The future of our game

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Yes but it's ###### 

That's a side issue and is ultimately personal preference, I'm not saying it should happen but if Magic was to change massively that would be the route I expect.

There aught to be some research into the reasons for the crowds attending at magic weekend and what they want out of the experience and what could make it better.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

But is that to with Catalans and Toronto being in SL, or other reasons?

Its not, the guy is living in a fantasy world

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

For Skolars definitely. For the game as a whole to have more games on FTA certainly. Is a Leeds game v Wigan on the BBC worth more than the third game which isnt on Sky in terms of broadcast value? obviously so. 

Your suggestion for this season is that we have 14 more games total. and replace them with nothing. Youve come so far in this circle you have begun arguing against yourself. 

And your seem to struggle massively with maths. IF you had a group stage you would have MORE big games. Thats obvious. There are 12 SL sides, there would be 8 groups. There would be  more than 1 SL team in most groups (especially if some were defined geographically, such as an atlantic group containing the 3 NA sides and the wolfhounds, a European group containing Les Catalans and Toulouse + the likes of Valencia and Belgrade who have waned to join) So you would have plenty of all SL ties, plenty of all championship ties, plenty of SL and championship ties. I honestly dont know who you think you are tricking by positing it would always be Wigan v Hunslet or Leeds v Skolars. We all know there are more teams than that and they wont be the ties that would be picked. Take the 30 heartland SL clubs, put them in to 6 groups of 5. If you cant find 15 interesting ties in that, you arent really an RL fan

My suggestion isn’t anything. I don’t know what’s happening in the coming weeks, no one does. However, I cannot see a way in which the game goes away from its laws to a short form of the game. 

Is a third Wigan v Leeds game not televised worth more than Leeds v Skolars? Unequivocally, yes. Hospitality, match sponsorship, attendance etc are all going to be significantly higher than Leeds v London Skolars in Group D of the Challenge Cup Group Stages.

If you’re seeding teams, you’re likely going to have to go off the League positions from the previous year for fairness, so your top seeds is this was this year would be St Helens, Wigan, Salford, Warrington, Cas, Hull, Catalans and Leeds. The second seeds would be Wakefield, Huddersfield, Hull KR, London, Toronto, Toulouse, York and Leigh. Virtually zero big games on the cards there. Maybe you can hope Hull get paired with Hull KR but broadcasters and viewers aren’t exactly going to be sold on a few weeks of Wigan v York, Warrington v Huddersfield or Salford v London to fill the other weeks. 

You say there will be more games. There will, but very few of any value to the stakeholders of the game. You’ve changed your mind, yesterday you wanted 8x5. Now you want 6x5. Even so, there will be one, maybe two, all Super League ties across 6 groups of five or eight groups of five. 

It’s just not a good idea, commercially or from a supply and demand point of view. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

21 minutes ago, saddleworth said:

By the same token, such teams such as Featherstone, Cas, Wakey and other area teams are the backbone of the game. The spin offs are the local amateur clubs who, over many years have provided a feeder chain for the professional game. 

I'm not sure how London, Toronto and Catalans negatively impact on this.

22 minutes ago, saddleworth said:

We cannot carry on supplying overseas players to our "elite" clubs and allowing Union players to be changing camps to the detriment of the lower and amateur leagues.

I'm confused as to how these two things are linked? Are you suggesting that the money spent on these players should be spent on development of these lower and amateur leagues?

24 minutes ago, saddleworth said:

The game will slowly dry up due to lack of local support and youthful interest.

Is the suggestion that if Featherstone or Wakefield didn't have a pro team, then nobody would travel 10 miles to watch Castleford or Leeds? That is pretty local as far as I'm concerned! If you're suggesting that youthful interest will dry up due to lack of development officers and funding, then that is a different issue. 

28 minutes ago, saddleworth said:

On principle, I refuse to watch games involving Toronto.  Despite the influx of millions of pounds and journeymen players, they have brought nothing much to the game as it stands. 

It's very early days for Toronto, and only time will tell regarding the impact on the wider game. But in the same breath, if the argument is that it is too early to tell whether they have contributed anything significant yet, then they can't simultaneously be blamed for holding 'traditional' clubs back.

I think other reasons have contributed to the current state of the game, such as globalisation, the growth of Premier League soccer, and societal changes that have seen fewer kids playing sport. Unfortunately, all of these are outside of RL's control.

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The concept of clubs generating a significant proportion of their revenues through TV income and so the subscriptions of the TV viewers 'paying the players wages' is an entirely reasonable one and is just commercial common sense.

I am really not sure what you are trying to achieve arguing for the last 5 pages that the actual BACS payment to the players comes from the clubs.

What is the point you making by insisting the payment of the players is through the P&L of the clubs (as this is blindingly obvious, it just feels like semantics to me)?

Thank you

[Robthegasman]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Of course it could. But like cricket, the old timers will hate it with a passion. 

You are probably right.

But my late dad(R.I.P)was a lover of cricket and a traditionalist yet he liked the 20/20 format and liked the IPL.

But really it is high time some of these old timers and traditionalists are faced down and are stood up to.Because quite frankly the game is dying as things stand.For many clubs the fan base is ageing and what happens when they become too old to carry on watching because their health won’t allow it?And what happens when these ageing fans sadly die?Will there be enough young ones to follow their footsteps?Right now you have to say there aren’t.
 

So to me it is clear that rugby league has got to do something and make some changes,and yes some bold and radical ones.

And in my opinion a shortened format should be considered very seriously.And to get back on to the success of 20/20 Cricket,T20 etc.Because the format is shorter it is faster and the batsmen often hit 4s and 6s which gives the crowds entertainment.Of course cricket and RL are different sports with different rules etc.But both are there to entertain.

And maybe a 7s or 9s in rugby league might see the ball get thrown about a bit more with a quick pace and plenty of tries.And isn’t that what the paying public want to see?Yes probably one or two rules of the game might need to change for 7s or 9s for obvious reasons.

Now of course I am not saying a 7s or 9s competition is the cure for all the ills of rugby league.It is not,but in my opinion it could do the game a lot of good if it was done right,promoted and marketed right and played right.

And of course there is and should always be a place in rugby league for the 13 a side game.

 

[koli]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I think Leeds Rhinos being the biggest gig in town has had far more to do with Hunslet's dwindling crowds than London ever have.

Yes this is a fair point, and it's still very early days for Toronto.

But you can still go and watch Hunslet from the terraces -  it's just that they're in a lower division. If you're from Leeds and want to watch Super League action then you can go and watch the Rhinos on the terraces. Without the money in the game it would most likely regress back to what it was in the early 90s, with a few full time teams and lots of part time teams. Hunslet were still way down the pecking order back then as well.

Because they have never been able to attract a billionaire backer who can stump up enough cash to sign him. If I was a billionaire, I probably wouldn't be choosing to invest in a small ex-mining village in West Yorkshire with a population of 20k such as Fev.

Well I think this is one of the game's problems, in that we're generally struggling to keep the best talent in SL.

One of the things that is interesting to me is that - by and large - what were the biggest clubs in the game before SL and full time professionalism are generally still the biggest clubs now. Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Hull, Warrington were all typically the bigger clubs, and they still are now. Castleford always used to punch above their weight and still do now. Bradford went meteoric and then since plummeted again, but other than that, I don't think a massive amount has changed in the rugby league landscape. By and large, the smaller clubs have generally been in the lower divisions or scrapping around at the bottom of the top division, regardless of how much TV money has come in to the game.

I genuinely don't believe that the likes of Catalans or Toronto have held back any of these other clubs. I think Keighley had a legitimate reason to be livid when the won the 2nd Division and didn't get promoted and London leapfrogged them in to SL, but that was 25 years ago, and other than that I can't really see how these 'expansion' clubs are holding other teams back. P&R allows these smaller clubs to get into SL, but only Leigh have managed it so far, and I wouldn't really call them a small club.

I would say Oldham,Swinton and Halifax are former "big clubs" that have fallen away .As many have postulated a club can survive say 10 years in the wilderness but much longer and you start to lose generations of supporters.The former older ones passing away and younger generations never coming in.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

50 minutes ago, koli said:

I would say Oldham,Swinton and Halifax are former "big clubs" that have fallen away .As many have postulated a club can survive say 10 years in the wilderness but much longer and you start to lose generations of supporters.The former older ones passing away and younger generations never coming in.

Yes I suspect the younger generations who take an interest in SL probably gravitate to the bigger teams, in much the same way that some soccer-mad kids growing up in somehwere like Northampton might support Liverpool FC.

Out of those teams that you've mentioned, I would guess that Swinton's falling away coincided with them selling their ground and enduring a nomadic existence in the lower leagues ever since. Oldham and Halifax were both in SL at the start, so their fall from grace can't be attributed to SL keeping them out.

 

[koli]

33 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Yes I suspect the younger generations who take an interest in SL probably gravitate to the bigger teams, in much the same way that some soccer-mad kids growing up in somehwere like Northampton might support Liverpool FC.

Out of those teams that you've mentioned, I would guess that Swinton's falling away coincided with them selling their ground and enduring a nomadic existence in the lower leagues ever since. Oldham and Halifax were both in SL at the start, so their fall from grace can't be attributed to SL keeping them out.

 

Swinton had struggled from the late 60s onwards and loss of the ground compounded the decline.

Going bust in the early days of SL vlearly hurt both Oldham n Fax.In Oldhams case loss of the ground led to the downward nomad spiral.

Halifax retain enough of a core to maybe rebuild if money came in but it's been a long time out of the top league and longer still since the sucess of the late 80s .

As Huddersfield have shown it's a big struggle to rebuild after younger spectator generations lost.

 

[Big Picture]

5 hours 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?

You're comparing apples and oranges there, unless I'm mistaken a T20 match is still as long or longer than full-length matches of other team sports so it's about the right length.  7s or 9s matches are far too short to be the main vehicle for our game.

[Big Picture]

13 hours ago, robinson2 said:

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. 

A travesty though it is, it reflects the standing of RL in the pecking order of British sports.  Holding onto the likes of Farrell and Edwards would require that the game acquire a much higher profile and a lot more money than it has now.

[Eddie]

23 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

 

In RL its northern towns and a few cities, with half arsed no plan expansion to france and canada and that's pretty much it. That's the entirety of RL's property in the northern hemisphere. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the game is always so fragile when its focus is so narrow.

What do you propose will improve things then Scotchy, and who will do it and pay for it?

[Tommygilf]

36 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The games history is potted with 2 steps forward and one step back, at least.

The game has always been much harder hit than most to any sort of setback. The game only ever seems to thrive in the sunshine and just dissolves in the rain. The big growth in the 40s and 50s when the postwar economy boomed, struggles in the 70s when it crashed, we did pretty well in SL with some really great growth but in 2008 the economy crashed and again in 2013 onwards when austerity started to bite. Now the game seems to be praying for a bailout to keep us going.

A big reason for this imo is a lack of diversity. Strong sports have many offerings and a larger spread. 

In football they have so many tournaments and clubs that when one struggles another just picks up the slack. In cricket they have 3 major forms, both internationally and at clubs level. Where the county championship has struggled test cricket has taken hold, where test cricket has struggled one dayers and T20 has taken hold. Where teams like Zimbabwe and Pakistan have slipped back Ireland, Bangladesh and Afghanistan have stepped forward.

In RU yorkshire has virtually disappeared at pro level, the south east has taken a massive step forwards. They have 6 nations, lions tours, pumping money in to places like Australia where the game has been crowded out at club level by the NRL. You have nations like America and canada and Fiji and Spain and Kenya where 7s is a legitimate sport.

In RL its northern towns and a few cities, with half arsed no plan expansion to france and canada and that's pretty much it. That's the entirety of RL's property in the northern hemisphere. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the game is always so fragile when its focus is so narrow.

I certainly agree that the lack of diversity is a major factor in the fragility of the game. In a thread a while back it was mentioned that if essentially 5 or 6 Postcode areas stopped playing Rugby league (Leeds, Wigan, Wakefield, Warrington, Hull) the game would be absolutely crippled beyond the pale. That reflects the density of the game in these areas but also a major weakness in that it lacks the general spread to be able to take significant losses - a fact unique to Rugby League far more than any other major sport.

How you solve that has to be multi faceted, involving the amateur, juniors, professional clubs and national side. Newcastle and the North East currently should be a blueprint for the future that can be built on and expanded elsewhere. 

[Robthegasman]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

You're comparing apples and oranges there, unless I'm mistaken a T20 match is still as long or longer than full-length matches of other team sports so it's about the right length.  7s or 9s matches are far too short to be the main vehicle for our game.

You are right.A T20 match does take as long or longer than a game of rugby league.

So here is an idea to get round that.

Lets say there are 16 teams in a 7s or 9s division.You could say that you play at least one round of all the teams each ground over a weekend,ie 4 matches on a Saturday and 4 on a Sunday.
 

I think this may well be the way the IPL do their fixtures. And that seems to be successful.So why not at the very least look at it here with an open mind?

[GUBRATS]

Please God , can we have a 9s tournament , then we can put this argument to bed ?

[Robthegasman]

3 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

9s has its place. Nobody has ever argued it should replace 13s but in true RL fashion, because it doesnt solve all problems immediately it's a terrible idea

I think we might be on similar thinking here.

And as I said it doesn’t solve the problem per se.But potentially it could be something that gives the game the vitamins boost it needs.

 And no matter what there will always be a place for the 13 a side game.That is sacred.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

I think we might be on similar thinking here.

And as I said it doesn’t solve the problem per se.But potentially it could be something that gives the game the vitamins boost it needs.

 And no matter what there will always be a place for the 13 a side game.That is sacred.

If it does better , why bother with 13s ?

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

And as I said it doesn’t solve the problem per se.But potentially it could be something that gives the game the vitamins boost it needs.

A Magic Weekend 9s may be a fun event, but for me the only thing that will give the game the boost it needs and take it to another level is significantly improving and expanding the international game. The rest of it is just moving deckchairs on the Titanic. I don't believe anything else is going to capture the wider public's imagination.

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

A Magic Weekend 9s may be a fun event, but for me the only thing that will give the game the boost it needs and take it to another level is significantly improving and expanding the international game. The rest of it is just moving deckchairs on the Titanic. I don't believe anything else is going to capture the wider public's imagination.

Yes , we've all been suggesting this ' pearl of wisdom ' for years , but we don't have anybody to play , haven't you noticed ?

[Robthegasman]

2 hours ago, koli said:

Swinton had struggled from the late 60s onwards and loss of the ground compounded the decline.

Going bust in the early days of SL vlearly hurt both Oldham n Fax.In Oldhams case loss of the ground led to the downward nomad spiral.

Halifax retain enough of a core to maybe rebuild if money came in but it's been a long time out of the top league and longer still since the sucess of the late 80s .

As Huddersfield have shown it's a big struggle to rebuild after younger spectator generations lost.

 

You are right Swinton have struggled for over 50 years now.And it was the struggles over the 20 plus years prior to 1992 that saw us lose our iconic Station Road ground.

 And sadly there has been no way back into Swinton as the proposed ground has simply not come off,let’s be honest it doesn’t take 28 years nearly for a 3000 plus capacity stadium to be built.

If things move smoothly and quickly,a major road such as a motorway is planned,debated,the compulsory purchases etc etc,then built and opened far quicker.

 What the future holds for us I really don’t know. And it is a similar situation at Oldham they are very much in the same boat as us,though they have played at a venue in Oldham albeit one that will never be of Championship standard.

[Robthegasman]

11 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I would do it the opposite. At least initially. 9s needs to be built. If history is anything to go by the game will put 1 9s weekend on, get decent but not great results then bin it. 

We need to build it initially.

1 game at half time of the 13s games with a '9s final' weekend late summer. It helps build affiliation, recognition, and understanding 

Some good thoughts there.

 I don’t disagree.

[Robthegasman]

12 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

If it does better , why bother with 13s ?

Again to use the cricket analogy and with T20,20/20,that does put ***** on seats but Test Match cricket,4-5 days usually will always be the pinnacle and ultimate test.

 And same with rugby league the 13 a side game will always be the ultimate game.

 

[Eddie]

53 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It needs a larger geographical spread and more properties.

That is internationals, 9s and big events.

The opportunities for the larger geographical spread are already out there. If we wished. Within the next 2-3months or so the game could restart with more teams in France in SL, london and Newcastle in SL, Toronto, Ottawa and NYC in SL. 

There are people like Argyle who have pretty much outright said they will fund more teams and if we went out with this opportunity I'm certain more would be interested. 

Who are the people like Argyle who are going to shell out these tens of millions of their own money, and why aren’t they doing so already?

Also who would you remove from SL to get Ottawa, NY (a bit optimistic to think they could be ready in 2-3 months btw), London, Toulouse, Newcastle and more French teams in? Or would it be a 20 team league?

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Yes , we've all been suggesting this ' pearl of wisdom ' for years , but we don't have anybody to play , haven't you noticed ?

Well, if this discussion is about the future of Rugby League as a sport and not just this country then there are loads of teams to play.  If only we were able to join up our thinking and think about the sport first and not just local leagues and competitions.

England games against Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and PNG would all be competitive and draw far more national attention than any domestic tournament while games against France, Lebanon, Wales and Cook Islands are also possibilities.

The international game is the single best opportunity to extend the profile of our sport (worldwide) and provides the opportunity of domestic growth that comes with raising a sports profile... the 2021 World Cup will prove that beyond doubt but the big question is can we take advantage of that as a sport.

What holds the sport back more than anything is protectionist thinking.

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Well Argyle for one. Hughes for another. You also have Ottawa, Toulouse, NYC.

I think if you shook the tree you would be surprised at what fell out.

Why hasn’t it happened already then?