RFL.

[Dave T]

I think Lewis tried every avenue he could to improve the games prospects and take it out of being a parochial northern game.

 

But none of it really worked in the end due to a lack of investment money needed to fund growth. The SKY money is barely enough to keep SL afloat.

 

I don't think Nigel Wood fails to see that the game needs international expansion and countrywide expansion.

 

What he has seen first hand is Lewis trying it and failing due to a lack of money and the massive problem of the game being heavily overshadowed by Union and Soccer.

 

What money is available is spent to consolidate the game and stop it going backwards, that's what Wood is doing, but because he doesn't chase grand schemes to expand doesn't mean he would not want to "break into London and the South"

 

What would be the strategy to do that?

 

What would be the cost?

 

If that cost was taken from the "Parochial game" would that risk it going backwards??

I agree, it is almost too easy to say we need to grow into London, but exactly how do we do that?

 

What would be the amount that is needed to be spent in London on an annual basis? Clearly a £1m-£2m has not been enough, I suspect £3m wouldn't either. You could argue that a London club would need 3 times the central funding of other teams, plus all sorts of allowances on salary caps - I just do not think anybody would get this through - unless they can wrap it up as ring-fenced funding as part of the TV deal, a little like they did with the Championship funding this time.

 

People slate Wood for lack of expansion, forgetting that in his time as part of SL we have tried expansion in Paris, London, Gateshead, South and North Wales and they have all struggled due to funding, as ultimately they struggle to get income from sponsors and fans - there really aren't the income streams that some other sports have.

 

Under Lewis the game did retract, certainly at international level - staging series' in unambitious venues - he made the average crowds for games against the Aussies <25k.

 

Since Wood has been more involved in the international plans England have been playing in London, with some success (maybe he does value London after all!).

 

Of course I am being slightly disingenuous as I am crediting Wood for some of Lewis' achievements and vice versa - but that is sort of my point, they were both heavily involved in the 2000's, both were involved in ambitious plans and what I would class as negative plans - but it is not fair for Wood to get all the criticism and none of the credit.

 

Maybe Wood just believes that we can't afford to spend millions an millions doing London properly.

[Padge]

Not really, and my post wasn't a dig at you, or any individuals really, I just don't see that all Wood is interested in is the structure. That has been a big focus in the last two years because of the review, but I don;t see any evidence that he believes that will just fix everything.

 

It was interesting to hear that Lionel Hurst stated that Wood played a large part in getting Catalan in SL, and he oversaw the most successful WC yet - yet people completely dismiss this for Wood and focus on the structure changes.

 

I'm not Wood's biggest fan based on the International arrangements since the World Cup, but there is literally nothing to support the view that he thinks everything will be fixed through structure changes. It is simply one of the changes that he believes is right. One of.

 

Both Lewis and Lindsay oversaw structure changes.

 

I never said you were having a dig, nor do I think I implied you were.

 

The game has a long history of trying to improve finances/support by changing structure. Lindsay was the only one who had a pot of money handed to him to finance a structure change. This is what I am trying to say.

 

The games problem is money first, by a long way, the structure a lot of clubs want can only be achieved with a pot of money. Changing the structure will not bring in the money. Never has never will. 

 

Money though can finance a structure that people clamour for, the illusive even playing field, that will only ever be achieved by a sport with cash to pay for it.

 

You can forget everything until the game learns how to seill its product better.

 

Woods is not the man to sell the game. He has overseen retraction to "the heartlands", this will not open the game up to the people we need.

 

Woods is no visionary, his blinkers are to big for that.

[Dave T]

I never said you were having a dig, nor do I think I implied you were.

 

The game has a long history of trying to improve finances/support by changing structure. Lindsay was the only one who had a pot of money handed to him to finance a structure change. This is what I am trying to say.

 

The games problem is money first, by a long way, the structure a lot of clubs  can only be achieved with a pot of money. Changing the structure will not bring in the money. Never has never will. 

 

Money though can finance a structure that people clamour for, the illusive even playing field, that will only ever be achieved by a sport with cash to pay for it.

 

You can forget everything until the game learns how to seill its product better.

 

Woods is not the man to sell the game. He has overseen retraction to "the heartlands", this will not open the game up to the people we need.

 

Woods is no visionary, his blinkers are to big for that.

But, again, I think the structure change is a red-herring.

 

Other things have been done in the last few years, but why are we only talking about the structure change? Just because it may not bring in massive financial benefits doesn't mean it is not worth doing.

 

Can't particularly disagree with the rest of the post.

[redjonn]

Just a couple of brief comments on the trend of the comments:

 

Yep, of course money in the game is mega important, but I guess that also depends upon how it is spent and which benefit. Tons of money in soccer but that's no help to majority of clubs, likes of Bolton for example, plus many more. If soccer wants a strong club premier league to compete in European club wise then the money is achieving that, if the wish is to maintain professional clubs in all area's of the country including its previous Northern power base then it's slowly failing except for the bigger clubs.

 

RL may not be attractive to major global companies focused at the worldwide market place but their are many mid size companies that show no interest or we are unable to convince them.  Mid size covers as in 10m to 1Billion revenues. Many of these companies do have northern bases and spend monies on hospitality/commercial,  community projects and sponsorship. 

 

The biggest problem I see is that RL doesn't know what it really wants to be, no point in figuring any sort of strategy and hence where to focus efforts until the game knows what it wants to be.   Being a northern based sport with strong links into the local community and strengthening this or a broad UK sport with an international game and appeal or whatever. Unless clear what the immediate goal is then we will continue to sway one way then another.   No problem having a goal and then changing it as progress is made but need to know what we want, then we can attempt to profile appropriately and build what it is we sell.   Whatever it is doesn't mean no attempts at other aspects but it does mean where the major focus, efforts and majority of monies invested go.

[Barnaby Reddin]

 

The biggest problem I see is that RL doesn't know what it really wants to be, no point in figuring any sort of strategy and hence where to focus efforts until the game knows what it wants to be.   Being a northern based sport with strong links into the local community and strengthening this or a broad UK sport with an international game and appeal or whatever. Unless clear what the immediate goal is then we will continue to sway one way then another.   No problem having a goal and then changing it as progress is made but need to know what we want, then we can attempt to profile appropriately and build what it is we sell.   Whatever it is doesn't mean no attempts at other aspects but it does mean where the major focus, efforts and majority of monies invested go.

Good Point.

I'd say that up to 5 years ago there was no strategic plan in place at the RFL, but of late, much of what they have done has begun to hint at a long term strategy. As you say, there is no harm in changing or altering the goal along the way, just as long as you are progressing. If the RFL do have a strategic plan in place,I'd say we're half way through a 10 year cycle and after the changing of the structures to 3 divisions with 888 in the top 2, then they will stick with this for at least another 5 seasons. The attendances are the responsibilities of the clubs now and they will have got a better idea of what's needed after last year. 

 

The RFL have drawn a line under "bailing out" clubs and seem to be taking a harder line on fiscal failings. 

 

I am only offering an opinion, but I have to say that as hard as I am on the failings of the RFL and Clubs to get things sorted, the RFL do now come across as having a plan in place.....it's just a shame that it seems to be about protecting what we have, making it stronger and leaving expansion to organic growth. This is why I believe that Nigel is not the man to take us forward, because we are failing to attract marquee sponsors/partners and that is hurting our media image/perception.

 

The CO OP would seem to be a perfect example of a company with its roots and origins very much aligned with the ethos of RL, yet we struggle along with a pay as you go sponsor and foxy bingo.....Here's a list of the top companies in the North West....the RFL should be touching base with all of them IMHO.

[Padge]

But, again, I think the structure change is a red-herring.

 

Other things have been done in the last few years, but why are we only talking about the structure change? Just because it may not bring in massive financial benefits doesn't mean it is not worth doing.

 

Can't particularly disagree with the rest of the post.

 

I am not talking of one particular structure change, I am talking of all the historic changes there have been and we still continue with to try.

 

In pro sport if a change has no financial benefit then it isn't worth wasting time and effort on.

 

Many structural changes in the past have had the opposite effect to what was envisaged. quite often they were abandoned quickly. 

 

You seem to think what I am posting is an attempt to have a go at the 8s, it isn't, it has having a go at Wood and Co. for attempting for what has been a proven failure time and time again because we cannot afford to subsidise the changes to see them through to their conclusion.

 

Get the money and the implement the changes, do not think the money will some how appear to pay for your desires that the change will have.

[Padge]

oops

 

[Dave T]

 

I am not talking of one particular structure change, I am talking of all the historic changes there have been and we still continue with to try.

 

In pro sport if a change has no financial benefit then it isn't worth wasting time and effort on.

 

Many structural changes in the past have had the opposite effect to what was envisaged. quite often they were abandoned quickly. 

 

You seem to think what I am posting is an attempt to have a go at the 8s, it isn't, it has having a go at Wood and Co. for attempting for what has been a proven failure time and time again because we cannot afford to subsidise the changes to see them through to their conclusion.

 

Get the money and the implement the changes, do not think the money will some how appear to pay for your desires that the change will have.

 

To be fair, the new tv deal was signed in advance of the structure change being implemented, so you could argue that is exactly what they did.

 

I also think this sentence is too simplistic: In pro sport if a change has no financial benefit then it isn't worth wasting time and effort on.

 

The administrators have to deal with all sorts that isn't simply about direct financial benefits, although everything can be linked to indirect financial benefits - which this structure change could also be.

 

I suspect everybody involved in the game is doing what they think is right, whether that is for their club, or the game more widely - if they are doing that then you could say that this should indirectly lead to financial benefits.

 

I haven't seen anything which suggests Wood is not trying to grow the game, but I can understand the view that you don;t see him as a visionary.

[The Parksider]

Yep, of course money in the game is mega important, but I guess that also depends upon how it is spent and which benefit. 

 

RL may not be attractive to major global companies focused at the worldwide market place but their are many mid size companies that show no interest or we are unable to convince them.  Mid size covers as in 10m to 1Billion revenues. Many of these companies do have northern bases and spend monies on hospitality/commercial,  community projects and sponsorship. 

 

The biggest problem I see is that RL doesn't know what it really wants to be, no point in figuring any sort of strategy and hence where to focus efforts until the game knows what it wants to be.   Being a northern based sport with strong links into the local community and strengthening this or a broad UK sport with an international game and appeal or whatever. Unless clear what the immediate goal is then we will continue to sway one way then another.   No problem having a goal and then changing it as progress is made but need to know what we want, then we can attempt to profile appropriately and build what it is we sell.   Whatever it is doesn't mean no attempts at other aspects but it does mean where the major focus, efforts and majority of monies invested go.

 

If the RFL wrote out a "consolidation" strategy, and then wrote out a national expansion strategy they would then be able to sit back and choose which way they want to go.

 

But not until they have costed each strategy, and added up what investment monies they can afford.

 

You can never do anything without the money can you.

 

You talk about northern sponsors providing the money. These "Northern" companies have their businesses in Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool there is little taste for Rugby league in those northern places, there would be little return for any northern sponsor investing in a game that in reality is far far less than "northern".

 

The basic expansion plan seems to run back to let's subsidise London Broncos to become a flagship of the game. To get them back to being a cup finalst and top four club every year may take £30 Million for a ground, and a further £10 million a year to compete over say a 10 year business plan.

 

That's £130 Million and although the RFL can indeed decide that is where they want to go, they then have to sit the clubs down and tell them that they are going to take £65M out of each 5 year SKY contract (£200M) to facilitate a successful London club.

 

We can all talk around the problem, but the problem becomes the money once you decide to go forward.

 

And it's quite clear that to boost London you have to deplete the "north"..........

[The Parksider]

To be fair, the new tv deal was signed in advance of the structure change being implemented, so you could argue that is exactly what they did.

 

I also think this sentence is too simplistic: In pro sport if a change has no financial benefit then it isn't worth wasting time and effort on.

 

I haven't seen anything which suggests Wood is not trying to grow the game, but I can understand the view that you don;t see him as a visionary.

 

I think you have a point.

 

IIRC The RFL said they put the new structure on the table when speaking to SKY and they liked it. Crowds were dropping so I can appreciate SKY may have had some concern. Consequently the RFL said they got a £200M deal out of SKY partly on the back of the new structure.

 

Their point being the structural change DID generate more money, before a ball was kicked. And who knows it may have arrested a decline in attendances.

 

That isn't more money but it's less losses.... 

 

Then of course the new structure was a financial benefit to Superleague as it cut SL from 14 to 12 clubs. Again that generated more money into the remaining flagship Superleague clubs.

[zorquif]

I think you have a point.

 

IIRC The RFL said they put the new structure on the table when speaking to SKY and they liked it. Crowds were dropping so I can appreciate SKY may have had some concern. Consequently the RFL said they got a £200M deal out of SKY partly on the back of the new structure.

 

Their point being the structural change DID generate more money, before a ball was kicked. And who knows it may have arrested a decline in attendances.

 

That isn't more money but it's less losses.... 

 

Then of course the new structure was a financial benefit to Superleague as it cut SL from 14 to 12 clubs. Again that generated more money into the remaining flagship Superleague clubs.

 

One minor question - do sky care about the crowds? Provided that viewer numbers are still high, that is?

[Dave T]

One minor question - do sky care about the crowds? Provided that viewer numbers are still high, that is?

Clearly not based on the move to Thursday nights. 

 

I would suggest they want the sports they cover to thrive and do well crowd wise, but that is not their responsibility. 

[damp squib]

You talk about northern sponsors providing the money. These "Northern" companies have their businesses in Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool there is little taste for Rugby league in those northern places, there would be little return for any northern sponsor investing in a game that in reality is far far less than "northern".

 

I think three of the top fifteen companies in the article Barnaby posted are based in Warrington.

[Scubby]

I think Lewis tried every avenue he could to improve the games prospects and take it out of being a parochial northern game.

 

But none of it really worked in the end due to a lack of investment money needed to fund growth. The SKY money is barely enough to keep SL afloat.

 

I don't think Nigel Wood fails to see that the game needs international expansion and countrywide expansion.

 

What he has seen first hand is Lewis trying it and failing due to a lack of money and the massive problem of the game being heavily overshadowed by Union and Soccer.

 

What money is available is spent to consolidate the game and stop it going backwards, that's what Wood is doing, but because he doesn't chase grand schemes to expand doesn't mean he would not want to "break into London and the South"

 

What would be the strategy to do that?

 

What would be the cost?

 

If that cost was taken from the "Parochial game" would that risk it going backwards??

 

Lewis got off his backside and brought in 29m for the development of the sport from Sport England. This resulted in more development officers in the south of england than ever before - and development in those areas accelerated rapidly. That money got cut back a little and low and behold we pulled the drawbridge straight back up (made them all redundant) instead of building on the piggy back we had to get more playing in the south.

[JoneslessBishop]

I understand people's frustration that we are treading water or even seeming to go backwards a little as a sport in the UK,but given the success of the last World Cup, the expansion of the WCS, the relative success of the 1st season of the Super 8s, a sold out NZ test series and Woods drive to get David Collier in place and an established interntional calendar, I think we are going in the right direction in interntionalising the sport and strengthening the domestic product, and thus Wood deserves say 3-4 more years to see how it goes.

As suggested, the interntional game is key, and with Sam Burgess returning for the 4 Nations and the World Cup the following year, it will be key to see how the RFL capitalize on the success of this years test series, and how the England coaching situation develops is key.

If we haven't had a successful England team by the 2019 Confedertions Cup, and our domestic game is capitalizing on it in terms of sponsorship, then I'd agree that Sally Bolton would be a great replacement.

As an aside, for those expecting marketing campaigns for our competitions, I think that smacks of despertion. We need the right competitions in place, and the it is up to broadcast partners to promote events outside of hitting mailing lists, etc. I think a lot of progress has been made in building the right calendar. Then it's about engaging a range of broadcasters and demanding they market events. That is what the RFL have to get right. But they need the right calendar first and we are nearly there on that

[redjonn]

If the RFL wrote out a "consolidation" strategy, and then wrote out a national expansion strategy they would then be able to sit back and choose which way they want to go.

 

But not until they have costed each strategy, and added up what investment monies they can afford.

 

You can never do anything without the money can you.

 

You talk about northern sponsors providing the money. These "Northern" companies have their businesses in Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool there is little taste for Rugby league in those northern places, there would be little return for any northern sponsor investing in a game that in reality is far far less than "northern".

 

The basic expansion plan seems to run back to let's subsidise London Broncos to become a flagship of the game. To get them back to being a cup finalst and top four club every year may take £30 Million for a ground, and a further £10 million a year to compete over say a 10 year business plan.

 

That's £130 Million and although the RFL can indeed decide that is where they want to go, they then have to sit the clubs down and tell them that they are going to take £65M out of each 5 year SKY contract (£200M) to facilitate a successful London club.

 

We can all talk around the problem, but the problem becomes the money once you decide to go forward.

 

And it's quite clear that to boost London you have to deplete the "north"..........

 

Of course to invest you need monies. One of my points was how you profile the game, hence select the commercial target and subsequently sell the game.  I was just highlighting my perception that we don't know what we want and so hard to successfully profile and sell the game.  Whether we can exploit the opportunity is another matter but it helps if we are clear what we are.

 

You may be right that a lot of target companies are based in northern outposts not conducive to RL but then again they may well have target audiences in RL area's that they would spend hospitality and other commercial monies to further the customer relationships. Indeed those same companies may well have offices or locations in those smaller towns.   Those same companies may well spend commercial monies on entertaining customers on other sports that the customers they are building relationships with may not be their preferred sport but they enjoy the "company" relationship day out.   

 

Whatever the situation is I am sure their are opportunities, all-be-it a higher competitive arena with other hospitality and small sponsorship type commercial spending.   I don't know what the percentage of SMB companies in the smaller to larger mid range companies that spend any commercial monies with RL is, but I suspect it's infinitesimal.  My point is that unless we are clearer what we want to profile and sell ourselves as it makes it harder to make bigger inroads into.

 

Given the size and limited coverage of our sport I'm always surprised that RL can sustain a fully professional league as I guess for most of the time the sport has been semi-professional at all levels. So I don't think the sport is doing too badly if you look at the wider sporting market place in this country.   I guess it depends upon what we see success as. A strong community based sport in as many regional outposts with its strongest outposts up North and a sustainable amateur game or a fully professional league of X teams that in order to maintain it sucks in the majority of fans and cash thus limiting the ability to sustain the wider game.   I guess two extremes and its all about balance but that conflict does create the uncertainty of what the sport should be about.  A sort of chicken and egg situation I know.

 

Anyway my mind is meandering around and I guess that how I view the uncertainty of what the game should be about given its historical roots.

[The Future is League]

I understand people's frustration that we are treading water or even seeming to go backwards a little as a sport in the UK,but given the success of the last World Cup, the expansion of the WCS, the relative success of the 1st season of the Super 8s, a sold out NZ test series and Woods drive to get David Collier in place and an established interntional calendar, I think we are going in the right direction in interntionalising the sport and strengthening the domestic product, and thus Wood deserves say 3-4 more years to see how it goes.

As suggested, the interntional game is key, and with Sam Burgess returning for the 4 Nations and the World Cup the following year, it will be key to see how the RFL capitalize on the success of this years test series, and how the England coaching situation develops is key.

If we haven't had a successful England team by the 2019 Confedertions Cup, and our domestic game is capitalizing on it in terms of sponsorship, then I'd agree that Sally Bolton would be a great replacement.

As an aside, for those expecting marketing campaigns for our competitions, I think that smacks of despertion. We need the right competitions in place, and the it is up to broadcast partners to promote events outside of hitting mailing lists, etc. I think a lot of progress has been made in building the right calendar. Then it's about engaging a range of broadcasters and demanding they market events. That is what the RFL have to get right. But they need the right calendar first and we are nearly there on that

As regards marketing it can be successful if done right and for not as much money as people think.

It shouldn't and wouldn't be hard to sell out any test match at the moment involving England v Australia and England v New Zealand with the right marketing. If a marketing company can't sell out a England v Australia test in Saint Helens, Wigan, Hull, Leeds they really shouldn't be in the marketing game, and the same applies to England v New Zealand.

[JoneslessBishop]

I don't disagree with that Future, and I think the RFL have demonstrated they can do it this autumn. The sort of marketing I suggest I disagree with is that some RL fans seem to think we should be marketing our events just to show the wider sporting audience they are happening, and for me that's not their job. That is for broadcasters.

The RFL should be filling stadia and getting the most lucrative TV deals. After that, it is up to the broadcasters and media to repaid to an exciting calendar and that is where general awareness comes from.

To my mind, the RFL should simply be about having a strong domestic competition and England interntional team that attracts good TV audiences and sponsorship nationally. This revenues should grow grass-roots across the UK. Expansion teams should be introduced at an appropriate level if they meet commercial viability criteria, as Toulouse have. No more parachuting teams into SL that alienates core support. Interntional development is for the RLIF

The domestic competition and national team is now approaching the right place. That needs to be translated into viewing figures an sponsorship. Growth should be organic due to the demand this creates, with targeted initiatives to aid it.

Despite a chequered history, RFL now seems on the right track, and I think time to review again would be after 2019 Confed Cup, with bidding for England sponsorship and Domestic TV rights a key indicator

[The Parksider]

I think three of the top fifteen companies in the article Barnaby posted are based in Warrington.

 

Yes it would give Wire a chance to wine and dine the bosses which I suspect they may have tried to do or even done and copped a few grand sponsorship into the bargain.

 

But what we are talking about is major sponsorships of the game enabling high levels of money to be invested into the game to build it outside it's homelands.

 

We are talking about getting such as ASDA to sponsor us for a few £Million and then we can go and develop the game.

 

Problem is ASDA have a HQ down the road from Leeds Rhinos yes, but many of their stores aren't in RL land. Plus a few £Million will not go far.

 

The RFL have been chasing major sponsors for years and years and the record is they do not really want to know, those who do get to sponsor the Superleague or the Challenge cup, get it cheap because there is little competition and often don't renew the contract.

 

There just isn't any evidence of a sugar daddy big company wanting to pump £Millions into the game's expansion with no real return........

[The Parksider]

Lewis got off his backside and brought in 29m for the development of the sport from Sport England. This resulted in more development officers in the south of england than ever before - and development in those areas accelerated rapidly. That money got cut back a little and low and behold we pulled the drawbridge straight back up (made them all redundant) instead of building on the piggy back we had to get more playing in the south.

 

It's a good point that shows the investment levels needed to "accelerate growth".

 

I thought the money got cut back a lot though??

 

I also thought that once the money was cut back the development largely faded away to nothing, so the question is did that £29,000,000 create any lasting RL infrastructure??

 

If it didn't then all it tells me is we need more than £29,000,000 and we need to be spending those levels of money on a regular basis and not for a limited length of time.

 

I can't argue against the game chasing sponsors and investment of course we should do it, but we're all talking like the RFL is not bothering to do it and are missing out on available multi-million pound sponsorships?

[The Parksider]

 

Given the size and limited coverage of our sport I'm always surprised that RL can sustain a fully professional league as I guess for most of the time the sport has been semi-professional at all levels. So I don't think the sport is doing too badly if you look at the wider sporting market place in this country.   I guess it depends upon what we see success as. A strong community based sport in as many regional outposts with its strongest outposts up North and a sustainable amateur game or a fully professional league of X teams that in order to maintain it sucks in the majority of fans and cash thus limiting the ability to sustain the wider game.   I guess two extremes and its all about balance but that conflict does create the uncertainty of what the sport should be about.  A sort of chicken and egg situation I know.

 

Anyway my mind is meandering around and I guess that how I view the uncertainty of what the game should be about given its historical roots.

 

Great post.

 

Given the "size and limited coverage of our game" (central lancashire corridor, north part of Yorkshire west riding and north humberside, i.e. miniscule)..............

 

The question certainly is do we see what we have achieved as a success or does the RFL stand as complete failures because they cannot get major sponsors on board for multi-£Millions to develop the game?

 

Whilst it may have been luck and circumstance rather than brilliant business acumen the RFL managed to sign a £200M deal with SKY recently without which there would be no professional RL and RU would make tidy inroads into the small areas of the north we do well in.

 

We seem to take that for granted whilst beating ourselves up we cannot obtain tens of £Millions of free money from people who are as likely as not to be totally ambivolent to RL?

[JoneslessBishop]

I think the key is to not be too worried about what might have been and get behind our domestic and interntional competitions so they aren't written off by potential broadcasters and sponsors. We should reconvene in 3-4 years to see if we are seeing the commercial growth that what seem to be improving competitions should demand

[Dave T]

I don't disagree with that Future, and I think the RFL have demonstrated they can do it this autumn. The sort of marketing I suggest I disagree with is that some RL fans seem to think we should be marketing our events just to show the wider sporting audience they are happening, and for me that's not their job. That is for broadcasters.

The RFL should be filling stadia and getting the most lucrative TV deals. After that, it is up to the broadcasters and media to repaid to an exciting calendar and that is where general awareness comes from.

To my mind, the RFL should simply be about having a strong domestic competition and England interntional team that attracts good TV audiences and sponsorship nationally. This revenues should grow grass-roots across the UK. Expansion teams should be introduced at an appropriate level if they meet commercial viability criteria, as Toulouse have. No more parachuting teams into SL that alienates core support. Interntional development is for the RLIF

The domestic competition and national team is now approaching the right place. That needs to be translated into viewing figures an sponsorship. Growth should be organic due to the demand this creates, with targeted initiatives to aid it.

Despite a chequered history, RFL now seems on the right track, and I think time to review again would be after 2019 Confed Cup, with bidding for England sponsorship and Domestic TV rights a key indicator

Agree with much of it, but where the RFL are still lacking is with the England test team. When we launched the England RL brand we looked like we were taking it seriously, we had a major kit launch, we played regular games against France, and we launched the Exiles (with a lot of fanfare) to give us a new challenge mid-season. We took things seriously.

 

Now, the Test team is like an afterthought, and we play fewer games than ever. Before the last 4N in 2013 we didn't even bother with a warmup game, and played not a single game in England for just under two years.

 

Why on earth would a partner come on board to support the England RL concept?

 

The RFL need to put together an exciting package for potential partners, where for a relatively modest investment (a few million) they could actually build a strong England RL - we have a 4N this year and a World Cup next year - we should already have a mid-season test and a pre 4N game lined up. We should also have Academy and England Knights games lined up - but again, the Knights have been scrapped.

 

We are now looking for a new main partner for England RL, but what does the proposition look like on paper for the next 3 or 4 years on paper.

 

2016 - 3 or 4 games in Oct/Nov in Wigan, Leeds, Hull and London

2017 - 5 or 6 World Cup games in the Southern Hemisphere played early in the morning

2018 - dunno

2019 - ???

 

With a plan like that, we will end up with an average name on the shirt for the minimal amount of money, rather than an out and out partner who is interested in paying proper money to fund the development of the team as well as promote them and be proud to be attached to them.

[JoneslessBishop]

We are always going to be restricted by our lack of competition in the northern hemisphere until that improves. However, with SOO having a standalone weekend from 2018, meaning a break from NRL fixtures, no reason we can't have a mid-season test against NZ. It's already been confirmed that the Pacific Nations will play each other to fill gaps in the TV schedule outside of the Origin test. June is a great time as outside the football and RU seasons so could get us on the back pages. If we are playing in the Southern Hemisphere that autumn gives us a chance to have a home game that year, when we should go for a big Olympic stadium style fixture. Given the number of English players in NRL, would be easy to put a strong team out down there the following year without expecting too much domestic disruption i.e. Just send Wigan and Leeds players, who could play each other following week so fair jetlag impact.

We are never going to be football or RU, but a regular calendar and a strongly performing England team can go a long way toward increasing exposure and sponsorship. Baby steps maybe but things do seem to be falling into place, especially with Australia also talking about a mid-season interntional window

RLIF strategy paper suggested a Confed Cup competition every 4 years in between World Cup, with a strong intimation towards test series in other 2 years, so I would assume a test series in UK in 2018 followed by a new competition 2019. Potentially attractive to a sponsor

[Padge]

I think you have a point.

 

IIRC The RFL said they put the new structure on the table when speaking to SKY and they liked it. Crowds were dropping so I can appreciate SKY may have had some concern. Consequently the RFL said they got a £200M deal out of SKY partly on the back of the new structure.

 

Their point being the structural change DID generate more money, before a ball was kicked. And who knows it may have arrested a decline in attendances.

 

That isn't more money but it's less losses.... 

 

Then of course the new structure was a financial benefit to Superleague as it cut SL from 14 to 12 clubs. Again that generated more money into the remaining flagship Superleague clubs.

 

There's Woods's version and the there is reality.