whatmichaelsays

Admittedly I'm being mischievous with the comparison, but it's a very poor look for what is supposed to be one of the game's elite competition members. Asking for an "experienced" scout to work voluntarily, on what I would argue is a key business function, for their commercial gain is a very low move in my view.

Speaking of clubs not paying staff..... "The ideal candidate will: Be flexible and committed to work weekends, and evenings to help us identify the most talented players." "At this present time, this is a voluntary role."

The Asterix is the key part in that, because we've had some high profile members of the board of SL Europe going on record with statements like "why hasn't Catalans secured a TV deal?", "why aren't they bringing any new sponsors?", and "our sponsors aren't allowed to advertise in France", which is an incredibly disingenuous given that it's the role of SLE - not the Catalans - to sell the commercial rights in Europe. You can therefore make the argument that the benefit of Catalans in SL looks unbalanced because SLE has failed to fulfil its remit. Blaming the Catalans for not securing a French TV deal is the same as blaming the board at Salford for not getting a better deal with the BBC on the basis that they're the closest club to Media City.

I'm not sure that there's a real material benefit to Leeds taking games to Elland Road. As a venue, it only really appeals to people already within the club's catchment area and, whilst I accept that you can sell Elland Road as a "big game" type event, I suspect that even a sold-out Elland Road generates less revenue for the Rhinos than a typical game at Headingley when you take into account the value and volume of hospitality that goes through Headingley on a matchday (which would be lost to Leeds United). Not against taking Leeds games to bigger venues in the slightest, but I don't think Elland Road is commercially the right option.

This pretty much sums up my take on it. There are lots of good reasons why the players should have a stronger union and a voice in the game, but I'm not sure that this is one of them. Fight for better remuneration and reform of the salary cap, fight for reduced workload and improved player welfare initiatives and fight for a say in how their images are sold and marketed, but what they're asking for here doesn't seem particularly clear or coherent. If it's about a more transparent and open MRP process where they feel they can have influence, I think there's merit. If it's a about objecting to the new rules in general, then it feels like a "save them from themselves" type thing.

Except other clubs have responded very differently to Leigh when dealing with Zak's track record. This is wnere I struggle with the "he needs support" argument with Zak, He has already had support - support that the vast majority of us would either not be offered, or be unable to access, and yet he still continues to make these poor choices. I genuinely think that, when he no longer has the support network of RL once his career ends, he is going to end up in prison or worse. Leigh knew what they were getting themselves into and they knew the risks that come with employing Hardaker. The way they have handled this is not a good look for them.

The costs involved in opening and staffing Belle Vue will be significantly higher and, as the "home" club, Siddal could be invoiced for these costs by Wakefield if they decided to switch (or have the costs taken from their cut). Given that CC games are not generally well-attended, it then becomes a question of whether the forecasted crowd at Wakefield would generate more revenue than they'd otherwise generate at Siddal from ticket sales and ancillary revenue (bar and concession takings, etc), which they'd also lose if they switch to Belle Vue.

This really is the key to it all. The sport and the clubs know that they're competing for space, they know that nobody reads the local rags any more, and they know that the number of dedicated RL hacks across the nationals has fallen to practically none. And yet, it doesn't really feel like they've responded to that. Clubs still keep everything confined to their own websites or the local paper, with it's declining, ageing readership. The onus is on the clubs to make it easy for the media to talk about them - to make themselves newsworthy, to make players accessible, to produce content that's of a good enough standard that it can be syndicated more widely and to build relationships with the media. We used to complain about the 'London Old School Tie' problem as to why RL didn't get media coverage, yet the BBC Sport Headquarters is within 2 hours drive of 10 of the 12 clubs. The same applies to those people who complain about being squeezed out by Sky, and not featuring in their "coming up this month" montages - the response to that is what are we doing to make it hard for Sky to not include us? What FOMO is the sport creating?

Completely, and this is how the sport unlocks new audiences and grows its reach, without the need to squabble about where teams should be and all that other stuff - the content speaks for itself, and now the sport has the rights and the tools to use it. It allows SL to do much more with its rights. This case study is a good example of how the NBA solved a problem that is in many ways similar to the ones that RL faces, with a media budget that isn't exactly huge, and RL now has the means to do something similar.

There's a fourth, and arguably bigger factor, which is that they revamped how the sport comes across on TV to make it easier for the TV viewer to get and stay hooked. They played in bigger arenas so that the events look much bigger on TV and to move the sport away from that "pub game" image - you can have those large, sweeping camera shots to create a sense of scale and the walk-on's are deliberately drawn out to create that image. The Premier League is a format that's deliberately designed to fit neatly into a regular weeknight TV schedule - packing four games into around three hours of content. The presentation on screen is cleverly designed, with stats used at the right time, and graphical cues are used well to build anticipation for moments like "9-darters". Formula1 does this very cleverly as well. In what is a very technical sport where not a lot can happen for long periods, they use graphics to tell the story very cleverly to non-technical audiences, and use data to predict when overtaking moments are likely to happen, or when moments such as pit-stops and tyre changes are likely. It know it's a bit trite to compare RL to darts or The Hundred, because you're right that when it comes to the match-going experience, we do a lot of what they do. But what RL has done poorly for some time now is think about how the game comes across to the TV viewer - and that's where the biggest revenue opportunity is.

I completely agree on the players aspect, but the games do work commercially for Leeds (and, presumably, Wakefield). Even higher-profile or more meaningful friendlies (better opposition, testimonials, etc) rarely get close to the crowds they pull in on Boxing Day. The only one that has was the JJB/Rob Burrow Testimonial, but that was obviously an outlier due to the circumstances.

He wants to grow the earnings of his clients - which is not a bad thing, but is not necessarily the same as him coming up with ideas for commercial growth. That said, the game could absolutely benefit from a much stronger players union and Brierley strikes me as a much more proactive person to lead that than Gareth Carvell.

NRL board: "World Rugby is being more stringent about head contact and lowering the tackle height to avoid concussion. How do we respond?" Peter V'Landys: "hold my beer. Then smash it over that guys head, and stomp on his head when he hits the ground!"

The football TV deal has no material impact on RL. The Premier League is a commercial imperative for Sky Sports. They'll pay (almost) whatever it takes to keep hold of their key asset. RL is still an asset to Sky, but the idea that our TV deal is falling due to the increase in Premier League rights is a non sequitur. The RL TV share is falling because if there is one thing that the RL clubs have been particularly bad at in recent years, it's maintaining and increasing the sport's market share at a time when other sports and competitions have emerged and grown to command more of the TV market.

Main reason was they felt they weren't getting the value they hoped for / the value they got from other channels for the price. The lower price in year two made it more palatable, but not to commit long term. They also felt that the relationship was very transactional - Wigan were happy to take the cheque, but there wasn't a lot done on their part to try and further the relationship until renewal time. This is one area where, in my experience, the commercial team at Leeds are exceptional - and it is probably why sponsors like Leeds Building Society, Arla, Berry's, Global, Tetley's etc have stuck around fin one capacity or another or so long.