Toby Chopra

It's been a couple of years since we had to make some big payouts, so we're due a fleecing.

The Wood appointment I actually couldn't care less about. He's a symptom, not a cause. It's the junking of the plan by a game that's incapable of breaking out of its own very narrow worldview that's a far bigger deal. At this point I'm hoping the NRL comes in and blows it all up.

But if we agree on the diagnosis, and we agree on the treatment then IMG themselves is a distraction. To continue the medical metaphor, someone is going to have to deliver the treatment and we're going to have to pay them to do it. If 'Dr IMG' is no good, then we'll have to find another doctor. But what seems to be proposed now is that we stop the treatment completely and just muddle through and hope things will get better on their own. Why would this work, it never has before because we don't have the skills to do it.

Then spend less or generate more. What's their plan to do this, that's different to the one we have already?

£42k per club to grow us into a national sport with a wider fan base to deliver the financial uplift in media and commercial deals that other sports have. Or save £42k now to fritter away on whatever and remain slugging out in the same shrinking pools.

No mention of IMG at all.

Transforming the perception of rugby league outside the existing and lapsed fan base. That fanbase is just way too limited on geographical, social, ethic and economic grounds, and the game is completely invisible outside the existing hotspots, way worse than even 10-15 years ago. Perhaps that's easier to see when you're not in the heartland. And one of the main reasons that's the case is because our attempts to build such an audience was hugely out of date, we just didn't have the tools or understanding on how to develop those new fan relationships. That was what was at the heart of the IMG deal, not the grading stuff. While crowd upticks in places like Leigh or Oldham are welcome, they won't deliver the uplift in TV deals and major commercial sponsorships without growth in the non-geographic fanbase. These are relationships we have to nurture and expand, and they won't deliver a fount of riches overnight, but the long term prize is many times greater than short term savings from sacking off IMG or the RFL board. That's the path we're on. Or at least were on.

It's RLCom's job, through the game's partnership with IMG, to monetise those stats, not the RFL's. If this was just about shuffling a few suits at an RFL that oversees the amateur and semi pro game and any internationals that happened to turn up, then frankly I wouldn't care less. But if this is the first step by some club owners to throw out the plan for the game that we've only just embarked upon - because they are impatient and lack the imagination to see what real growth for the sport would look like - then it's a disaster, because they're completely failing to understand what the real challenge is. Hopefully I've jumped the gun and the IMG plan remains in place. I expect we'll see what the case is very soon.

That challenge is exactly why we engaged with IMG - to use their skills and services to present the sport to whole new sets of fans, different types in different places (and also in the same places) using modern forms of communication. Something we've shown we're completely incapable of doing on our own. At best we shown we can shovel more of our current product to existing or lapsed fans. If we give up on that challenge then we should never expect to turn things round on the TV deal or better commercial partnerships. But I believe it can be done, other sports have done it, and we've never really tried with the right tools. But it doesn't happen overnight, it may take years to build those relationships with new fans and transforming how the sport is perceived. So giving up after two years of a 12 year deal would be so disheartening. But it seems some of the club owners are happy to stick with the footprint we have now.

Sadly so. It would be the victory of those who think that growth means adding a few more bums on seats in the existing rugby league towns, rather growing interest in the sport nationwide and beyond. And then they'll be wondering why the TV deal won't budge.

Push out IMG with some sort of NRL tie-up to distract, all for the sake of a few quid.

If the clubs wanted to terminate the IMG deal they could do without going through all this. Same with some kind of NRL tie-up or governance review. So I'm still none the wiser on the "why?" of all this, and particularly "why right now?", so all we end up with as explainations is egos, and getting mates jobs. I kinda hope there is some grand plan afoot, wise or not, rather than it just being the petty motivations above which would be much more depressing.

Reading the article, he comes to his conclusions by assuming that A/ we'll never increase our GF crowds, and B/ our current GF crowds won't work in that stadium? Why wouldn't they? Also his maths is wrong, as he included the COVID year in his average. The average of the last 10 finals unaffected by COVID is 64,000, more if you exclude the Catalans finals. Let's not give up on this amazing opportunity before a brick has even been laid!

Not sure there can be movement by the NRL until the RFL governance review is complete, so we're talking next year at the earliest. Simon Johnson's confirmed out: https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/rfl-chairman-to-step-down-immediately-as-clubs-move-step-closer-to-reform-proposals

Yeah, not a fan of the whole tent aesthetic on the outside, but looks awesome from a speccy point of view on the inside

Looking at the new stadium footprint on the promotional video, it looks like they - and us - could keep playing at the old stadium until the new one is operational, maybe with partial demolition like Spurs did. Or at worst, one year's relocation at the peak of the works. Let's do all we can to keep our Old Trafford/New Trafford connection as unbroken as possible, like we did with Old Wembley/New Wembley. We have few advantages in the UK sporting market, but our historic connections with certain iconic stadiums is one of them.

I guess it's all about how well the stadium feels with 70k in, and what our growth trajectory is by the time it opens. If the biggest, newest, grandest stadium in the UK - dubbed Wembley of the North - opens in our sports heartland then it would be criminal if RL weren't one of the regular users. A long term deal at the 'Wembley of the North' would even open up the psychological space to end our relationship with the original Wembley for the CC final, if that's the direction of travel. It's just crucial we're in all the discussions on this, and all the political strings we can pull are pulled to make sure our case is heard.

They'd probably end up contracting it back out to IMG! But as I say, such is the financial frugality in British rugby league, I could see the SL chairman selling the competition branding to the NRL to save themselves £60k each with not much else changing.

Agree that none of those options makes sense. At best, I could see a path where the NRL bought out IMG's contract and place on RLCom, because they could provide many of the same services and expertise, while "providing" their branding boost. It really could be as cheap a deal as saving the SL clubs the £500k a year they're paying IMG in return for becoming NRL Europe. Everything else would remain largely unchanged and on the same path we're on with IMG.

TBH I didn't realise they were buying the stadium and land as part of the deal for the club, I thought buying the club was a sweetener for a future land deal with the council. If it's all in one go, and it's going to be a leveraged deal, and they have to buy out multiple parties including the Community Society association, then that all gets more complicated and expensive. I still feel like it's a real thing, rather than a scam, but these things came still fail if you haven't the expertise to pilot it through. Blaming the complexity of the deal doesn't bode well.

And many of the things we could emulate the NRL on - such as structure and digital - we're already doing to some extent with IMG. Maybe the NRL could do an even better job on those things for us, with the added brand alignment, so I'm open minded. But as you say, none of it would be game-changing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you explain how the NRL buying Superleague and rebranding it NRL Europe etc would increase the value of its domestic TV deal? Don't most Aussie league fans know that league is played in England (and perhaps France) but they just don't much care? At best it might give a short term filip like Vegas does, but wouldn't significantly move the dial. I'd say the nice-to-have international revenues are what the NRL should be brave and target. Yes, it will take time, but it can be done, and the only way is up. The NFL has developed niche but profitable markets in numerous countries where their sport is at best only played in a very minor way. The NRL could be the number 1 global rugby brand if it really put its mind to it, and not sure it needs SL to help with that.

But what competition rules were Salford actually in breach of until the moment they asked for an advance? We can't just force teams out on a bad feeling. We could certainly toughen up the rules for the future of course, but Salford didn't break any rules as far as I can see and they finished the 2024 season.

I agree. It's easy to say in hindsight that the RFL should have been more robust in Oct/Nov, but that would have meant refusing the advance and forcing Salford into liquidation early enough to get a replacement 12th team in place. Can you imagine the furore if that had happened, with Salford pleading that they had an investor on the brink only to be "Killed by the RFL" and replaced with, say, Bradford? No one would have been praising the RFL for being robust, there would have been accusations of corruption and calls for heads to roll- just as people are saying now. Clearly, we do seem to be on the verge of the worst case scenario, where we lose the club, and end up with a substandard Superleague. But given the rules in place at the time, I don't see there was an easy alternative to the choices that were made.

Is there an option for the RFL operate the team, keeping 12 in Superleague for this year and retaining as many player contracts as possible, releasing others to new teams?