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.

A previous client of mine had a stint as Wigan's main shirt sponsor (think of a numbers game played in a Saudi Arabian city and you're on the right lines). They were offered the second year for absolute buttons when they initially declined to renew.

In fairness to Brierley, the players are stakeholders in this sport too and, it seems, ones who are rarely consulted on how the game operates. You could argue that's down to the players union to be stronger, but I would wager that there are a number of issues within the game, commercial and non-commercial, that wouldn't be harmed by some player input. Even the Premier League listens to representations from club captains..

Completely agree. I don't doubt that there are some ambitious and aspirational people within the sport - they're just not in places of influence. The sport just seems to be run by accountants who want to manage the decline, with no effort whatsoever going into increasing our audience, our market share and with it, the revenue from sponsors and broadcasters. It's all about just trying to serve the same, declining pool of people over and over again as cheaply as possible. You can't be angry that Sky don't want to pay more for that, or that the only businessman wanting to get seriously involved with the sport is Fred Done. It's just sad.

Agree. Magic has the potential to be a brilliant opportunity, but it feels like the RFL hasn't ever really known what to do with ever since they were bunged some cash for the first one by the Welsh Tourist Board. I think this is why you have a lot of people placing unrealistic expectations around it being a vehicle for geographic expansion, then pointing to a lack of teams in Wales, Scotland etc and saying it's a failure. I'm with you in that, with a more customer-centric approach, Magic could have been sold as some sort of 'RL Glastonbury' type event that really sells all that our sport has to offer. It's one of the few ways in which you could sell the Men's, Women's, PDRL and Wheelchair sports without really being accused of trying to lump them all together, and Newcastle is actually a brilliant city for that - St James, Kingston Park, two arenas, and a city-centre park, all in one city and well-connected. I don't doubt that the RFL has financial pressures to deal with, but the way to respond to these - when what you're selling is an entertainment product - is not to retreat and try and deliver what you have as cheaply and cut-price as possible. We've been seeing this trend with RFL events throughout the years, but the Tonga series was perhaps the most obvious sign that the RFL had been phoning it in - and we've seen the real cost of that.

Tom Burgess has put his Tonga expenses claim in.

But cheap and discounted tickets ARE poor marketing. The purpose of marketing is to maximise long-term profit - giving away margin isn't what drives growth. The RFL (and certain clubs) have been on a treadmill of discounting for years - and this is where we are. With a devalued product that the RFL has to give away even more aggressively. Good marketing is not about selling a £30 value product for £15 - good marketing is convincing more people that this is product worth paying £30 for before somebody else buys it.

I think the "done cheaply" part is the key one for me. I was at the game on Saturday and there was very little that made you feel like it was a big event. There were some school children dancing, in front of the empty corporate seats, the usual unfurling of laundry, but really nothing else that could pass for any sort of pre-match entertainment. When you consider the lack of promotion and the revelation from Tom Burgess that the RFL wouldn't even pay to put the players on business class flights, you get the sense that the RFL really was phoning this one in. Personally I got a sense of excitement when this tour was announced that we'd have something different to get our teeth into. I think that excitement was lost and in the end, we ended up with just another RFL event, done on the cheap, and people leaving feeling underwhelmed. I get that Tonga aren't a big draw and I get that the RFL doesn't have a blank cheque, but that's where I think the RFL takes too much of a short-term view when it comes to ROI.

But that is only a small part of how people "get into" sports viewership and, I'd argue, is much less relevant today that it perhaps was on your or my day. Nobody at Tottenham Stadium yesterday was there because their grandad took them to an NFL game as a kid and lifted them over a turnstile. The kids walking around with Mo Salah or Haaland shirts can't even get tickets to games these days, and no kid grew up wanting to be a Hundred batsman because The Hundred didn't exist. The local thing is helpful and useful, but it's not a pre-requisite for liking RL, which is why I don't buy this "nobody away from the M62 is/will ever be interested" nihilism. If the sport is relying on dad's and grandads dragging their reluctant kids along, then we're encapsulating the problem right there. It's the same as those arguments we see on here after every CC Final blaming the poor crowds on the demise of pub trips - that pub culture hasn't existed for over 20 years. It's time to move on.

Come on Harry, you and I have been over this ground many times before so I don't think we need to repeat ourselves. I think there are markets out there not currently engaging with RL content that could be encouraged to engage with RL content. Those audiences may well be right on our doorstep within our heartlands, but they may also be anywhere else in the world. But what RL is very bad at - both at club and central level - is understanding the audiences it wants to grow, what those audiences want, and delivering it on the terms they want to engage with it. I mentioned recently on a previous thread - for a supposed community sport, RL has been poor at adapting to how those communities have changed over the generations. To me, that leads the sport to neglect opportunities with new media, to neglect opportunities with TV, to neglect opportunities with those audiences that want a more premium experience, and so on. That's why we struggle for market share on TV, why we have a tiny digital footprint and why our crowds and sponsors all seem to come from the same, declining pool - not because "people aren't interested". I don't think it's chicken and egg in the slightest. There is nothing in the water in WN or WF postcodes that chemically adjusts you to liking RL. There are sports I watch despite never seeing them in person, nor having any real attachment to any of the competitors - but I still enjoy them. RL needs to find who might enjoy this sport, deliver it on those terms, and grow its audience. That's expansion - not pins in maps.

To be honest, I don't agree with BP's premise. Expansion is not a geography problem. It's an audience problem.