Hull Kingston Bronco

We’re not the Premier League, we’re a challenger sport. We now have an additional 3 matches filmed per week that we can charge web subscriptions for, or give away to build audience. We also as a result have better quality short-form material across *all* games that we can use as clips across socials etc. Content creates awareness and demand, but content costs money to make… in this deal Sky produce extra material for us.

The original internet "I like both sports, but..." rugby union troll. God rest his soul.

Yes I assume he died about 20 years ago

We wanted all games to be filmed by Sky, not necessarily broadcast by Sky. That means Sky are investing their overhead in creating assets that the RFL can use, whether it chooses to monetise them (either independently, or jointly with Sky), whether it chooses to allow the clubs to monetise them individually through their own platforms, or whether we choose to give them away for free (or close to free) as the NRL does with their WatchNRL service. In the modern online landscape it's all about sports organisations owning content, which they can use to disintermediate publications and channels in order to reach their current and prospective new audiences directly.

Dutoni?

Yeah I agree. Also on the France point. Ideally I'd have the northern hemisphere Test series starting 2 weeks after the Grand Final (to give us more time to build awareness, and sell tickets) and the touring side would play a "warm up" match against France in Perpignan or Toulouse. Personally I'd also have a 40 man England squad, and have the 2nd string play against France on the same weekend as the 2nd test too. I'm open to loads of ideas to improve the current model, just think we should focus on that rather than wish for things that aren't realistic (or particularly meaningful anyway) like mid-season tests.

If fleeting is "more TV viewers", "more people we can tell sponsors are engaged with the sport in a high value market", or perhaps "more people who have professional roles with greater social influence" then sorry, but I'll readily take that over selling an extra ticket to a customer who already buys at least 13 per season anyway. Most Sky TV viewers live outside the mythical 'heartlands'. They pay for our sport. I don't think it's too much of a sacrifice to put on... [checks notes...]... just one match per year for them. Give me strength.

This is the key point. Whilst of course we should be wanting existing fans to attend if they want to, we should be using internationals to sell to a new audience. That's their purpose in the game growth strategy. Or at least it should be...

You can leave it where you want mate. What you don't seem interested in is an alternative point of view to yours, which makes participation in a discussion forum a bit weird. But hey ho, it takes all sorts.

Yeah I'm down with that. I'm all for evolving the concept, would just love to stick with a post-season "Pacific Tournament" involving Australia and New Zealand for a few years, only interrupted by World Cups and sometimes augmented with an English tour.

...and across the prior decade? There have been a series of sporadic matches, sometimes badged as "tournaments", with different opponents, across decades. What we need is a consistent, repeatable model. It might be imperfect, but we need one of those. Meanwhile, in other Tonga news, back in March... https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/inside-the-secret-plan-for-australia-and-samoa-to-meet-in-world-cup-rematch-20230326-p5cvdh.html The RFL were waiting on baited breath for Tonga to confirm, in the context of the ongoing discussions about the nature of a post-season southern hemisphere calendar. To pretend otherwise is madness. It took until the last week in April to confirm it precisely because of that complexity.

Personally I'm hoping that Degsy brings back the famous "leopard's ar##" on the back of the away shirt next season

Ah, the famous red leopard.

There isn't a single 'NRL'. You're conflating multiple stakeholders in one phrase - the Commission, the NRL exec leadership, the clubs, and the players. They don't agree on anything (or indeed much), it's like herding cats, and this time the cats have been herded. Re: Tonga, the public record differs. England wanted Tonga to tour, the NRL preferred a 4-Nations, ultimately Tonga chose to take England's offer (there was not an agreement already in place) On the final paragraph, please show me the last time PNG, Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji regularly played 2 matches a year? This isn't perfect, it certainly wouldn't be what I'd design, but it is progress... in a complex multi-stakeholder environment. Far better to lean into that and encourage its evolution, than just criticize it and call for yet another re-model. Don't assume all stakeholders are even fully happy about this model, it needs work to reinforce it and protect it. We live in the world as it is, not the world as we'd want it to be.

Barring a mid-season Test was an NRL clubs condition to other elements of the programme. You don't get to order a la carte in negotiations, trades are made. The Tri-Nations format was not the choice of the NRL, they wanted a Four Nations. It was another compromise to enable one southern hemisphere team to tour England each year. Again, choices have to be made. I'd argue maintaining a first class northern hemisphere series is the best choice given those options. The 'Bowl' tournament means there are two games each weekend, not one. Yes, we could have a structure with 3 matches per weekend with the 6 teams, but that would involve less equitable match-ups and likely hinder teams development. Again, a reasoned compromise in the circumstances.

The clubs were never previously signed up to an end of season window, and often did everything in their power to disrupt it. Now it's covered within the CBA, and shenanigans will be less likely to happen. I've not said we haven't had post-season internationals before, I've said 1) we chopped and changed them constantly and 2) they weren't committed to by all stakeholders. We should try and continually improve the detail of this newly agreed model, not come up with yet more random different ideas. That's a rugby league disease. One that killed the golden goose that was the Tri/Four Nations, after a decade of work to create a product of value.

We haven't had the NRL comp's long-term commitment to it. Everyone knows that. My core point is that we need to stick with the tournament ideas for this cycle, learn the smaller lessons and build on them. Not start coming up with yet more random different matches or tournaments that we could be playing, at different times in the season.

I've got a really radical idea: Why don't we stick with a plan for longer than 5 seconds, follow-through, build some momentum and allow a routine, habit and product recognition the time to grow that it needs? Having a dedicated 3-4 week international window after the season is great. Stick with it.

Sat in his Mum’s spare bedroom in Penrith, in his late thirties, issuing dull missives on his smartphone to nobody in particular to somehow try and overcome his depressing real-world existence. It’s quite amusing really.

Spot on. 2nd test should have been in London. That it isn’t says everything about the RFL’s competence.

yeah sorry! That particular subject does my noggin in. I’m keen for Lewis to play FB behind an Abdul/May pairing next season for precisely the same reason, and loads of Rovers fans tell me “we can’t waste him at full back, we need him more involved in the game as a half” I swear some people haven’t noticed how rugby league structures have changed.

Full backs are the old 6, commonly second receiver when the ball’s moving wide.

- Tanya Arnold at half tim: ”What did you know about Mikey Lewis?” - “Nothing at all but we do now”

Troll alert

How depressing are these low expectations?