whatmichaelsays

I missed it out because I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion. Sky wrap advertising around Catalans and Toulouse content and probably charge a similar rate for the advertising around content involving most clubs. It's not as if RL content across the board pulls in prime audiences.

Which makes the whole "they don't bring any subscribers" thing pretty damn stupid and anyone making that point, be they fan or club owner, should have that pointed out to them.

Am I the only one who thinks that people are putting far too much importance on this survey? It will form a fraction of IMG's research. My view was that the survey, whilst not great, does at least act as a bellwether for how some ideas will be received by one segment of the audience IMG has in mind. Whilst we know that ideas like 9s split the room here, it's important to remember that we may not be the intended target audience for it

How many Sky subscriptions rely on Hull KR being in SL? Would you say it's more or less than £1.5m per annum worth? If you're using that as your measure of contribution, you ought to apply it to every club. I doubt many would show up as offering more than they take. It's also worth reminding people (because this point always seems to get ignored) that it is not the responsibility of Catalans or Toulouse to source broadcast and commercial deals - it's the responsibility of SLE. Unfortunately, SLE seems happy to neglect and delegate that responsibility.

I think the point is more that we should be creating an environment where every fixture should be the best contest it possibly can be, with the athletes in the best condition they can be. Whichever way you cut it, asking players to cram two games into a bank holiday weekend is not that environment and the quality on the pitch suffers as a result. There is no need to ask the players to take on such a workload.

Exactly. The idea that all of our finals are a combination of Leeds, Wigan and St Helens is nonsense. In that period you mention, only Toulouse and Wakefield (of the current SL clubs) have failed to either win one of the three trophies on offer or make a major final. We should want the best teams and the best clubs to be winning the trophies. SL isn't being held back because Wakefield can't get to the Grand Final.

Blow-outs happen, but that doesn't mean that the sport should wantonly create an environment where they are more likely to happen.

Why? The role of the French clubs is to be successful clubs in their own right and they should be allowed to build a squad that allows them to do that. Their existence isn't to serve the interests of the French national team.

Weren't restrictions in force in France for a few weeks into the season? I seem to recall Toulouse being affected by this for their first game.

In fairness, a lot of those sponsors would have seen minimal return from sponsoring beyond the WC. Marriot, for instance, would have had a contra deal for the provision of hotels - that's clearly not needed when most teams never stay in a hotel throughout the entire season (even Catalans and Toulouse tends to be done in a day trip). But for only one partner to stay on board (and that brand at the time clearly saw sponsoring match officials as part of its strategy, given they did it in several sports) suggests that there were probably some that didn't feel the value exchange was there. Whether that's down to poor reach, poor client management, or some other reason, I don't know.

All true. I think the broader point is that as a sport, we had a period where we had a diverse range of partners at various levels of involvement, and it seems like we have failed to grow those relationships. I think I mentioned on a different thread, but of all the sponsors that came to the game during the 2013 WC, only Specsavers extended their partnership. There's a question to ask here about the value we're offering our partners, what account management goes on to try and grow those arrangements to turn small involvements into bigger ones, and whether sponsors leave the sport happy with their investment or not.

I think the real issue with gambling is that the government / regulators at the time massively underestimated the size of the genie in that particular bottle. I was working for a search marketing agency at the time Google relaxed its ban on gambling advertising in what was then Google Adwords in 2008, and the market just exploded - millions flooded the market literally overnight. Gambling advertising has become so ubiquitous since on pretty much any platform you care to look at and again, whilst I personally have no issue with the industry, I can completely understand the arguments for reigning in that level of exposure. Regulation of this market is in the post and it really is on the RFL to de-risk its position on that front.

In fairness, we did have a period where the sport was able to attract a decent breadth of partners, even if only on short-term deals. We've had brands from FMCG (Kellogs, Batchelors, Irn-Bru, Gillette, various breweries), utilties (Powergen, First Utility), automotive (Dacia, Isuzu, Vavoline, Falken Tyres, Hertz), retail (Co-op, Specsavers, Moss Bros), tech (Elonex, GoDaddy, Alcatel) as well as brands like Dewalt, Tissot or Brut. Whilst most of those will be fairly small deals in the grand scheme if things, it is somewhat alarming that we seem to have lots so much diversity in the sponsorship portfolio at a central level.

Wane is right, but that's a damning indictement of the sport's poor commercial performance more than anything else. The broader concern for me is not that the sport has betting partnerships (I'm personally fine with sports betting and I don't think the Betfred arrangement is particularly excessive when it comes to brand activations), but more that the RFL / SLE appears to have bet the entire farm on Fred Done. Not only does that leave the sport vulnerable to any changes in regulation that might affect the whole betting industry, but it also leaves them vulnerable to the whims of one man. So that brings us to why the RFL/SLE is so heavily reliant on Betfred, and seemingly struggling to attract other partners that are willing to pay. Is it poor salesmanship? Is it that the value or proposition they offer to sponsors is poor? Is it that they've been poor at looking after and retaining commercial partners? Is it that other sponsors take a look and go "nah"? What we (and other sports) offer to betting companies is also something that many other brands don't need, and that's a sense of acceptability. People object to betting and even despite it's growth, it's still seen as something of a "underworld" in many circles, so having the Betfred logo on the England shirt (and everywhere else) helps it to be more accepted. That is a similar factor behind football clubs jumping into bed with cyrptocurrency brands and we need to be careful with the notion that football has suddenly earned a moral conscience when it comes to betting and gambling. Whilst the narrative does seem to be moving away from betting partnerships, most clubs in the last two years have partnered with some very questionable crypto schemes - some of whom are very much on the wrong side of regulators in this country.

"HE'S ASSAULTED ME JERRY! HE'S ASSAULTED ME! Ooh, me angina!"

The work is their time and expertise - the research they do, the intellectual property you can tap into, the insights, the creative, the deployment..... That's what you pay for and that's ultimately what drew the RFL to IMG - the fact that they have a track record of delivering growth in sport. From what I've understood with this arrangement, IMG aren't here to simply be consultants or advisors to the RFL. They and their agencies are much more embedded in the operations of the RFL/SLE, taking on many aspects that they simply haven't had the resource or expertise to do. But this should not be seen by any of the game's stakeholders, be that the RFL or the clubs, as simply "outsourcing" responsibility for the marketing and promotion of this game to IMG. This was always my argument against the whole "get Eddie Hearn" thing we had a few years back - this isn't about finding a saviour to do the work for us. This is very much about finding a partner to help the clubs and RFL do what they've so far shown they can't do, and I fully expect IMG are receiving some sort of fee for beyond any profit share arrangement, be that cash, equity or a combination of the two - it would be lunacy for IMG to assume that much risk when we know that RL's stakeholders are hardly a forward-thinking bunch when it comes to this sort of thing, and these guys aren't "no win, no fee" ambulance chasers. You can argue that it's right to blame IMG if this thing doesn't work, but this is a partnership at the end of the day and all stakeholders are responsible for working towards the end goal. Performance-related agency contracts have a place, but they do inevitably lead an agency to focus on what will get them paid quickly, not necessarily what is good for the long term.

I'd be stunned if IMG weren't being paid a retainer as well as having a profit-share element to their contract. It would be wrong for the RFL / SLE to try and unload all of the risk of this onto a third party (especially when we know the beligerence of some clubs and stakeholders) and IMG aren't idiots. I understand why people like the idea of IMG working on commission, but people ought to be careful what they wish for. When agencies work on commission, their focus very much tends to go towards the low-hanging fruit and short-term thinking, and that's what RL doesn't need an excess of right now. I know this is a 12-year strategic partnership but if I were the RFL/SLE, I'd be wanting to think about what the impact of these changes will have beyond those 12 years, as well as what impact IMG can have in the next 12 months.

The expansion of teams and ring-fencing will always be a contentious one, but it is a serious discussion that needs to be had if we are to look at what we're offering to France. But the other stuff is absolutely critical in today's market. Even if we take the much maligned Papa Johns deal for YouTube channel sponsorship as an example, the sport would struggle to secure something even as low value as that in France because we don't provide video content in the French language, with French commentary and marked with French keywords - and it would be so easy to do. These things shouldn't be optional.

I think it's a fair question and it's one that there isn't really an easy answer to. Up to now, we've had one French 'asset' in Super League and there is a good chance that we may go back to one next year, so the question we probably ought to be asking is "are we making it easy and appealing for French broadcasters / commercial partners to 'buy' SL?". By that, I mean are we providing enough content that appeals to French audiences? Does what we offer suit the French media market? Are we creating an environment where they feel comfortable investing? Those sorts of questions take us down the rabbit holes of "do we have enough French teams - how many is enough for a 'critical mass'?", "are we doing enough to engage French fans through SLE's central assets?" and "do we need to protect clubs from relegation / reintroduce franchising?" - all of which is well-trodden ground on here - but I think what is clear is that assuming that one relatively stable French club, plus one that is likely to yo-yo in and out of the league, is enough to have French partners throwing cash our way without any real push or strategy from SLE (in its role as the commercial rights holder), isn't ever going to work. If we're genuinely making it easy and appealing for French partners to come into SL and they aren't doing it, then it's fair to draw a conclusion that the interest isn't there. But I don't think we can definitively say that we are doing that yet. I think @Dave Tpoints this out, but Catalans entered SL in 2006 and we still don't even have a translated version of the Super League Europe website, nor any French commentary on the highlights packages - is that us doing enough to sell the game to French audiences and partners?

Except that we have prominent club figures making various arguments that they "bring nothing" on the basis of a lack of a TV deal, the two clubs left to arrange their own broadcast arrangements with little-to-no support from SLE, the former CEO of SLE comissioning a report that said "despite the presence of French teams, we have no French sponsors", despite Magic Weekend and the England team at the time being sponsored by a division of Renault, and the two clubs, along with Toronto, effectively blamed for the poor performance for event ticket sales by the requirement to front a bond. This is where you're delegating responsibility to the clubs, whether you realise it or not. Catalans and Toulouse are not "branch offices" of SLE. They're clubs in their own right, with their commercial priority being themselves, not central revenue. There's scant evidence that the 12-person board of SLE has had any serious discussion, either stratigically or tactically, about how to utilise the presence of Catalans, Toulouse and Toronto for the commercial gain of the league. Whilst Catalans have had initial support in their formative years, the general modus operandi of SLE's board has been to look to the expansion clubs to do the work for them - for them to get the TV deals, for them to engage with commercial partners and for them to underwrite poor ticket sales. I don't believe I've done that.

By the same logic, we can blame Leigh/Featherstone/London/[Insert Club of your choosing] for the fact that the Championship doesn't have a paying TV deal. Clearly they bring nothing, etc etc. Catalans and Toulouse are an asset for SLE to try and monetise, an asset which should make it easier for SLE to have conversations with French broadcasters and commercial partners. Catalans and Toulouse aren't there to have the responsibility delegated to them and for the blame to be apportioned to them if/when it fails. The the board members of SLE think that task is beyond them, they should get off the board.

This is the problem right here. It's not down to "the French clubs" to "bring a TV deal" or to "add to the pot". It's down to Super League Europe - the entity that exists to maximise the assets of Super League for commercial gain - that is responsible for getting TV deals in, amongst other places, France and for attracting commercial partners from, amongst other places, France. SLE is made up of the 12 clubs and it's pretty clear that the whole "it's up to the French clubs" is a narrative designed to absolve everyone else of responsibility for the failure in this regard. It allows people like Thewlis to (reportedly) complain that Catalans "bring nothing", when his club is represented on the board of the entity that exists to maximise TV revenue, and it allows Derek Beaumont to point out that there aren't any Betfred branches in Toulouse, without mentioning what he did during his tenure on the SLE board to diversify SL's sponsorship portfolio away from a overreliance on one brand in a sector that is subject to advertising regulations. It's no more Catalans' responsibility to sort a TV deal out any more than it is Leeds' to find a new title sponsor, Castleford's responsibility to negotiate with Channel Four, and Salford's responsibility to sort out the post-match pizzas.

It's undoubtedly a difficult problem to overcome. There are no easy or cheap answers to this one and certainly no "one size fits all" solution. I do think it would help to take the focus away from selling a "sport" and towards selling "entertainment" or (more so in the sense of TV/digital) selling "content". Yes, what we are selling is still fundamentally a contest, but when you sell "sport" you end up falling down those rabbit holes of "tribalism" and community connections - the sorts of pulls that I think we are agreed are weakening as our communities change. I also think this helps us get away from this trap of seeing "expansion" as a geography problem, and moves towards seeing it as an audience-based problem. If we break down this idea of a sporting event being about "town vs town" and towards "athletes vs athletes", it doesn't or shouldn't matter whether our teams are in Castleford or California, Leigh or London. But the starting point for all of this is whether the clubs, and SL as a whole, know who its target growth audiences are. I imagine if you asked the 12 SL clubs, you'd at best get close to 12 different answers, and more than likely get more than a few confused looks. It's one of the reasons why I criticised the Huddersfield cheap season ticket offer - it's fine offering that if you've done your research and concluded that the reason under-30s aren't going to Huddersfield is the price but if you haven't done the research, or the reason they're not going is something other than price, you're just giving away margin for zero gain - and it looks like you're all out of ideas.

Fair point. But I do think that late teens age is the real 'danger point' where we are likely to lose fan engagement - as many sports are. The problem is that RL is particularly poorly equiped to deal with that loss. Huddersfield is also an interesting case due to geography - it's basically a commuter town now for people in Leeds and Manchester (especially for couples where one works in each city). These are people who likely have very little connection to Huddersfield and spend very little time in it, so what appeal do the Giants hold? That doesn't necessarily mean the club should throw in the towel and accept their lot, but it does mean that have to work a lot harder to get people to see the Giants as a good way to spend £20 on a Sunday afternoon.

I think I've asked this before, but why is it that people think that RL is so inherently different to any other entertainment product? Or any other product that has a dedicated following? There are other products that have big, loyal followings, products that have people talking about and arguing about that product on internet forums, products that people pay subscriptions for or pay for membership of associated groups, products that get people expressing stong opinions when things change. I don't think that RL is that unique a sell that we can really dismiss any outside influence as "not knowing what RL is about". As a sport, it's selling some content and an experience - what's unique about that? Is it the people we're selling it to? If so, isn't the whole point that the sport needs to broaden that? If we're bringing in so many external influences and they're all failing, doesn't that show us where the real problem is?