M j M
-
Posts
11,990 -
Joined
-
Days Won
34
Posts posted by M j M
-
-
52 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:
I hope King doesn't lose his house.
However I just fine it bizarre the whole situation regarding him considering he got Salford into this mess. Like if Andrew Chalmers came back to the Bulls, my god twitter would go into meltdown. Yet the guy who took out payday loans to keep Salford going at the expense of Toulouse being in SL, and the reaction seems much more friendly. It's weird.
Also this stuff about Sydney Roosters interested in taking over Salford. It's like Gledhills taking over the RL media. As successful as the NRL and Roosters are, they don't have a spare $10 million change to wipe off payday loan debts.
Politis could find the money easily enough. The question is why on earth would he.
-
1
-
-
That won't do much for the Catalan conspiracy theorists.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Just Browny said:11 hours ago, M j M said:
If it's not Tissot, I'm not interested.
Are you Dennis Moran?
I think Iestyn Harris ended up with about 50 of them. Started giving them to teammates he won so many.
-
If it's not Tissot, I'm not interested.
-
4
-
-
-
7 minutes ago, bobbruce said:
So it can be done.
If you want to start the SL season in mid January and have players from the champion club unable to train with England ahead of a test series until a few days before the first game then yes, anything is possible. But those aren't choices I would choose to make.
-
12 minutes ago, bobbruce said:
After the grand final is exactly when it should be it just needs a bit of thought. If England are touring Australia( I know imagine) it should be held down under. The SL GF should be held a week before the NRL one so they can travel and be in the stadium to watch the NRL GF. All this reversed if the Aussies are playing up here. Obviously if there are no tours it can be held anywhere but with the same principal that the travelling teams season finishes earlier. IMO it would be great publicity to have the NRL champions in the stadium to help with the build up to the WCC.
Moving the SLGF to a week earlier than the NRL one is not in any way an easy thing to achieve. With requirements of TV deals, the wider sporting calendar and the longer length of the SL season you'd have to make a lot of changes. This was quite a big deal when we moved the GF earlier to accommodate the RLWC a couple of years ago and involves potentially starting SL even earlier in winter, or midweek games.
Whilst the WCC is important I think generally that having it at the end of the season risks really messing with the window for international games and shouldn't be pursued.
-
9 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:
Depends in what terms. Just in Australia, they're he wealthiest sporting league in that country, which is why they dominate.
They're not the wealthiest league and dominate regionally but not nationally.
Their current TV deal is a bit of an embarrassment that people don't like to talk about, compared to what it should be.
The NRL folded like a set of deckchairs on Blackpool Beach both at the last renegotiation and during Covid. This underperformance is a large but not total reason everyone is expecting such a big increase next time round.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, JonM said:
They're the title sponsor for the Ashes series. Although I suspect the same problem of there being existing relationships at Wembley and Bramley-Moore will also arise.
Trying to break the tripartite Leeds-YCCC-Carlsberg agreement covering all pouring rights at Headingley will be just as difficult.
-
The greyhound stadium can be seen relative to the soccer stadium in this image. Late 50s to mid 60s I'd say judging by the stage of development of the Leeds United ground. And obviously a fair while before the coming of the 62/621.
-
2
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Worzel said:
I agree Newcastle is nil. Not the clubs’ own stadia however, if you’re negotiating your own lease. It’s a tradeable like any other.
Anything can be negotiated. But big clubs getting their brewery partners to give up their exclusivity for a relatively small central sponsorship would in most cases not be a wise financial decision.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Worzel said:
This is an interesting example of where we fall down on sponsorship integration as a sport. We should be able to centrally sell a partnership that delivers the product into every club as part of the package, these are the sort of things sponsors want to buy. It's not beyond the wit of man for clubs without their own grounds - who rent and don't control drinks - to be able to negotiate the right to bring one additional bottled beer into their tenancy deal, or clubs who have an alcohol sponsor to get that club partner to accept that a league-wide sponsor has rights too.
If we were serious, we'd do this sort of thing.
Stadium alcohol supply contracts can be very valuable. You would need a substantial amount of central income to get the big clubs to try and compromise those for the greater good. With the soccer club hosts of Magic Weekend the chance is essentially nil.
-
3
-
-
I guess events at SJP are subject to Newcastle United's drinks contracts so they couldn't bring in an outside beer to sell, even though they were sponsors.
-
1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:
so was Keiron Cunningham and he is now in a Rugby League wasteland somewhere.
Just had to double check Cunningham wasn't still at Leigh.
-
1
-
-
More Davidson BS in that article. Pretending that people in the UK don't think there are any problems in the game hence NRL takeover is essential. Is there a single person involved over here who is denying the first part? The whole motivation for getting rid of the inept Johnson and most of his board was driven by dissatisfaction with the way things have gone.
It's complete gaslighting, people should stop giving Davidson any attention or credibility. He's almost working as a sort of agent of the NRL at this point.
-
3
-
-
33 minutes ago, Prestigious Doubt said:
The fact that you're ignorant of how far things have come in NZ since the 80s is an indictment on you, not me.
RL in NZ has been built up from a handful of small glorified pub leagues, all one bad season or handful of volunteers leaving from collapsing, to a multi-million dollar business in that time.
Nah, your credibility was shot last week, there's no point engaging with this rubbish.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Prestigious Doubt said:
We've had this discussion before. That's absolute nonsense, and you know it at this point. You can do all the mental gymnastics you like, Canberra and Auckland weren't, and still aren't really, Rugby League heartlands.
Oh yeah sorry I forgot. You're the poster who tried to claim that Rugby League in Auckland in the 80s was as weak as Rugby League in Wales is now. I should have recognised the repeated nonsense and saved my time replying.
-
3
-
-
A third team in Brisbane is such an idiotic idea that they may just do it.
-
2
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, İzmir Rugby League said:
What if...
Sydney Roosters did not simply buy Salford and rebrand them, I think that the loss would be too large but something more daring and possibly with a better outcome.
They clearly want to build a global brand / stable of clubs with the Roosters Brand (like Man City)
I would like Manchester Red Devils but I sense it won't match their desire.
What if, they buy a stake not only in Salford, but in Oldham and Swinton. A million dollar investment into each club which would retain their identities and fans could be very beneficial (the trade off being agreements)
These three clubs would then remain in the second and third tiers under a new NRL and together support a new Manchester Club with a licence for NRL Europe and the funding to make it work.
Scheduling and co-membership could then be created to ensure there are no schedule clashes or worst case double or even triple headers.
Manchester Roosters then becomes the Manchester team.
That would be an actual strategy. If the likes of Shane Richardson are seriously involved in this we can't expect something so sophisticated/tailored to the circumstances.
-
13 minutes ago, Prestigious Doubt said:
The NRL didn't have the capital or support base 27 years ago to support such a strategy. We're both well aware that it was a very different world in 1998.
Why you'd expect any business to handle operations in Australia in exactly the same way as their operations in the UK IDK. They're different markets, with different cultures, competition, laws and regulations, and influences.
It's instructive because it's what has, sort of, worked.
The NRL has spent the last two or three decades on an avowed Heartlands +one expansion side strategy.
They made sure all areas of the game's heartlands were represented, including a couple of token mergers. And spent (or rather the club's corporate owner spent) tens of millions on bedding in an expansion side in Melbourne.
What they didn't do was cut out all representation in certain areas where the game was strong to bring in multiple expansion sides with uncertain support that needed decades of financial support to bring up to strength.
They didn't do that because it would have been ruinously expensive. Absolute domination in NSW and Queensland has been essential to funding their slow, belated expansion. You simply can't do go big from a position of weakness, even more in the UK than in Australia.
-
5
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Prestigious Doubt said:
Bundle the rights, sell them at a higher rate,
These people keep saying stuff without any evidence at all as to why A would lead to B.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Prestigious Doubt said:
None of you want to hear it, but the fact of the matter is that RL has been living outside it's means in the the UK for years.
Of the 12 teams in Super League 6 are commercially valuable for the league. In other words they add value to the broadcast rights, sponsorship attainment, corporate investment, so on.
2 or 3 have the potential to add value, but are currently underperforming and would require investment.
The last 3 add little to nothing and offer little space for growth in the short term.
You don't have the means to build those 2 or 3 with potential up, you can't afford to keep going on dragging the dead weight around, and you can't attract quality investors to do it for you because the threat of relegation makes it too risky.
As a starting point 10 teams makes perfect sense. By stripping the competition back to the best prospects the NRL would control costs, thus cutting their risk, and tighten up the competition in the process, which would produce a better on-field product to sell to customers, investors, and broadcasters alike.
There's no reason why they couldn't expand the competition either. In fact I guarantee that they'd look to expand to 14 as quickly as possible for scheduling and content reasons.
As sad as it is, the NRL is stronger today for the rationalisation of the late 90s and Newtown, Glebe, and all the other clubs it's cut in the past. If handled well English RL would be stronger in the long run for rationalising the product as well, but you have to understand that you can't please everyone in situations like this, and it's impossible to make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.
What is proposed is nothing like the NRL's strategy over the last 30 years.
-
2
-
-
It keeps coming back to the lunacy of some of these choices. A ten team league selected by some people in Sydney has the potential to do enormous damage to the underlying health of the sport in this country, in particular in some of its key player producing heartlands.
-
7
-
-
51 minutes ago, yipyee said:
Fully get it would be a bitter pill to swallow for existing fans, long term though the crowds would grow if there was only one club in an area/zone.
There is zero reason to think this would be the case. These areas would just become yet more places lost to Rugby league.
-
2
-
Keighley
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
Whilst I agree a lot of time has passed what happened to Keighley, even if it was in the greater interests of the sport, was pretty disgraceful. I'd probably have thought of walking away from Rugby League if that had happened to my club.