Dave T

That post started so well and then you seemed to lose all confidence I must admit, the last few times I've watched Salford the ground has looked less of an issue. Not sure if they've just worked out how to spread them around better

I think a lot of the debates at the moment are merging into one and getting slightly muddled, in between work I don't mind admitting to sometimes losing track of what we are even debating When I refer to heartlands only, I mean existing game, or maybe even a conservative approach - I think that's what people are advocating really rather than every penny or ounce of effort going onto m62 clubs. In reality I think it's geographical expansion vs not - my preference is we do it, but not some of the silly reckless stuff we have done in the past, which makes it easy for non-expansionists to strengthen their point. As with most things, we can probably apply at 80:20 model. Focus 80% on our core game and 20% on the exciting initiatives and we can't go too far wrong.

Based on where we are, the alternative is to run up unsustainable debts, which is what some other sports do, I'm glad we haven't done that. I do think we need to have cap increases linked to revenues, why would clubs vote for increases? I think linking a % spend to league revenues removes any decision making from this.

There are some annoying snippets in the article but I'm not sure the organisers really need this kind of squad notice. If it is for a real purpose the approach they are taking works just fine.

Re. Your last line, fair enough and I can understand your stance. I don't agree with it - but I also don't agree with a heartlands only approach, we've never done that as long as SL has been around and I expect we won't ever do it, but as long as there is growth available there it is still a reasonable idea to be tabled, and certainly does not automatically equate to going backwards.

I'd be surprised if you even need that tbh. 2 sets of posts should do it. I understood there was a quota at play.

Our facilities are better than ever. The vast majority of SL games are played in excellent grounds, which is a world of difference from pre-SL.

The reality is though that we don't have a load of fat cats sitting around giving money off treating players like 2nd class citizens. The reason we don't pay more is broadly because our revenues haven't increased. That is a failing, but is a reality - we can't just click our fingers and pay more. An area I'd like to see us focus is on being a responsible employer. Decent minimum/living wage, good conditions, good insurance, pensions etc. should be a base for players.

Aye, it's just where we are as a sport, we don't need to get our knickers in a twist over this.

Will scrapping the cap mean we can afford to pay them more?

Are you saying the game is as big as it can be where it currently exists? Because tbh you spend most days telling us how we are underachieving.

Investing in the existing areas doesn't have to mean doing the same things, you are putting your additional slant on that. @Tommygilf - of course there is a saturation point, I think we are miles away.

On point 2, the fact things are going the other way is surely the point this needs to be a focus. Focusing on being even is a poor strategy. It'd be vert easy to deliver 12 even poor clubs. The aim absolutely has to be bigger clubs.

Invest in heartlands absolutely does not equal going backwards. It might not be the best use of funds, but it is just factually wrong to state that its going backwards. Unless of course you think we are as big as we ever can be in those areas.

That seems high. Surely the correct answer is that we should pay players what we can reasonably afford to pay them. I'm not sure why a quarter of a million is the right number and 80k isn't.

We'd even lose to them this season.

What should they be on?

I suspect one of the things about the NRL rights are that 3 games per week are shown on terrestrial TV I believe, so many fans could get their RL fix without paying anything, so the price probably couldn't be too 'premium'

Have to say its poor form for the logo to be so similar - more to our mens SL logo. The font for Super League is very similar

Yes, or BetFred Rugby Super League Remember we added the word rugby to the logo a few years ago. That was quietly dropped and never really used well anyway.

Yes, agree with that, I think the risk is low, I just don't think the benefits are anything close to short term.

Is it though? There is zero commercial value in that. Now, I agree with you we should be doing it, and it's disgraceful that we have no plan, but the commercial opportunity looks miniscule and probably very, very long term. But, the sooner we start, the sooner we get there. So I agree we should do it, but not that it is low hanging fruit at all.

They will certainly have estimates around this kind of thing, but as they've never done what we are talking about, it'll be difficult to accurately predict. But in reality we are probably talking low tens of thousands, which is probably the level of planning that they need, they probably don't need to be too much more scientific than that in reality. But if you looked at my subscription history and viewing patterns, there is nothing that would tell them that if SL went, I go.

What they don't understand, and can't yet is where the tipping point is. Sky is only valuable to me with RL on there. I'd be happy to adapt my viewing habits on other sports that are secondary to me, but I wouldn't pay a fortune to watch them when I can get highlights on terrestrial TV. But they don't know that - and the only way they can learn it is by sacking RL for a year and tracking the results. What customers tell them is worth zip.