Dave T

Meh, you can't read much in written tone. If I was uppity with you I wouldn't engage in discussion. Challenging views is different. I would also add, that you came on to support a certain posters views who had posted a lot of views which you then claimed to disagree with before you posted in support. So that mix up wasn't without reason. It's probably easier to just highlight individual offending posts, because while I've not read everything here, I haven't really seen anything that looks too offensive. It should be remembered that Keary's comments are not in isolation, we've also had Richardson and Solly and more telling anyone who'll listen how bad the sport is here. Plus a new breed of fans who have started posting here on this topic driven by these high profile comments.

I suppose the challenge is that this isn't an isolated comment. Even in a discussion the other day I was just dismissed as an old man who fears change on here. Any hint of disagreement is arrogantly met with "you guys don't get it". The backlash is not out of nowhere.

People are happy to criticise the game over here and discuss it's challenges, that's pretty much what this board is all about. But when you make comments as basic, stupid, insular and arrogant as Keary did then I don't think it is unreasonable for people to react as they did. The reality is, for all its flaws, RL is very important to many people, it's a key part of some people's lives, they love it, and for somebody to disrespect it in the way Keary did is extremely offensive. If you go public and your point is that our product (of which we are all fans) is horrendous, then you deserve all the stick you get. Had he talked about challenges around exposure and leadership, he would probably have had a lot of nods, but when you describe it as horrendous and on it's knees and make harmful statements about partners etc then expect a backlash.

This was the problem when cutting costs was presented as a solution, it wasn't really, they were past that stage. The only solution was a takeover, they thought they had secured that.

It's not just based on that. We've met some too.

I've no issues in the slightest with disagreements tbh, it's one of the interesting things about this forum, even people I'm broadly aligned with here we have huge variances in opinion, all part of the fun.

In a season where we've broken the weekly records, had some brilliant crowds, seen a great event in Vegas, heading for a great Magic Weekend, sold out Two Ashes Tests in record time and enjoyed some great Rugby - it is bizarre that the only media we are getting is about people telling us that the game in the UK is horrendous.

I'll now try and calm down and add some balance to my view of our Aussie friends There are plenty of people who care about RL worldwide including in GB. Keary comes across as a tool, but I think we have some fabulous players running round the league who are contributing greatly to SL at the moment, are professional and seem to be loving and embracing this phase of their career. Similarly there are plenty of good fans - I enjoy many of the discussions here, and whilst I disagree with plenty of views of the likes of Sports Prophet, I also disagree with many views from people born just up the road from me in the next town, so it's all good. But there is little smart, intelligent, nuanced or forward thinking from some of the people with the loud voices at the moment, and it's right that their views get challenged.

Anyone coming over and being horrified by the lack of coverage is simply showing their own ignorance. It's not new news that RL in England is a minor sport in comparison to RL in Oz. Things are not the same in every country - if people don't understand that, well, it sort of says a lot about them really.

What people like Pulga and a couple of others here are blind to is their own arrogance. Basically, if you dare to disagree with the criticism that is coming from everywhere in Oz then you are a backward inward looking luddite. There is no discussion or debate - you either agree with them or you are dismissed. That is the kind of arrogance that is often referred to here that the same people then seem offended at being labelled with. This forum has a broad range of views, but I'd describe it as a progressive one compared to many other groups of RL fans - there is plenty of intelligent discussion around the issues the game face, and whilst there is often disagreement about the solutions and way forward, there is rarely a fear of change presented here. But basically - it doesn't matter whether you are an expansionist, supportive of IMG, want a revolution etc - if you disagree that UK RL is horrendous and in need of Aussie saviours then you are arrogantly dismissed.

That isn't what he says. You've added bits to make his rant credible.

In my 40 years watching Rugby League, this hate campaign from Australian experts, fans, pundits, administrators, media is worse than anything I've seen. IMO this is worse than the hatred from Rugby Union bods. This is Stephen Jones-esque but on a larger scale.

Indeed. Much of the description he uses of SL could be to describe his stint so far. Although I suspect most wouldn't even have noticed enough to have such a strong view as you suggest.

Is there any other sports that hates itself so much?

I'm not going to disagree with them on this one.

Well the only documented proposal (Richardson's) says that Tests would be end of season only (although he very generously says England can play if they want, but without the NRL players), and we'd all have a year off in every four. So his proposal is for fewer internationals than now alongside a smaller club comp.

I don't want to disagree too hard on what is a positive point, but I don't think I come to the same conclusion here. New clubs have formed under previous strategies, so there is nothing that suggests that this is a direct result of the strategy. Although I do support the strategy, so as I say, I won't disagree too hard here!

Absolutely - but they don't also have the other challenges of having no grassroots, being on the other side of the world, and huge cost challenges. I was all for allowing Argyl to spend his money, and would still say yes if another investor came along tomorrow - but I think a) we need to be smarter and b) accept that there is a high risk of failure.

I'm not convinced we have ever used a huge amount of central resources to save clubs, I think that's overstated. Probably at best we have seen advances of central funding and the odd securing of assets, which have value. But whilst acknowledging the unfriendly environment, it does rather bring us back to the idiocy of how we do things. TWP weren't really a thing. They were just a rich man's plaything - as seen by their inability survive him walking away. There was no foundations, no grassroots or worth, no membership to a governing body, weird employment structures which will always leave ventures like this vulnerable. It's probably a case study in how not to incorporate a new club into a comp. And all that is a shame, because it was also probably a case study in how to set up and grown an audience in a brand new market. Clubs being guests is just too problematic. I'd rather we embed them into our game fully, or not at all.

For all the talk of SL not wanting them (and I absolutely agree with the hostile environment point), TWP were admitted and playing in SL. They left the comp during the pandemic (probably unavoidable financially) and a new random guy came knocking on the door with a briefcase of deodorant asking to be let in (and on more favourable terms).

Spot on with the contradictions point! I suspect they just see Nigel Wood as tougher and more abbrasive when it comes to protecting them than the pragmatic Johnson is. Time will tell!

Yeah, that feels like a really minor point and I still don't see why it makes the value increase. If you are prepared to pay a premium for having both, well, you can do that right now tbh. The potential benefit for SL here is that if the desire is there from the NRL leaders to spend money on SL, they could easily inflate the value of SL as part of any future deal (claim that of a $600m per annum TV deal, $60m was for SL) - which IIR is something that was done as part of the £200m SL deal when Wood was in charge to allow ringfencing of funds in certain directions. But that does bring us back to the point of why would the NRL do that? It does rather move us into Sugar Daddy territory.

Obviously this is all guesswork, but I think the RFL would be looking to keep themselves at the table and relevant in the face of yet another SLE breakaway. I don't think they would be driving this, and I don't think they would be pushing the proposals that are mentioned, but if SL is going to breakaway (again) then the RFL needs to negotiate its position, as it is ultimately the governing body for RL in this country and there is more to that than SL. I get the impression that Johnson was more pragmatic than many wanted, particularly when there would be an awful lot of clubs who are at risk of being excluded (whether that is from SL or even the 2nd/3rd tier). The one that I struggle to follow is Eamonn McManus, but then I struggle to follow what he stands for anyway to be honest as he is happy to change his mind and flip flop.

I agree with your last paragraph. It's your first paragraph that makes little sense to me. We are talking two tv deals. SL and NRL. A worldwide broadcaster could wrap those together themselves really easily with zero effort.

We've gone from weekly hatchet jobs on IMG and a direct hotline to DB to radio silence in just a few weeks.