Lions tour 2019 (Merged Threads)

[Mattrhino]

3 hours ago, Abicus said:

Would need the two matches against NZ to actually have some hope of making money I would have thought (plus quality opposition no?)

Mate we will be lucky to draw 5 figure crowds vs NZ 

The only way that the crowds would have been decent is if we had 18-24 months to sell tours to Eng fans. Now we might be lucky to get 6-8 months notice for people to make plans.

Tonga and Samoa should have decent turnouts but it is still only 20k at 10-30 nz$ a ticket

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Absolutely right. 

The success of some of the group games in the World Cup just hasn't been capitalised on. I know people will say that the prestige of being a World Cup increased the crowds, but tbh, I don't agree that that was a major point - we have seen World Cup games get pathetic crowds, the bigger issue was that they were well organised, well in advance, with decent games in decent places at decent times.

In the RLWC2013:

Tonga averaged 9.6k over 3 games - 2 sellouts. Games played in Workington, Leigh and Halifax.

Samoa averaged 11.3k over 4 games - 2 sellouts. Games played in Wire, Hull and Perpignan.

Fiji averaged 15.2k over 4 games - 2 sellouts. Games played in Wire, Rochdale, Saints and Hull.

PNG averaged 10.8k over 3 games. Played in Hull and Leeds.

Those numbers were a great base to start from. Decent numbers had been and watched these teams, built a bit of a bond with them, seen some amazing games, genuinely brilliant stuff. Bought into the war dances etc. 

That was over 5 years ago. Since then England have played:

Samoa in Brisbane (47k)

Samoa in Campbelltown (18k)

PNG in Melbourne - WC - (10k)

Tonga in Auckland - WC - (30k)

It is appalling that we haven't played any of these teams here since, and have no plans to do so. They will no doubt just be here again in 2021, when we have to build up the sell of these again from scratch.

There really is no legacy from 2013. 

I completely agree. By 2021 we really won't be much further on and will have pretty much wasted a decade when instead we should have been in a prime position to make huge strides and should have turned the international game into a real money maker and expansion driver.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I completely agree. By 2021 we really won't be much further on and will have pretty much wasted a decade when instead we should have been in a prime position to make huge strides and should have turned the international game into a real money maker and expansion driver.

We really could have made a move to reduce the reliance on Australia and New Zealand. Being able to stage meaningful series' without them would have been a game changer. Instead we are chasing NZ yet again, and the Aussies can't be bothered with us.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We really could have made a move to reduce the reliance on Australia and New Zealand. Being able to stage meaningful series' without them would have been a game changer. Instead we are chasing NZ yet again, and the Aussies can't be bothered with us.

I've been saying this on here for quite some time. We have never had more competitive alternative opposition than we have had in this era and have still never tried to make money out of it or expand the game from it. Never mind providing much needed revenue for the RFL it would also provide income and games for developing RL Nations like Tonga. It is incompetence pure and simple.

[roughyedspud]

28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Please define proper as opposed to manufactured.

RLIF RANKED....simple

[EastLondonMike]

This strikes me as something pushed by the previous management of the RFL, but with no real strategy behind it (usual fayre), and something the current and new management have been tied into, to some degree. I'd be surprised if it went ahead at all.

Ralph Rimmer should just put the kibosh on it now. There isn't enough desire for GB to return.

If it does go ahead, it certainly won't happen again anytime soon.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

This strikes me as something pushed by the previous management of the RFL, but with no real strategy behind it (usual fayre), and something the current and new management have been tied into, to some degree. I'd be surprised if it went ahead at all.

Ralph Rimmer should just put the kibosh on it now. There isn't enough desire for GB to return.

If it does go ahead, it certainly won't happen again anytime soon.

I'd simply change it to an England tour. Forget the extra challenges around resurrecting GB, give England some games and a challenge of going on tour, ready for then facing the Aussies next year followed by the WC the year after.

It wouldn't be any kind of PR disaster for that to happen at this stage, it could easily be managed. After all, sod all has been publicly released about any of this GB return.

[GeordieSaint]

24 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I don't think whether it is England or GB it will make much difference to the issues the tour faces which is not being long enough to be a real tour and not have any kind of runway to build it up. 

How many games did the Kiwis play over here last year? 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, roughyedspud said:

RLIF RANKED....simple

Yep, as eluded to manufactured teams, how else could the RLIF deliver a multi-national World Cup.

[Dave T]

49 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

3, and it was a bit of a disaster

Not really. Long tours are a thing of the past unfortunately, but that shouldn't mean we don't go abroad and play a few games. The Southern Hemisphere RU teams come to Europe every year and do that very successfully.

It has been normal for us to go down there and play 3 Four Nations games plus a warmup.

A tour isn't the issue (although I accept the point about the late announcments, which is a joke, but we are where we are. BUt the alternative is no games at all.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Long tours will be a thing of the past u less they are done again when they will be a thing of the present. 

Last year NZ didn't tour they came over for a three match series and it wasn't great. Three match series are similarly, largely a thing of the past. The success of them over the last couple of decades has been limited. 

The GB thing was supposed to be a tour. What is proposed is neither a tour nor a three match series. It doesn't reach the level of either. It is just a few games. 

Whether we play just a few games as England or just a few games as GB won't really make much of a difference. It will still just be just a few games, with little build up and little prestige. 

There are many alternatives not just playing no games. Some of the suggestions on this thread are still doable. Including the one you mentioned in your post. A 3/4 nations. 

But that has no build-up, no plannibg and is just a few games abroad too.

Test series are not a thing of the past. We have had two in the last three years and  will have another next year.

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But isn't just a few games is it. It's a self-contained competition. 

There are benefits to a proper tour. Hooks it can be sold on. There are benefits to a self-contained competition, there are hooks that it can be sold on.

What is seemingly suggested here is that we have this meandering none tour which is just a few games which as GB will be something of a disaster but won't be if we have this same meandering none-tour as England. I can't see why it would make a difference It would be the same none tour with a badge 

Either do a proper tour as a long term plan to build it to being a lions type RU tour. 

Have a competition that is there to win and can be sold as such . Whether there or here

Or create a different property that can make a splash and offer something different that will mitigate the short runway.

None of this is good. We are in damage limitation. 

Staging this as a GB tour now would be an embarrassment. England doing this would be less so, and would actually be a positive, particularly if England could play France on the way.

The 4N should only ever have been replaced for an 8 team comp.

It is an almighty balls up.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The 4N should only ever have been replaced for an 8 team comp.

It is an almighty balls up.

The Four Nations should never have been replaced with anything. With the emergence of Tonga as a Rugby League superpower in 2017, the 2018 and 2019 Four Nations would have been the best yet. It’s such a travesty the massively successful tournament has been scrapped.

The last Four Nations to take place had, 

Eng v NZ 24k at Hudds

Eng v Sco 21k at Cov

Eng v Aus 35.6k at Olympic 

Aus v NZ 40k at Anfield 

 

Our latest tournament, the Eng v NZ 3 game series attracted 17k to the opener fixture at the KC stadium in the rugby league heartland of Hull. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

The Four Nations should never have been replaced with anything. With the emergence of Tonga as a Rugby League superpower in 2017, the 2018 and 2019 Four Nations would have been the best yet. It’s such a travesty the massively successful tournament has been scrapped.

The last Four Nations to take place had, 

Eng v NZ 24k at Hudds

Eng v Sco 21k at Cov

Eng v Aus 35.6k at Olympic 

Aus v NZ 40k at Anfield 

 

Our latest tournament, the Eng v NZ 3 game series attracted 17k to the opener fixture at the KC stadium in the rugby league heartland of Hull. 

Those are very selective numbers. Highlight the pathetic crowds in that 4n too. The recent series was pathetically staged, hence the low crowds.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

The 4N figures I quoted are all of England’s games and the final 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

A GB tour in front of half full stadiums can be simply the final nail.in the GB coffin. 

That same tour under the England badge does damage to a badge that we need to build a World Cup around. 

I'm not sure why the 4 nation's was scrapped (or the 3 nations) but I don't know why we are needing Australia to create one of those competitions. 

I think the situation is rescuable with some creative thinking, ambition, and commitment. Sadly things that are in short supply at the RFL.

However that isn't likely to be a none-tour. It will need to be a made for tv product that captures the imagination of people and sponsors here and in NZ. 

I'm not sure you are being pragmatic about where we are. 

England have no games this year. If they suddenly announce they will be going playing PNG, NZ, Samoa and Tonga at the end of the year that wouldn't harm the England brand for a second.

[Odsal Outlaw]

I think the best option is to now revert to england for this tour, keep building the brand.  Eng or GB won’t make much difference to the Kiwis but I do think it impacts over here. 

At present it feels like this tour has potential to be a huge flop and more worrying stop any desire to host UK teams again down under for the forseable future (a modern day 2000 RLWC!). 

[bobbruce]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

Worst. Haka. Ever.

Actually it isn’t here’s hoping the real worst. Haka. Ever. Gets posted. Always good for a laugh. 

[Damien]

12 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Actually it isn’t here’s hoping the real worst. Haka. Ever. Gets posted. Always good for a laugh. 

It certainly is. That was obviously in the days before they got teachers and choreographers to show them how to actually do it so that they could use it as a marketing tool.

[Dave T]

35 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Played in front of half empty stadiums it would. It would be disaster in the same way GB would. Just with a more important brand

The point here is we are in a certain position, we are not starting from scratch. 

The RFL are sending a team to the Southern Hemisphere to play some RL Test matches this Oct/Nov. That is a great thing, we should be doing it regularly, in whatever form.

My view on GB is that if there were genuine incremental benefits from going as GB, great - more sponsorship, more TV interest, more spectator interest etc. But none of these things are likely to be true, so if this is no better than going as England RL, then surely the RFL's team is England RL and we crack on with that.

Another key benefit of going as England is that England RL are playing games, at the moment we have none scheduled. If we play four tests down there (and hopefully a mid-season test and maybe one in France on the way, then we are starting to play more and more tests. All good stuff.

Onto whatever this tour should look like, I'm not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet about the tour only being four games long. That is still a tour, even if you claim it isn't. It may not be perfect, but again, we are where we are after lengthy discussions and negotiations. Another similar sport has tours of maybe three and four games no problem. The only real lengthy tours are the British Lions ones, which we have clearly failed to deliver. 

There is then the commercial side, delivering a four nations is clearly beyond the limitations of the people delivering this. The number of games on this tour has dwindled already, so I find it unlikely that they will stage 7 games instead of the 4 that the RFL will organise. We have seen over the years that we get very little commercial value for these tournaments staged down there, either broadcasting or sponsorship, we have never had a title sponsor down there, apart from when the RFL had Gillette on board one year. The fans have shown that they will attend quality games that are compelling, they aren't too concerned whether it is a tournament - see the Kiwis World Cup crowds - the Kiwis knockout game versus Fiji attracted a lower crowd than the Kangaroos vs Tonga in Hamilton, which was a standalone Test. 

I don't disagree that the preference would be either an extended tour, or a series (ideally an 8 team comp that we were 'promised'), but again, we are where we are following negotiations and with 9 months to go. 

There is no reason why removing the distractions (GB, trying to create a tournament) at this stage, getting some venues and dates confirmed and focusing the next 9 months on selling high quality Test matches couldn't be a success. Hopefully the reports of four tests is wrong, but even if England went down there to play PNG in Port Moresby (15k sellout), Tonga in Hamilton (25-30k sellout), Samoa in Auckland (15k) and the Kiwis in front of 15-20k, then that could be a very enjoyable tour, would look just fine, and wouldn't be any kind of disaster that you suggest it would.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I don't know why those figures are a success for England and a disaster for GB. That doesn't make sense. 

Taking a poorly attended tour and swapping to GB badge for the England badge doesn't really achieve anything. If that's a success for England it's a success for GB.

On your first paragraph, you are having your own argument, as I didn't say that it would be a disaster for GB.

And I disagree on the 2nd point. The RFLs team is England RL. If you are going to change that, it has to be for some benefit. Are the sponsors queuing up? Broadcasters? Players? Opponents? Etc. If they are great, but I'm surprised it has taken so long to announce if so. 

If they are not, then we crack on with our team, which is England.

[usain bolt]

https://www.skysports.com/amp/rugby-league/news/12215/11608747/sean-oloughlin-undecided-over-wigan-future-but-wants-to-tour-with-great-britain

Sean oloughlin talks about his future, including the possibility of playing for gb at seasons end

[Allora]

22 minutes ago, usain bolt said:

https://www.skysports.com/amp/rugby-league/news/12215/11608747/sean-oloughlin-undecided-over-wigan-future-but-wants-to-tour-with-great-britain

Sean oloughlin talks about his future, including the possibility of playing for gb at seasons end

He should pull down the curtain.

He only plays now and again and takes the spot of a Test player that could offer more to the future of a Test squad and is not injured for half of the Test series in most cases.

Selfish comes to mind.

 

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Then your problem isn't the fact the tour is poorly organised and will achieve poor results just that it is GB which doesn't really make much sense.

There are reasons to go as GB that you mention here. Sponsors, tv, etc are all signed up for England. GB would be new money for a new property. 

My problem is entirely execution. GB has a possible place But that is as a proper touring side. Something different. A proper challenge. That is the problem we should be focussing on. Failure of execution. 

It seems very odd to me to criticise the RFL for going to GB yet excuse them for doing it poorly. 

You are overthinking what people are saying. 

I am saying that here we are with 9 months to go and none of these things have appeared - this absolutely is about execution. 

Had they announced a new GB sponsor of Standard Life, and a record BBC deal to cover it, a 10 game schedule, a new coaching team etc. then I'd be perfectly cool with it. We haven't announced ANYTHING, so let's just forget these additional things involved with trying to bring something back to life for a bit of nostalgia and get back to basics and let England play some games this year!

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

But we are still left with a poorly organised tour with no additional sponsors, broadcast deal etc.

We have an England sponsor, kit, management team, squad, broadcast deal - but we don't have games.

We apparently have games for GB, but no kit, sponsor, management team, squad, broadcast deal.

The only reason moving to GB is if it is going to be bigger and better than anything England will deliver. Otherwise, it should just be England.

This tour (in whatever form) now is a bit of a shambles, so take away any of the GB noise and get back to basics. 

I suggest that last year if England had announced they were heading to PNG and NZ to take on those nations plus Tonga and Samoa it would have been received positively.