Dave T

Just enjoying pre-fig drinks before I watch The Snuts in Glasgow. Seen them before and found them bland, but in Scotland I'm more hopeful!

I've been comfortable with creative seeding in the past, but I think we had now reached the point where we could move on. And tbh, the numbers for England games stacked up. They haven't been bettered when we have played the Aussies, so I don't think there is a compelling argument that not playing the Aussies hampered the tournament. Had we got 15k at the opener I'd agree, but we didn't, we got as many as we have for games versus Australia. Plus, we did have a plan to play the Aussies. But, and this is a big but, and where I urge caution around the Ashes, the Aussie matches are really not that huge in demand.

The average cost for that WC opener was far, far higher than any Ashes matches I'd ever been to in RL. They were actually notoriously tight on the discounts.

We got 43k at Newcastle versus Samoa with higher prices than anything we've seen in RL before.

One of my favourite memories was going over to watch Wire play St Esteve in the South of France in around 2000 when we'd just signed Langer, Nikau and Gee. I think there's a place for these kind of trips, but I wonder whether we'd be better tying in with real French clubs rather than things like Valencia.

I agree. I think its a lovely ground in the bowl and has a great atmosphere with a good crowd in. I haven't been for quite a few years so it's sad to hear that the facilities aren't great, but it really is a nice stadium. It also looks great on TV.

Yeah, i quite like it, but it does feel like it would suit Dewsbury more.

I did write a longer message and forgot to post! I don't think us not playing Oz wad an issue tbh. The super group format wasn't exactly great and I think it was the right thing to do to move away from forcing that game in the schedule. If we look at the opener, the crowd was similar to the opener of 2013 versus the Aussies (which had dirt cheap tickets and also featured Wales), was higher than the 2000 opener versus the Aussies, and the 1995 opener versus the Aussies. I think the appeal of the Aussies is overstated tbh. In terms of attractive fixtures, the England games did fine (in the context of an expensive and poorly sold tournament), we had Samoa vs Tonga, Australia vs NZ, Eng in the opener, plus let's be honest, if it went with rankings it would have been England versus Aus in the final. There is a fair argument that we stretched ourselves too much in moving to 16 teams, and I think the biggest issue is that the weak teams are further behind than ever - in 2013 Scotland stood up well (beating Tonga), Cooks had a close one versus Tonga instead of the 2022 drubbing, France put up an effort etc. The lesser games were the star of the show in 2013, but tbh, they just didn't live up to expectations in 2022, and I thinknit showed the lack of development for many teams over the last decade.

To be fair, there was meant to be an Ashes Down Under in 2019, then one was cancelled in 2020 here.

Hang on a minute. While I agree about Salford, I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss criticising the Yorkshire folk!

I never see anything interesting from Wire tbh, I see plenty of pics on insta and they get plenty likes, maybe that ticks the box for them and they're happy with that to show to sponsors!

As a sport we just seem really closed and unfriendly. Even as a fan, it can be difficult to read about the sport in the form of any interesting articles. Personally, I don't really find player features or interviews that interesting, but I think if journos are being denied access that feels poor. I wonder whether clubs have just gone down a bit of a rabbit hole of believing they need to control all aspects of this - let's be honest, there is a good chance of getting some controversial views depending on the journo (but then maybe that would be interesting to read!) and I expect clubs want to create this content themselves and drive traffic to them, but that feels a little small-time thinking. I do think as a sport we should be all about transparency and honesty - it would make a refreshing change to some other sports, but right from the top we just don't seem to hear from the leaders let alone the players. All that said, and I have no reason to doubt RdlR, but he mentions that Sky are frustrated, yet we do seem to see plenty of our players on Sky, on SSN, the pre-match programs (of which their are more than ever), we see extensive post-match stuff - it certainly doesn't come across that the players are kept out of sight.

Some interesting (yet random) snippets here: About us | Community Heart and Heritage: Tonga’s Rugby League Legacy at Risk Amid IRL’s Global Agenda - Tonga Independent News NRL clubs eye Tongan talent as schools tour inspires participation explosion | NRL.com Empowering Futures | Inventus Tonga | Rugby League Development Opportunities.

And I think this is the problem really. That the 'plan' really was to capitalise on something that we have rather stumbled across. We won't just stumble across that in Europe. It's a bit of a perfect storm that has led to some real genuine quality players turning out for Tonga and Samoa in particular, and then the crowds responding hugely - the number, the colour, the noise brought by the Tonga fans in that 2017 World Cup was a turning point here. That's a unique situation, and we should absolutely do everything we can now to cultivate and capitalise on that, but I don't think this is a repeatable plan for anyone else. It's disappointing that basically what Grant is saying is that we just don't have a plan. Not even any mention of investment in key regions, etc. just "the RFL should do our job" - not even a mention of the European governing body.

Indeed. I find it frustrating when fans on forums come up with claims that the "RFL should just do what the NRL have done with Tonga" - but to see the leader of the IRL saying that, well it's just an absolute joke. I'm not a massive fan of the top-down approach of cheaply giving away world cup slots and not working on the grassroots, but that has worked for some nations. But let's be brutally honest, the only real reason this is working for them is because of heritage players in the main, and a fanbase - which is due to the unique make-up of Australia and New Zealand and isn't possible to just copy and paste elsewhere. It's worrying times really, the IRL is more toothless than it has ever been, and the ARLC's approach is being held up as gold standard that others should follow.

Just one point I would like to make, from scanning historic results, Samoa have played more games in the UK than any other country. Tonga not quite at the same level, but the UK is up there. Both have played in the UK more than they have Oz.

I'm not sure I follow SP - are you saying that there hasn't been specific strategies in place to develop Tonga and Samoa that the RFL can lift and shift for Scotland and Ireland? If so, we agree. But it was a genuine question, in case there is stuff that I'm not aware of, living on the other side of the world!

Hmm. So the the IRL Chairman's grand plan is to pat the ARLC on the back and tell the RFL to copy them? When we talk about the development in the likes of Tonga and Samoa - what exactly is it that the ARLC has done - that's a genuine question - just four or five bullets on what they have done that has got these two nations to the position they are in and what the RFL could replicate would be interesting to see?

As long as the solution is perceived to be throw a couple of teams in the UK pyramid, we will never really grow to any decent level. Of course it can form part of a strategy, but there needs to be more development and support from the international governing bodies.

Yep, that's not to say that RL doesn't have an appealing audience, we are overly harsh on ourselves in that area. But, in reality, there are other sports that do what we do and do it better. We don't just have these floating numbers, they are competing against others. A lot of sponsorships and corporates are about prestige and aspiration, and RL is weak in this area. We have one Wembley event, Old Trafford and St James. Outside of that it's not very prestigious. Other sports can appeal to the major companies in the major cities. We get offered football tickets a fair bit through work via hospitality partnerships, but being based in Edinburgh, or London, or Cardiff, or Birmingham, or Glasgow, or Dublin - or other important hubs, we don't appeal to those. We've seen we can do well somewhere like Leeds, but that really is the only major city we are in.

To be fair, the fact that we don't have the logos of all the SL and England RL sponsors is pathetic. There are a range in there. And where we do have the England ones the have old ones and miss out current ones. It's just poor quality execution, why on earth would a sponsor go near us with that shoddy approach? When times are tough, you really need to uphold your standards.

I think one of the things we forget to an extent is that many of these sponsors were brought in when we had a more regular higher quality international game (in the UK). We saw even as recent as 2021 with the World Cup we signed up higher quality partners even along the m62.

Emirates had previously partnered with the RFL (and Leigh first IIRC). When you say Ice Hockey has some good sponsors, who do you mean? EIHL PARTNERS | Elite Ice Hockey League - Pointstreak Sites They only highlight one partner on their site. Your point on clubs is a valid one though - we do get some decent sponsors at club level, as well as some local fish and chip shops!

There isn't. If you go to the England section of the site there is a sponsor panel at the bottom. This has old sponsors like Selco and Mushy Peas, but not the new sponsor of egg. Maybe another good example of why we have challenges with sponsors, because we treat them.like ######.

Yeah I did a quick search online and there are clubs in the local area here. I find it weird to not know anyone who plays it (and mentions it!).