29 matches is too many

[Toby Chopra]

3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Absolutely correct , the constant use of the NA ' model ' specifically using sports only they play is complete nonsense , Gridiron , Rounders and Basketball didn't and don't have a massive other sport overshadowing everything they do as we have in the UK , NA sports fans have no understanding of the domination Association Football has in the UK and indeed Europe , and growing massively in the rest of the world including in fact the US 

So as Mr Windup says " give it a rest " 

To say rugby league has nothing to learn from American sports is just another example of the head in the sand stubbornness bordering on arrogance  that will be the death of the British game.

People need to learn a bit of humility and admit that our game is massively struggling, and we should be frankly begging to learn from anywhere and everywhere that can help us, without any reservation. We just don't have time to worry about bruised egos any more. 

The biggest thing we can learn from US sports is how, with varying successes, they have reinvented themselves to change with the rapidly changing demographics of the United States. NFL and Basketball have transformed themselves, and profited from it, MLS has ripped up its latino/soccer moms plan and gone for the urban millenials crowd, NHL and MLB have come late to the game and only now catching up, while college football and NASCAR are stuck in regional strongholds. Loads to learn and study by clever people in our game, if they cared. Unfortunately Rugby league is the worst British sport by far for thinking about how to adapt to changing demographics, it's not even on page 1 and that's why we're fighting harder and harder every year  to stay afloat in shrinking markets. 

[GUBRATS]

20 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

To say rugby league has nothing to learn from American sports is just another example of the head in the sand stubbornness bordering on arrogance  that will be the death of the British game.

People need to learn a bit of humility and admit that our game is massively struggling, and we should be frankly begging to learn from anywhere and everywhere that can help us, without any reservation. We just don't have time to worry about bruised egos any more. 

The biggest thing we can learn from US sports is how, with varying successes, they have reinvented themselves to change with the rapidly changing demographics of the United States. NFL and Basketball have transformed themselves, and profited from it, MLS has ripped up its latino/soccer moms plan and gone for the urban millenials crowd, NHL and MLB have come late to the game and only now catching up, while college football and NASCAR are stuck in regional strongholds. Loads to learn and study by clever people in our game, if they cared. Unfortunately Rugby league is the worst British sport by far for thinking about how to adapt to changing demographics, it's not even on page 1 and that's why we're fighting harder and harder every year  to stay afloat in shrinking markets. 

Yet another post stating generalisations , doing nothing but criticising RL 

" Loads to learn and study " ? Like what ? , Away you go ? 

Completely different cultures and different situations 

[Toby Chopra]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Yet another post stating generalisations , doing nothing but criticising RL 

" Loads to learn and study " ? Like what ? , Away you go ? 

Completely different cultures and different situations 

Edit: I apologise for directing unseemly terms at an individual. I will try to do better.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Insular. Arrogant. Ignorant. God help our game. 

So you know we need to learn something , but you don't know what it is ?

 

[Toby Chopra]

3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So you know we need to learn something , but you don't know what it is ?

 

I said what it is in my original post. We need to learn how to change our sport to match the changes in the country, so it doesn't die. NFL and NBA have done this well, baseball and hockey resisted this, sticking with long used narratives and brands, until their numbers started to lag, and belatedly started to change. 

Nobody is saying British rugby league and U. S. sports are "the same" just that all sports operate in a changing economic and societal environment and many of the challenges are in common, all round the world. It's really isn't that radical a suggestion. Businesses look abroad for innovation all the time, and sports often poach executives off each other and from overseas, where they can be shown to have achieved something the poacher wants. It doesn't actually matter where they come from. Indeed the NFL and the Premier League run an executive exchange program becasue they believe they can learn from each other. If its good enough for them... 

We need to learn from any sport, any where, that has successfully widened its demographic, geographic and social footprint, because our existing demographic is shrinking and getting (relatively) poorer. This is painful to accept, but it's not meant as an insult, just stating reality. 

Although it used to be a great innovator, nowadays, British rugby league finds it hard to change for a variety of reasons, including vested interests, a tightly held identity, thin financial resources, a lack of executive talent and a lack of centralised power. It needs to overcome some of these or it won't stop the decline. 

I don't view saying this as slagging off RL, on the contrary, a true friend tells those they care about the truth, even if painful. I want British rugby league to still be here, indeed be thriving, in 25-30 years. But it won't be until it makes itself relevant to a much bigger slice of 21st century Britain than it does today. 

[superten]

I like the 12 team league and  5 team play off . Means we can play around with fixture format . Although I am not a big fan of magic week end I know plenty of fans that are . Also I think its worth quite a bit of money from sky . 29 games is a lot but unless we want to make room for internationals I would keep 29 games . I would also have the Championship format mirror  the super league . Take it back to 12 teams with same format as super league . I would start the Championship two weeks before super league this would make room for 1895 cup games later . League one have 13 teams or more if new teams enter .  

[Kayakman]

10 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Is this it?

 

Thats the one.....I think this will be the style of the Wolfpack if and when they make it to SL.

[Big Picture]

50 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Thats the one.....I think this will be the style of the Wolfpack if and when they make it to SL.

The year which ended with the CFL's very own watersplash final.  The Brits here might find it interesting for that alone.

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

I said what it is in my original post. We need to learn how to change our sport to match the changes in the country, so it doesn't die. NFL and NBA have done this well, baseball and hockey resisted this, sticking with long used narratives and brands, until their numbers started to lag, and belatedly started to change. 

Nobody is saying British rugby league and U. S. sports are "the same" just that all sports operate in a charging economic and societal environment and many of the challenges are in common, all round the world. It's really isn't that radical a suggestion. Businesses look abroad for innovation all the time, and sports often poach executives off each other and from overseas, where they can be shown to have achieved something the poacher wants. It doesn't actually matter where they come from. Indeed the NFL and the Premier League run an executive exchange program becasue they believe they can learn from each other. If its good enough for them... 

We need to learn from any sport, any where, that has successfully widened its demographic, geographic and social footprint, because our existing demographic is shrinking and getting (relatively) poorer. This is painful to accept, but it's not meant as an insult, just stating reality. 

Although it used to be a great innovator, nowadays, British rugby league finds it hard to change for a variety of reasons, including vested interests, a tightly held identity, thin financial resources, a lack of executive talent and a lack of centralised power. It needs to overcome some of these or it won't stop the decline. 

I don't view saying this as slagging off RL, on the contrary, a true friend tells those they care about the truth, even if painful. I want British rugby league to still be here, indeed be thriving, in 25-30 years. But it won't be until it makes itself relevant to a much bigger slice of 21st century Britain than it does today. 

But you still can't actually state what they need to do ?

[Kayakman]

46 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

But you still can't actually state what they need to do ?

1.   A successful and ongoing NA expansion.

2.  A new TV contract whilst continuing to use the new social media to make a bigger footprint.

3.  A mindset change to make new teams/owners feel welcome and let them know that they belong.

4.  The concept of 'flexibility' to become a norm in the governance of the game gatekeepers.

Start with those four and that would  create a positive energy with growth.

[RugbyLeagueRaj]

Personally I'd say that 29 matches makes the season too long. Fewer matches and a longer preseason should result in closer matches as the number of injuries should be reduced and teams with smaller squads are less disadvantaged. It would also mean the season could start later and avoid the 6 Nations and perhaps some of the worst of the English weather.

I thought Robert Elstone was against loop fixtures but was pressured into it by some of the chairmen but couldn't find any evidence of that based on a quick search but what I did find was an interesting suggestion from the Sun of having 2 Magic Weekends as one way of holding an "on the road" round.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/7192481/sunsport-proposes-new-system-as-league-structure-is-set-to-change-no-loop/

[Toby Chopra]

8 hours ago, Kayakman said:

1.   A successful and ongoing NA expansion.

2.  A new TV contract whilst continuing to use the new social media to make a bigger footprint.

3.  A mindset change to make new teams/owners feel welcome and let them know that they belong.

4.  The concept of 'flexibility' to become a norm in the governance of the game gatekeepers.

Start with those four and that would  create a positive energy with growth.

I don't think that's where you start. You start with a detailed, professional analysis of what you have now - your brand, image, fanbase, commercial partners. Who are your stakeholders (which of course includes fans and grassroots) , why do they engage with the game, what do they get from it, how does it make them feel? Is the game providing that?

Then you look at the make-up of the wider communities that the game operates in - towns, cities, regions and countries, and see what that wider group is looking for in sport, and why Rugby League doesn't appeal to them.

If you don't understand what your own product is, and what the environment you operate in looks like, its just flailing in the dark. 

NA may or may not be part of that process, and indeed Wolfpack have shown that they are asking and answering some of those questions, but the problem is they are doing it on their own, rather than it being a unifled, whole game approach. Ultimately, the Wolfpacks efforts will be in vain if the game as a whole doesn't do the same work. 

What we need is a Framing the Future for the 2020s, done properly, that looks into every part of the game, and studies every part of society, and sees where the disconnect is. That is very expensive. It's also slightly pointless if the game doesn't have strong central governance to act on its recommendations. 

Structures, leagues, locations etc are all secondary until you've answered the more fundamental questions: who are you, what do you want, how do others perceive you, what do they want, why don't they think you can give it to them.

[Gooleboy]

On 30/08/2019 at 05:25, Lowdesert said:

It’s obvious for lack of quality on the pitch (players stale), injuries, playing the same team over and over - but SL clubs say this is what we need to make money.  Who will influence them?  Elstone?

Less SL with games being made into bigger events,  more internationals.

Is Elstone still employed by SL,

[Kayakman]

3 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

I don't think that's where you start. You start with a detailed, professional analysis of what you have now - your brand, image, fanbase, commercial partners. Who are your stakeholders (which of course includes fans and grassroots) , why do they engage with the game, what do they get from it, how does it make them feel? Is the game providing that?

Then you look at the make-up of the wider communities that the game operates in - towns, cities, regions and countries, and see what that wider group is looking for in sport, and why Rugby League doesn't appeal to them.

If you don't understand what your own product is, and what the environment you operate in looks like, its just flailing in the dark. 

NA may or may not be part of that process, and indeed Wolfpack have shown that they are asking and answering some of those questions, but the problem is they are doing it on their own, rather than it being a unifled, whole game approach. Ultimately, the Wolfpacks efforts will be in vain if the game as a whole doesn't do the same work. 

What we need is a Framing the Future for the 2020s, done properly, that looks into every part of the game, and studies every part of society, and sees where the disconnect is. That is very expensive. It's also slightly pointless if the game doesn't have strong central governance to act on its recommendations. 

Structures, leagues, locations etc are all secondary until you've answered the more fundamental questions: who are you, what do you want, how do others perceive you, what do they want, why don't they think you can give it to them.

Once again a well thought out response....I just assumed that alot of this groundwork had already been done.

Lets get on with it!

[Big Picture]

36 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Once again a well thought out response....I just assumed that alot of this groundwork had already been done.

Lets get on with it!

A lot of it was a little more than 25 years ago, that's when Framing the Future was produced.  Not much new was done since then as far as I know, and with the game's problems today it's not clear whether the governing body could afford the kind of analysis described by Tony Chopra.

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

I don't think that's where you start. You start with a detailed, professional analysis of what you have now - your brand, image, fanbase, commercial partners. Who are your stakeholders (which of course includes fans and grassroots) , why do they engage with the game, what do they get from it, how does it make them feel? Is the game providing that?

Then you look at the make-up of the wider communities that the game operates in - towns, cities, regions and countries, and see what that wider group is looking for in sport, and why Rugby League doesn't appeal to them.

If you don't understand what your own product is, and what the environment you operate in looks like, its just flailing in the dark. 

NA may or may not be part of that process, and indeed Wolfpack have shown that they are asking and answering some of those questions, but the problem is they are doing it on their own, rather than it being a unifled, whole game approach. Ultimately, the Wolfpacks efforts will be in vain if the game as a whole doesn't do the same work. 

What we need is a Framing the Future for the 2020s, done properly, that looks into every part of the game, and studies every part of society, and sees where the disconnect is. That is very expensive. It's also slightly pointless if the game doesn't have strong central governance to act on its recommendations. 

Structures, leagues, locations etc are all secondary until you've answered the more fundamental questions: who are you, what do you want, how do others perceive you, what do they want, why don't they think you can give it to them.

An excellent post detailing what every business in every field should be doing on an ongoing basis , and no doubt could draw some conclusions from , actioning on those conclusions without significant investment then becomes the problem 

It does become a circular argument , as it is a circular problem , many years ago I set up a business from scratch , it was very difficult breaking into a market dominated by 1 particular brand , eventually after several years and lots of hard work we found our customer base , it was based primarily on supplying what the dominant brand didn't want to do , but also based on price , sport does differ in many ways , 

Not saying it cannot be done , but it is very difficult 

[Kayakman]

8 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

A lot of it was a little more than 25 years ago, that's when Framing the Future was produced.  Not much new was done since then as far as I know, and with the game's problems today it's not clear whether the governing body could afford the kind of analysis described by Tony Chopra.

That is where the flexibility comes in...the world is changing at an accelerated pace....best not to sit still like a bump on a log.

[Smudger06]

Way too many games. 

Should be a 25 week season from the kick off of the 1st game of round 1 to the final whistle of the grand final. 

Less supply of games would mean more demand for those games. And further, a superior quality of game due to more time between games for post match recovery and performance review and Pre match preparations and opponent analysis. 

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Way too many games. 

Should be a 25 week season from the kick off of the 1st game of round 1 to the final whistle of the grand final. 

Less supply of games would mean more demand for those games. And further, a superior quality of game due to more time between games for post match recovery and performance review and Pre match preparations and opponent analysis. 

Just saying there would be more demand isn't proving there would be , essentially unless the broadcast partner decided they were willing to pay more for less then it's something we won't find out 

[Smudger06]

12 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Just saying there would be more demand isn't proving there would be , essentially unless the broadcast partner decided they were willing to pay more for less then it's something we won't find out 

Basic economics. 

If the match going fanbase remains stagnant / fixed (should grow because of better quality product for reasons explained above) and concurrently the number of home games decreases from 14 to say 9. Clearly you'd get increased demand per game. With associated decreased costs as a certain added benefit. 

[Smudger06]

34 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Just saying there would be more demand isn't proving there would be , essentially unless the broadcast partner decided they were willing to pay more for less then it's something we won't find out 

Quality over quantity, we wouldn't need them to pay more for less, the same for less will do for now, but better matches with better crowds / atmosphere.....

[GUBRATS]

38 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Basic economics. 

If the match going fanbase remains stagnant / fixed (should grow because of better quality product for reasons explained above) and concurrently the number of home games decreases from 14 to say 9. Clearly you'd get increased demand per game. With associated decreased costs as a certain added benefit. 

' if ' and ' should ' , as long as they are in there then ' clearly ' doesn't apply 

[GUBRATS]

19 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Quality over quantity, we wouldn't need them to pay more for less, the same for less will do for now, but better matches with better crowds / atmosphere.....

Sorry , just saying so doesn't make it so , there is no guarantee attendances would increase 

[bazzzz65]

On 30/08/2019 at 02:55, RugbyLeagueMan said:

How does this compare with a season say 30 years ago when players had jobs too?

In the 60s I think there were 34 games for each club. 

[Tommygilf]

I think we should be looking at either 14 SL teams plus Magic or 12 plus Magic with some "Guaranteed CC fixtures" in the shape of round robin for example. 

Any space created in the calendar however absolutely and unquestionably should be transferred to International representative games. England (even if only SL based) vs Wales and France should be easy enough mid (or even pre) season. Ireland too are largely SL based and could be included.