The Second Great Schism

[EssexRL]

The only thing we should be thinking about is whether there are alternative media deals for Championship and L1. Watching the amount of L1 games I’ve been able too on OurLeague App has been great but obviously generates no income for the game. There are loads of media platforms. I’m no expert but I do wonder if there’s a number of deals to be made ? 

[JonM]

I'd happily pay for OurLeague. I think there's something to be said for running it as a free service while streaming problems are sorted out, but it seems like it's in a state where charging could be justified.

[Oxford]

On 13/09/2019 at 14:23, jroyales said:

I hope I am wrong and there will be life under SL - sadly I don't think so!

Whenever I hear views like your OP the one thing I'm absoluetly sure of is that you don't hope you're wrong.

I love Summer TGG and only hate the bit of the year where there is none. And the real reason is I no longer have frozen feet holding on to a Bovril I'll never drink just to be able to do my impression of the Little Match Girl.

[Futtocks]

2 hours ago, JonM said:

I'd happily pay for OurLeague. I think there's something to be said for running it as a free service while streaming problems are sorted out, but it seems like it's in a state where charging could be justified.

I still have some buffering problems with OurLeague. Twitch still offers a more uninterrupted stream, but they don't carry every single OurLeague match yet.

[Dunbar]

On 13/09/2019 at 13:09, Marty Funkhouser said:

Now that is utter, utter tripe...

In 1994/95 , 49 million people (yes 49 million) watched Rugby League on TV whether it be BBC or BSKYB or other. The biggest game attracted 4,5 million viewers . In addition , 1,7 million paid through the gate to watch a game of professional Rugby League.

In 2018 we had successfully managed to reduce that to 9 million ( 1.3 million for the biggest game) and 1.5 million through the gates. This of course in spite of record funding flowing into the game , in the hundreds of millions of pounds over 20 odd years.

As for the cash ask millionaires like Hanley, Offiah ,Davies and others what era they would have preferred to earn their crust in. Many players were paid more than many top professionals of 20 plus years later.

Sponsors?...then British Coal, Carling, Regal (John Player), Norweb, ICI,  Mcewans, John Smiths, Greenalls, Silk Cut...etc etc...now Cash Converters and erm....

It's easy to be brainwashed, and many have been, but thinking for ones self and examining the facts is a wonderful tool.

 

On 13/09/2019 at 13:49, Damien said:

A nice cherry picking of figures there. In 1994/1995 Wigan played 51 games. In 2018 they played 31. Every team played far more back in 1994. There were 30 League games alone and there were multiple cup competitions and even a tour by Australia. If there is only a 200,000 difference in paying customers then that reflects extremely poorly on the game in 1994/1995.

Any difference in TV figures is plainly obvious and needs little explanation. What does need to be pointed out is that the BBC did pay next to nothing for what it did show back then. BSkyB also paid little.

I don't particularly know if the players you refer to are millionaires or not but presumably you have see  their bank statements so I'll take your word for it. However I would certainly hazard a guess that the likes of Sam Tomkins, Sam Burgess et al are all millionaires in this era. I'd say even young players like George Williams will be soon enough. What is also clear is that the vast majority of players are better off in this era and can earn a full time wage in the game. Not just the elite or ex RU players, which by the way used to cause huge resentment amongst Rugby League born and bred players, many of which were part time and getting a fraction of what they were.

Many of the sponsors you cite are now replaced by the cig sponsors of this age, betting companies. There are no cig companies in sports sponsorship anymore because they banned from doing so. Warrington have been sponsored by Emirates, Wakefield by Asus, Leeds by Leeds Building Society - All major blue chip sponsors and bigger than any you cite.

You are certainly right on that it's easy to be brainwashed. Taking the rose tinted spectacles off and thinking for oneself is indeed a wonderful tool.

I like both of these posts.  They are well argued and show us some of the best (and worst) parts of our sports changes over the last 25 years.

I won't get too far into this as I don't think there is much more to be said but one thing jumps out at me which is I would love the modern game to have the national exposure that it did in 1994/95.

[Padge]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

 

I like both of these posts.  They are well argued and show us some of the best (and worst) parts of our sports changes over the last 25 years.

I won't get too far into this as I don't think there is much more to be said but one thing jumps out at me which is I would love the modern game to have the national exposure that it did in 1994/95.

Centralisation of print media and the eventual cost cutting decline of regional reporting and fast advances in technology leave us where we are. This has nothing to do with RL but a lot to do with industrial technology changes. If SL hadn't happened the changes still would have. 

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, Padge said:

Centralisation of print media and the eventual cost cutting decline of regional reporting and fast advances in technology leave us where we are. This has nothing to do with RL but a lot to do with industrial technology changes. If SL hadn't happened the changes still would have. 

Surely the unarguably larger national profile in the mid-90s was down to regular BBC coverage on Grandstand etc? 

The Sky paywall is a double-edged sword. Mostly good but some people outside the heartlands might wonder if RL is still going, such is the low profile these days.

[Padge]

15 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Surely the unarguably larger national profile in the mid-90s was down to regular BBC coverage on Grandstand etc? 

The Sky paywall is a double-edged sword. Mostly good but some people outside the heartlands might wonder if RL is still going, such is the low profile these days.

When have we not had a BBC presence. The BBC were never going to compete to have the coverage we have now but they have clung on the challenge cup, the new technologies had the money. Again technological change was the driving force. The same force that started a mega bucks SL war in Oz and forced the hand of rugby union to  start paying tax on players earnings.

We were not immune from all these changes, but we would have been a victim of them if we hadn't gone with them.

 

[Man of Kent]

12 minutes ago, Padge said:

When have we not had a BBC presence. The BBC were never going to compete to have the coverage we have now but they have clung on the challenge cup, the new technologies had the money. Again technological change was the driving force. The same force that started a mega bucks SL war in Oz and forced the hand of rugby union to  start paying tax on players earnings.

We were not immune from all these changes, but we would have been a victim of them if we hadn't gone with them.

 

I don’t see it as inevitable that we are where we are re national profile.

For example, I don’t find it acceptable that the BBC screens the Super League Show when it does. We should be pushing for a more primetime slot.

[Padge]

7 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I don’t see it as inevitable that we are where we are re national profile.

For example, I don’t find it acceptable that the BBC screens the Super League Show when it does. We should be pushing for a more primetime slot.

How do you know we haven't. The BBC would probably be willing to change the slot if we give them back some challenge cup monies. 

Tell me what your opening gambit to the BBC would be to get a better slot. 

[Man of Kent]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

Tell me what your opening gambit to the BBC would be to get a better slot. 

“Give us a primetime slot, you sh!ts”

 

[Themusician_2]

On 13/09/2019 at 12:26, jroyales said:

The first schism was a breakaway from the power mad brokers down south who weren't prepared to support the full sport. They looked after their own interests and damned the rest. This is exactly what SL are proposing when they take over the Sky money. They want to keep it all and the Championship and League 1 can go to the wall. SL seem to think that they deserve the money, what they don't realise is that when Sky pulls out they will also be damned because their attendances won't be adequate to run a professional club - with the exception of one or two with money men behind them.

The time is NOW for ALL clubs outside of SL to breakaway, a "Second Great Schism."

It could return our game to winter, the amateur game could also follow suit so attracting more players away from summer pursuits, all television deals and other could be poured back into our game , there must be many more pluses than negatives for a breakaway.

Sadly, all the chairmen outside of SL will just wait and see what happens! They already know, they will go out of existence within a year so following Carlisle, Bramley, Nottingham, Kent Invicta, Fulham, Scarborough, Huyton, Chorley out of existence and sadly are now just a memory.

Moving back to winter would do serious damage to the game outside it's heartlands. 

[RP London]

On 13/09/2019 at 11:26, jroyales said:

The first schism was a breakaway from the power mad brokers down south who weren't prepared to support the full sport. They looked after their own interests and damned the rest. This is exactly what SL are proposing when they take over the Sky money. They want to keep it all and the Championship and League 1 can go to the wall. SL seem to think that they deserve the money, what they don't realise is that when Sky pulls out they will also be damned because their attendances won't be adequate to run a professional club - with the exception of one or two with money men behind them.

The time is NOW for ALL clubs outside of SL to breakaway, a "Second Great Schism."

It could return our game to winter, the amateur game could also follow suit so attracting more players away from summer pursuits, all television deals and other could be poured back into our game , there must be many more pluses than negatives for a breakaway.

Sadly, all the chairmen outside of SL will just wait and see what happens! They already know, they will go out of existence within a year so following Carlisle, Bramley, Nottingham, Kent Invicta, Fulham, Scarborough, Huyton, Chorley out of existence and sadly are now just a memory.

I'm an Eagles fan who also follows Warrington due to grandparents and needing a team in Super League to follow to make the league a bit more interesting... not that this matters one jot in whether you view your post as a good post or a bad one

I would agree with another poster that the Second Great Schism in "Rugby" was the opening of Rugby Union and the effect that had on some of the strong traditional clubs that they once had and also on clubs that spent to try and be great and failed. 

I would also agree with another poster who said about the championship looking at their own tv deal but i would extend that to their own commercials as a whole. Get their own sponsor etc (it may be a "small northern company" but then that is ok as long as they pay the bill). 

The winter v summer debate is often a matter of personal preference I dont believe there is any evidence that the move to summer materially harmed the game in and of itself. There are so many factors that have happened both internally and externally that have changed the game and the socio economic landscape that it is not one thing that has had an effect. A lot of sports have gone through this in the past 20 years. We have seen some of the largest cultural changes in the shortest space of time that any generation has been through in terms of leisure time. From Esports and video gaming to a 1000%+ increase in your ability to view what you want when you want. You just need to look at things like Pubs and how they have to fundamentally change themselves to stay in existence and that is without looking at the wider high street and how that is changing and has changed. I studied Social & Economic History at University and did a lot around the 1930s which was a time of great change, but I would love to have my time again in about 40 years and study this period as it is going to be fascinating. 

The biggest problem at the moment is that clubs just expect to still be in existence, just look at Swinton FFS! they dont want to make the changes that need to be made to move forward we just expect "because of tradition" that these clubs "should" be in existence.. there is no "should" about it though... we have always had clubs go out of business right from the very start of the Northern Union (as have football and Rugby Union and every other major sport lets be fair). what the successful clubs have done is change to meet the new trials and tribulations they face.. something that the present clubs are horrifically bad at. You name a bunch of clubs that, for the most part, are expansion teams. By their very nature they were a risk, they were also, for the most part, not helped at all by the clubs that are now screaming for help (ironic??) yet if they had helped then maybe we would have this larger footprint that could help have all the things (blue chip companies, massive tv deals) that everyone expects us to fall into.

It doesnt need a "schism". In fact arguably it is the last thing the sport needs. What it needs is owners to get together and work in the best interests of the game not of their own small world. It needs supporters to stop whinging and whining about what is actually the world around them and to support their club in how it needs to change to meet the new challenges of the new modern world and it needs a governing body that is strong and able to support newer clubs and older clubs that need help and offer something to the sport and thats from the very top to the very bottom with amateur clubs etc.