Jump to content

redjonn

Coach
  • Posts

    4,939
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Member Profile

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,860 profile views

redjonn's Achievements

1.8k

Reputation

  1. Actually I always think about the Finnish rock band the Leningrad Cowboys and their Happy being Miserable song when associating with RL fans. For those who not heard the song well here you are and tell me if it shouldn't be RL fans anthem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaU1OVs1fP4
  2. well yes and I think I said similar particularly as they themselves said too much focus on format and structure and not product. Yet the major factor is the league and format structure, well how to achieve that format and league structure. Although as I've said elsewhere I can see how in the long term this new format and structure may achieve an improved product. Not in any short term and I think need to ensure the some focus on the shorter term. Even getting a good marketing function will take time and its that which will have a big impact eventually. In the mean time better promotional aspects will help.
  3. Yes, but I think the criteria will become a bone of contention amongst current SL clubs. The danger for IMG's strategy is that the tough criteria aiming at growing the sport of which the grading is the fundamental component to IMG is that the criteria is water down to what they would like. Thus to me we are were we are now and not making any strategic difference to the future, hence not greatly improving all they wish to be improved.
  4. I agree and would expect a reasonable number of B grade clubs in the top division currently known as Super League. IMG proposals are a template aimed over a longish period, say 10 years. Thus I assume initially their will not be many A grade clubs or my view being that the criteria should be challenging for clubs in order to improve and sustain whatever gradings. I do not expect many A grades initially otherwise its a mockery if nearly all current SL clubs are already at A grade.
  5. I didn't think you were calling anyone greedy or by implication. I just thought the way you put your comment seemed to ignore the underlying points being made, which of course may have benefitted other clubs more given a fixed pot of gold. Your second part of your second paragraph is/was the point I thought people where making. Despite poor use of terms such as super greed which I would agree is annoying and rather deflects from sometimes a good point/argument.
  6. I don't think that's the debate above that I'm reading. It seems more about the distribution of any monies and whether it should be allocated differently. Now of course if a fixed pot then any argument about that will mean less for some and more for others. I think its too simplistic and unfair to say that anyone whom questions the distribution across the sport of any TV monies is solely interested in feathering the nest of his chosen club.
  7. Taken in isolation yes - "So what every rugby league fan should therefore want is a better top level league that gets more money for its TV contract." To take an extreme just to make a point - The monies and hence investment may well be needed but surely not by no investments into other leagues and helping to destroy the other clubs below. The point is either one thinks we can just have a top division or alternatively we need both a top division and reasonable championship type leagues below.
  8. Your last paragraph is maybe what they could do, but it would be a cost. That is no one watches or would pay to watch those games. Of course they could charge more for the normal games to subsidise as they do now for the youth and academy teams plus coaching and officials but still an extra cost. For NRL that cost is relatively minor for many SL it wouldn't be.
  9. I think more the lack of internationals or should say meaningful internationals to test or blood new crop/others with potential. OK I know Salford have done well but bringing in Hill and Sneyd says a lot. Of course I can talk it up and try and convince myself its great but it really ain't. Are we really expecting Hill to play so many games over a short period and not think its a risk. Like Salford I thought Leeds were a form team and I'm sure Ireland are pleased about the two from Leeds, maybe they should check out Leeming & Hanley too whom are returning to full fitness.
  10. Yep, I can concur with your view. My son played RU and his team regular and almost all the time beat those clubs you mentioned as they moved up the age groups - even at pre-uni age. Now I not absolutely sure the likes of Leicester always played their first choice but as far as I could tell they did. He continued playing at Uni up at Newcastle and was always being tapped up by other RU teams. He wasn't interested as he had other goals, not sport and as it turns out probably makes more money now than most of those that played at those clubs and went on to be fully professional. He wasn't in a RL area and never talked to anyone except RU although he always said he preferred playing RU but liked watching RL. Maybe given a chance he may have enjoyed RL more, although his perception was that RU offered more in way of rugby tours, friendships/socialising, etc etc...,
  11. it was rather underwhelming. What amuses me is that IMG say their has been too much focus on the league format and structure and not enough on improving the product. Yet all the comment here is about the format and structure. Of course one can see how the league format and structure could influence the product - although not in any short term. It seems to me just like the last consultants that copied the Scottish football approach they had previous introduced which was a failure and here we have IMG regurgitating what they did for Euroleague Basketball which is a European wide league with no UK clubs. A lot more freedom to create franchises and limiting how many teams fans have to support in a country. So far IMG have not made it clear how your earlier question is answered, namely "Which of these proposals (apart from an international calendar) is going to make more people want to watch RL? Still predominantly the same players playing for the same clubs in the same stadiums to the same laws." and I add in the same geographical area's with exception of a single club expansion focus. Plus significant increased numbers of people watching as distinct from a few percentage points. Hopefully when more detail comes and they produce a paper on the how then it will be clearer and we will see some of the exciting and innovative idea's they have plus how to compete against the other sporting or entertainment on offer.
  12. get what you mean I think but the statement also says: "Expand yes but expand with demand" Can't see anything wrong with those words. Of course you need to invest to help build demand but surely you don't just place a club somewhere without some demand.
  13. Maybe but yep expansion area but doesn't mean shoe in.... Unless have criteria then promptly ignore criteria to shoehorn in. Seems odd img say league structures isn't priority then the discussion revolves around a new structures.
  14. Sky sports report says 14 teams the aim by 2026 for both leagues
  15. The sky sports report says on field and off field included in selection criteria. So why london and toulouse
×
×
  • Create New...