Dave T
-
Posts
51,823 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
382
Posts posted by Dave T
-
-
I thought we were excellent. Very enjoyable seeing the enthusiasm and no lack of skill beat a tough and physical team. Really enjoyed that and I wasnt expecting to.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Copa said:
The WCC in Australia is more like a fun festival of rugby league and people enjoy it but there’s no significant emotional investment.
It does show, however, there is a market for this type of thing even if fans aren’t as emotionally invested. It’s something to work with and develop.
Yup - it's quite a bizarre thing to focus on - "There may have been 32k paying customers there, but they didn't care about it!".
Customer's don't have to. I think we've spent far too much time over the decades worrying about this type of thing - and ignoring the fact that this is meant to be entertainment - if people are leaving their homes to attend, or watching on TV, then that is the point!
One of the things that we overcomplicate - Rugby League is an amazing sport - you put two quality teams together on a field and they will give it their all to win. We usually do end up with some very good games that people enjoy. Again, the whole point!
-
4
-
-
10 minutes ago, M j M said:
I wonder how much notice Sky need to give anyone when switching one of the games from the TV channel to the red button/app/whatever and vice versa. It seems a bit pointless them using one of their picks on Leeds vs Hull when Leigh vs Wakefield seems to be a much more attractive, and meaningful, game. Is it just a case of sending the decent cameras and crew and commentators to a different location (so mostly internal logistics) or do they have to advise SL they are doing it.
I suppose it is still really a battle for the LLS. I know it would be a real freak result for Catalans to win at Wigan, but if they did, Leeds can win it.
I suppose it's less important for them to get selection right at the moment, as they show them all anyway.
-
23 minutes ago, The Gardener said:
Sky showing how much they prioritise Rugby League.Tonights game on the red button, whilst on Sky sports mix which is also free to air on some outlets they are showing the Football league cup final from 2015
They are only allowed to show a set number of games on main channels.
This is explained literally every week.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, WN83 said:
I've not seen a figure put on it but Aaron Bower mentioned it was a 'much lower stake' than originally asked for in his headline on social media yesterday. It sounds like they'll get a percentage of something but if he's saying much lower, maybe something like 20%/25% but who knows.
Personally I think more money, for that same eventual 50% stake would've done the game more good in the longer term.
I think the 50% thing needs context around it for any of us to know whether it is good or bad.
And tbh, that's the case with all of this - because 50% of the current RLCom setup would likely have a very different value to say 25% of a new independent setup. As always, the devil is in the detail.
-
1 hour ago, Pulga said:
I'm not really arguing with anyone about this. It means almost nothing to Australian fans. Every Australian will tell you that. I don't think crowds tell the story (either way) as it's a novelty.
I don't like the view that it's meaningless to fans so I'm on the English side for this. I think the only remedy is SL's growth.
It did matter much more. I remember the Wigan v Brisbane games in the early 90s being big occasions but it has cooled a lot since then. Possibly linked to England not beating Australia since that same time.
Again, 'means nothing' is just an emotion. As long as it means enough for people to get off their backside and support it - which the evidence clearly shows that more watch these games than a regular SL or NRL game - then that is enough. People can't really argue with the data.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Pulga said:
I know it's insulting but it's true.
I love the WCC. I couldn't tell you if it means a lot to the players in Australia or not but to the fans in Australia it's about as prestigious as the All Stars game at the start of the season.
20 minutes ago, Trebian said:I am with you on WCC. I think there is huge potential in this game or certainly derivatives of it. It is to the shame of Aussie fans that they have never taken this game more seriously. Lets hope this is one of things that gets promoted more in this brave new world.
I think sometimes we overthink this stuff.
People don't need to care so much that they cry themselves to sleep when they lose the match.
In 2018, Melbourne got 19,062 fans in for their match - this was beaten only 3 times all year - one was their final match where they secured the Minor Premiership, one was their Playoff game.
In 2014 the Roosters attracted 32,481 fans versus Wigan. That was more than double their average crowd that year, and bettered only once for the match they secured the Minor Premiership.
We'll ignore Penrith's effort, as they don't seem to care one jot, on or off the field.
Whilst this is a tiny sample, it suggests there is something to work with. It doesn't need to be the most important show in town, it needs to be attractive, and the evidence is that it absolutely is.
-
5
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:
Not really been following this but from reading the above, what exactly are the ARL getting for £6,000,000 a year. Is it just some TV rights?
It looks like 50% was mentioned in the first offer (but nobody really knows what that 50% means - was it board seats, or full ownership, or was it 50% of commercial income, profit?).
This 50% wasn't mentioned in the 2nd offer (in the media) so there seems to be a leap that they have abandoned the ownership part. Which seems like a hell of a leap tbh.
-
23 minutes ago, EggFace said:
It's 50k not 51k as I stopped my subscription as it went from £22 a month (I think) 2 years ago to just under £40.
I think you were wise to cancel your 1,000 subscriptions tbh.
-
1
-
10
-
-
1 hour ago, Pulga said:
Wait, was the £6m a year for the NRL to buy into SL or was it the other way around?
Ah, another thing the NRL are doing that is used to criticise SL.
-
No excuses
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, dufftown1 said:
I think the fear with that bit, well certainly my fear, is that 'what works for SL' could be 'what works for the owners' or it could mean 'what works for the game'
With things like IMG we've seen something of a bait and switch and have been sold that outside experts are coming to do what's best for the game, and then the owners have rowed back, diluted it, and we've ended up with something thats just protects the owners and the status quo.
But the NRL have set their red lines.
-
Ehat's clear is the absolute disdain from many Aussies for the English game. Even some comments on here - the nerve of SL to try and get a deal that works for them - people are already changing their tone to this being bad.
The Aussie media are talking about rescue packages and saving SL.
Aussie fans on social media are angry that millions are being spent on a backwater comp in the UK and want the money spent on their heartlands (sound familiar).
This isnt an act of charity by the NRL, they know what they want out of it, even if they do remain tight-lipped.
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, Pulga said:
Blowing however many million dollars on an organisation that's controlled by self-interested clubs who won't budge on the very basics of modern sports entertainment.
But why would they do that if that was the case?
This is another case of people wanting it both ways.
Arent the ARLC are an excellent organisation with World Class leadership who wouldnt go near such a bad deal?
-
13 minutes ago, Pulga said:
Poor deal for the NRL. Look at what's happened with IMG. They have to continually water down their ideas to appease the clubs. You've got clubs like Huddersfield that are supposedly "A grade" clubs.
Could you imagine Huddersfield being in the NRL?
How could an agreement be made that could possibly be bad for the NRL?
They hold literally all the cards and dont need to get involved here.
-
3 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:
So the NRL pay £6m pa for the rights to games 4-7.
No longer a partnership/investment, then?
I just cant see how that could possibly be where we end up.
-
1 hour ago, Worzel said:
Nobody would be thanking either Peters or Burgess for running a full side this weekend, and then losing the play off match at the Halliwell Jones next weekend.
I'm a fan of not trying to be too clever.
We wouldn't lose because we run a full team.
Far too often we are seeing this now, we make mugs of fans, media and sponsors.
-
I do wish we'd take every game seriously. Far too often we are resting players in what should be the biggest games of the year.
It also happens in football too, so I get it, but I dont have to like it.
-
4
-
-
41 minutes ago, The Future is League said:
In your opinion is the RFL incompetent or competent?
Let's just say I am not a fan of the current setup at the RFL.
-
1
-
-
Just a thought - isn't that $57m offer lower than what was touted a week or two back?
-
11 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:
Looks like a screenshot from a CBBC show where they've got to get the horse off the pitch in time for the big kick off.
Don't give them ideas on how to make their sport more watchable.
-
5
-
-
Just now, dufftown1 said:
My solution to hundreds of pages ago was to swap things around and the NRL to swallow the global game with us taking a share of that so that everyone has a stake in everything which mitigates the idea that growth in one part is at the expense of another.
But its true. Lets say its an incredible roaring success and in 10 years time SL is at the NRL level, how does an SL owner justify giving the NRL £200m a year. You can argue they should be happy with getting a huge increase but its still a huge sum leaving the game here
I know it was floated at one point about exit clauses, which is workable by having buyback options i suppose, which can work for both organisations.
-
I despise this lazy narrative that SL is on it's death bed and is being saved.
For all the concern about owner investment, it shouldnt be ignored that in recent years the owners have actually started investing in growth initiatives more than ever. We've seen facilities, tech, entertainment, marquee player investments which are adding to the 'losses' that clubs are incurring.
The actual actions of the clubs and owners are not of people trying to reduce costs and balance the books. It's almost as if they accept that as owners they arent employees and that they are likely to need to spend money.
Of course, they should want the best central performance to grow the game, but I do think the losses are ultimately modest and conscious decisions by clubs and owners in the main.
-
8
-
-
10 minutes ago, dufftown1 said:
I do think the structure of the DAZN deal creates a bit of an opportunity to simplify it a bit but yeah, it's a tough thing to get right.
One thing to be wary of is, let's say things go well, we kick-start growth in this country and the comp grows substantially. Even if it is 10 years down the line there could be some substantial conflicts.
In a normal world this could be around international strategy, not unlike happened in the '10's but I think that has gone away by the NRL wrapping every other nation, including NZ up under their banner.
I suppose to many, that would be a relatively positive place to end up, if we are having healthy tension because we have grown!
Super League Dream Team 2026
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
On the surface it may look a bit odd, but despite Leeds blowing the last couple of weeks, they have been very good for most of the year. They have spent more time at the top of the league than the rest.