Toby Chopra
-
Posts
2,972 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Toby Chopra
-
-
22 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:
A lot words, but the crux for me is this paragraph;
As central revenues have receded over recent years, we need to find opportunities to replace this and deliver to clubs the most compelling fixture list we can, to give the clubs themselves the best opportunities to grow.
For me that paragraph was the most depressing of the lot. It's throwing in the towel on trying to grow British rugby league.
Even the phrasing gives it away: the clubs who refer to "central revenues" sees it as some sort of distant money spout that they can feed off, rather than one of their own major revenue streams.
That paragraph should instead read: "As the Superleague television contract has declined over recent years, we need to find ways to restore, and then further grow, it's value."
Which is if course what we were doing with IMG. Instead...away fans.
Miserable.
-
6
-
-
It says it's a masters thesis in the survey
-
7 minutes ago, bobbruce said:
SL would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they were to buy IMG out and change the conditions of getting into SL.
Not if it's signed off by the RFL, which is now in the hands of Nigel, Beaumont etc all.
Ditching IMG and changing the rules would shatter rugby league's ability to attract new investment, but I struggle to see how an agreived club could successfully litigate it, especially a non-member like Toulouse.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, The Future is League said:
The way to increase the playing pool is to increase the amount of academies.
I don't think that's true, the academies we have now pick up every rugby league playing kid with genuine promise, and even most of those don't make it as pros.
The key to increasing the pool is to get more kids playing rugby league in the first place, particularly the athletic ones who end up choosing other sports
It's ultimately a numbers game, if we get more in, then we can increase the number of academies to cater for them.
-
9
-
-
22 minutes ago, NRLandSL said:
Think about it, 36 home grown domestic players will have there contract ripped up over the next few years for the place of Aussies. Such a backwards step.
As is being discussed in the other thread, this change is likely inextricably linked to the shotgun move to 14 teams which needs 50 odd more players.
So whatever the merits or otherwise of the quota increase, it won't actually see existing local players' contracts be ripped up.
-
4
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, JohnM said:
Somehow, I think there's more to come. Are there any visa issues, for example?
It seems you can get a Tier 2 Sportsperson Visa if you're a regular in Q/NSW Cups and aged under 24.
I've no idea how the RFL got the Home Office to agree to that, I can't think of another sport that can bring in reserve grade players from another country.
-
1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:
I don't disagree entirely, my main criticism is this is just demonstrating that the "Strategic Review" should be called the "Implementation of a Preexisting Plan Committee"
There definitely needs to be as broad a recruitment pool as possible. Though quite why a reserve grade Aussie is easier than broadening the junior recruitment pool within the UK I don't know.
I guess the view is that if you're a 22 year old who's played a year or two as a full-timer in the QCup/NSW Cup you're more likely to cope immediately in SL than a young part-timer from the championship. Or indeed than an untried academy lad, except maybe at Wigan or Leeds.
I'd say that's probably true, in the short term.
We can't really afford to take a short term hit in standards given the precarious nature of our media contracts.
And yes, that's us now being constrained by years of poor previous decisions, but we are where we are.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Damien said:
Yes this makes much more sense. If we are to move to 14 at short notice let those new clubs go up to 10 as a short term measure with gradual reduction. I don't think the existing SL clubs need or should be going down this route. It's a major step backwards.
In the short run though, aren't the two interlinked? ie, the existing clubs are going to lose local English players to the new teams too, so they also need to be able to dip into the Aussie pool in the short term to maintain standards. Even for a club like Wigan, even though they can absorb it better than most.
I'd certainly agree there should be a planned reduction of quota over the following years back to where it was before as we grow the local pool, and of course there's no sign of that.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Quite. This is from the "cut costs and boost recruitment options" element of the coup supporters.
Next, up to 14 (supported by this quota increase)
To be a devil's advocate...
If we're going to expand to 14, then the quota increase makes sense in the short run as the quality drop-off in the existing UK player pool when adding another 40 or so players is too sharp. An extra two quota spots across 14 clubs (plus existing quota for the newbies) basically covers that without shrinking the Fed trained player numbers overall. So I can live with it. I just wish they were honest that it's a direct knock on effect from the shotgun decision to go to 14.
And if I wanted to be glass half full, the plotters could argue that having Bradford, London and Toulouse in SL will boost local player development in the longer run.
All of this is not the model of growth I'd choose - it's still very much about local geography and does nothing to boost the perception and attraction of the game more widely. But we don't seem to have the patience for the bigger project, so this is the next best option for some limited gains.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Damien said:
The most notable part of this was the line that if the NRL did take over the they will not plunge cash in. That is what the game in this country is lacking more than anything.
"Instead, it is believed any return will come in the form of improved commercial deals."
So the same as the IMG partnership? Except IMG are actually a global sports marketing and media agency, so at least bring something to the table.
What do new "investors" bring if it's not money? I thought stemming multimillion pound losses was at the root of all the recent upheaval, according to Martyn.
Or is it handing over control of Superleague to the NRL just to save the £38,000 paid each to IMG?
Sounds like too many owners still believing there's some sort of magic bullet, rather than a multi year process.
-
3
-
-
32 minutes ago, Pricey81 said:
Some Evertonian mates of mine who have done the Test events (reduced capacity) would refute the "public transport venue" angle.
The current best way to get there is to walk to and from Lime Street (approx 40mins) unless waiting hours is a highlight of the day for you.
Hopefully they'll be some way down the road with this by November because the ground is exceptional and will be a terrific venue but the public transport infrastructure is currently in need of an upgrade if it is to scale the heights of woeful.
I believe there will be shuttle buses from Lime St on Everton gamedays, so I'm hoping for the same for the Ashes given even more of us will be coming from the centre.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Dave T said:
These are 4 extra corner blocks reduced from £45 to £30.
Oh dear. On the plus side it does seem that hardly any tickets had been sold in the blocks that were converted, so not too many disadvantaged, but it's just a mindless move. The fact that almost all existing lower tier Cat 4 seats had gone isn't a reason to create more, it's a sign to hold your nerve and push people into higher categories.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Londonbornirishbred said:
Question is, do IMG/SL/RFL want a London side in a 10k stadium with 500 fans or a 2,500 seater ground with a chance of filling it?
Image is everything. The Challenge cup final, the European Rugby thing at croke park....neither looked good on TV with 30% empty seats.....I'd rather games were played at smaller stadiums and tickets were a premium.....
Re London, neither of those options are Superleague viable so it doesn't matter what it looks like.
In general, a club would want its average crowd at 80-ish% of capacity, so there's room for growth, with the biggest games selling out quickly with a scramble for tickets creating a buzz.
If you're leaving fans locked out every week, your stadium isn't big enough. That's why many football teams have expanded capacity in recent years.
Other than Hudds, I don't feel stadium size is a huge issue in the current Superleague.
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, Eddie said:
Their average attendance might go up if they were in a more suitably sized stadium, as Huddersfield’s probably will.
Not all problems are the same. There's a big difference between Wigan not quite filling the DW and Hudds barely making a dent at the JS.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Damien said:
Some great average attendances here. It's obvious why Penriths crowds are where they are, and will rebound when they return home, but Gold Coast and in particular Souths, Cronulla and St George need to be doing much better.
There should be questions asked of clubs that are getting less than 15k and what their strategy is to get towards 20k. That is now the kind of level the NRL is at.
Souths moving to Allianz should see them boost to around 20k again. More pressure needs to be put on Cronulla and the stadium mess of their own making. How their own stadium wasnt prioritised more and better future proofed in their own redevelopment is beyond me. St George should really be thinking about relocating to Wollongong permanently and going for 1 or 2 big games in Sydney at Allianz. Dont even bother with Jubilee Oval.
That Dolphins average is amazing for such a young club in NRL terms. I don't really understand Brisbane RL fandom but you can see why people argue for Brisbane III, and with those potential crowds who could say no?
-
1
-
-
I wish them well, the game certainly needs a prominent London club to help it project itself to wider audiences.
But the one thing they still don't seem to have is any money and without that all the rest of it is neither here nor there.
I remain of the view that you can't succeed in London without the investment to frontload a decent full time team, and then you lock that in with pathways and audience growth. But you can't organically grow your way to success in that market from a standing start.
-
4
-
-
The back half of the upper tier is miles away from the action, they're basically the nosebleed seats that get Wembley's capacity upto 90k mark from 70k-odd. I'd always choose to pay more for any closer seat given the chance, so I don't have a problem with them offering them now for £20. I know we have a chequered history on such things, but on this occasion no one's being short-changed.
-
6
-
-
22 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:
Beeb has done a good story on McGifford too, the battle of the former athletes is a nice sub-plot. And good publicity for women's league showing it's has a viable pathway for athletes from other sports.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/articles/cgkdpzgj2kmo
-
1
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Lowest non Covid, official Wembley final attendance is 50,672. It’ll be a worry if we’re not much above that.
That was the Catalan final, right? So also special circumstances. As I said to Dave, if we can stay above 60, I favour sticking with Wembley and seeing what we can do to improve the attractiveness of the event.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Dave T said:
7.5k remaining on the RFL website (out of c70k open)
Unknowns are what are not on that site and sitting with other clubs, community clubs, partners, hospitality etc.
So max of 62k sold so far, probably a good few k less.
Ah, good to know an accurate figure, I was just trying to do it by eye! As long as we keep it above 60k I'm in the "keep it a Wembley camp."
-
14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Anyway, to bring it back to attendances.
60k looking likely or unlikely for the Challenge Cup final?
If the ticket websites are accurate, it looks like we're going to fall a bit short. Mid to high fifties, unless a bunch of people make a last minute decision to go. Payday this coming Friday? (Is that still a thing?)
-
24 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:
It's about the whole package of presentation and experience that we present.
If I buy a £150 ticket for Les Mis on the West End, I'm not buying that because I'm a fan of the stage props and scenery - I'm doing it because I appreciate the singing and the performance. But if I go and the scenery is ###### and the props look like they've been bought from the local B&M, I'm going to come away feeling very underwhelmed and short-changed. Those things weren't the reason I went, but the fact they were "cheaped out on" will harm the experience and my perception of the event.
The same applies to RL. There is a whole range of things that all add up to the experience that people get when the attend an RL event and different people will be influenced by different things when it comes to determining whether they enjoyed their day at the rugby - and it's a fools errand to try and distil these things down to one particular thing or to try and quantify them in a spreadsheet
What I want from a Leeds game is different from what my seven-year-old son wants, what he wants might be different to what my daughter wants, and that what my wife wants might be different to what all three of us want. These might be really simple things - things that might seem inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. For my son, it might just be the chance to have a selfie with Ronnie or a free paper flag to wave. For my daughter, it might be some good vegetarian food, rather than the usual stadium fare. For my wife, it might be the queue for the women's toilet that might frustrate her, or making sure that she can good view (she's short, so good seating is important). They are small things, but without them, my son might get bored, and not want to come back, my daughter goes hungry and my wife doesn't enjoy coming either - and that all means that the sport has failed to meet their expectations.
You might just want the rugby and not care for the peripheral stuff and that's absolutely fine - you're well catered for already. But you're not the only person who RL needs to try and engage.
I do like the theatre analogy, it explains the issue well.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Eddie said:
Rugby league was much more popular than women’s football until women’s football started getting more coverage. National coverage of RL was never anywhere near as great as women’s football coverage is now, but when RL was on grandstand every week loads of people watched. It’s that simple.
Eddie mate I just can't agree with any of this. Rugby league's popularity has been fluctuating up and down around the same level for the best part of 20 years, whereas the women's football boom only began in earnest after the Euros in 2022. And if anything our viewing figures and crowds have gone UP since 2022. We also have our own section on the BBC website, multiple live games a year on terrestrial, two live games a week on Sky and now our own broadcast platform. Women's football doesn't even have all of that yet.
There's no invisible hand holding us down, people know we're there, many even acknowledge the skills and showmanship on offer, but they just don't connect with RL enough to make it a regular part of their sporting lives. In my view women's football is growing quickly because A/ it's football B/it's nationwide C/ it holds regular World Cups and Euros which England do well in and D/it's now tightly entwined with the Premier League. Given all those things are the most popular sporting properties in Britain, it's hardly surprising it's growing.
The opportunity for us it to look at those things copy them where possible. That is: hold international tournaments/major series, focus on our biggest, most high profile club brands, and go into overdrive telling accessible and human stories about our players.
We're actually - fingers crossed - going in the right direction on all of these, and if we succeed, we'll see interest grow regardless of what any other sport is doing.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Celtic Roosters said:
As hard as I try, I can't see how far less people watching the game and far less people playing the game since I first got involved is progress?
You're moving the goalposts there a bit. I don't know when you started watching RL but Martyn's article is about comparing now with the dawn of SL 30 years ago. And as far as crowds go they're higher now than in 1995 - total attendance around 2 million across the three RFL divisions last season, compared to about 1.6m across the two (larger) divisions in 1994-5. That's definitely progress.
-
1
-
SL clubs look to reinstate Nigel Wood.
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
It's based on limited aspirations. They look at clubs like Leigh, which have indeed done a good job of getting some more people in their local geography to attend games, and see that as a growth model. Well, it is I suppose, but one with very limited wider value and a low growth ceiling, plus it's inherently vulnerable to changes in local circumstances. But it's what they've settled for as they don't believe the sport is capable of achieving anything else.