wouldn't be mixing up the teams with such varied potential. You can of course mess with your own criteria to make sure your club stays in SL but I would appoint an independent panel to apply the rules. SL 1 clubs would have strict criteria and no club gets in if they don't match it. Those standards are diluted for SL 2 and the same applies until we get to community level where a lot more wriggle room is allowed. The basis of the main product is standards driven. We now have the potential for more creative ideas to increase fixtures such as magic nines, an improved challenge cup format, AB sundecks inclusion of more community clubs, etc. Some form of SL1, SL2 cross conference competition ??? Someone with more brains than me could come up with something.

I think the addition of wheel chair RL and PDRL on a regular basis could/will make OurLeague a superb diverse and inclusive example of the sport

League 1 is Rugby League's inclusivity and diversity show piece.