Would the game be in a better or worse state if it had stuck with the original plan for SL?

[Konkrete]

The plan was sound.  Mergers, bigger teams, franchised licences, rebranding, expansion  The NRL is a fantastic competition and they did all of this around the same time.  Look at them now.

We got off to a good start, but we failed because of weak governance and a vision for the game that wasn't shared.  20 yrs later the game in the UK is back peddling and there is no vision whatsoever.  In 1996 the governing body led the game, now it just manages it (badly).

 

[Oxford]

6 hours ago, Konkrete said:

The plan was sound.  Mergers, bigger teams, franchised licences, rebranding, expansion  The NRL is a fantastic competition and they did all of this around the same time.  Look at them now.

We got off to a good start, but we failed because of weak governance and a vision for the game that wasn't shared.  20 yrs later the game in the UK is back peddling and there is no vision whatsoever.  In 1996 the governing body led the game, now it just manages it (badly).

 

Yes the plan was sound but the execution was rubbish and the change of heart all too typical.

I do still feel that all clubs needed to be involved in the change some how in order to prevent some clubs and supporters thinking they were being singled out.

[The Parksider]

7 hours ago, Konkrete said:

The plan was sound.  Mergers, bigger teams, franchised licences, rebranding, expansion  The NRL is a fantastic competition and they did all of this around the same time.  Look at them now.

We got off to a good start, but we failed because of weak governance and a vision for the game that wasn't shared.  20 yrs later the game in the UK is back peddling and there is no vision whatsoever.  In 1996 the governing body led the game, now it just manages it (badly).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The plan included the inter global competition as it's main objective to get with the new age of sattelite TV sport

2. The plan included a switch to summer to accommodate the inter-global competition and to get the game in England out of the mud.

3. The plan included mergers to make stronger clubs with more fans in less clubs, the plan wanted to include as many fans as possible in Superleague/World Club Championship

Your club Bradford finished the Superleague as winners with something like 20 straight wins, however Bulls World club championship home games were three straight defeats to the Australians. The Australians underlined their superiority on the return games and Auckland .crushed Bulls 64-14 Penrith 54-14 and Cronulla beat them 40-12.We did not fail due to "weak governance", we failed due to weak playing ability.

The switch to summer did get the game out of the mud and it accommodated SKY being able to show RFL in the summer and RU/Soccer in the winter, I can only think that was a success as SKY saved the English game so no weak governance from the RL there either?

In that year 1997 when the plan was in full effect SL clubs averaged 6,933 and the second tier averaged 2,522.By 2012 without mergers the SL clubs were getting an average of 9,431 fans into SL games as crowds fell back outside SL to 1,185. Although there were no real mergers the RFL succeeded in getting more fans into the superleague games, and more fans paying at the turnstiles overall despite RL being on TV every weekend. Again a success..

Where is the "weak governance"?? 

 

[Oxford]

"Where is the "weak governance"?? "

How about not sticking to the plan? How about not keeping the model going until it bore fruit? What about hardly sticking to anything for more than five minutes? And how does the constant and incessant rule and structure changes in the face of the sport being played under different rules across the globe look and work? If these are signs of strong, imaginative and proactive governance then Salford will will the CC and GF this Year!

[The Parksider]

2 minutes ago, Oxford said:

"Where is the "weak governance"?? "

How about not sticking to the plan? How about not keeping the model going until it bore fruit? 

 

On what basis would continuing the slaughter of English clubs by Australian clubs have lead to the model "bearing fruit"?

At the time it wasn't the English Superleague playing the Australian NRL.Half the Australian clubs weren't even in the competition because they were playing two rival competitions, they were in the Optus cup.

Once they settled their disagreements, got through the mergers, closed the weaker clubs down and settled into a single and much stronger competition, we were in for even bigger hammerings than we got.Auckland put 70 past Saints, Canbera put 106 points on Wigan in two games, North Queensland put 100 on Leeds in two games, and all our clubs were knocked out before the semis.

This was set to get worse, and it wasn't turning on the fans either so they took the decision to abandon it, which was a good decision.

So tell me on what basis would carrying on have "borne fruit"?

 

[Trojan]

32 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

On what basis would continuing the slaughter of English clubs by Australian clubs have lead to the model "bearing fruit"?

At the time it wasn't the English Superleague playing the Australian NRL.Half the Australian clubs weren't even in the competition because they were playing two rival competitions, they were in the Optus cup.

Once they settled their disagreements, got through the mergers, closed the weaker clubs down and settled into a single and much stronger competition, we were in for even bigger hammerings than we got.Auckland put 70 past Saints, Canbera put 106 points on Wigan in two games, North Queensland put 100 on Leeds in two games, and all our clubs were knocked out before the semis.

This was set to get worse, and it wasn't turning on the fans either so they took the decision to abandon it, which was a good decision.

So tell me on what basis would carrying on have "borne fruit"?

 

Like South Sydney say?   Closed down and yet revived.  At many of the merged clubs, supporters of the junior partner in the merger have ceased to follow the merged club.  Had this been forced through in the UK IMO it would have been catastrophic for the game.  And what has SL done for the Bulls?   The ultimate SL side.  They'll be lucky to survive in any recognisable form.  Who's next?

The beneficiaries of SL IMO have been Union.  It forced them to get their act together and produce a thriving club comp. that I for one envy. And they did it playing in winter.  Meanwhile we continue with the usual suspects winning everything every year.  Don't ask me what to do about it, but IMO we need to do something.  I only hope Leigh let a breath of fresh air into SL.

[Konkrete]

The weak governance is in the inability to capitalise on a great start and gradually revert backwards to where we are today.  You quote defeats in the WCC in 1997.  Another fantastic concept borne of change and yes, Sky.  But it was early days.  I notice that once the UK SL competition had taken hold, around 4/5 seasons in, then the English teams more often than not won those contests.  It is only in recent times that the NRL sides have strided ahead.  Although it might be truer to say the standard of SL has dropped and is dropping.

You might want to look at our friends in the other code on how a governing body made dramatic changes to its sport 20 yrs ago and made it work for the long term.  They've stuck to their plan, developed it by taking elements from us, and have a very successful sport.

20yrs ago we had visionaries in charge, now we've got Nige.

[The Parksider]

5 minutes ago, Konkrete said:

I notice that once the UK SL competition had taken hold, around 4/5 seasons in, then the English teams more often than not won those contests.  It is only in recent times that the NRL sides have strided ahead.  

1

No I can't accept that.

In full blooded competition the NRL clubs were always and still are miles ahead of us.

The annual club challenge game always with home advantage, always when the NRL club was in pre-season, always a glorified friendly are the remnant of the full blooded inter global competition that was abandoned.

Do you really believe the English wins were proof that our game was/became as strong as theirs. Really hand on heart?

 

 

 

[Lobbygobbler]

In 1995 with the switch to full professionalism, we should have stuck with winter, competitive scrums and the 5m rule. Games would have been closer and more varied due to more variable weather. 

I think summer rugby, nonsensical scrums and the 10m rule are red herrings and the main reason for crowd increases in the top division was going fully pro.

[Dave T]

9 hours ago, Konkrete said:

The plan was sound.  Mergers, bigger teams, franchised licences, rebranding, expansion  The NRL is a fantastic competition and they did all of this around the same time.  Look at them now.

We got off to a good start, but we failed because of weak governance and a vision for the game that wasn't shared.  20 yrs later the game in the UK is back peddling and there is no vision whatsoever.  In 1996 the governing body led the game, now it just manages it (badly).

 

I have to disagree with a few things here. The NRL now looks pretty similar to what it did in 1994, noticeable differences with the additions of Warriors, Storm and Cowboys. 

They didnt change their season to summer or rebrand their clubs like SL did. A lot of the bold stuff they did in Oz ended up being canned as part of tge reconciliation deal.

Their average has gone from 14.6k in 2014 to 15.2 last year.

Ours has gone from 5.5k to around 8.5k and we have had a real change in facilities.

I dont see any ideas that the NRL still have that we havent tried - apart from some of the execution and ring fenced funding.

You say the idea for bigger clubs was sound but there were no bigger clubs presented. London and Paris both proved to be too weak and smaller than the other clubs. A cheshire club would still be playing out of Widnes or Warrington - literally no examples of successful mergers here.

Names like Manchester were seen as a bold move - my guess is they would have gone the same way as the cities' Ice Hockey and Basketball teams etc.

[Dave T]

God knows why this has been sidetracked into a WCC discussion - the original proposals referred to are the mergers, new teams and switch to summer.

 

Parky rewriting history again.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Lobbygobbler said:

In 1995 with the switch to full professionalism, we should have stuck with winter, competitive scrums and the 5m rule. Games would have been closer and more varied due to more variable weather. 

I think summer rugby, nonsensical scrums and the 10m rule are red herrings and the main reason for crowd increases in the top division was going fully pro.

Why does going pro make more people watch?

[Derwent]

Most of this is covered in Phil Caplan's excellent book about how SL began. In particular there is a very revealing interview with Vic Wakeling who was head of Sky Sports at the time. Wakeling says that Sky simply asked the RFL to create a full time pro league to become their flagship summer sport. He says they left it entirely up to the RFL which clubs should be in the SL and, interestingly, that Sky were not in favour of having a team in Paris.

From my own experience at the time, there was silly amounts of cash being offered to average players. Lads who were on £30k suddenly became £80k, even £100k, a year players overnight plus top ups for signing SL loyalty contracts. Remember there was no salary cap until 1999 so the first 3 years of SL were a bonanza time for players and agents. Thus the initial tranche of cash was squandered with very little to show for it. Great for the players but rubbish for the game as a whole. In fact, the introduction of the cap saved the game in many ways as it meant every penny wasn't going straight out of the game in wages.

[Lobbygobbler]

33 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Why does going pro make more people watch?

Good question because some people would still watch their club if they were semi pro and if going pro shows no increase in crowds then why do it?

my view is that it should shore up weaker clubs if all players are fully pro rather than when just Wigan did it. Also I think people generally gravitate to watch players who are playing to their full potential. This is exactly what happened with club RU since 1995. They have not changed anything of any great substance

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Lobbygobbler said:

Good question because some people would still watch their club if they were semi pro and if going pro shows no increase in crowds then why do it?

my view is that it should shore up weaker clubs if all players are fully pro rather than when just Wigan did it. Also I think people generally gravitate to watch players who are playing to their full potential. This is exactly what happened with club RU since 1995. They have not changed anything of any great substance

Im not sure i agree with that. I remember watching Broncos at the Stoop in tge early days when it had one decent stand. They have also created a true league comp and Euro comp with associated big event finals.

RL has improved facilities, plus i think the move to summer and modernising of the game has delivered the crowd increases. People like to say we wasted the money but we are so much further on than 20 years ago in a far more challenging environment.

[Oxford]

4 hours ago, The Parksider said:

On what basis would continuing the slaughter of English clubs by Australian clubs have lead to the model "bearing fruit"?

At the time it wasn't the English Superleague playing the Australian NRL.Half the Australian clubs weren't even in the competition because they were playing two rival competitions, they were in the Optus cup.

Once they settled their disagreements, got through the mergers, closed the weaker clubs down and settled into a single and much stronger competition, we were in for even bigger hammerings than we got.Auckland put 70 past Saints, Canbera put 106 points on Wigan in two games, North Queensland put 100 on Leeds in two games, and all our clubs were knocked out before the semis.

This was set to get worse, and it wasn't turning on the fans either so they took the decision to abandon it, which was a good decision.

So tell me on what basis would carrying on have "borne fruit"?

 

For one thing the European clubs might have been forced to up their game they might have learned from the Aussie matches much more so than they would have playing them once in a while in WCC or internationals.

 

But that's a bit of a red herring argument Parky in governance terms.

[Gates1]

Wrong thread 

[Konkrete]

9 hours ago, The Parksider said:

No I can't accept that.

In full blooded competition the NRL clubs were always and still are miles ahead of us.

The annual club challenge game always with home advantage, always when the NRL club was in pre-season, always a glorified friendly are the remnant of the full blooded inter global competition that was abandoned.

Do you really believe the English wins were proof that our game was/became as strong as theirs. Really hand on heart?

 

 

 

At that time, the standard of play, yes absolutely.

There are too many apologists for NRL losses in the WCC who don't give the UK clubs the credit they deserve.

[Konkrete]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

I have to disagree with a few things here. The NRL now looks pretty similar to what it did in 1994, noticeable differences with the additions of Warriors, Storm and Cowboys. 

They didnt change their season to summer or rebrand their clubs like SL did. A lot of the bold stuff they did in Oz ended up being canned as part of tge reconciliation deal.

Their average has gone from 14.6k in 2014 to 15.2 last year.

Ours has gone from 5.5k to around 8.5k and we have had a real change in facilities.

I dont see any ideas that the NRL still have that we havent tried - apart from some of the execution and ring fenced funding.

You say the idea for bigger clubs was sound but there were no bigger clubs presented. London and Paris both proved to be too weak and smaller than the other clubs. A cheshire club would still be playing out of Widnes or Warrington - literally no examples of successful mergers here.

Names like Manchester were seen as a bold move - my guess is they would have gone the same way as the cities' Ice Hockey and Basketball teams etc.

I don't think playing RL in Australia in summer would be a good idea.  I'm surprised you're suggesting it.  Was the SL average attendance only 5.5k in 2014 that doesn't seem right?  

You mention the Storm, Warriors and the Cowboys in passing.  But these are massive expansion areas.  There were also quite a number of mergers in Australia but there were no mergers over here of course.  Weak governance.

The NRL has achieved stability and dominance in their domestic sporting consciousness, which equals money to invest and strengthen further against the competition.  They have expanded massively beyond NSW + Brisbane.  And, probably most crucially, virtually every club has either won or contested the GF.  They've also got televised second tier competitions. All that exposure delivers interest and that's where you get the kids on board.  What does RL look like today below the top tier in both countries?

 

It all comes down to how much money can be generated, because that's what will shape the game now and in the future.  If you think that the SL has somehow progressed comparably to the NRL then you probably need to look again.

[Dave T]

11 hours ago, Konkrete said:

I don't think playing RL in Australia in summer would be a good idea.  I'm surprised you're suggesting it.  Was the SL average attendance only 5.5k in 2014 that doesn't seem right?  

You mention the Storm, Warriors and the Cowboys in passing.  But these are massive expansion areas.  There were also quite a number of mergers in Australia but there were no mergers over here of course.  Weak governance.

The NRL has achieved stability and dominance in their domestic sporting consciousness, which equals money to invest and strengthen further against the competition.  They have expanded massively beyond NSW + Brisbane.  And, probably most crucially, virtually every club has either won or contested the GF.  They've also got televised second tier competitions. All that exposure delivers interest and that's where you get the kids on board.  What does RL look like today below the top tier in both countries?

 

It all comes down to how much money can be generated, because that's what will shape the game now and in the future.  If you think that the SL has somehow progressed comparably to the NRL then you probably need to look again.

My point being that the UK game did far more radical things than the Aussie game and has seen a greater crowd uplift for it. There are suggestions that we wasted the opportunity and rge ideas the Aussies pursued were better but that isnt true ino as i say apart from in execution which is easier much of the time in Oz due to friendlier media and the standing the game has and had over there.

We had our versions of Storm, Cowboys and Warriors - they were Paris, London, Gateshead and Crusaders.

[The Parksider]

12 hours ago, Konkrete said:

At that time, the standard of play, yes absolutely..

1

Well given that the 1997 World Club Championship Tournament proved that Australian Clubs were highly dominant and streets ahead of the English SL clubs even without all the Sydney clubs, Newcastle, Paramatta, Manley, the facts do not seem to agree with you.

The 10 Australian clubs who slaughtered us went back into an NRL with the clubs that missed playing the English and the rest is history. The idea English Superleague clubs went from strength to strength to match the NRL post 1997 to recent seasons based on the results of pre-season friendlies lacks credibility, but suits your RFL bashing argument.

[Oxford]

25 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

Well given that the 1997 World Club Championship Tournament proved that Australian Clubs were highly dominant and streets ahead of the English SL clubs even without all the Sydney clubs, Newcastle, Paramatta, Manley, the facts do not seem to agree with you.

The 10 Australian clubs who slaughtered us went back into an NRL with the clubs that missed playing the English and the rest is history. The idea English Superleague clubs went from strength to strength to match the NRL post 1997 to recent seasons based on the results of pre-season friendlies lacks credibility, but suits your RFL bashing argument.

Apart from being a bit repetitive Parky using this one off never repeated tournament as evidence is a bit loose as an argument. The fact is we can never know what would have happened, we can only guess, although this tends to be your favourite war cry and battleground. I think a few years of the idea might have improved SL sides generally whereas you seem to think they'd have been hammered by more points every succeeding year. All of which begs the question do you work for the RFL?, because you'd fit right in if you don't. You have all the hallmarks of giving stuff up the moment it isn't perfect and you refuse to move with the times, or to respond to questions and points put to you while claiming others are not answering and put up a voluble defence of your actions. Red Hall goes all the way through like a stick of Blackpool Rock.

I should have also said that the original plan failed because SL and the RFL clubs failed to act in unison to create the brand and the marketing to profit from the one time RL had huge media coverage and even in the kingdom of the short sighted that looks like, feels like and smells like "bad governance".

 

All of which leads nicely to: "But that's a bit of a red herring argument Parky in governance terms." 

Still!

And in case you missed it on the new year thread all the best for 2017!

[Konkrete]

47 minutes ago, The Parksider said:

Well given that the 1997 World Club Championship Tournament proved that Australian Clubs were highly dominant and streets ahead of the English SL clubs even without all the Sydney clubs, Newcastle, Paramatta, Manley, the facts do not seem to agree with you.

The 10 Australian clubs who slaughtered us went back into an NRL with the clubs that missed playing the English and the rest is history. The idea English Superleague clubs went from strength to strength to match the NRL post 1997 to recent seasons based on the results of pre-season friendlies lacks credibility, but suits your RFL bashing argument.

But the facts do agree with me Parky.  In 1997 the results were massively in favour of the Aussie teams.  Later on that trend was reversed with SL gaining the upper hand, and now it's reverted back.

Are you really saying that when the Aussie teams win its because they're better, but when we win its because they can't be aresd?

My argument is that the reason the NRL is such a stronger competition than SL is because the governing body has led it very well.  They have successfully overseen huge revenue growth, sporting dominance in the nations media, expansionism and a competition so even handed that every single club has either won or played in a GF.  Now, if you take that to be true then how does the governance of the SL compare within the same time frame?

[Oxford]

11 minutes ago, Konkrete said:

But the facts do agree with me Parky.  In 1997 the results were massively in favour of the Aussie teams.  Later on that trend was reversed with SL gaining the upper hand, and now it's reverted back.

Are you really saying that when the Aussie teams win its because they're better, but when we win its because they can't be aresd?

My argument is that the reason the NRL is such a stronger competition than SL is because the governing body has led it very well.  They have successfully overseen huge revenue growth, sporting dominance in the nations media, expansionism and a competition so even handed that every single club has either won or played in a GF.  Now, if you take that to be true then how does the governance of the SL compare within the same time frame?

Excellent argument K but Parky doesn't do governance he does one off events for evidence.