The future of our game

[GUBRATS]

16 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

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.

 

Yes but you are mixing club and international cricket , so we just play 13 Internationally ?

[Eddie]

44 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Protectionism within the sport has created a structure that doesnt allow it. 

David Argyle has literally offered to spend millions of pounds growing a brand new market for the game. He has created toronto from scratch funded them through L1 and the championship even though neither really benefited and created a visibility in areas we were unheard of. And other than allow them in the game has literally done nothing but throw hurdles in the way.

The game isnt set up for a best case scenario. When a billionaire comes in and offers to spend his own money expanding the game for us we dont allow it. 

Agreed on all of that, but what about the other people, and the teams in France, who is going to fund them?

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, SL17 said:

He’s spent millions growing his own market you mean, surely!

That’s a bit cynical, regardless of what his intentions are (and I think they’re good) TWP was a golden egg for English rugby league and they’ve done everything they can to stop it. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

58 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 ?

No need to be sarcastic sir.

I disagree. The European nations could play each other every year mid-season, and then in the Autumn we either have a major tournament such as a World Cup/Confederations Cup or a GB series. The Autumn tournament could act as a selection carrot for the home nations players to encourage them to make themselves available for the Summer tournament. Since 2007, we've played Wales 4 times, Ireland once and Scotland once. We do have teams to play - we just never play them.

As I've already posted on this thread (and on other threads like a broken record), if England win easily it isn't a problem. If they don't then we've got a competitive tournament, so it's a win-win either way. This isn't about preaching to the converted - this is about attracting a wider audience that will engage with the national team but hasn't yet been enthused by watching Hull vs Leeds or Warrington v Wigan. As many people watched England play Scotland in the last 4 Nations as watched Eng play NZ and Australia. The audience for that game obviously didn't get the memo that it was supposed to be a rubbish non-event.

The problem, as I've said many times, is that there I can't ever see there being the will or vision from the key stakeholders to make this happen.

[Eddie]

50 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It is a huge dereliction of duty, a massive massive failing that since that World Cup semi final we havent seen Tonga over here. There is a very strong likelihood that from that WC semi we wont see England v Tonga again for a decade and not on these shores.

It is a crazy argument to say our problem is that there is nobody to play. There are finally, maybe 6 or 7 sides who beating england wouldnt be a massive shock and another three or four who could put up a good fight but still all we see over here is NZ and Australia

There are three sides who beating England wouldn’t be a massive shock. 
 

Anyway with all the Tongans playing in the NRL when and how could the RFL have got them here, to carry out their duty as you put it?

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

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?

That's the Catch-22 isn't it.  Getting more money into the game requires more TV partners which requires more teams over here in North America, but splitting that extra money more ways would not mean more money for each team.  More money for each team would require replacement of present teams and there's the rub.  No feasible combination would allow for both more teams and more money for each of them to share.

[Eddie]

53 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Les Catalans and Toulouse are funded. They would be the first step.

So basically they would stay the same. 

[Eddie]

52 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Tonga and PNG just beat GB. Fiji are a better team than PNG and arguably as good as Tonga imo. Samoa are as good as PNG added to NZ and Australia that's 6.

And the answer to that is the same way they got NZ and Australia

Australia haven’t played here for years, and are a much bigger draw then Tonga anyway. 

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

I disagree with that. The numbers are so low that in short order what is a tiny some for broadcast contribute far more than that taken out.

We are only talking about roughly 3.5m per team for the total amount or about 2m for the SL amount. 

For even an OTP for Toronto that's only 20k paying a tenner a month. There is no reason that an SL package cant be worth 4m with two french teams. 

The problem is that that's not the product we can currently offer. Partly because of the games structure and partly because of a weird reticence to schedule the games for maximum benefit. It is an absolute mystery why all les Catalans games arent schedule for 5:30 saturday. It is the slot we had for years on Sky, attendances were so good that the change from saturday to thursday for sky is a reason given for low attendances. Yet it is beyond us as a sport to create a package whereby all les Catalans games are played 5:30 on a Saturday and then we wonder why a french broadcaster wont pay for it 

There's no mystery about why a french broadcaster wont pay for it.  Perpignan is a small insignificant town which the average Frenchman likely knows little or nothing about and the team there has a non-French identity, and most of the English teams who go there to play are from other small insignificant towns which the average Frenchman knows little or nothing about.  One cannot expect those teams to draw the kind of audiences needed to justify much of a rights fee from a French broadcaster.

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

There's no mystery about why a french broadcaster wont pay for it.  Perpignan is a small insignificant town which the average Frenchman likely knows little or nothing about and the team there has a non-French identity, and most of the English teams who go there to play are from other small insignificant towns which the average Frenchman knows little or nothing about.  One cannot expect those teams to draw the kind of audiences needed to justify much of a rights fee from a French broadcaster.

Insignificant town - how pompous, not to mention ignorant. 
 

The reason there’s no tv deal is because there’s one French team in SL, it would be the same here if SL was French and we had one team in it - regardless of what towns the teams are from. 

[Bob8]

22 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

No, you wont. The BBC are never going to pay enough for it

How the hell can you see that and still think that going back to 1990 is the solution?

[Big Picture]

12 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Insignificant town - how pompous, not to mention ignorant. 

The reason there’s no tv deal is because there’s one French team in SL, it would be the same here if SL was French and we had one team in it - regardless of what towns the teams are from. 

Au contraire, it's accurate.  As you can see in this list of French cities by population, Perpignan is well down the list and only has a bit more than 100,000 population.  There's a perfectly good reason why the Catalans matches were only worth 70,000 € a year to BeIN Sports.

[ATLANTISMAN]

Hello Everyone,

 

Sad to say but the reality is (As quoted) on here Perpignan is tiny in terms of a city in France its main claim to fame is that its the last major town before the border with Spain.

The fact that BEIN SPORTS were paying any money was pretty amazing as prior to them the Dragons were actually paying the costs of the TV to turn up.

The last time that any broadcaster did not charge any money was French Eurosport (Around 1997/98) followed by PATHE SPORT (As in the famous news company at the cinema) after that it was taken over by SPORT + who charged an average of around Euros 30000.00 a match to cover costs (And that was around 2003/4/5) 

For me times have moved on TV wise and the best way forward for ELITE 1 is to produce a weekly top quality YOU TUBE broadcast with maybe the Finals (Championship/Lord Derby Cup) on France 3 (Regional) nothing wrong with that its = to lets say YORKSHIRE  but an even bigger area that it covers.

Rugby League in France is what it is, the traditional clubs need helping great if someone wants to start a club elsewhere but first it needs to get the original strong traditional areas back moving again.

Nothing wrong with that lets be honest its popular in some wonderful towns and villages in the South of France wonderful people and lovers of League they should have all the help and support that we can give them and the fact that they have produced so many wonderful players over the years is nothing short of a bloody miracle (Excuse my French:)

 

Paul

 

[Eddie]

36 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Au contraire, it's accurate.  As you can see in this list of French cities by population, Perpignan is well down the list and only has a bit more than 100,000 population.  There's a perfectly good reason why the Catalans matches were only worth 70,000 € a year to BeIN Sports.

The word insignificant to describe any town is ridiculous, let alone one of 100,000 people. 

[Bob8]

10 hours ago, Eddie said:

The word insignificant to describe any town is ridiculous, let alone one of 100,000 people. 

@Big Picture, whom I have often argued with, has a perfectly good point. The population of France is 65,000,000, the population of Perpignan is similar to that of Crawley.

If a sports team managed to play in a French sports league and get good crowds in Crawley, would you really expect Sky or the BBC to be throwing money at them?

It is successful as a club. If that were enough, taking Scotchy's model of going back to 1989, we would see a huge premium. Taking the big picture, it is clearly not.

[Bob8]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

Its literally nothing like what we had in 1990

Then I ask you to say how, and you write that you already did, I ask again, so say you did again....

 

[Bob8]

41 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I am honestly lost as to why you think it is like 1990? 

If anything it would be closer to the early 2000's model but is still pretty significantly different.

The early 2000's model was not built on people turning up to watch internationals, although they were clearly a boost to the game. It was built on the model of people being willing to get Sky subscriptions to watch rugby league, which was supported by the interest in the game and internationals.

But, you know this. And I have written it out for you several times. Basic manners would say you stop pretending otherwise.

[Bob8]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

In what possible way is what i suggested closer to the 1990 model than the early 2000's model?

I have no idea which model you think was built on people turning up to watch internationals. Sadly that has never happened in RL.

Stop this nonsense.

I have looked over this thread, it has me expalining myself several times, and you complaining that I have not. It has you asserting that you have something new, then suggesting the 1989 model, then denying it is a 1989 model.

It is tiresome. Engage properly or do not bother. There is an ignore function if you do not want to have a sensible chat, we are both free to use it.

[Bob8]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

It clearly isnt the '1989 model'. There is literally nothing about it that is the same.

Not the structure of the season,

not who it is sold to,

not the format of the season,

not the time the season would be played,

not who would play in it.

Not how it was distributed. 

Nothing. There isnt a single parallel  between what i suggested and 1989. Pay-tv RL didnt even exist in 1989 

So, you want it to be like 1989, except you are making up that it is not.

I suspect I am not the first to Ignore to save my time.

 

[Bob8]

30 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That is an opinion to be fair

I would say it’s more of a judgement call again. Just my opinion   

[Eddie]

6 hours ago, Bob8 said:

@Big Picture, whom I have often argued with, has a perfectly good point. The population of France is 65,000,000, the population of Perpignan is similar to that of Crawley.

If a sports team managed to play in a French sports league and get good crowds in Crawley, would you really expect Sky or the BBC to be throwing money at them?

It is successful as a club. If that were enough, taking Scotchy's model of going back to 1989, we would see a huge premium. Taking the big picture, it is clearly not.

My point was that there is no French TV deal because there’s one team, and they play in front of 8,000 fans. If the one team was PSG and they played in front of 8,000 there wouldn’t be a French SL TV deal either. Where the team are from is irrelevant. 

[Bob8]

31 minutes ago, Eddie said:

My point was that there is no French TV deal because there’s one team, and they play in front of 8,000 fans. If the one team was PSG and they played in front of 8,000 there wouldn’t be a French SL TV deal either. Where the team are from is irrelevant. 

I agree to a large extent. That said, such a club in Paris would be one of hte biggest clubs in Paris, close to media and more likely to be of passing interested to many more Parisians.

The problem it would have is snobbery, even worse than London Broncos face. Moving to new areas would surmount this without the same ignorant attitude to 'Jeux de Treize'

[Tommygilf]

33 minutes ago, Eddie said:

My point was that there is no French TV deal because there’s one team, and they play in front of 8,000 fans. If the one team was PSG and they played in front of 8,000 there wouldn’t be a French SL TV deal either. Where the team are from is irrelevant. 

On the one hand that's true, but one makes the other more likely. For example, Toronto and Ottawa are more likely to result in a Canadian broadcast deal than Halifax Nova Scotia and Winnipeg. Not true in all cases of course, but it makes getting attention easier.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

I agree to a large extent. That said, such a club in Paris would be one of hte biggest clubs in Paris, close to media and more likely to be of passing interested to many more Parisians.

The problem it would have is snobbery, even worse than London Broncos face. Moving to new areas would surmount this without the same ignorant attitude to 'Jeux de Treize'

I doubt it would be of passing interest to many Parisians, just like nobody in London even knows the Broncos exist. 

[Bob8]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

I doubt it would be of passing interest to many Parisians, just like nobody in London even knows the Broncos exist. 

Yes.

I agree to a large extent. That said, such a club in Paris would be one of hte biggest clubs in Paris, close to media and more likely to be of passing interested to many more Parisians.

The problem it would have is snobbery, even worse than London Broncos face. Moving to new areas would surmount this without the same ignorant attitude to 'Jeux de Treize'