RFU v RFL - Strategic Thinking

[yanto]

11 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

Lol way to nitpick an example. Let me point out that it extends far beyond just footballers being interested, which you have now somehow made the focus. I recall during the last union World Cup Samuel L Jackson tweeting about it. I remember Bleacher Report, an American sports website, reporting on it. Now before you nitpick that as well. No it wasn’t Bleacher Report UK, it was the American one. 

Now you'll probably give similar instances of celebrities being interested in rugby but more often than not, they would have grown up in an area where the sport is played and therefore have a connection to it. What does Samuel L Jackson know about union? Your Russel Crowes and Hugh Jackmans grew up in Australia so it’s not quite the same

Morning YK.

"YOUR"  Russel Crowes and Hugh Jackmans just pointed  to what I always suspected ..a Union man through and through .

I will just leave it at that  

[Yorkshire Knight]

15 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Haven’t we had the likes of Russell Crowe and the New York Times reporting on past RLWC’s? 

That’s great if the NYT have reported on it 

[Yorkshire Knight]

12 minutes ago, yanto said:

Morning YK.

"YOUR"  Russel Crowes and Hugh Jackmans just pointed  to what I always suspected ..a Union man through and through .

I will just leave it at that  

Figure of speech. I didn’t literally mean your. But there you go nitpicking again. I’ll leave you to it 

[ckn]

I was asked ever-so-nicely not to bin this to the cross-code hell, if it's going to get into the general whining about union though then it's gone.

This is a rugby league forum where rugby league folk can get away from union.  Some people get allergic reactions at the mere mention of the sport.  Just think of the children!

Seriously, it's a rare day that we'll allow something so obviously cross-code to sit on this forum, play nicely.

[NotToday]

51 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Haven’t we had the likes of Russell Crowe and the New York Times reporting on past RLWC’s? 

 

Russel Crowe is an Australian-Zealander and he co-owns an NRL team.

[Man of Kent]

2 hours ago, NotToday said:

The point was to change RLIF to Global Rugby. Not that other thing you got stuck on. Global Rugby is simple and easier to remember, and is a necessary counter to World Rugby. An alphabet salad like "RLIF" can't compete with "World Rugby" or "Global Rugby".

Why didn’t you say that in the first place? 

And what would ‘Global Rugby’s’ World Cup be known as if not the ‘Global Rugby World Cup’?

[Toby Chopra]

The problem isn't that the RFU is much better at strategic thinking than the RFL. Domestically, there's a long list of problems for English union such debt, redundancies, fall off in youth participation, whether to ring-fence the top league. All sounds very familiar. 

But the big difference is that the RFU is part of a global family of unions which, although they sometimes bust up over the details, all share the end destination: to use international rugby to drive growth in the game. World Cup, Olympics, Six Nations, tours are top of the agenda. Always. 

The RFL I think realises that international rugby is the way forward, but it doesn't have partner unions that share its vision, the Aussies are reluctant and when interested do their own thing. The Kiwis try, but are broke and can't afford to detach from Australia. 

Until this changes, I think there's a limit to how much we criticise the RFL for lacking strategic thinking. Sure, they can be pretty poor domestic administrators, but the big scale vision for the sport is out of their hands. 

[NotToday]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

Why didn’t you say that in the first place? 

And what would ‘Global Rugby’s’ World Cup be known as if not the ‘Global Rugby World Cup’?

 

I already addressed that. You can call It Rugby League World Cup, as it currently stands. Not really an issue.

The issue is RLIF is a confusing alphabet salad that is hard to remember and is an awful identifier.

[NotToday]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

The problem isn't that the RFU is much better at strategic thinking than the RFL. Domestically, there's a long list of problems for English union such debt, redundancies, fall off in youth participation, whether to ring-fence the top league. All sounds very familiar. 

But the big difference is that the RFU is part of a global family of unions which, although they sometimes bust up over the details, all share the end destination: to use international rugby to drive growth in the game. World Cup, Olympics, Six Nations, tours are top of the agenda. Always. 

The RFL I think realises that international rugby is the way forward, but it doesn't have partner unions that share its vision, the Aussies are reluctant and when interested do their own thing. The Kiwis try, but are broke and can't afford to detach from Australia. 

Until this changes, I think there's a limit to how much we criticise the RFL for lacking strategic thinking. Sure, they can be pretty poor domestic administrators, but the big scale vision for the sport is out of their hands. 

 

RFL doesn't even have a domestic vision for the sport. So yes, they can and should be criticized.

There's plenty of threads and posts picking apart their sponsorship strategy, expansion strategy, and their awful online and marketing strategy. NRL at least has a domestic vision and does it well, RFL doesn't.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

17 minutes ago, NotToday said:

 

Russel Crowe is an Australian-Zealander and he co-owns an NRL team.

And one of the biggest names on the planet. 

[yanto]

On 2/11/2019 at 12:56 AM, The British Lion said:

 

MY POINT?

The RFL have NO strategy, no influence, and no direction. Unless we revolutionise the top employed people (part of the reaction from SL Owners on Rob Elstones appointment) Internationally and UK wise - we will always be Castleford V wakefield, Wire v Saints (as much as you may like it) it stunts growth.

Im personally hoping Rob Elstone is a huge success and is open to growth outside the status quo.

I have posted this on the cross code forum for members who cant access that page I copy it here also.

People seem to forget the RU built up a warchest of millions and millions of pounds by dodging tax (allegedley) and not paying players (allegedley) for over 100 years. Its like League buying a lottery ticket every week and union winning the jackpot every week.

All the Union power (money) was in the hands of 57 old farts according to a former England captain.Those 57 actually laid the foundations to what is now a very rich and powerful machine.

We have been playing catch up ever since union went professional and despite all the doom and gloom it is often missed that the game is now played in more countries in the world than ever before.

The boom at grassroots level has exploded since 2005 when The Netherlands,Russia,Serbia and Georgia were the only Continental European countries playing outside France .Now the RLEF has 37 members  the Balkans league has fourteen teams from eight nations and all done on a shoe string.

Its not all about the elite and unions strength is also build on a massive community game.

Slowley League is getting there,it will take time,maybe another fifty years but people need to look outside their own back yard now  and then to get the bigger picture.The game in Europe is planning ahead.

League is so far behind financially that we will never compete with union sad but true.We can only do so much with what little resources we have and people are actually doing this but it is usually ignored by the doom and gloom merchants.

 

 

[gingerjon]

14 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

No, the aim for Super League should be to get where the NRL is. 

We’re not that far off, actually.

We have a core of clubs based in the heartland (for Sydney read the M62) with expansion clubs in cities (Perpignan, Toulouse, London, Toronto).

We just need more of them  (Newcastle? Liverpool?) and to be bolder with splitting off full time clubs from part time.

Also need to get to full cap being spent by most if not all clubs to enhance competitiveness.

I think we're miles off. And are going to remain that way. So we need to be smarter at using what we have.

As an example, a few years ago now but I don't think it's changed, I did a test whereby I checked every rugby league team that shares a town with a professional soccer club (EPL and EFL). In every example - that's every example - the soccer team had a higher average attendance than the rugby league club. That leaves you with very few places that even remotely follow the 'Sydney' idea. And they're not massive and they're not joined up.

The problem we have, as a sport, is that we don't have many resources and we use the few we have poorly. We also allow ourselves to change direction every year or so. We need to be welcoming, we need to be consistent, we need to be professional and we need to be smart. Right now, I'm not convinced we are any of those things.

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, NotToday said:

 

RFL doesn't even have a domestic vision for the sport. So yes, they can and should be criticized.

There's plenty of threads and posts picking apart their sponsorship strategy, expansion strategy, and their awful online and marketing strategy. NRL at least has a domestic vision and does it well, RFL doesn't.

As the national governing body, they shouldn't be doing any of those things, that should be in the hands of the Superleague, and indeed it will be going forward.

The RFL should be looking after the grassroots and the England team, just like the FA, ECB and RFU do. Except unlike all of those the RFL has no independent income to do it with, so its impact is very limited. Yes they can be ######, but it's a symptom of how the game has developed and where the revenue generating parts are, rather than the cause of the problems. 

Anyway, the truth is the RFL isn't a governing body in any real sense but a members club for the 30 odd professional clubs, and biggest of those clubs only pay it lip service anyway now.

But even if Superleague took over the RFL rather than detaching from it, and installed some top administrators with some funds, the issue would be the same: on the only thing that can move the dial - international rugby - they're fighting with one hand tied behind their back. 

[NotToday]

5 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

As the national governing body, they shouldn't be doing any of those things, that should be in the hands of the Superleague, and indeed it will be going forward.

The RFL should be looking after the grassroots and the England team, just like the FA, ECB and RFU do. Except unlike all of those the RFL has no independent income to do it with, so its impact is very limited. Yes they can be ######, but it's a symptom of how the game has developed and where the revenue generating parts are, rather than the cause of the problems. 

Anyway, the truth is the RFL isn't a governing body in any real sense but a members club for the 30 odd professional clubs, and biggest of those clubs only pay it lip service anyway now.

But even if Superleague took over the RFL rather than detaching from it, and installed some top administrators with some funds, the issue would be the same: on the only thing that can move the dial - international rugby - they're fighting with one hand tied behind their back. 

 

The blame falls on both. But doesn't RFL run the Championship?

Why can't RFL run a youtube page for its own leagues?

Isn't RFL the one who gets to decide who plays in the Championship and League 1? 

If RFL has no income, it should be figuring out ways to make an income. Why isn't it trying to sell the Championship and League 1 product better that it would make more money? 

[Toby Chopra]

7 minutes ago, NotToday said:

 

The blame falls on both. But doesn't RFL run the Championship?

Why can't RFL run a youtube page for its own leagues?

Isn't RFL the one who gets to decide who plays in the Championship and League 1? 

If RFL has no income, it should be figuring out ways to make an income. Why isn't it trying to sell the Championship and League 1 product better that it would make more money? 

Again, I'm sure they could do a better job, but it's just unrealistic to think that better marketing of the second and third tier is going to provide the funds to transform the sport. It would be the only sport in the world where it did. 

To repeat, I'm not seeking to absolve the RFL for all its sins, but the argument of this thread is that a lack of 'strategic' thinking by the RFL is responsible for the perceived gap between union and league, and I'd argue it really doesn't make that much difference unless you get the Aussies on board. 

In some ways, if you accept the preferred international route is closed due to uncooperative partners, then focusing on a defensive strategy in the heartlands isn't as stupid as it may look. 

[NotToday]

5 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Again, I'm sure they could do a better job, but it's just unrealistic to think that better marketing of the second and third tier is going to provide the funds to transform the sport. It would be the only sport in the world where it did. 

To repeat, I'm not seeking to absolve the RFL for all its sins, but the argument of this thread is that a lack of 'strategic' thinking by the RFL is responsible for the perceived gap between union and league, and I'd argue it really doesn't make that much difference unless you get the Aussies on board. 

In some ways, if you accept the preferred international route is closed due to uncooperative partners, then focusing on a defensive strategy in the heartlands isn't as stupid as it may look. 

 

Being as how local oriented of a sport RL is – relative to the popularity of SL, the RFLC and RFL1 actually could do a lot better.

We're talking about a hardcore fanbase and relatively small casual fanbase. The hardcores would follow the leagues their own clubs play in, but they can't because they're not aired on TV and it's not easy to follow online. I'm not sure if they have an online streaming service, they probably do, but it's not marketed well and most don't watch it. They can and should change that.

Right now the hardcore is paying for their own club's home matches and a couple away matches, but probably can't even watch most of their own clubs away matches, nevermind their rivals' matches.

[RP London]

17 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Again, I'm sure they could do a better job, but it's just unrealistic to think that better marketing of the second and third tier is going to provide the funds to transform the sport. It would be the only sport in the world where it did. 

To repeat, I'm not seeking to absolve the RFL for all its sins, but the argument of this thread is that a lack of 'strategic' thinking by the RFL is responsible for the perceived gap between union and league, and I'd argue it really doesn't make that much difference unless you get the Aussies on board. 

In some ways, if you accept the preferred international route is closed due to uncooperative partners, then focusing on a defensive strategy in the heartlands isn't as stupid as it may look. 

I think one of the key issues is that when the RFL do try and do something they do it really badly... very knee jerk, late and just badly.. think the exiles concept.. could have been good but executed poorly and then given up on too quickly. The French game last year, late addition at LSV on a wednesday night and on an app!

Inability to then sell the Challenge Cup properly (the one big asset they have) and then the own goal of demanding bonds this year. 

The GB tour debacle (yes not all their fault but jeez!)

we say its "not all their fault" but there does seem to be one common factor... they just need to get better.

I agree that they are working in difficult circumstances but when they do decide to do something they need to do it much better... think about it more, plan it better, realise that actually giving something away in the short term can work well in the long term and also has further benefits than money in your pocket for the event and so on.

we could easily do something like mid season internationals (if we can get Super League to break) with France and Wales that does not include NRL players (for example) which evens the teams up a bit... but it never even seems to be a thought.

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There is another thing, at the end of this year there will be a 9s world cup. You could easily put out the Jamaica, US, French, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, and Italian sides, plus you could probably scrub up an Australian, NZ, PNG side from those playing over here. Maybe a Tongan, Fijian, Samoan side as well.

We could have been working on that for the last couple of years, creating an International 9s ahead of the curve. We could have been using that to develop the emerging nations up here and make some money to plough back in to the 13s international game. Instead what will happen is that we will go to Australia at the end of this year having never played form, get embarrassed by the SH sides, the NRL will make a decent fist of it so we will have a go, half-###### it as a one day comp somewhere like headingley with the reserves, see it fail and give up. Then wonder why we have no money to push SL to take a break, to get teams over here, to really market them and grow them.

yep... personally i dont like 9s and (i hope i'm wrong) i dont see it as the saviour of the game but christ on a bike its not hard to organise something and give it a push. Its about small acorns, it'll not all happen overnight but you do have to start somewhere. There are loads of options and it doesnt have to include the SH... State of origin was not an immediate success but they kept with it. Wales and France will not be immediately competitive in every match but if we wont play them its hardly going to help.  England v Wales, England v France will capture imaginations of general sporting public, 9s could be fast and exciting and catch the imagination as a bit of a novelty at first. but we have to make sure the general public get to see the games too, if they dont there is no point so dont hide it on an app.. give it away if you must but get it out there to be seen, if the game builds and the success builds you can then start to charge a hefty price for it.. the 6 nations wasnt charging what it is now back in the 1980s and 1990s.. 

[Shadow]

11 hours ago, NotToday said:

 

There's only one thing that is required for RL's success, and that's the Commonwealth Games. Get Rugby Nines into the CWG and it RL's fortunes change overnight. The game expands its influence and playerbase exponentially.

RL is probably the most-popular game in the Commonwealth that isn't in the Commonwealth Games!

RU managed to get RU7s into the Asian and Commonwealth games, did it for a decade and then was picked up by the Olympics, and that's how it expanded globally into countries which didn't even care about rugby. Meanwhile RL9s isn't even a permanent fixture at the Pacific Games. How sad.

 

NRL/ARLC is the most influential entity in RL. They need to step up. If Australia lobbied to get RL9s into the Commonwealth Games, I'm sure countries like NZ, Fiji, Tonga, PNG and Jamaica would support it. 

NRL/ARLC needs to play a larger part in exporting the game. RL can be a tool for Australia's cultural-diplomacy and soft-power in the region. Even Aus politicians are saying they want to bring a PNG team into the NRL. This is an attempt to keep the Chinese out by keeping the Pacific nations in Aus' sphere of influence.

NRL should be thinking along the same lines. "How can we (NRL) help you (Aus)?" and use that to their advantage. RL desperately needs to think 10-50 years into the future, not 1-5 years in the future as they currently. It's a damn surprise NRL hasn't even opened a second team in NZ two decades on. They have the talent, and a Christchurch/Wellington expansion team would be sustainable. NRL needs to chip away at RU at every turn it can.

 

 

I have the same thought. Biennial championships for the Europe and Pacific regions. Both exist but the European one is held inconsistently and the Pacific one hasn't been held in a decade, last held in 2009.

These should be used in a manner to promote the sport outside England and Australia.

The current European tournament features every country besides England, it should stay that way.  The Pacific tournament featured an Australian Aborigines team and a NZ Maori team, but not their national teams. I like that format because the goal should be to promote the sport overseas, but have just enough heartland participation to ensure TV coverage.

 

RL is growing steadily in the Balkans, and Norway is also very enthusiastic about it. If these countries get more opportunity to play international teams they will get media attention domestically and be taken serious. In any 'developing' country  the audience pays the most attention when their national team plays with other nations.

Look at the growth of Basketball in continental Europe, it's all thanks to the EuroLeague, they also have smaller regional leagues in Central Europe, Baltic states, Russia, and 2 in the Balkans. The RL Balkan Super League is actually trying to emulate that model, and it's showing results.

 

All well and good but RU 7s didn't just pitch up at the Commonwealth games and then the Olympics and ask if they could play, it came on the back of a long established worldwide series of championships with a varied and engaged set of national teams. It also offered a genuine possibility of medallists that weren't one of the top ten Olympic nations or top 5 Commonwealth nations.

If you genuinely want RL 9s to be included then it needs at least 12 viable international teams with men and women's teams, not made up of heritage players and a regular international competition that grows over 4 or 5 years, then you can approach the IOC or Commonwealth games committee and pitch to them, explaining why they should drop an established and extremely popular event like RU 7s in favour of your less well known sport that will most likely give Australia, GB and New Zealand a medal each.

International sport will get the recognition and brand building RL needs, I have colleagues that couldn't give the first monkey's about WIgan against St Helens but will watch England against Australia or Wales against France, much like football, I genuinely could not care who is going to finish top or bottom of the Premier League but when the World Cup comes around I'm there discussing 4-4-2 and the merits of Jordan Pickford as first choice goal keeper. It's very simple, put the games on and people will go. Put the National team games on in the National Capital, at least 50% of the time. Start behaving like a proper National side and people will start treating you like one. WIth that after a couple of years growth you should (assuming the on field product is as good as everyone here thinks it is and I appreciate this may be a biased audience,) start to fill Wembley with tickets starting at £40 - £50 each, not topping out at that price. You should start getting HSBC, Barclays and Jaguar buying advertising and for a lot more than gets charged now.

[NotToday]

1 minute ago, Shadow said:

All well and good but RU 7s didn't just pitch up at the Commonwealth games and then the Olympics and ask if they could play, it came on the back of a long established worldwide series of championships with a varied and engaged set of national teams. It also offered a genuine possibility of medallists that weren't one of the top ten Olympic nations or top 5 Commonwealth nations.

If you genuinely want RL 9s to be included then it needs at least 12 viable international teams with men and women's teams, not made up of heritage players and a regular international competition that grows over 4 or 5 years, then you can approach the IOC or Commonwealth games committee and pitch to them, explaining why they should drop an established and extremely popular event like RU 7s in favour of your less well known sport that will most likely give Australia, GB and New Zealand a medal each.

International sport will get the recognition and brand building RL needs, I have colleagues that couldn't give the first monkey's about WIgan against St Helens but will watch England against Australia or Wales against France, much like football, I genuinely could not care who is going to finish top or bottom of the Premier League but when the World Cup comes around I'm there discussing 4-4-2 and the merits of Jordan Pickford as first choice goal keeper. It's very simple, put the games on and people will go. Put the National team games on in the National Capital, at least 50% of the time. Start behaving like a proper National side and people will start treating you like one. WIth that after a couple of years growth you should (assuming the on field product is as good as everyone here thinks it is and I appreciate this may be a biased audience,) start to fill Wembley with tickets starting at £40 - £50 each, not topping out at that price. You should start getting HSBC, Barclays and Jaguar buying advertising and for a lot more than gets charged now.

 

It took a decade in the Commonwealth and Asian Games before being considered by the Olympics. I'm not even suggesting the Olympics.

Most of those Asian nations weren't playing Rugby, period, much less Rugby 7s when it got in there. Rugby League has just as many nations playing it now that Rugby Union had back then. These same countries have dabbled in Rugby 9s as well. Rugby 9s is an optional sport in the Pacific Games, so they've all played it.

A few additional countries could be convinced as well, the one's who aren't playing Rugby Union or 7s. Rugby League or 9s is more appealing towards Asians and Latinos than RU because it favors agility over brute force. Players don't need to be tanks like they tend to be in RU nowadays to be any good.

Also the goal isn't to replace RU7s, so the question of dropping the former isn't an issue. It's introducing a completely different sport on top of the existing sports that are already being played.

[thunderpete]

22 hours ago, The Future is League said:

Were going backwards quicker than a French general under Rimmir

Which particular French General? General Banal Cliché?

[Trojan]

17 hours ago, Scubby said:

To put things in perspective, in 1996 only Leicester had an average crowd larger than Wigan in RU's top tier. In 2019, Northampton, Bath, Leicester, Gloucester, Wasps, Harlequins and now Bristol all top Wigan and Exeter are pretty much there. Saracens also record a bigger average even though their stadium only holds 10k. It's not fun to report but it is the reality.

At this time Leeds were the best supported "Rugby" club in the country, disputing this title with Wigan and Leicester.  But not any more.  It was a bye-word that Union was very strong at international level, but at club level top clubs like Wasps, London Welsh, Richmond, Wasps were watched by two men and a dog.  This is no longer the case.  They have grown their crowds, playing in the winter period which we surrendered without a fight.  And TBF with the increased fitness that a proper professional setup brings, they have quite an attractive proposition.  And they to a greater extent than RL are a national game. TBH I reckon we've missed the bus. I've no idea what we can do about it.  I can only see them getting stronger and stronger and us getting weaker and weaker.  Back to winter anyone?

[Shadow]

1 hour ago, NotToday said:

 

It took a decade in the Commonwealth and Asian Games before being considered by the Olympics. I'm not even suggesting the Olympics.

Most of those Asian nations weren't playing Rugby, period, much less Rugby 7s when it got in there. Rugby League has just as many nations playing it now that Rugby Union had back then. These same countries have dabbled in Rugby 9s as well. Rugby 9s is an optional sport in the Pacific Games, so they've all played it.

A few additional countries could be convinced as well, the one's who aren't playing Rugby Union or 7s. Rugby League or 9s is more appealing towards Asians and Latinos than RU because it favors agility over brute force. Players don't need to be tanks like they tend to be in RU nowadays to be any good.

Also the goal isn't to replace RU7s, so the question of dropping the former isn't an issue. It's introducing a completely different sport on top of the existing sports that are already being played.

You'd have to be very generous to say there are as many actual countries with their own structure playing RL now as there were RU in 1998, test playing nations certainly not. 

The Commonwealth and Olympic committees are very unlikely to take on another sport when they have such a similar one already, particulalrly when there is such a huge gulf between the top 4 and everyone else.

[NotToday]

3 hours ago, Shadow said:

You'd have to be very generous to say there are as many actual countries with their own structure playing RL now as there were RU in 1998, test playing nations certainly not. 

The Commonwealth and Olympic committees are very unlikely to take on another sport when they have such a similar one already, particulalrly when there is such a huge gulf between the top 4 and everyone else.

We're talking Rugby Nines and Rigby Sevens correct? In that comparison it's probably roughly the same. How many countries had 'structures' for RU7s back then?

[Shadow]

3 minutes ago, NotToday said:

We're talking Rugby Nines and Rigby Sevens correct? In that comparison it's probably roughly the same. How many countries had 'structures' for RU7s back then?

Yes, 7s for Union 9s for League.

The Rugby Union 7s world cup was first held in 1993 and had 24 participating nations. Don't forget the Hong Kong Sevens have been going since 1976 so there is a relatively long history of international Sevens participation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Rugby_World_Cup_Sevens