Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
superten

expansion

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree, it does set them up to fail, especially since the goal posts of p/r have changed. The system they work in is not conducive to either of those aims

In his interview Mr Wood - link above - does not sound that he is a supporter of the Catalan model, he was in employ by the RFL when Catalan were admitted and I should imagine that he was prominent with his input if not one of the architects to bring them to SL, to me by his comments the initial intention seems to have failed for him, he does not want NA taking the course of action.

Perhaps it could have something to do with him going to the RLIF, and France have not improved on that front that has taken in and give onto the next generation of French RL player's since Catalan's inauguration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Or the big elephant in the room - "we're not giving people what they want". Again, this hubris that "the product is brilliant but we don't shout about it" is perhaps the biggest cancer in the game, because it takes us completely down the wrong path to solving the issues that are discussed here. 

The problem is not that "people aren't interested". The problem is that RL isn't interesting to people. 

I don't think its too hubristic more just optimistic. The on-field is rarely the problem with RL, save for keeping the salary cap low so many big names and talents have been lost over the past decade or so.

The rest of the gameday as product? yes I can see how that has room for improvement. The packaging and selling of individual games, clubs and the sport in general is what needs major focus. (I suppose those 3 are all complimentary).

That means the game needs to be made relevant to people, which is obviously not a straightforward task

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

But Hughes clearly doesn’t as he continues to spend his money on bankrolling the club. 

Mr Hughes is now approaching his 75th birthday, how long will his inclination or attention last, and what then?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

This is honest question, the match day experience of the Premier League keeps being qouted, Burnley has been mentioned more than once has as Man U. Could someone please give me examples what it is they actually do and has market research really shown that it is s priority to those who attend, just curious.

I can’t imagine anyone goes to premier league football because of the pre-or half time entertainment, or because the food at the ground is decent. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

In his interview Mr Wood - link above - does not sound that he is a supporter of the Catalan model, he was in employ by the RFL when Catalan were admitted and I should imagine that he was prominent with his input if not one of the architects to bring them to SL, to me by his comments the initial intention seems to have failed for him, he does not want NA taking the course of action.

Perhaps it could have something to do with him going to the RLIF, and France have not improved on that front that has taken in and give onto the next generation of French RL player's since Catalan's inauguration.

In fairness Nigel Wood's legacy on the game has almost universally disappeared both at club and international level - mostly because it was ill thought through or an 80s throwback or just incredibly short sighted and 2 dimensional. 

I feel nothing but underwhelmed by him as an administrator so am not surprised his accountancy style approach could not compute why Catalans would stop promoting more young untested French players in favour of seasoned English and Antipodeans when they were threatened with relegation. As some posters have suggested, Mr Guasch is somewhat of a temperamental character and he may act in a way just to spite Nigel Wood as he has to other individuals.

The French national team is not Catalans responsibility, and even if they were even in part did Nigel Wood at any time put in place any measures that would help that. Academy sharing? Incentives for English clubs to sign French players? Young French players encouraged to study in England in partnership with SL Academies? 

His approach seems very much plan A or build it and they will come. He rather struggles when that doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Mr Hughes is now approaching his 75th birthday, how long will his inclination or attention last, and what then?

Who knows so what’s the point in speculating?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Who cares what their crowd is? It has little bearing on anything, especially the outcome of a game of Rugby League. The obsession within Rugby League on crowds and stadia is an odd one.

Yes, in that case I hope that also means people won't keep pointing at clubs such as Oldham and say they aren't bringing in the crowds and so don't deserve a place in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

This is honest question, the match day experience of the Premier League keeps being qouted, Burnley has been mentioned more than once has as Man U. Could someone please give me examples what it is they actually do and has market research really shown that it is s priority to those who attend, just curious.

Manchester United fill their seats because there is (supposedly) world class talent on display and they have for 3 decades made the Manchester United brand a symbol of sporting excellence and something attractive for people to be associated with around the world - particularly the home counties! As far as "premier" premier league clubs go, they are at the top of the tree. These things actually mask how in terms of matchday, Man United has fallen behind many of its top tier rivals. I can't remember the report but consistently the argument is now being made that the old stand at Old Trafford needs redeveloping simply because the hospitality it provides, compared to what is up against in terms of high pricing, is now not up to standard. 

Burnley unsurprisingly do well because they are playing in the best league in the world. The premier league sells itself that way. Though I expect if I were to look into it they'd have plans for continually improving gameday. 

Liverpool, Chelsea and Everton all face the same criticisms of Old Trafford, hence why all 3 have redevelopment or new ground plans in place. Leeds are another club with major redevelopment plans. Even Bournemouth have a concern for matchdays which has allowed them to build through the leagues. 

Tottenham's new ground will likely define what people will come to expect from stadiums here for the next era of stadiums. In terms of facilities - available to all levels from standard matchday to corporate, atmosphere with the 17000 capacity single end stand, and quality, it is the example of how one's stadium and matchday can make vast sums of money which can go into supporting the team on the pitch. In some ways Headingley's north stand, which connects the cricket and rugby, does this with some pretty fantastic facilities. 

Regardless its hard not to be buzzing when 40000 people are all doing the same thing. Somewhat less so when its 4 and a half thousand at a decrepit Belle Vue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I can’t imagine anyone goes to premier league football because of the pre-or half time entertainment, or because the food at the ground is decent. 

I think that is true for a lot of clubs, but for those with bigger stadiums (by that clubs standard) and therefore more seats to fill, the rest of the matchday etc is growing in importance.

Dare I say that the more metropolitan clubs are most inclined towards this?

Edited by Tommygilf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Mr Hughes is now approaching his 75th birthday, how long will his inclination or attention last, and what then?

Same thing as would happen at Leigh when Mr Beaumont walks away, or Toronto without Argyle, or Huddersfield without Davy... you get the picture. I suggested it as a major problem earlier in this thread that the game is so reliant on the whims of individual benefactors often born in the same few towns and cities - that lack of diversity makes it incredibly vulnerable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Tottenhams food and drink sales are about £800k a game. 

I hope it is better than Liverpool's then, I went to Anfield for the test v NZ, 3 very substandard pies and 3 not very good pints of beer cost just over £25, I would surely sit in the category of once bitten twice shy, it is simply not worth that money and I can easily afford it but would choose not to. 

The last trip I took to Wembley, inside the stadium it was ridiculous the price of the food, I think it was £13.50 for a budget fish 'n chips, if Tottenham's cost are on that line no wonder they accomplish £800K sales, can't blame them if people are stupid enough to pay it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think that is true for a lot of clubs, but for those with bigger stadiums (by that clubs standard) and therefore more seats to fill, the rest of the matchday etc is growing in importance.

Dare I say that the more metropolitan clubs are most inclined towards this?

So what do they do? That was my initial question you amongst others keep qouting it but nobody describes it!

Has I said I am curious to know? If it entices more to RL grounds then fair enough if that is people's ilk go along early to take it pre and post match.

One more question, in RL would the entrance fee increase or even have a catagorised time of entry that would be charged on whether you wanted the 'whole matchday expierence' or just there to view the game, I have always been an advocate of 'direct taxation' if you want to use something be prepared to pay for it, don't  expect others to subsidise your cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Same thing as would happen at Leigh when Mr Beaumont walks away, or Toronto without Argyle, or Huddersfield without Davy... you get the picture. I suggested it as a major problem earlier in this thread that the game is so reliant on the whims of individual benefactors often born in the same few towns and cities - that lack of diversity makes it incredibly vulnerable. 

Tommy read back what I wrote, I said "they need to do something as all clubs do who are dependent on a single benefactor as Mr Hughes is to London"............ get the picture? 

And as I have suggested many times in respect of abolishing P&R where the benefactors of Championship clubs are concerned, they have made their millions because they have a goal to reach for, probably the same way has they have a desire to reach SL close fown that pathway and they may walk away, I know I would, and Mr Beaumont would most likely do also if I am reading between the lines correctly of what he has said in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

1. But there is a reason those people arent attracted and its unlikely they will be attracted while the fundamental product stays the same. 

Ill use Leeds as an example. Leeds in a normal SL game will get somewhere between 12 and 15k. That probably isnt going to change. That is the value of SL to Leeds. However, they can also get 16-18k for big SL games, When Bradford were big upwards of 20k. When the WCC was held at Elland Road 30-40k. There is a pool of people out there that Leeds could get, but wont get with SL at the level it is.  A bigger SL = A bigger Leeds. A rising tide lifts all boats etc. We arent going to get clubs hitting 20k averages when others are hitting 3k. 

You make 'SL' a big deal and people will go to the individual clubs. 

2. This is true for the PL, but less so for other sports. The broadcast aspect of it and the impression that makes is tightly, and centrally controlled, and bar the regulations the rest is largely left to the clubs. However that aspect of it is a big aspect of it and the recognisable aspect of it and largely the bit im talking about. 

But im not sure you need to 'leave it to the clubs' in terms of the rest of the experience. There are things that can easily be done separately and cheaper, with a big range for that. If we think a band for instance will help get people through the gates and create a big impression then great lets do it, but why not do that 6 times? arent we going to get a better band for cheaper per gig if they are doing an hour at 6 grounds than 6 clubs going out and doing that separately. Doesnt that same principle work with street food vendors, fireworks, etc etc etc. 

Wouldnt it make more sense to be looking at things like 'official beer supplier to Super League'. Do that with an eye on the match-day experience going to craft producers with bespoke options. 

3. Yes they should make a big deal about things like that. But these things, for us, struggle to gain traction because the game as a whole doesnt have the underlying recognition. 

4. I agree that there are improvements to be made both broader and locally. But clubs running a 'thursday offer' is only going to have a limited effect because clubs only play on thursdays, at home, occasionally. If you have 12 clubs doing 12 different things to sell 1 or 2 thursdays each you are going to create a lot of waste and a lot of inefficiency and have little success. 

If we have 12 clubs pulling together selling, Super League Thursdays 28 times a year then we are going to be far more successful and be able to do it far cheaper. Your example re cinemas is a good one but we have to remember that that was done not even on a brand level but an industry level. It wasnt cineworld or odeon doing it, it was the cinema industry together.

The comparison here is the Wakefield Cineworld offering two for 1 tickets a couple of times a year rather than all the big chains  nationally offering 2 for 1 tickets every week. 

I acknowledge that there is a role for both top-down and bottom-up strategy, but I still maintain that the bottom-up approach is the more important part of this for where RL currently finds itself. 

Some of the work that Lee Hicken has done so far for Super League is excellent at changing many of the game's image issues but I still maintain that in many cases, what people are buying into are the clubs, before they are buying into Super League. 

The first stage for me is to actually look at incremental gains in as many areas as we can. Taking Leeds as the example:

  • How many 1-3-games a year fans can they turn into 4-6-games a year fans? How many 7+ game a year fans can they convert into ST holders?
  • What can we offer to we convince WCC / final attendees to come to general league games?
  • How many fans can they convince to upgrade their tickets? 
  • What can they do to reduce season-ticket churn?
  • How does the club deliver an experience to first-time attendees that makes them want to come back? How do they make first-time fans feel special?
  • What can they do to make ticket sales and/or fan experience less relient on on-field success?
  • What can they do to get fans into the ground earlier and staying later?
  • What can they do to appeal to audiences on Thursday nights?
  • What can they offer to make cup / all-pay fixtures more appealing?
  • How do clubs get people buying more from the club shop or other revenue channels?
  • Where is the "new money" in the economy, and how do we reach it?

Those are the sorts of 'easy win' / 'low hanging fruit' issues that many clubs can solve, but are varying degrees of 'OK' to 'bad' at. 

A lot of those issues aren't solved by big brand / central  marketing functions. They're solved at club level through things like CRM, ecommerce, localised advertising, media and PR. 

Like I said, centralisation has a place, but not necessarily for some of the reasons you suggest. I don't think the reason many clubs deliver a poor matchday experience is because we can't get a bulk discount on an X-Factor quarter finalist to sing pre-match. 

Centralisation also has many drawbacks. If you, for example, ran a centralised strategy to promote Super League to premium ticket buyers, that invariably favours bigger clubs with the catchment area that can afford those tickets and the facilities to cater to them. Clubs should be expected to know their target market and the should be incentivised (be it through licencing or through the raising of the salary cap) to deliver that. We cannot absolve the clubs of their responsibilties for marketing themselves and at the same time, no central strategy can succeed if the clubs aren't capable of delivering it. You can have the best marketing strategy in the world but if the people you win over are sat under a leaky roof at Belle Vue, it is money down the toilet. 

There is also an argument here that clubs need to be allowed to promote their own identity here. I've worked in and with organisations that have what is known as a 'house of brands' and it invariably results in a lot of formulaic marketing that has no real distinction. I think you need to allow clubs to be distinctive and centralising marketing strategy invariably (even if it is unintended) takes some of that away. 

On the beer thing, most smaller craft breweries aren't going to have the size and scale to be the 'official beer of SL'. Some of the larger ones might, but that money will get a better return elsewhere. I'd say it's better for Leeds to partner with a Leeds-based brewer, Wakefield to partner with a Wakefield-based brewer, and so on. Let clubs be distinctive in their offering. 

Clearly Thursdays are just one example I cited but again, the reason I cited it was not to try and come up with a marketing stategy for Thursday's that rolls out league-wide, but to use it as an example of the culture that is the real issue here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

This is honest question, the match day experience of the Premier League keeps being qouted, Burnley has been mentioned more than once has as Man U. Could someone please give me examples what it is they actually do and has market research really shown that it is s priority to those who attend, just curious.

Can speak for Manchester United, they don't do anything of any note the vast majority of the time except play a game of football. When Ussain Bolt wins a gold and turns up, they announce that pre match and he gives a wave because he's a fan and has turned up to OT with his gold medal. Same thing with Greg Rutherford when he brought his medal to OT, because he's a fan. They announce birthdays at half time, Champions League, they stand for the champions League anthem b4 KO! Wow!!! Lol. The rest of the matchday experience is exactly the same as Post Office Road, overpriced lager and a sporting contest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So what do they do? That was my initial question you amongst others keep qouting it but nobody describes it!

Has I said I am curious to know? If it entices more to RL grounds then fair enough if that is people's ilk go along early to take it pre and post match.

One more question, in RL would the entrance fee increase or even have a catagorised time of entry that would be charged on whether you wanted the 'whole matchday expierence' or just there to view the game, I have always been an advocate of 'direct taxation' if you want to use something be prepared to pay for it, don't  expect others to subsidise your cost.

You'd have had chance to see it had the England game at Spurs had taken place! Some clubs don't need to because the interest in the league is big enough that they don't have to - we in League don't have that luxury.

Most of the stuff people have described pays for itself in terms of food and drink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Tommy read back what I wrote, I said "they need to do something as all clubs do who are dependent on a single benefactor as Mr Hughes is to London"............ get the picture? 

And as I have suggested many times in respect of abolishing P&R where the benefactors of Championship clubs are concerned, they have made their millions because they have a goal to reach for, probably the same way has they have a desire to reach SL close fown that pathway and they may walk away, I know I would, and Mr Beaumont would most likely do also if I am reading between the lines correctly of what he has said in the past.

I agree most would go if P/R went. But where are the next investors coming from? That was your question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So what do they do? That was my initial question you amongst others keep qouting it but nobody describes it!

Has I said I am curious to know? If it entices more to RL grounds then fair enough if that is people's ilk go along early to take it pre and post match.

One more question, in RL would the entrance fee increase or even have a catagorised time of entry that would be charged on whether you wanted the 'whole matchday expierence' or just there to view the game, I have always been an advocate of 'direct taxation' if you want to use something be prepared to pay for it, don't  expect others to subsidise your cost.

Football gets a lot of the basic stuff right - it's rare to find a ground with a restricted view or poor facilities for example. But in many cases, football doesn't need to do a lot.

Football is an incredibly easy sport to follow, which makes it accessible to anyone - even if they aren't interested in sport. Neither code of rugby can say that - there are a lot of rules and technicalities to get your head around if you're new to the sport, so rugby needs to try harder. 

So let's start with some very simple stuff to start with. For example, there are still grounds where you have to queue for a ticket before going to the turnstile - that's a bad experience. There are still grounds where you can't pay for food and drink by card - that's a bad experience. There are some grounds where the toilets are a disgrace - that's a bad experience. There are some grounds with poor sightlines and restricted views - that's a bad experience. 

As for what I think there should be, I think there needs to be, a fag-packet list could be:

  • Pre-match entertainment.
  • Better food and drink options.
  • Better interaction with the players. Toronto have done this and I know that Konrad Hurrell's 'high fives' down the South Stand side after a game get the kids buzzing. 
  • And yes, I'd suggest perhaps the biggest one is different match formats and events to appeal to new audiences. 

That is by no means an exhaustive list. The key is for each club to do the market research and decide what appeals to the different audiences they want to attract. 

But why does this matter? Well, enhancing the match experience beyond the 80 mins reduces the reliance on the game itself to provide that experience and reduces the varience of whether people have an enjoyable time or a bad time. Again, you have to stop looking at this through the lens of a die-hard fan who loves the sport, and acknowledge that to a lot of people, the sport is "alright" and something they'll dedicate their time and money to, but they're easily lost if the game or experience is pants. 

It's why I think people who say "wait until Toronto start losing - then the crowds will disappear" are wide of the mark. A good match experience can mitigate the bad game, whilst a bad experience can undermine a good game. People might come away from a Toronto thinking that the game was ######, but that doesn't stop them having a good time. 

The same dynamic is why McDonald's is the most successful restaurant in the world - because even though the food is garbage, nobody ever had a disappointing experience at McDonalds. By the same token, you could go to a Michelin star restaurant but if doesn't matter how good the food is - if the waiter is rude and the bogs stink, you're going to remember having a ###### time. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

There is of course going to be some incremental growth available. But incremental growth is not expansion. Getting an extra hundred here and there, whilst obviously good, is not moving the needle all that much. 

Centralising those aspects are integral for expansion. For expansion to work there must be something to buy into. There must be a product to buy to sell on. Brand SL is what investors need to buy in to. They need to look at the product sold here and think I can sell that there. 
Thats the same for sponsors and corporates too. They need to want to buy in to what we are selling and that isnt created by incremental increases done separately by 12 different clubs. This isnt an easy win or low hanging fruit. Its a much more fundamental change. 

The market for Super League is much much much bigger than any individual club. Look at how attendences shoot up on promotion and collapse in relegation. 

Its also the matter that you can't sell Wakefield to fans in Coventry. You can sell Super League. 

The beer thing i disagree on. There is a level of repetition that is necessary to ensure that each time the product is delivered it is of a certain quality. Its not going to work if half the clubs half-###### it. It needs to be of sufficient quality. 

I should know, whether I go to a Leeds match, A wakefield match, a Wigan Match or a Salford match, what im going to get, how much it costs, and that its going to be decent. Its pretty much entirely the reason McDonalds makes billions. Its not so much about money at this stage. Carlsberg or Carling will probably give you the best ROI financially, but people arent going to go out for that. 

Its the same with the CC, with the WCC, with Thursday nights. The CC is two or three games a year for most clubs, Thursday night the same, the WCC once every couple of years. Why are clubs going to push themselves for it? They arent. There is no point making Thursday night RL a thing if your club plays all but 2 of its home matches on Friday. There is a point when you look at it from the view that there is 28 games a year on Thursday night to make Thursday night RL a thing.

There is no point stretching yourself for the WCC when you play once every two or three years at best. There is no point in most of SL buying in, they havent ever been in it. If you have a share in it every year there is. 

The game needs to grow the pie. It cant do that with clubs just looking after their own slices. And even if it could. Why is anyone going to buy in to expand it? 

Again, I'm still not entirely in agreement on the centralisation point.

The key issue here is growth - that's what is the core issue with the sport. Expansion can be a mechanism for growth, and I personally support it, but it is not and never should be seen as the only mechanism. 

There are ways that we can make ourselves appealing to people beyond the heartlands, but that can come from both a club-based and a central strategy - it is not about one of the other. 

There is nothing stopping Leeds, for the sake of argument, repositioning themselves and offering something that people outside of Leeds can buy into - merchandise that people actually want to buy, building a brand that is recognised around the country or creating digital content that anyone in the world can access to build up an audience that the club can commodify. 

Beyond that, you are relying on investment into the sport and the reality is that it is something of a shot in the dark. Yes you can make the sport attractive to investors, you can sell the sport to them, but it's a much bigger ask to actually find them and get them to commit long-term to a sport that has a long loss-making history.

For me the core elements of a central strategy should be the league-wide branding, the structure, any events that we build into that structure and any changes to the rules to adjust the spectacle for the viewing public. Beyond that, it is up to the clubs to deliver that and there needs to be sufficient reward for those who do and sufficient cost for those that don't. Let clubs grow their own pieces of the pie at this stage - but make sure that there is a reward for those that do and make sure that life is more difficult for those that don't (for example, ensure that the salary cap grows by at least inflation + x%). 

Let's control what is in our hands first - yes what I'm talking about is about small steps because, frankly, I think that is all the sport is capable of at the moment. For me, the first step is about 'innervation' rather than 'innovation' - quick wins that prove the concept. If Elstone or anyone else (for some reason, people think Eddie Hearn is the answer) goes into this with a gung-ho attitude that he can change the world in a day, he's not going to get the people he needs to follow him. 

The approach I talk about applies to sponsors and corporates. If all 12 clubs were pulling in more sponsorship revenue, we can address a lot of problems without signing up a single central sponsor. But ask again, are we offering what sponsors want in 2020? Digital pitchside billboards have been the norm in sports sponsorship since about 2012, but how many SL grounds offer them? Do corporate hospitality guests expect more than a stack of portakabins at the end of the ground? Can we charge sponsors more by offering shirt exclusivity? Have we even tried that?

I don't agree with you on the beer thing either. If we're using craft ale as a selling point (and personally I think we're probably over-blowing this point on its own), why can't the sport do that on a basis of a rotating guest ale / brewer? Why is it such a problem for Leeds to have Northern Monk on tap, whilst Wakefield have Ossett Brewery, for arguments sake? Not that I think either of those would have the ability or inclination to become a league-wide sponsor. Some variety and choice is fine because you want to allow clubs to have their own identity and culture. At the end of the day, whilst even I referenced McDonalds, we do still want to treat these as sports clubs rather than fast-food franchises. 

Again, I think you're fixating on the Thursday night point a bit too much. I'm not, for a second, suggesting that a club "makes Thursday night their thing". What I am suggesting is that the sport as a whole changes its mindset. Instead of listening solely to the season ticket holders who would only have games at 3pm on Sunday if they had their way, listen more to the casual fan who has a spare £30 in his pocket and is looking for a way to spend it on what would otherwise be a night in watching Netflix. The way we start to fix this whole thing is to establish a culture that turns the problems on their head and takes a different contextual view of them. When you have Karl Kirkpatrick saying "we don't use Thursday nights as an excuse" and people like Carter and Hudgell saying "Thursday nights are bad for crowds" - that is the root of the problem. 

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

North America will want and need player's of the top quality only to play at the highest level, it just won't happen, out of 100 kids over here who at a young age pick up a rugby ball if 1% acheive the 'elite' level that may be an exaggeration and they will not have the constraints before them which you say is so prevalent to sport in North America.

The funny thing is, that if only 1% are elite, you just MIGHT get the players you need to have a decent thread of homegrown talent because so many kids here still consider sports important, my concern is that it would depend on IF they get the right coaching, IF you can pay them enough to keep them interested and away from the university scholarship system and IF you can even attract them from other sports in the first place. That’s a lot of ifs and honestly the really talented will always have several sports chasing them, and a RL career is unlikely to be attractive enough, meaning that it will be the next level you attract, and personally I don’t see those guys ever getting beyond mid level League 1 standard, and as we agree no NA team can settle for that level beyond the first couple of years.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

3. Clearly OBJ is just an example, but in his particular case, I don't think you do need to be familiar with the NFL. What he did was objectively impressive, objectively YouTube-able and objectively Instagram-able. He and the New York Giants ran with it and made it part of the matchday experience - they couldn't guarantee that he could do that every game, but they made sure that anyone who wanted to see him doing one-handed catches could do it - at literally zero marketing cost. 

You can't guarantee that Rangi Chase will perform another amazing flick-pass, but you can sure as hell milk it for all that it is worth. What is needed is an environment where we can have more of those objectively YouTube-able moments, and where we can make them part of the experience.

This is the kind of thing you want for that.  I've time-stamped the link to the specific play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Fighting Irish, Tommygilf, Big Picture and yourself may see the London moniker as important pity that not many others do, it is simply not working with those in the locality look at the attendance figures if you want proof, change the name to give those locals a sense of belonging make it personal that the team represents them. 

Seemingly there are only some people up North - and yourself - who see the name London as important, in Rugby League terms their target market is not up North it is in Ealing and the 350,000ish who reside there, it is worth a try, isn't it?

I don't think calling it Ealing would help anyone in Ealing to come....Ealing Trailfinders RU has similar attendances 

We need success - it's the be all amd end all. Even if it's just top 4 finishes amd a few cup runs. I know all clubs do better with success but I think it's effect in London would be exponentially bigger than say a Fev or a Huddersfield 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/05/2020 at 15:46, Big Picture said:

As you can see in this report, Nigel Wood admits that there is no plan to speak of.  And from the way he talks about things there likely won't be any time soon.

That says alot. Which sport would include an overseas (North American at that) and not know what the eventual outcome would be? Our sport is always like this. We should be ahead of alot of sports after the original Murdoch deal but after 25 years find ourselves with a handful of new clubs but many more failures. With have no leader with testees to say we are doing this, it is our plan for such and such a reason and you have to be onboard.


Like poor jokes? Thejoketeller@mullymessiah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

That says alot. Which sport would include an overseas (North American at that) and not know what the eventual outcome would be? Our sport is always like this. We should be ahead of alot of sports after the original Murdoch deal but after 25 years find ourselves with a handful of new clubs but many more failures. With have no leader with testees to say we are doing this, it is our plan for such and such a reason and you have to be onboard.

Most likely they were sold on the visions of more money and players coming into the game and overlooked Pérez saying that would need half a dozen teams over here and the disruptions that would involve.  Experience since then has shown that the likes of Toronto and New York being in the same league as the traditional clubs is a real mix of oil and water in many ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

You'd have had chance to see it had the England game at Spurs had taken place! Some clubs don't need to because the interest in the league is big enough that they don't have to - we in League don't have that luxury.

Most of the stuff people have described pays for itself in terms of food and drink.

If you have control of it , and the numbers to make it viable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...