RFL's Strategic Plan

[GaryO]

I am involved in the Amateur game and I think this is really struggling at both Youth and Open Age, the Chairman need to act soon to rescue this side of the game as this is where their future players are from as the RFL juggle figures to make things look good, apart from the NCL and top amateur leagues the amount of postponements should be a worry this is with a very poor turnout of teams at 16-18 though out the country.

Do the RFL have a plan to turn this round?

I like to say that a lot of the decision maker's are out of touch with the amateur game, but sadly they have never been anywhere near the non-professionals, they do not understand the mechanics of what it requires to run an amateur club let alone a league or regional structure.

You are quite correct in that if this situation is not addressed the consequences for the sport in a few years from now will be irreversible, without the foundation's there is nothing to build on.

[Yakstorm]

Key KPIs in the plan were:

- Increasing annual revenue from 118m to 146m per year.

- Increasing spectator numbers from 2.3m to 3.0m per year.

- Increasing TV viewership from 17m to 22m per year.

- Increasing participation from 46K to 66K

Now in terms of working out where we are fairing being honest I can't work out how RL got their base figures. For participation they claim to have 40K Community players, 3.5K Touch and 3K Students to make up the 46K odd base.

When I look at Sports England numbers for RL in 14/15 the figures are around 24.5K for community.

TV audiences I can't see increasing significantly unless there is an increase in content whilst I don't see any evidence either that attendances are growing at a decent level.

All in all, for the second year in of a 5 year plan, things aren't starting well.

[EastLondonMike]

Yak, surely those figures were for year one of the plan? or over a specific period, with a further increase in targets for the remaining years?

I have this image of an RFL board meeting, with everyone sat around the table listening to the points in the plan being laid out.. everyone smiling at what a wonderful job has been done in detailing this plan of action, and at the end of the meeting someone says.. "so whats happens now?".. and everyone looks around the table at each other waiting for a response.

[Dave T]

Those targets wont be for year 1. Id expect that to be the aim by the end of the strategy. Some may happen sooner, but it is a long term plan.

[Farmduck]

Aren't most of the relevant numbers contained in the Annual Reports?

[GeordieSaint]

Those targets wont be for year 1. Id expect that to be the aim by the end of the strategy. Some may happen sooner, but it is a long term plan.

 

I wonder if anyone will held to account if those targets aren't achieved...? 

[Dave T]

So having had time to have a scan over this again, the main goals are stated as:

 

1 - Increasing turnover from £118m to £146m by 2021

 

2 - Increasing spectator numbers from 2.3m to 3m 

 

3 - Increase TV viewers from 17m to 22m by 2021

 

4 - Increased participation from 46k to 65k by 2021

 

5 - England to win the 2017 RLWC and every home series to 2021

 

6 - Governance - Achieve national recognition by achieving EFQM standard

 

They all seem pretty sensible goals and stretching.

 

So how do we think we are doing?

 

1 - Turnover - this appears to be a game-wide objective as the RFL's turnover in 2014 was £19m. However the strategy claims that the RFL turnover was only £15m which is a bit dodgy. The target of £22m for the RFL turnover is still below the level in 2010 (iirc) so not particularly ambitious imo.

The clubs are expected to deliver an increase in turnover of £15m per year, and based on the new Sky deal, surely the additional £600k or so per annum means we are well on our way with that.

This target should be achieved - if we can;t get this modest growth, then we are in trouble.

 

I am very happy to see a commercial target of £7m per year, up from £2.5m. I think that will be very tough, but hopefully a sign that they are taking that area seriously.

 

2 - Spectators - an additional 440k per year for SL - some of this will have been achieved with the additional games already. Ambitious target, but certainly achievable.

 

3 - TV Viewers - Trying to get an additional 1m terrestrial viewers - they moved to Friday night Cup games in 2014, I believe with some success, so I expect we are on our way with that. We also had internationals again on the BBC and do so again this year. Should be progressing nicely.

11m to 15m Sky viewers. Looking at the starting point, we had c68 live games delivering 11m fans. If we keep the same average viewership then the increase in games has probably seen us achieve the 15m already. 

 

4 - Playing numbers. Not my area of expertise and has been addressed earlier in the thread I think, but the only thing I have seen from Sport England suggests numbers have been similar year on year.

 

5 - England to win WC and all home series'. Well we have won the Kiwi series in 2015, so great start. Announced the signing of Bennett as manager.

 

6 - Governance - that's a behind the scenes one.

 

So tbh, when you look at it, and this is based on my understanding of the situation as we don't have a 2015 Annual Report yet, but it looks like we are certainly moving in the right direction against these objectives. Of course, much of it has been kick started by the new TV deal and increased coverage, but getting England on the BBC, setting up SkyTry, changing the structure etc. are all RFL driven activities so we shouldn't be dismissive of these.

[Dave T]

Couple more interesting snippets:

 

1 - Sell out the Grand Final from 2015 - tick last year, and they do seem to have created a bigger event from this, so hopeful here.

 

2 - Sell out Magic Day One from 2017 onwards. - Disappointed with this target, but they have their work cut out next year - if it is at Newcastle again then they need to find an extra 12k fans for the Saturday.

 

3 - SL 2015 to have 10 sellouts, rising by 5 each year. I believe they failed last year, this year's target is 15, maybe this is why Solly moved on, but maybe the Marketing Director should be held to task on this, despite being touted as Solly's replacement! This is a big area of disappointment, as I personally see us doing nothing different to get 15 sellouts. We are talking one per club plus a couple of extras.

 

4 - Strange to see England Knights mentioned as a priority in the England section!!!!

 

Personally overall I like the strategy, I think it makes sense, we need to make sure we have the people and structures in place to achieve these things though.

[Dave T]

Aren't most of the relevant numbers contained in the Annual Reports?

Yes, looking at last year, it was July when 2014's annual report was published, so hopefully we will see something soon.

[Lowdesert]

These objectives are achievable. When the CEO is an accountant you would expect numbers, revenues and TV figures to be reasonably accurate. But, as I said, we only have the Plan document, not the associated operating procedures, r & r etc. Genuinely hope it comes to fruition.

All good for me, other than the Participation section. It is unclear on the timeframe. The end date is 2021, but associated 'Plans' are for 2015 - 2017. I can only assume that these area review dates, although all such plans should be 'live' and reviewed regularly. Where does it say?

I can imagine the 3k figure for Uni students is ok as they seem to be in the news as doing well, but 40k for the Comm game seems steep.

According the the Plan, Touch &Tag will be run under license with commercial partners. Can anyone advise where this is happening, as there's supposed to be 3.5k involved now and by the end of 2017 it will be 15200?

How is the Sky Try incentive working? I understand this is being done by Pro a Clubs - anyone know?

Some things don't ring true for me in the Community section, RLs lifeblood. The Plan says that the RFL will be restructuring and streamlining it (what is BARLA doing?), as well as improving a competition calendar. Is this happening?

Would be interesting to know how this RFL - Community game interface is working.

[Oxford]

I'm lost ( try to avoid the obvious Dave T)

 

Are we arguing over:

If they.ve got one or not?

If they're taking any notice of one they've got?

If they damn well should have one?

That the one they've got is or is not working?

Or if the one they do have is sucessful or not?

Or is this the sleeping sequence where we all have the same recurring dream that they have one it's working and it's a bright new future?

 

Or all of the above?

[Lowdesert]

I'm lost ( try to avoid the obvious Dave T)

 

Are we arguing over:

If they.ve got one or not?

If they're taking any notice of one they've got?

If they damn well should have one?

That the one they've got is or is not working?

Or if the one they do have is sucessful or not?

Or is this the sleeping sequence where we all have the same recurring dream that they have one it's working and it's a bright new future?

 

Or all of the above?

Maybe read the OP?

[Dave T]

I'm lost ( try to avoid the obvious Dave T)

Are we arguing over:

If they.ve got one or not?

If they're taking any notice of one they've got?

If they damn well should have one?

That the one they've got is or is not working?

Or if the one they do have is sucessful or not?

Or is this the sleeping sequence where we all have the same recurring dream that they have one it's working and it's a bright new future?

Or all of the above?

we arent arguing. We are discussing. For now!

[Scubby]

we arent arguing. We are discussing. For now!

 

Yeah, for now. 

[Lowdesert]

we arent arguing. We are discussing. For now!

We won't have time to argue, too much Tag Rugby to play.

[Oxford]

we arent arguing. We are discussing. For now!

Gasp!

 

Well Dave I don't distinguish this in this way.

 

But I do like the For now!

 

 

Maybe read the OP?

That doesn't  always help because threads follow the arguments people think are most important! And then take a left turn at the reistatement of the Ashes Series!

 

So

Are we mulling over:

If they've got one or not?

If they're taking any notice of one they've got?

If they damn well should have one?

That the one they've got is or is not working?

Or if the one they do have is sucessful or not?

Or is this the sleeping sequence where we all have the same recurring dream that they have one it's working and it's a bright new future?

Or all of the above?

[Scubby]

If clubs move to a 54-game season I can see how that 3 million attendance is achievable. Those games shown twice a week on Sky will get us our 22 millions viewers - especially with 27 Catalans home games thrown in. Saints v Wigan x9 is exactly what the game needs.

 

Now that is how to grow the game. After all, Coronation street went to 5 times a week. That decision has worked wonders for its ratings.

[Dave T]

If clubs move to a 54-game season I can see how that 3 million attendance is achievable. Those games shown twice a week on Sky will get us our 22 millions viewers - especially with 27 Catalans home games thrown in. Saints v Wigan x9 is exactly what the game needs.

Now that is how to grow the game. After all, Coronation street went to 5 times a week. That decision has worked wonders for its ratings.

i know you jest, but give the broadcasters and sponsors more of what they want and we get more money.

Making more rounds attractive is the challenge and that us where other sports have used European comps to do it.

Cricket invented new comps T20.

[Scubby]

i know you jest, but give the broadcasters and sponsors more of what they want and we get more money.

Making more rounds attractive is the challenge and that us where other sports have used European comps to do it.

Cricket invented new comps T20.

 

Do they want it though? Are viewing figures reflecting that this year?

[Dave T]

Do they want it though? Are viewing figures reflecting that this year?

cumulative figures are. Cricket benefits from giving more live hours of sport rather than high numbers in one go.

[Airlie Bird]

When I originally read the plan, I thought the objectives were sensible.   Where I have a problem with it is in 2 areas :

- First, as per my original posting, the lack of any subsequent progress reports.  Hopefully the forthcoming annual report will address this.   However, I think the RFL should be producing some sort of interim results on a 6-monthly basis - just as a normal business with a similar turnover would do

 

- Second, whilst the objectives themselves look sensible, the plan (at least the part that was published) was very weak in terms of describing what steps will be taken to achieve the objectives.    It's very easy to say that if we recruit 10% more amateur players each year and reduce the drop-out rate by 5% each year, then after 7 years the player pool will have grown by 150% (or whatever).   Basically all that's doing is assuming a set of percentage improvements then cranking the numbers together.   But the key questions are what steps will be taken to improve recruitment and player retention so that those percentage improvements are delivered - and what research/evidence is there that these steps will produce the desired results.    

[Lowdesert]

When I originally read the plan, I thought the objectives were sensible.   Where I have a problem with it is in 2 areas :

- First, as per my original posting, the lack of any subsequent progress reports.  Hopefully the forthcoming annual report will address this.   However, I think the RFL should be producing some sort of interim results on a 6-monthly basis - just as a normal business with a similar turnover would do

 

- Second, whilst the objectives themselves look sensible, the plan (at least the part that was published) was very weak in terms of describing what steps will be taken to achieve the objectives.    It's very easy to say that if we recruit 10% more amateur players each year and reduce the drop-out rate by 5% each year, then after 7 years the player pool will have grown by 150% (or whatever).   Basically all that's doing is assuming a set of percentage improvements then cranking the numbers together.   But the key questions are what steps will be taken to improve recruitment and player retention so that those percentage improvements are delivered - and what research/evidence is there that these steps will produce the desired results.

Exactly. We have the Plan, but not the detail.

For many on here, most of this will be rhubarb. Apologies but these things are just not for everyone. But, if the RFL have seen the need for a Plan, written it up with timescales, objectives, goals, targets and calculated figures, then, considering they are the guardians of our sport, they need to show progress and proof that they are acting in the Clubs, Public and Stakeholders best interests.

[The Future is League]

For me at the moment the RFL are coming up short.

To me we just seem to beat treading water at best at the moment.

[Airlie Bird]

Agree with you 100% Lowdesert.    So what do we do about it?     As a start it would help if we all raise the issue of the RFL strategic plan in as many places that we can, especially online newspapers that cover RL and allow readers to comment on issues.    If this topic gets raised in enough places, then eventually an RL journalist will start digging and embarrass the RFL into engaging with the paying spectators who ultimately pay everyone's salaries - including the administrators.   We - the paying customers - are the true stakeholders of RL ; and we deserve honest communication from the sport's (temporary) guardians.

[The Parksider]

When I originally read the plan, I thought the objectives were sensible.   

 

- Second, whilst the objectives themselves look sensible, the plan (at least the part that was published) was very weak in terms of describing what steps will be taken to achieve the objectives.  

 

What did we want them to do? 

 

Realistically when the game is tied to pay TV schedules, the expansion of the game has stalled, and rivals national codes of football are outgunning us, and players leaving for the rival NRL it would have been be a really positive albeit challenging plan to have said that the RFL's plan was to hold onto what we have.

 

Had the RFL done that then there would have been been uproar and everyone would have been calling for a clear out at the RFL. Had the RFL not published any plans for going forward at all there would have been a similar uproar.

 

If clubs move to a 54-game season I can see how that 3 million attendance is achievable. Those games shown twice a week on Sky will get us our 22 millions viewers - especially with 27 Catalans home games thrown in. Saints v Wigan x9 is exactly what the game needs.

 

Now that is how to grow the game. After all, Coronation street went to 5 times a week. That decision has worked wonders for its ratings.

 

Nice one, we need to stop the Paul Daniels "just like that" suggestions and get real.

 

If the RFL have seen the need for a Plan, written it up with timescales, objectives, goals, targets and calculated figures, then, considering they are the guardians of our sport, they need to show progress and proof that they are acting in the Clubs, Public and Stakeholders best interests.

 

As above if they don't do a plan, or don't plan for progress you'll be gunning for them along with others who think it reasonable the game can grow with some smart management. So they have to plan for progress otherwise it's off with their heads.

 

It would help if we all raise the issue of the RFL strategic plan in as many places that we can, especially online newspapers that cover RL and allow readers to comment on issues.    If this topic gets raised in enough places, then eventually an RL journalist will start digging and embarrass the RFL into engaging with the paying spectators who ultimately pay everyone's salaries - including the administrators.   We - the paying customers - are the true stakeholders of RL ; and we deserve honest communication from the sport's (temporary) guardians.

 

The "true" stakeholder is SKY TV, the game sold itself out to that 20 years ago.

 

There are many one client companies who rely entirely on that client, and that is professional Rugby League. 

 

The supporter base has reduced somewhat and so clubs started to go bust, So the supporters hardly pay everyone's salaries. It was SKY who upped our contract to cover those debts.

 

And if SKY go will the "supporters" stick around? Will we still see average crowds of 8.500 in a semi-pro Superleague where many more top players leave for down under?? Not a chance so the supporters aren't the lifeblood of the game at all.

 

And so the RFL will continue to fob off moaning fans with these "plans" and "visions" of where they are taking the game, whilst in reality they are clinging on to SKY, and quite right too.