Dave T
-
Posts
47,878 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
334
Posts posted by Dave T
-
-
2 minutes ago, rugbyleaguerunner said:
Absolutely no point in appealing as he, by the letter of the law, has been rightly punished.
Either the law needs changing or referees need to show some backbone an penalise players feigning injury to wind down the clock.
Credit to Wigan for their letter of support
As an overall comment on this incident, I travel miles and miles watching Cas, sometimes getting home at well past 2am because I love the game, the club I support and I get pleasure from it. This incident alone, and it may seem over the top, has seriously made me question if I will continue to do so
Why didn't you question your support when other players were banned for it?
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:
Wigan's letter in support of Horne should have been the end of it. A warning not to touch players would have sufficed. The letter confirmed that Ellis wasn't injured. He got up and played the ball, with no trainer on the field. He was basically time wasting/feigning and looking to draw a reaction. Ellis, if anything, should be the one charged, for his unsportsmanlike conduct.
It can't work like that. What happens if next time somebody has a broken neck and the tackler decides to just lift them like a rag doll because they can't control their discipline?
-
9
-
-
13 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:
Six game ban for Horne, so all those who want to say the "game's gone" can do so, despite the previous bans issued for the exact same reason.
This is possibly the easiest thing not to get banned for.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Luke HKR said:1 hour ago, Luke HKR said:
Plus high profile errors like the ones I mentioned, and Saturdays are always going to be highlighted more. Than the decisions that are right (again Tom Davis try in the cup final, very few people knew that rule, but the ref and VR got it right).
This one became more interesting the other night though, and is probably a perfect example of the frustrations that fans, players and coaches have.
Tai fumbled a catch over his line versus Hull and then grounded it with the backs of his hands. The ref sent it up as a Try, and was overruled as the VR said it was intentionally grounded. Yet nobody grounds the ball intentionally with the backs of their hands.
There were a lot of similarities with those two incidents, both saw a #### up and then the body on the ball. One saw a decision of no grounding, one saw a decision of grounded. Both had been sent as a try from the ref. Neither was an orthodox grounding, and both followed an error.
We exacerbate the problem by ignoring some written rules, and then adding in interpretations of things that arent written. The Leeds disallowed try the other night just feels a weird decision instinctively.
I dont have an issue with the refs, as long as I've watched RL, fans have asked who the clown is that day, this isn't new, and people used to hate Whitfield, and others will still talk about #### ups from Russel Smith in 1994 or Ganson at Cardiff and so on.
But the governing body and the rulebook owners just dont help the refs imo when they have so much scrutiny. I'm a fan of simplifying things as much as possible (on the Wembley incident, I think you should have to use your hand/arms to ground it), I'd scrap this nonsense around regathering the ball with a full grip, why is that necessary?
I dont think the authorities give the refs a chance tbh.
And then we just see bad decisions like the Cas v Wigan one.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Hopie said:
When I say fuzzy I mean that its not as obvious as some on here would suggest, when you say "these things will drive a larger TV deal because we will have a larger, more diverse and more engaged audience that we can sell access to" that is jumping a step an making a large assumption.
The process might lead to a more diverse and engaged audience, and then it might drive a larger tv deal, but I'm yet to be convinced of that. As you say we are on a downward trend as a minority sport, All these are questions that make that step a bit more fuzzy than some would protest and what I would consider factors in value of the deal:
Evidence suggests our TV deal will go up if there is genuine competition for the rights, which hasn't been apparent for some time, if the rumoured DAZN interest comes about that may persuade some more money, but it could equally end up in a situation where we end up in a worse situation, like losing Channel 4 live terrestrial tv to end up on the BBC sport pages, and we can't walk away so we are not in a strong negotiating position with sky.
Will we offer more product/games to get more money, well it looks like sky don't really want the games that we have, even when they get them for cost they put them on streaming with no presentation around it, so I don't think 14 v 12 changes things, perhaps they may even decide to add a premium to the cost of filming the games they don't show on main channels if they don't get a return.
Who is this audience we are gaining? Are tv figures up because more people are watching or because the same people are watching more often. So will it drive more subscriptions? Are any new eyeballs from the key demographics that advertisers want? Our traditional viewer is one that blue chip sponsors aren't that interested in, and can be easier targeted now via other methods, so unless we attract the new audience again, why would tv companies pay?
More social media, again, depends on the quality of the interactions and if they are driving revenue. Twice as many views on twitter videos isn't a bad thing, but if it doesn't lead to any sales or brand loyalty then it won't fill the coffers for anyone, or demonstrate investment is a good idea.
Is superleague plus making enough money that they see a reason to takeover streaming as an exclusive in the UK? Nobody is shouting about this viewership so you have to suspect it is negligible.
To an extent, all you can do is improve your numbers and hope the outcomes follow.
Improving the numbers and getting skilled negotiators hopefully leads to that competition you refer to.
-
I must admit, I dont have too much of an issue with players speaking to the ref. Its up to the ref to manage that. Players absolutely used to talk throughout the match to the referees who are being held up as stricter from yesteryear.
-
1 hour ago, Dave T said:
I think this is spot on.
There is no magic formula here that says, if we do x, we'll get y. And this is why you need to do all the right things, best practice to get on board with the broadcasters, sponsors, investors.
I suppose the question then is do you have more faith in working with industry experts like IMG, or are you putting all your faith in an RFL that is under-resourced and under-funded?
To add further to this point, these comments are from Matt Dwyer (IMG) from his interview with Martyn Sadler 3 years ago:
"What is particularly attractive here is that there is a real willingness to want to bring in a partner to help them drive the next stage of growth in the game. That was probably a large part of the attraction for us, as was the strong realignment. We feel that the with the expertise of IMG and Endeavor, we are in an excellent position to be able to help the game grow."
"They have been down the path of private equity before and that is an incredibly topical conversation at the moment. But what they want from us is the skills and expertise that we bring in growing sports and growing revenue streams."
“IMG Media, where I sit, this is the part where we will look at the competition structure. We have our digital agency called Seven League, who will be doing the digital transformation of the league. Then we have the brand and marketing agency 160over90, which will be doing a lot of the re-imagining of the sport. What is unique to a company like IMG and the broader Endeavor is that we can bring that wide range of expertise to the table."
“In terms of the immediate needs, private equity funds is not what the game needs. They need the expertise to grow the game. Like any business, you want to sell your business when you can get the appropriate value for it. Super League flirted with the idea (of private equity) previously but they then realised that they don’t need funds to do what they need to do, but they do need expertise. Whether that will change going forward, I don’t know. We could have had an equity element like those examples, but that wasn’t what was needed. What the sport needs now is the biggest sports and entertainment company in the world providing its expertise."
-
7
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:
I don't think it's necessarily fuzzy, but this is the element of the unknown in this whole process.
There is a perfectly logical argument to be made that "these things will drive a larger TV deal because we will have a larger, more diverse and more engaged audience that we can sell access to". That's not to be sniffed at and it's precisely the sort of thing that broadcasters and sponsors are looking for.
I think this is something that was absolutely necessary to go through, because it felt that over the years, SL stakeholders felt that the TV deal should keep growing "just because", with no real focus on how we go about adding even more value to Sky (or anyone else).
But that doesn't happen in a vacuum, and one of the big elephants in the room is that across the board, sports that aren't the main sport in their respective countries are struggling to attract greater TV deals as the pay-TV business model evolves.
I think this is spot on.
There is no magic formula here that says, if we do x, we'll get y. And this is why you need to do all the right things, best practice to get on board with the broadcasters, sponsors, investors.
I suppose the question then is do you have more faith in working with industry experts like IMG, or are you putting all your faith in an RFL that is under-resourced and under-funded?
-
4
-
-
2 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:
And clubs fiddling with those plans, so not everything can be blamed/credited to IMG.
They've created a boogeyman in IMG.
Its not coincidence that grading is always referred to as IMG Grading, whereas the really positive streaming platform is never badged as IMG's streaming platform.
The branding on Grading is RFL and RLCom, as it should be.
-
7
-
-
53 minutes ago, phiggins said:
Some clubs will undoubtedly have wanted that. But it seems unlikely that all clubs will have been so naive. Yet no club seems willing to be an advocate of them.
Vegas and Ashes happening independently of them was probably the writing on the wall. Unfortunately, Wood was appointed to these positions, and not Danson or Moran.
A problem here though is that the clubs have never advocated for anyone.
They remain critical of Sky Sports. They've always been critical of the RFL. They abandoned their first SLE breakaway. They have been critical of IMG. They abandoned their 2nd SLE breakaway.
And then we come onto tactical initiatives. They weren't happy with their decision to adopt licensing. They weren't happy with their decision to adopt S8's. And now here we are, unhappy with the decision to adopt grading by the looks of where we are heading.
Have they ever gone into any partnership or new governance model and been happy with it? I can't think of one example where they have been happy with something that they have implemented.
-
3
-
-
52 minutes ago, phiggins said:
But there is a middle ground between a leap of faith, and a prescribed formula.
For example, have any of the recommendations in the reimagined project, e.g. centralised operations, been planned, costed and feasibility investigated? Have they communicated any details of what would put them in a better negotiating position with broadcasters for any of the next two TV deal cycles? They said London and France were key growth areas. Have they said anything of what that means and what can be done to realise that?
There are of course no silver bullets. But there can be a vision and a plan to achieve that. I'd say that IMG have either not come up with, or articulated that vision / plan. Of course, some of that may have been the responsibility of RLCom. And to be honest, the biggest surprise of Nigel Wood's new position was that it existed in the first place, with the first many hearing of Slevin was when he departed.
Clubs are pretty well far removed from perfect, but it looks like the client / stakeholder management from IMG has been poor.
Maybe the leap of faith point was too clumsy a description. There can absolutely be numbers associated with principles to show the size of the prize.
Personally I just dont see these gaps that you call out. The reimagining RL document does outline the vision and what they are aiming for.
They have outlined the plan. A key part of that plan was to drive up standards of clubs so that you can increase number of clubs from a position of strength. That's being undermined now.
They have laid out what the plan is, with some exceptions, but this does come back to it being a 12 year deal and not a 12m piece.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, phiggins said:
Is that really the only reason it is being torn up? I may have missed something, or forgotten something. But I've not heard a single club express any praise or confidence in IMG in the last year to 18 months. I think if they had laid out a plan to the clubs that would lead to income being generated within a particular timeframe, then Johnson would still be RFL chair, until the end of the season anyway.
The problem here though is that's an impossible ask.
There isn't a formula here that says "invest £x in ad boards and a big screen and by the end of 2026 you'll have doubled your commercial income".
We are dealing in principles somewhat here. The activities that have been recommended have an element of a leap of faith about them. Its about smartening ourselves up, putting on our best show so that when we sell ourselves we look better and more attractive.
If there was a set formula to this stuff, you ultimately wouldn't need this partnership. But its about presenting as best in class and staying ahead of the latest developments to unlock the most value.
This approach can be challenging for people. Ive made the point about there not being a silver bullet, its about doing the small things right consistently. A big part is controlling the narrative and presenting ourselves in a really positive way, yet we have a fanbase that is inherently negative, club owners who won't give anyone credit for anything and want everything on a silver platter, and then we have journos who will focus on things like gantry size to mock IMG.
I do rather think we have to grow up a bit in RL. Its all similar to the years we've spent mocking the catering at Union events, or laughing that the off field is better than the on field. We spent so long focusing on shot clocks, and 40 twenties that we have been left behind and look like a tired outdated sport in some areas.
-
4
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:
Really? You seemed to think that paying players in lower leagues was a waste of money.
Any debate about SL numbers has a direct impact on Championship and L1 and all the other points. With no "lower leagues" SL would be stuck with Salford or do you think they could be replaced by an NCL side?
Why do you keep making up things?
You really should try quoting people instead of lying.
-
12 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:
Maybe we should be questioning fitzgibbon, he's becoming a bit of a liability
Yes. I tend to agree. Its probably less about questioning him as such, he was an outstanding signing at first, but his body looks done. He seems to get badly hurt in many matches now, and its always surprising that he then comes back on or manages to play on.
-
32 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:
Otherwise known as overpaying retiring Aussies some of whom can barely be arsed to play. So SL couldn't survive without ageing Australians?
Without the "lower leagues" you'd be stuck with Salford next season or shrinking the M62 League to 11 clubs...
I'm not too interested in the debate on lower leagues, but I find the disdain people have for paying players to be a bit weird.
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:
And wonder how many £millions have been wasted over last 30 years on boosting the retirement funds of ageing past their best players from Down Under.....?
Otherwise known as paying players to put on the SL comp that Sky pay millions for.
-
1
-
-
Plenty of acts not for me, but I absolutely love Glasto coverage each yeah, and other festivals too tbf. Quite a few beers last night up late watching random stuff.
Neil Young ain't for me, but we loved watching Biffy, and Scissor Sisters was a lot of crazy camp fun, the atmosphere looked amazing there.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Fly-By-TheWire said:
The jury’s out, but to be fair to Burgess he took over a
-show (albeit one with a couple of star players) and took them to a final (narrow defeat) and a league semi (narrow defeat) and finished the season with the best attack and defence. Not bad for his very first season as a coach. How he responds to the current ‘crisis’ might give a better indication of capability.
I do feel he’ll go on to do some good things in the NRL though.
Yeah, that's where my head is, he is in credit right now, but I'm not sure whether he has the skills to deliver the strategies needed for the kind of.scenarios we are in. He does make a hell of a lot of changes when one may do.
-
14 hours ago, Loiner said:
Derek after last week. Slightly embarrassing can't imagine Hetherington or McManus, Lenegan doing what he did. But you have to love his enthusiasm and dedication. Leigh played some fantastic rugby by the way, a pleasure to watch.
Wasn't there an incident with McMannus a few years back where he was drunk and had his trousers down at a sponsors/commercial event, or have I dreamt that? Apologies if it wasn't him.
-
I dont think they are better or worse, and im not sure a comparison needs to be made.
However I have a lot of sympathy with his frustration around the video decision. Smith didn't go for the ball, tackled a player when he had no right to do so, the ref called it out and then decided its fine. I think he was bang wrong.
I also share GJ's frustration around the state of the rulebook and this ongoing tweaking of interpretations.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Fly-By-TheWire said:
Small steps, but barring a minor miracle (which I think would have to include at least Walker back in the team) I can't see higher than 7th personally. We look an entirely different team to last year, even with a first-choice 13 on the field.
1 hour ago, ELBOWSEYE said:Is basically not as good especially in the pack.
Interestingly, when you look at the performances this year, when we've had our core spine (im classing this as Dufty, Williams and Walker) we have won 4 of 6 games. Without that spine we have won 3 of 10 matches (in the league).
A problem is that we went into the season with inadequate provision at 7, which we've fixed up now, but we've used 6 different halfback combinations across 2025, three different hookers, a handful of fullbacks, and our three quarter line is all over the place.
Now, im not convinced by Burgess, and we do need to be far more resilient in adversity, but I must admit to being a little more understanding of our performances.
I find some of the analysis a bit basic. On Sky last night they basically just said we aren't trying hard enough, and sometimes that's how it can look when things are going poorly, but I dont see it as effort. I think we are getting no consistency and are all over the place structure-wise. One of the examples Sky showed last night was Fitzgibbon not trying hard enough, and I'm not sure that's something I'd ever level at him. I think he is bust, and I'm surprised he's still playing, but never lack of effort.
-
1 minute ago, Ullman said:
Thought there were some very good signs for Warrington today. I'll be very surprised if they're not in the mix come the play-offs.
I fear the damage may be done mate
-
3 hours ago, Dave T said:
Wire by 14.
Nailed it.
-
1
-
-
Really frustrating to lose to Hudds last week, particularly after seeing how they went down to Catalans.
Good win today, but need to back it up.
Danny McGuire
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
You can of course choose to do whatever you want with your time, and if you dont like the sport, it is definitely time to move on and do something else. But this just smacks of sulking because something has gone against your team.