Dave T

That does bring us back to the S8's though that brought us record investment from Sky but was scrapped because the likes of Cas complained that the crowd for the 2nd game against Saints was down by 1k for example. There is a balance to be had here. I don't think there is much that suggests a team in Scotland and Wales brings TV value, although there is maybe a common sense approach that says wider geographical footprint should lead to higher figures, but I'm not sure that translates into extra millions. The point about crowds is that they bring in more money, present a more vibrant comp and allow for more competitive clubs to deliver a better TV product for Sky to want to buy. Internationals - absolutely agree, but tbh I think IMG will focus on the Southern Hemisphere teams here, although I do think France will remain a project here.

Yep, I agree, and that is where these things can often become difficult to quantify and get buy in. In my day job, it can sometimes be difficult to justify certain changes financially, but they are just the right thing to do, but when we are potentially talking huge amounts of money to deliver it becomes challenging. Perception works both ways as well here, we need to be careful of reckless top down expansion that just fails again. We need to put the right framework in place to have the best chance of success. I'm always on board with geographical expansion, but I just wonder whether getting a 10k club (a basic measure of a big club) in Scotland would be more valuable to the game than a 10k club in say, Newcastle. Catalans helps the image of SL greatly imo, they tick very many boxes, but we've still struggled to monetise their presence. A realistic aim should be to put on good looking TV events every weekend - at the moment we have too many events that look uninteresting.

Does the NRL have an equivalent? Watch nrl is for international viewers. How do Aussies get access to every game? Would it be via fox?

My personal opinion here is that with a 12y partnership they would be looking at things with far quicker returns than those places. France feels like the best opportunity and the UK TV deal, and then strengthening top class international events. Like I say, getting 12+ 10k crowd sized clubs is a good aim, but I think that doesn't matter where it is - we should go with the easiest place to deliver them. The places mentioned have modest RU clubs, I'm not sure we will build bigger RL clubs than them, in the short term at least.

I suppose the question that needs answering is would there be any real commercial value in having a Scottish, Irish and Welsh team in the league? Even if we got a relatively decent presence in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Dublin, I wonder whether that would really move the dial on commercial value. It certainly feels like the right thing to do instinctively, but we do already have TV deals in these territories anyway. I think maybe the objective is how we get 12+ strong teams, maybe geographical focus is a secondary consideration - although saturation may suggest that focusing on these areas is the way of getting 12+ big clubs.

The problem is that in reality, the number of people that would be interested or have the time to watch 20 odd games a month would be tiny. The benefit comes from the fact that you can always watch your team, but again, many fans would be going live so that benefit reduces. I'd struggle to see many pay more than £15 per month tbh

Salary cap is not worth discussing as we have no idea what any of them are paid, but in terms of overseas, in our last game we had only 2 overseas players, so we have some space there.

Seems a pretty big risk to move Ratch and Widdop on and use Dean who we have put on loan in the Championship? If he was in the plans for next year wouldn't we have let him get experience this year with us?

Am I missing something obvious, who will be our half with Williams?

I read it as the poster (without speaking for them) would rather see an investor route funds into say, Bradford, rather than say, Birmingham. I don't think that's too controversial, even if you and I don't agree with that approach.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. It may lack ambition, sexiness and be unrealistic, but the premise of investing in heartlands is not completely crazy. But, I do disagree with Steve's post - people should be encouraged to invest in RL in whatever way, and whatever place they see fit. Sure we should nurture and direct that, but I want people investing in growing RL all over the country, both heartlands and beyond.

I always bang on about the boring stuff, but that is what is needed. We need processes and governance (and a strategy) in place for all things. We constantly wing it when it comes to expansion, P&R, central funding, broadcasting etc. I've no issues with them doing stuff in a way different to what I'd do, but they absolutely should know what they are trying to do, and I don't think they do. At all.

Yup. It fes like we found a template, then forgot all about how we did it!

On the flip side there are some leagues that insist you pay a huge fee to join the party, so I'm not sure it's as black and white as giving them every advantage. Lbut we should be clear on our approach up frobtm

Existing customers would absolutely be expected to form part of the market. Of course that isn't to say its for everyone, and a key objective of something like this would need to be to attract new fans for it to make any sense.

Yeah, I think at international level it could be used like the old World 7s. Being able to mix top nations and emerging nations in one tournament has an appeal.

Each to their own, but I broadly agree (we will be told its not for us- but I see no market opportunity personally). I think there is a place for it internationally, like the old World 7s where the opportunity of getting developing nations is great.

I think we have done so poorly at expansion that it is difficult to write it off or say it can work. I think we've seen enough glimpses to see something, but in general the foundations are so shonky that they just can't survive any kind of shock, and that leads to our huge failures. I do think France with at least some foundations in place should be the main focus, while strengthening strategies around grassroots in major population centres.

Yes, and I suppose that has been touched on here with the comparisons between The Hundred and a 9s comp. Whilst I think 9s is a no no - there is a place, but not as a game changer - it would be interesting to see whether something like that could work. A series of Magic-style festivals with new regional teams taking over a city each weekend for a month could be interesting. I think the huge challenge is that yiu would probably be building on almost non-existent foundations. It also wouldn't have too much presence in the actual city (1 week a year) but would be more made for TV and a few events.

Good Post. I think people underestimate how difficult it would be to get the kind of paying subscribers that you quote there.

I'm broadly the same, I would keep Sky for RL, but it is the multi product element that works for me. I enjoy other 'entertainment business products' such as F1, Football, Football etc. If RL ever left Sky I would have to seriously consider though as its the bundle that makes me pay the money I do.

I think this is the risk of when we name our Fantasy structure and Newcastle, London, York, Bradford are thrown in. The risk is that these are weak and bumble along at the bottom. The worst version of these clubs is 1.5k fans rattling around getting battered (probably Bulls as the exception). Of course potential should be factored in, but there is a challenge around turning that into reality, something that we haven't managed with London, and even Branson walked away from as a money pit.

I think this is broadly right. That isn't to say I see no value in expansion clubs, there is a very valid argument that the more big clubs we have, playing in front of big crowds, with more money to spend on better players, then that should translate into higher profile and viewing figures. But I think that has to be driven by the sport and not the broadcaster. The best approach is the sport present a clear vision that benefits them and the broadcaster and getting them to help fund it - which let's be honest was what Nigel Wood did with his record TV deal. I think this is what IMG will be focusing on - getting a strategy that shows why Sky (or another) should invest in RL and not just pay minimum TV rights, which is probably where we sit now.

Happy to accept some truth in the work point, but I also expect as with fans these things are blown out of proportion and context. I'm not sure how RL training works, but based on what you see on social media, it doesn't look like they have 9 to 5 jobs, which does give time for other activities. The three named have been some of our best (and fittest) players over the last few years, including last season. So I would expect that if players are doing other things, there is plenty of opportunity to do so without it being intrusive. These things were never mentioned before. But, it is Powell's prerogative to change this approach, and its right that he gets control - the one risk is that coaches do come and go based on a few results here and there, maybe he is making that impossible to happen as he has tore the squad up and is half way through a rebuild?

Good to see you focusing on the hot issues David.