Dave T

Broadly, I *think* I agree - but I do also quite like the alternate shirt being a bit out there too. As an older fan I prefer Wire kits to look like a Wire kit, and would generally follow the approach of the NRL clubs there - however, then when I think about it, some of my favourite Wire kits are the red and green, and red and black shirts that we've had, so that contradicts my view. I'm not a fan of the random colours of the away shirt this year, but I think they have targeted a far younger demographic than me.

Whilst I don't agree with every word of your post, I agree in large part. I think this has been IMG's biggest mis-step and I do wonder how much of that is due to the governance and the fact that they just couldn't get a closed shop signed off. Ignoring personal preference, I think there is a clear argument that P&R is bad. The problem is that this solution doesn't address that. This doesn't remove the shock of relegation, or the uncertainty - things that are always quoted as issues - in fact you could argue that the uncertainty has been increased and you could easily see multiple clubs relegated. I think if the decision was taken to keep P&R, then there were more sensible ways of doing it - ways that could still prevent really weak clubs making it into SL. What I would say, is that in reality, we should end up with a place where many clubs just have the standard points (finances, attendances, facilities etc.) and in effect they are your minimum standards - if you don't have these, you won't overtake a club and make it - but the system does feel overly-complicated. I actually think licensing was a better solution.

Martyn's opinion is perfectly valid, but as he's posted it publicly here, it is well worthy of being pulled apart. It is clear to me that Martyn has quite a strong starting position of the RFL being great and any change to that is a negative as a starter. I think that is a flawed position to come from. I don't believe that the RFL deserves all of the criticism that they have received, but I do think it is a hell of a stretch to believe that they were doing a great job and that they didn't need major overhaul. It is absolutely fair though to challenge how it was done initially - the Lenegan/Moran/McManus coup looked poor to start, stayed poor and ended poorly. But that doesn't mean that things didn't need to be different from how it used to be under the RFL. And thankfully, the RFL recognised this and the new model is a whole new world. Time will tell whether this will ultimately work, but there are absolutely early signs of positivity. Where I have an issue with Martyn's post is the bias has taken over everything else. It's all well and good to highlight the £40m TV deal and the £25m World Cup deal, they were absolutely great things - but to refuse to acknowledge what they did with that funding is silly. The Super 8's didn't hit the mark, whatever our personal preferences were, we didn't really have an amazing, clear strategy that utilised that £200m. The World Cup had many great things going for it, but it also had many bits that were quite simply pants, far worse than the 2013 tournament. We also can't ignore the decline in income, loss of partners, and the shambolic position we have found ourselves in with England RL being isolated. Now the RFL have my sympathy with some of the above, but ultimately, these things are happening on their watch. We also need to stop being so worried about spending money.

Yes, I thought that was tge case and the claim was incorrect.

Lack of NZ rights is disappointing.

@Martyn Sadler your original post appears highly flawed. You start by making the point that we are targeting existing customers, despite even quoting the fact that IMG are focusing on new audiences through wider tv deals. It is an impressively negative take on the whole situation.

the most pleasing aspect here, and what I was hoping when this was announced is that what we are seeing is night and day from what we have seen in the past. The hope was that this partnership would be transformational, and let's be honest, it really looks like it is so far. None of the above is an endorsement of every decision RLCom is making, or to say that it will be a roaring success, but for once we aren't just allowing things to pass us by or carrying on doing the same old thing. As is being acknowledged in most articles nowadays, the buzz and excitement is higher than for a few years, and clubs and fans do appear to be reacting positively. There was a real risk of this season launch being overshadowed by the grading piece and negativity around London, and whilst that isn't going away, the narrative has absolutely been controlled and turned round into a real positive. That is a good demonstration of us having experts at the table who know what they are doing in this space.

It is rather nice that for once we are talking about real change, rather than focusing on things like shot clocks or 7 tackle restarts thinking they are the most important changes we need. We'll see whether these new developments work for RL, but it's great that for once there is a genuine strategic plan here. I've often made the point that we need to walk with a swagger, and it feels like we are absolutely starting to do that.

This is the content I'm here for. Where's Big Picture when you need them?

There is absolutely enough content, but in reality, if we look at the dedicated channels that Sky have, they are for sports that are on a different level to us. Formula One, Tennis, Cricket, Golf, Football - all have a worldwide presence. Cricket is maybe a slight outlier, but it's nature lends itself to having a dedicated channel, with so much content yearsr round. It would be nice if we got a dedicated channel for a period though. I recall a few years ago they launched the season with Sky Sports SL, but didn't change branding or anything, it'd be nice if we got it for a month or so around launch, like they do for darts around the Worlds.

I think one area we often neglect when pushing to the likes of US Football fans is the running agility. It struck me last night watching the SuperBowl, that while they have some great runners, a lot of them are quite direct, many runs end with the player running into touch, even touchdowns feel a bit of a non-event to me as an RL fan, without the actual touchdown! I think we should push the footwork a lot more and the spectacular finishes.

The increased TV offerings are great, the next challenge here is monetising this, because I expect we are giving a lot of content away right now. Really interested to see where this goes from a financial point of view.

Few things on this. Firstly, it is SaRL which is a horrendous click bait site. Secondly, it is Cam Pattison who is the worst of their bunch. Thirdly, I have no idea when this is from. It seems to be a rehash of an article from last year because it talks about a guaranteed record crowd. It's a mess and I suggest we don't bother quoting them on this forum tbh.

I can understand that point of view, and I a rotation I think that should play a big part, but I wouldn't be against past players also being honoured in this way. I think this should be about a few things, honouring people's contribution, celebrating history, and telling stories.

It sounds like they are perfectly aligned with the approach of RL clubs where it's not unusual to see some products unavailable before kick off!

The nature of social media advertising does allow us to then share/repost etc which widens the network away from just followers. Sky ads reach far wider than RL fans, the opening weekend will have a live BBC game, plus Sky Main Event coverage. Ultimately, these are efficient channels, cost effective (or provided by partners) and they allow us to be present ongoing. I know people like mass awareness canpaigns, but they costs an absolute bomb, and they can soon be forgotten. But we have seen things like the SL+ launch using some awareness via outdoor media for example. But in reality, we have plenty of channels to use via our assets.

Yeah I really like the idea. I think it works for a variety of reasons and keeps these things fresh and relevant (even if it ended up named on a person from the 1890's for a spell).

There were a couple of points in my one point really. Timing etc. but I think the fact that our two major award name changes in recent years have been around players who became ill. I'm not convinced it is a great precedent to set. I'd have liked us to honour Rob Burrow's charity efforts and in time, his life, in a different way. But I accept that's a personal view and certainly won't be too critical outside of this RL discussion forum.

Aye, we'll likely be seeing mobile bars or bottle bars etc. But it feels more like a branding sponsorship

I assume this isn't necessarily a supplier deal, so I don't think the above points are an issue.

I think I made the point last time we discussed this, we only have a limited amount of awards like this, I wonder whether an approach of naming them for a period of 5 years or similar could work. It allows for us to honour a lot more of our history, create some stories, include families etc. honour young and old. By just doing things like this and the Man of Steel naming with no real process can jar a little. And without being insensitive, I don't think I'm a big fan of doing things like this which are primarily led by people becoming ill.

I do think the refresh of branding is coming across well in most things we are doing at the moment. In many ways, it is a series of tweaks, but it does feel like it is a far better standard than what we did when we did the full actual rebrand under Elstone. They have managed to polish the existing branding up to make it feel far more vibrant.

Nice advert on Sky sports earlier. Didn't have the sound on as background viewing, but big bold graphics making it clear, every game live. All good.

It was common for C4 to go as low as the 200-300k+ band IIRC. The peak was a bit higher. Sky is probably 150k standard, with 200k+ a strong performance. From memory, we got over 500k for the Saints v Salford Grand Final, which had a clear run, no competition that night which was a rarity. 350k-400k would be a good result for Grand Final. I think BBC Cup games get between 650k to 1m for big games.

Whilst I do think regularity is important, it does feel like 25(ish) live RL games a year on TV does mean that we will get load of coverage, so maybe not 100% regular, but plenty of presence. That is absolutely positive