Dave T

Yeah, it doesn't bother me tbh, obviously there are issues with quality, although the one thing I've bought from them is excellent. But having a monthly release or so isn't really a problem, I'm not sure why people see it as an issue.

I know I'm an outlier, but I think there's a pretty nice range of gear there. Had they launched all of these in one go at the start of the year nobody would bat an eyelid, but this is a decent sales tactic of having new launches regularly to create a buzz. Plus, all the references to 50% off is nonsense and is a bit of a myth, none of the stuff they have released this year is sitting in the sale section of this - it's an urban myth that they release something and it's half price a few weeks down the line.

I'm a bit of a broken record on this point, but RL has a strong history of agreeing to bold changes and trying new things - possibly far more than many other sports in the UK. Protectionism is often labelled at the clubs, but tbh we have voted to: - relegate clubs - artificially elevate teams to higher divisions - implement salary caps - move the season to summer - admit overseas teams to the UK structure - offer protection from relefation - scrap auto p&r - implement licensing - implement Super 8's All of the above have lovers and haters, winners and losers in them all. The big problem we have had has been around implementation of them. The majority of them have been implemented poorly, and this goes back to my point about poor leadership. Under Richard Lewis we had sensible leadership with some of the more exciting initiatives, for example Catalans was delivered well - the one time this has worked and we have never repeated the process. I don't think ideas and recommendations is the most important thing here - there are hundreds of different things we could do, I think the biggest value they could bring would be the expertise in actual delivery and implementation and that could include securing the funding. So, history tells us that we aren't afraid of making difficult decisions and changes - but history does tell us that we normally implement these things poorly. That is going to be key during the next few years. We need to be delivering to a high quality, otherwise even good ideas will be thwarted.

Correct. If the NRL genuinely wanted to support the world game, they would put their full support behind IRL. For the RFL's faults, they have been a key driver in wanting proper governance around the world game and that is the right thing to do.

Agreed with all of that.

Such memorable facts like "1 - the first Mw in July" Ace. Infographics are not really known for their interest I suppose, and it's nice that we featured on this email. But as highlighted, little to really sell it. Apart from the Saints v Wigan Derby fact there is nothing about the actual matches.

I'm with Virgin Media and Magic Weekend was featured on their email today, including this infographic: https://www.thinglink.com/scene/1600899772607102977

I think there is something to enkoy in all of the games. Apart from Wire. Obvs.

I've agreed with everything you've said so far, but I dont wholly agree with this point. Of course RL should be creating the narrative, but it is also part of your broadcasting partners role to sell the product. But they aren't going to take that on without your input. Your last line is interesting - because its not one I recognise - whilst some broadcasting may have been brought in house, I don't think it's as many as is made out - but the BBC will heavily promote Wimbledon on their terms, Sky and BT will do the same for football etc. Whilst there will be content created selling stories from the game, in reality the real eyeballs are on the live events which have agendas set by broadcasting partners. An example of this being apparent is the way RL (and other sports) are covered quite differently across broadcasters. Of course none of that is to suggest that we shouldn't be setting the agenda and driving the narrative. None of it is an excuse to sit sulking and claim partners are not interested.

In this case we agree - I was addressing the proposal that the NRL run the world game. I agree about the resentment point, it makes little sense, the Aussies are the biggest RL nation in the world, we need to work with them as we have done for over a century.

There are a couple of issues with this approach. 1. It is simply poor governance. Adopting this approach would not be learning a thing from the past. The single biggest failing this sport has is poor governance, in pretty much every place it is played. Without fail. It is terrible governance to allow a national governing body to control the world game - nobody should ever think that is a good idea. 2. The NRL have never demonstrated skills of delivering great international RL. Despite all of the advantages the game has in Oz the 4N have always been pretty much the same as what we deliver in the UK, and the biggest and best World Cups have been staged in the UK. This despite the apparent gulf in money and talent. The Aussies can support growth of the world game through the IRL and partnerships with other governing bodies. They don't need to own the sport to grow it. Any talk of owning it is purely based on commercial greed.

If you are comfortable with him claiming the IRL have been a mess - then maybe we need to answer the question of why that is? All governing bodies need to feed into the IRL to make it work. The RFL and ARL have to work hardest at making it work. The other governing bodies are so insignificant that in reality the IRL is a reflection of the RFL and ARL's efforts.

Yeah I think they could land in a few different places on it though. I'd be surprised if it remains in its current form.

Disappointingly, I first read that as Alex Scott and took your post as a positive. Then I realised.

I've just bought tickets for Sweden v Portugal at Leigh taking my young daughter. She's really looking forward to it and actually asked to go to a football match.

Something I find interesting about myself and my relationship with RL is the value I put on my no. 1 past time. I have spent £115 watching a football game, £250 for a gig, £450 on a michelin star meal for 2, my bucket list will see me go to a major Euro F1 event in hospitality spending thousands - yet I am hesitating paying £50 for a World Cup ticket for the opener. That isn't me being 'tight' it is an embedded behaviour based on the perceived value of RL events being way behind all these other forms of entertainment. I'll end up buying tickets, but I'm hardly chomping at the bit to snap them up. I can't fully explain or understand it tbh.

I agree. There isn't any kind of narrative attached to teams. I think we (along with Sky, BBC, Premier and C4) could be a little more provocative with the presentation of our teams and games and then battles they have. We tend to just putbthe game there - without selling the narrative. I think this reflects on the league table, I don't know whether others do this, but I almost ignore the league table, I'm not actually sure who is sitting where in the top 3, yet this weekend at Magic feels like it should be a key game in that battle for the first spot. I love the Grand Final, but I dont think we need to go fully NFL with the lack of real importance on the ladders. I do think there is an argument for spicing up some of the rivalries, telling the stories better. As you say, the battle at the top and bottom has real stories there. What about that 6th spot, who is chasing that?

We also need to look past IMG being a consultant. That is a negative portrayal of what they do. A lot will depend on the terms agreed, but IMG are a huge company under their Endeavor umbrella and they actually deliver stuff, not just views. For example IMG have delivered Premier League Productions for over 15 years now and have just renewed their deal. From the little we know so far, this doesn't look like a consultancy, they are providing actual services.

I'll ignore the bats**t crazy idea that Sadler has already identified the solution. No disrespect to Martyn, but his idea is wacky and not far off click bait to drive discussion here. It's really easy to twist things to tell whatever story you want. Whilst it is right that SL has only 4 winners, we could easily present it in a more positive way. Since the start of SL: 4 Grand Final Winners 9 different Grand Finalists 8 different League Leaders Shield winners 8 Challenge Cup winners 13 different Cup Finalists

I almost tagged you in on this as I think your posts on this are always a perfect counter to BP's big city obsession. Agree with the above 100%. I really feel we ignore a whole aspirational population. I am working class, son of a homemaker and a bricklayer. I am very different to my parents, I have a differebt outlook on life, I want different things, but I feel the game still caters for them and not me. Within Warrington and surrounding areas (and all the other towns we are present in) we have populations who are not interested in the cheapest beer, the bargain basement experience, the working class image that we play up to. That is a valid segment that we do serve, but I dont think we play much outside of that segment. Expansion could easily be focused on expanding our customer base. We feel we are big in Warrington and Wigan, but I'd argue we are big in certain segments in Warrington and Wigan.

Indeed, it's the insularity point I was making, the geography point could have been anywhere. Its more that we need to be present in France, in London, around the UK.

Yes, for me this has been a real shortcoming of UK leadership. They've invited French teams to the party but expect them to manage the development of the whole game in France, including sponsorship and media rights etc. The fact that the SLE website does not convert to French is a perfect example of how we haven't embraced France into SL. I hope IMG recognise that our leadership structure needs to be thinking bigger than they are and not just hanging around West Yorkshire and Salford.

Agreed with all that. BP has become a bit of a one trick pony, but it's an interesting discussion, and it's why I'm so interested in the game focusing on the right things rather than vanity projects that maybe sound nice on paper. If we think about wanting big city teams, during SL, we have tried adding Paris, Gateshead (Newcastle), London, Wales, Catalans, Toronto and Toulouse. On paper that is quite a list of expansion projects in 25 years - but they have failed due to poor leadership and how they were done. Similarly, if its as easy as just having big city teams, as you suggest it becomes a bit hollow - we haven't seen Basketball, Ice Hockey, NFL Europe etc smash it just by using big city teams, even with Castleford and Leigh we have richer top leagues than those comps. It's too simplistic to say big city teams are needed. We can deliver growth even with the current teams there.

I think there is a real challenge around monetising the game in France. I don't think there are any guarantees that we will be able to tap into millions of Euro for rights and sponsorship there. I think we are miles off having any kind of effective French/European strategy though, so imho we are making a difficult job almost impossible. Toulouse has been utterly underwhelming, and whilst we can bicker about scheduling, they just haven't done a good job, some things within their control, some outside, but for something that should have been very exciting and an opportunity to start to change things, it has limped along. Its the same with London Broncos when they were last in. We need to think carefully about whether this is how we want it to be or whether we think there is a better approach. But in reality, better approach will lead to controversial topics such as if and how P&R is done, how expansion teams are funded, what support they should be given etc. I do think Catalans have been in SL for more than long enough now for us to see that commercial benefits are limited with them in SL, so if we are wanting to focus on commercial income, some things will need to be done differently, because with the current approach, I suggest we will just continue to bumble along and having to pay for channels to show our comp. We may need to take a gamble, but a gamble needs some basis in reality, the wild claims of attracting huge TV deals from Europe or North America need to be tempered - and in the flip side we need to start judging expansion on far wider remits than whether a millionaire can get a good team together, it's about increasing the fanbase, sponsors, player pool, media coverage, perception, international standards etc.

In reality there are quite a lot of root causes, I suppose it depends how far back we want to go and how wide we want to think. But, IMO, the main root cause of why we underperformed (let's wrap it as that), is due to fundamentally poor leadership and weak governance that hasn't allowed the game to make the right decisions. Not having a team in Birmingham is an outcome of this, not a root cause. Without resolving leadership and governance challenges we will never maximise our potential. And that isn't to ignore expansion, great leadership wouldn't have messed about with silly things like PSG, they'd have had proper vision for growth and implemented initiatives properly.