The future of our game

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

11 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

The answer is simple I hate to say this as much as I love the championship we need to get back to 

* Franchising 

* London Broncos have to be in (Even with small crowds 90% of the sponsorship decisions are made from the capital its where the major ad agencies are)

* Less fixtures

* Tests set in stone for at least 4/5 years 

* Toulouse in

* Development officers increased again 

I think I probably agree with all of that. Especially the international calendar. When I got into the sport, you knew that every 2 years we would play the Aussies in a series either down there or over here. Now we haven't got much of a clue when we'll play them in a series (obviously this year excluded). The GB v Aus test series were massively popular and played in front of sell out crowds, and I still can't believe we jettisoned them. It's bordering on insane to me that people chose to ditch them. This year's will be the first test series in 17 years (assuming it actually happens).

[RMBJ]

48 minutes ago, Damien said:

No more congested than it used to be in the winter.

 

Before 1996, RL wasn't competing with professional RU. Club RU was little more than park rugby back then. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, RMBJ said:

 

Before 1996, RL wasn't competing with professional RU. Club RU was little more than park rugby back then. 

And you think its competing now? They are almost completely different markets geographically and attract different demographics. I really cant think of anywhere where RL is competing with RU. In almost all RL places RL's competition is Football, its certainly not RU.

[RMBJ]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

And you think its competing now? They are almost completely different markets geographically and attract different demographics. I really cant think of anywhere where RL is competing with RU. In almost all RL places RL's competition is Football, its certainly not RU.

 

Good grief, how on earth did you get that opinion past the mods?! 

 

[RMBJ]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There should be more RL on terrestrial. You dont have to have that as SL.

I've suggested before a larger challenge cup that runs from boxing day to february as a group stage. Games every week on the BBC, pick our games to showcase the best, use it to get people watching on tv and use it as advertising for the start of a shorter (with more games televised) more intense SL and also removes the CC from the summer calendar (largely) meaning we can use those weekends for rep games.

 

 

You are describing the 1980s and early 1990s - RL in the UK had everything going for it. Literally everything. 

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, RMBJ said:

 

Good grief, how on earth did you get that opinion past the mods?! 

 

What does that even mean YK?

[Hela Wigmen]

28 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There should be more RL on terrestrial. You dont have to have that as SL.

I've suggested before a larger challenge cup that runs from boxing day to february as a group stage. Games every week on the BBC, pick our games to showcase the best, use it to get people watching on tv and use it as advertising for the start of a shorter (with more games televised) more intense SL and also removes the CC from the summer calendar (largely) meaning we can use those weekends for rep games.

 

How many games do you want teams to play? You want a Super League, an extended Challenge Cup, a bigger International calendar and from what I understand, a few weekends of a short form of the game. How on earth is any of that manageable? 

 

[Hela Wigmen]

11 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

A shorter SL buddy.

If SL went down to 23 games and lost the loop fixtures you could have a challenge cup group stage (40 teams in 8 groups of 5) creating 4 group games 2 qualify for each would the  go in to round 6 (losing round 5 for SL clubs) which would only add three games back in.

3 international weekends and you are playing the same amount of games as now. There is also no necessity for all the players playing the rep weekends to also play the short form. 

It would also be spread out over longer creating more rest weekends for recovery. 

Is playing the same amount of games, in different variations of the same competitions actually wanted by the stakeholders of the game?

Are sponsors going to flood in because Wigan are playing Hunslet in the group stages of the Challenge Cup instead of entering when they do and playing straight knockout rugby against Saints? Are fans going to turn up to watch Warrington at home to Coventry when they don’t turn up to watch Cup home games against Super League opposition? Are the BBC or any other terrestrial channel going to pay to show more games a weekend (1-2) than they already show under the current format of the Challenge Cup? 

You also are vociferous in your passion for a short form of the game. You now mention that players who are playing Internationally, wouldn’t have to play this short form and you seriously think this short form idea is still a good idea when you’re trying to sell Leeds Academy against Hull Academy to sponsors, broadcasters and fans? 

[Hela Wigmen]

42 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The games best advertising is games themselves. Far far far more people watch a challenge cup game on the BBC than an SL game on sky. However you are never going to monetise the bbc viewers in the same way as sky viewers. The answer is reach more bbc viewers more often to turn them in to sky viewers. 

It is, pretty much, a freemium model. A free trial for the first three months of the year encouraging people to upgrade to the premium product. SL.

And no, wigan v Hunslet isnt going to bring in tonnes of sponsors or viewers but that isnt the game we would screen or promote. Just like now we would pick the most attractive games

Also your last paragraph is moronic. Do leeds only have players who are reserves and internationals? It's also an entirely irrelevant argument. There is no reason to assume that the best at 13s would be the best at 9s. Even if you picked the best 9s players at leeds that very well may not be the best 13s players. 

So, let me get this straight. You want BBC to pick the most attractive games? No doubt they’ll pick what has, historically, bought in the most viewers, a bit like how Manchester United ended up having something like 68 consecutive FA Cup games televised across all broadcasters. So you’re looking at your Saints v Wigan’s, Cas v Leeds’, Wigan v Wire’s, that sort of thing being continued to be broadcast. So what you’re suggesting is you want fewer Super League games and to move those games to meaninglessly pad out the Challenge Cup and you think that has commercial viability that broadcasters want? Can’t you see how that makes absolutely zero sense and is just create meaningless games that have no value? 

I’m still yet to see any evidence that a club based short form of the game holds any value to the game. The games profile is as small as it has been and your saving grace is a short form of the game based around an International break? Christ. 

[Hela Wigmen]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I find it difficult believe you are that stupid that you would find it difficult to believe that the BBC would pick the most attractive games, and in the same post argue that the game struggles to build its profile AND that it shouldn't have more games on the nations biggest broadcaster (by far) (it makes zero sense that a game that struggles for profile would look to grow its profile by having more FTA games, really?)

As I find it so difficult to believe you.are that dumb, I can only assume it's not an argument made in good faith.

We’re on the Scotchy cycle, again. Resort to personal abuse. Ahh, lovely. You’ve completely misconstrued my post, which isn’t surprising, as that’s, seemingly, your game.

Anyway, you want the BBC to continue to pick the most attractive game of each round. Which is fine. It’s standard. That’s what they do and it makes complete commercial sense and for as long as they have the coverage under their blanket. What you also want from the competition is up to three-four meaningless group games, depending on the draw which would almost certainly be seeded, to pad out the tournament because you’re reducing the amount of games in Super League. That’s what makes no commercial sense.

Stakeholders of the game aren’t interested in it. Broadcasters don’t want West Wales Raiders v Warrington or Wigan v Bradford Dudley Hill, so why we’d add that possibility (due to the process of a draw) to the tournament is just a bizarre notion that fulfils no purpose but padding out the fixture list. Fans almost certainly wouldn’t turn out for it if there is enough evidence to show that they’re not turning out for Wigan v Warrington in knockout rugby, which there is.

 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'm not sure how this will ever be otherwise. In soccer, League 1 and 2 clubs don't receive anywhere near the coverage that the Premier League gets. Surely this situation is just dictated by public interest and market forces?

When you say "Rugby League has been mainly focused on" do you mean the RFL? If so, I'm not sure if this is true. Paris haven't existed for over 20 years. I may be wrong but I believe that Toronto exist purely down to one benefactor's interest and money, whilst Catalans are a club in a traditional RL area that has one of the biggest turnovers in SL. I don't think the RFL have really spent much time or effort focusing on these clubs to try and develop a globally popular game. If anything, the more recent decisions to reinstate P&R instead of licencing would suggest that they are happy for lower league clubs to progress up the pyramid, potentially at the expense of the likes of Toronto, Catalans, London etc.

I'm confused by what you're getting at here. Surely there are local teams to support now? Or are you hypothesising that they may not be  around in the coming seasons if SL keep all the money from future broadcasting deals? If that does end up being the case, I can envisage the strongest and more self-sufficient lower league clubs forming a competitive league, and the weaker clubs that are reliant on handouts disappearing. This may sound harsh, but if those clubs that rely solely on handouts are not strong enough to be in a 'professional' league, there would be nothing to stop them from still existing and competing in a lower division such as the NCL. I'm not sure why this would be the end of the world for those clubs, as the NCL is a blooming good competition in its own right.

The guy also seems to believe the money that comes from TV rights is in reality magicked up by clubs to pay their players.

[Tommygilf]

36 minutes ago, SL17 said:

It does in the majority of clubs.

Totally agree

[GUBRATS]

Lockdown is really starting to get to some on here 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, SL17 said:

I'm still working,so dont be drawing me in to your lockdown scenario..

Thank you.

It's the arguing of the minutiae of the money travelling from the fans pockets to the players via the various agents in between , it's just nuts 

[robinson2]

The first thing rugby league needs to do is have everyone pulling in the same direction and shedding the cloak of negativity and pessimism. As a sport, it must try to involve its big names as much as possible. It is a travesty that the likes of Andy Farrell and Shaun Edwards have been lost to union. Where is Ellery Hanley these days? It's good to see Sam Burgess involved with South Sydney under Wayne Bennett. Hopefully he will remain in the rugby league fold. 

[TheReaper]

On 08/04/2020 at 11:53, JohnM said:

I only cited baseball because its not related to soccer, not related to rugby of either code, has died and recovered several times, is a fast and physical game. Could have chosen basketball or ice hockey for the comparison. 

The original rules of hockey actually were based a lot on rugby - offside line, no forward pass, things like that. Hockey was invented to have a sport they could play in the offseason (rugby is only a winter sport in places with no winter).

17 hours ago, RMBJ said:

 

Rugby Union 7s is in that market. It has Olympic recognition to further the brand and is played to a high standard by the USA, including with some ex-NFL players, and has a very well attended round every year in Las Vegas.

I doubt it barely registers in the USA consciousness.

7's being in the Olympics definitely increased public awareness hugely in Canada. It basically went from most people asking "rugby....isn't that kinda like football?" to people saying "hey, I saw that! Our women did really well!" (medalling obviously helped hugely). And with Canada having a stop on the 7s world series, now I get people asking me "hey, are you watching the 7s this weekend?" because they know I'm a rugby guy. And looking confused when I say probably not, I don't really watch that kind of rugby,

17 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

The biggest thing about alternative formats isnt just for social media or short attention spans. Its for participation. 

Its easier to play a game of 9s, its easier to commit to a few 9s days or weekends, and its easier to pick up a game of 9s, than it is to commit to 30 weeks of 13's plus training. 

You can play masters long after your body can't stand 13's, you can play touch or tag even if your body isnt in shape to be battered around by 19stone props. 

As much as alternative formats can show us some highlight reel plays, the can also get and keep people playing. 

Some fair points there. Now I'm a little biased, as I learned, played, and loved rugby union before I learned about rugby league. But I would say that although a lot of the changes made were to the benefit of the spectator and ease of understanding for the newer fan, I don't know how much any of them made the game more fun to play. 

Now, obviously I can only have played either code as the rules were in the era in which I played them (Being 2010-now for RU, 2015 for RL). But while you can certainly argue that sloppy rucks, resetting scrums, and lineouts may not be appealing to watch.... they sure are fun to do for a lot of people.

I've never been an "athlete". I've been various states of overweight since grade 4, and even at times when I was closer to healthier weight I still "felt" fat. I was never one to look for any extra running. I've never been particularly coordinated either. Never hit the ball once after I graduated from tee-ball to softball. But I sure can crash into some people. I sure can keep trucking for a few steps when people crash in to me. I can hold on tight to guys next to me and shove. I've always described the essence of my game as "I just make sure that when I trip, I fall in approximately the right direction".

I also played O-line in Canadian football for a season. But I had played rugby first, and the freedom of firstly being able to keep playing anywhere on the field, and secondly not wearing a damn helmet, meant that when my parents made me pick one, it was rugby.

At this stage, other than logistical challenges like weather and overlapping seasons, the biggest deterrent to playing RL now, is that I'm just not gonna run 10m sprints for 40 minutes.

So I can definitely see arguments for short forms, more accessible forms. I'd support (in both rugbies) a difference between amateur and professional laws. For example a 5m offside line instead of 10. Or in RU, the scrum rules we had 10 years ago were fine, the problem wasn't at amateur level. 

 

Returning to 7s, I think this might be an example of another shift in thought to consider. That being that popularity and income don't need to be linked, not immediately. 7s got popular before it made any money. So some consideration has to be given to ideas that would increase popularity, period, without looking for it to be monetized. Obviously a lot things cost money - is there any sort of "innovation fund" in place? Could one be set up for trying out new ideas in ways that allow them to succeed or fail without profit as a motivator?

 

My last thought is an idea. I've just recently watched "The Academy" and the "The Season" documentaries on Youtube. They're short, 5-6 episodes, following along parts of the seasons with Leicester Tigers Academy and Hamilton Boys High. I think something similar, but done in real-time, would make for a really cool addition to the challenge cup. Starting with the amateur teams entering - I think this would gain the most interest with the wider public - pick a few teams and follow them through their preparations before the cup starts. We'd get to see average guys going about their life but also preparing for a pretty big game in the context of their "careers". With space between rounds there would be time to film and edit etc. How much space would determine how many episodes, but at the very least have one episode per round and show it as a lead-in to the match. 

Each round follow say two teams who have made it though the last round, and two teams joining in. The ideal would be to follow an underdog all the way to the top, but when that doesn't happen we'd still have some continuity from round to round. And you could even cross over into the match coverage with live interviews with coaches and players we've gotten to know over the last days, weeks, or hours.

Another show that has that kind of "reality-show+documemtary with a match at the end" is Last Chance U, a show about a real American Football team with lots of player who washed out of big universities. Dunno if it's on UK Netflix but worth a go if you like sports shows.

[Robthegasman]

I think I suggested not long back that rugby league could take a lesson or two from cricket.

And I think a shortened format be it 7s or 9s should be considered very seriously.

20/20 Cricket,T20 and especially the IPL gets the crowds in and gets asses on seats.

Could something similar and bespoke for rugby league be a good thing for the sport?

 

[Hela Wigmen]

32 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

I think I suggested not long back that rugby league could take a lesson or two from cricket.

And I think a shortened format be it 7s or 9s should be considered very seriously.

20/20 Cricket,T20 and especially the IPL gets the crowds in and gets asses on seats.

Could something similar and bespoke for rugby league be a good thing for the sport?

 

So, because Cricket have done it, it will work in Rugby League? 

[GUBRATS]

10 hours ago, SL17 said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Robthegasman said:

I think I suggested not long back that rugby league could take a lesson or two from cricket.

And I think a shortened format be it 7s or 9s should be considered very seriously.

20/20 Cricket,T20 and especially the IPL gets the crowds in and gets asses on seats.

Could something similar and bespoke for rugby league be a good thing for the sport?

 

A RL game is still half as long as a T20 cricket match , so why does it need to be shortened ? , if a RL match lasted 8 hours , I would agree 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

 

A RL game is still half as long as a T20 cricket match , so why does it need to be shortened ? , if a RL match lasted 8 hours , I would agree 

This is a very good point. People often argue about 9s being RL's equivalent to T20, but 9s tournaments normally last 2 days! 

[GUBRATS]

If nobody was willing to pay to watch pro sport , there wouldn't be any pro sport 

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

This is a very good point. People often argue about 9s being RL's equivalent to T20, but 9s tournaments normally last 2 days! 

Cricket is unique in having one sport with the same number of players played over different time scales from 2 hours to 5 days , it has no relevance to RL , similarly neither does darts , which isn't a sport , it is a game 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Cricket is unique in having one sport with the same number of players played over different time scales from 2 hours to 5 days , it has no relevance to RL , similarly neither does darts , which isn't a sport , it is a game 

Agreed

[Eddie]

16 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

If nobody was willing to pay to watch pro sport , there wouldn't be any pro sport 

Bizarrely I had that conversation recently, with an adult. He argued that it wouldn’t matter if nobody watched a particular sport (in this case golf) because most revenue comes from sponsors. 

[Eddie]

10 hours ago, SL17 said:

If a club has no central funding without a sugar daddy. Then who is paying the wages?

This is like people who telephone the council to complain about something and rant about how they pay their wages. In a nutshell, they don’t.