NRL ‘should buy Super League’

[The Great Dane]

46 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Rugby League in the Northern Hemisphere is older than Australia as a country. I'm pretty sure it isnt dependent on them

For the investment to be worth it to the NRL they'd have to get a lot more out of the Super League then it's currently producing, that would necessitate a huge high risk investment of cash to go to growing the clubs and the sport in England on top of the money they paid to buy the competition/RFL.

If there were local businesses willing to invest that kind of money into the sport in England then they'd already being doing it with the RFL. Since that's not the case, that money would have to come almost exclusively from Australia, that would make the competition in the UK reliant on the Telstra Premiership's (i.e. Australian competition) broadcast contracts to maintain it's standard until such a time that it becomes independently profitable without the extra grants from Australia, which, frankly, is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

41 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The british sporting market is worth many many times that of Australia. The rewards of the UK market dwarf that of Australia. 

We're not talking about the British sports market though... We're talking about the RL market in the UK, and the UK RL market probably isn't worth even half of what the Australian RL market is worth. 

It'd also take huge injections of cash and a cooperative broadcast partner (two things the sport doesn't have in England) to grow the UK market for RL anywhere near as big as the Australian one.

I'm not knocking the UK by the way, just being straight with you.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Marauder said:

Have you thought that a lot of fans aren't bothered about watching other teams on tv and wasn't the saints game the only one being played at that time, kill off the likes of batley Dewsbury, Leigh and you'll kill the game totally 

It isn't those he was criticising , it was to quote him

" Small town bottom of SL teams " , rather than small town top half of SL teams like Saints 

[The Great Dane]

59 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

What changes would that be ?

For a start they'd definitely get rid of pro&reg so that they had a consistent product to offer to broadcasters, and so they wouldn't have to worry about a big club dropping out of SL at a bad time. They'd probably try to rearrange which clubs are in the SL to make it more appealing to broadcasters as well, for example you'd probably see them trying to squeeze out e.g. Wakefield and replace them with e.g. a London club.

They'd also get rid of the thing where Toronto don't get a share of broadcast money but can organise their own broadcast deal (or however that goes exactly). All of the broadcast contracts would be negotiated through them and then a share of that money would be split equally between the SL clubs.

They'd probably get rid of the limit on international players so the clubs could build the best squads possible, and I wouldn't be surprised if they looked to increase the salary cap pretty quickly as well.

Basically they'd almost certainly do all sorts of stuff which would ###### off all sorts of people. 

[AB90]

23 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you'd prefer small town team playing city in Australia that nobody's interested in ? You think that will make RL big ?

As opposed to two even smaller town teams based in the north of England- yes, I would.

 

[The Great Dane]

58 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

What’s the price tag? 

And who talked about a global league?

Who knows, but it definitely wouldn't come cheap, and there'd need to be a huge investment into the product on top of that.

[AB90]

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I wouldn't. 

As I said earlier in the thread SL is owned by the clubs and I dont think they would give that up.

A merger is a possibility but the NRL couldnt afford to buy SL and even if they could, buying it and then turning it in to a reserves league would undermine the reasons you bought it in the first place.

Turning SL into nrl reserves is the worst idea in the world. I can't see any benefit to our game what's so ever.

However, adding the top uk teams to create a global competition, maybe.

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

For a start they'd definitely get rid of pro&reg so that they had a consistent product to offer to broadcasters, and so they wouldn't have to worry about a big club dropping out of SL at a bad time. They'd probably try to rearrange which clubs are in the SL to make it more appealing to broadcasters as well, for example you'd probably see them trying to squeeze out e.g. Wakefield and replace them with e.g. a London club.

They'd also get rid of the thing where Toronto don't get a share of broadcast money but can organise their own broadcast deal (or however that goes exactly). All of the broadcast contracts would be negotiated through them and then a share of that money would be split equally between the SL clubs.

They'd probably get rid of the limit on international players so the clubs could build the best squads possible, and I wouldn't be surprised if they looked to increase the salary cap pretty quickly as well.

Basically they'd almost certainly do all sorts of stuff which would ###### off all sorts of people. 

The isn't ever scenario where that doesn't happen

[Hela Wigmen]

3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

See above.

Nowhere does Gould mention Feeder league.

Does he need to? 

 

[DoubleD]

4 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

Who knows, but it definitely wouldn't come cheap, and there'd need to be a huge investment into the product on top of that.

It’s all conjecture. I’m pretty sure what people would most like is a unification of oversight of the 2 comps with NRL utilising their expertise to maximise the commercial opportunities in the northern hemisphere, and take full advantage of the North American market, which is also a target for the NRL comp. That isn’t the same as buying out SL

[The Great Dane]

26 minutes ago, Marauder said:

The only one I can see is a 2nd tier for the NRL

Not if the NRL clubs got their way.

The NRL clubs wouldn't want their reserves to be playing on the other side of the world during the season. So what is more likely is that the NRL clubs would totally suck the eyes out of the best talent in England, bring as many of them down to Australia as possible, then the ones that don't make it into an NRL squad would end up playing reserve grade in the NSW or QLD cup.

In other words the SL probably wouldn't even end up as a 2nd tier to the NRL.

 

[The Great Dane]

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

The isn't ever scenario where that doesn't happen

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[The Great Dane]

4 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

It’s all conjecture. I’m pretty sure what people would most like is a unification of oversight of the 2 comps with NRL utilising their expertise to maximise the commercial opportunities in the northern hemisphere, and take full advantage of the North American market, which is also a target for the NRL comp. That isn’t the same as buying out SL

I'm certain that neither the NRL, nor the RFL and Super League clubs, would be interested in a unification under those circumstances at all.

The NRL would only be interested if they had complete control and they stood to gain significantly financially from any investment, and the RFL and Super League clubs wouldn't give them that control for nothing, or at they'd be absolutely mad to give them that control for nothing.

[GUBRATS]

31 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Whatever scenario , there is always somebody ###### off in RL

[The Great Dane]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

SL is running as it is now. It isnt a start up. So if it were to run at this standard the investment costs would be absolutely minimal. And that ignores the low hanging fruit in terms of increasing revenue that would easily be available. (There are 4 major RL markets in the world. NZ, Australia, England and France. The value of the Aus/kiwi rights in England/France is virtually 0. You can increase the value of those rights in the alternate hemisphere quite easily.

With all due respect, though not worthless (I'm not saying that at all) SL as it's running now wouldn't be worth a great deal to the NRL as a commercial enterprise, and it'd need huge investments to get to the point where it is. 

And if increasing revenue was as easy as you are suggesting why isn't anybody doing it? Probably because it's not half as easy or cheap as you are making out.

I mean it's absolutely delusional to think that just because the NRL would own the SL that that fact alone would grow interest in either league in either hemisphere. The NRL may own it, but that doesn't mean that broadcasters in Australia would be more inclined to pay more for it, or that fans would be more inclined to tune in.

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If you are merging competitions to bring SL up to standard then there would be a significant cost to that but not an impossible number. The NRL SC is about £5m the SL SC is about £2.2m about £34m (if we stay at 12 teams) per year to bring it up to the same level (if the NRL want it to be at the same level, they could more easily sell a reduction on the basis that in total more would be spent on wages due to the increase in teams) Offset that against increase in TV rights, increase in sponsorship etc and its not an insurmountable hurdle, and actually you would expect most of the funding for that to come from the NH. 

You are assuming an increase in sponsorship and broadcasting rights, and you are also only taking into account the salary cap, when on top of that every SL club (with maybe a few exceptions) would need huge amounts of money invested in facilities, coaching staff, administration costs, etc, to come even close to being at an average NRL clubs level.

We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars invested into the clubs alone. That's an extremely risky investment, especially considering the current status of RL and how much money it makes in the UK. 

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Well we are talking about the British (and french, and canadian, and possibly US) sports markets because the entire reason for doing it would be to get a greater share of those markets.

And yes, currently the Aus market is much bigger than the UK/NH one. But the UK and NH one has the potential to grow far far far bigger. The 7 year NRL deal is worth a few hundred million less than the PL's 1 year domestic rights values. RL wouldnt have to be hugely successful in the UK to have a TV deal comparable to the NRL. 

You are making huge assumptions, A. that the NRL would be any more successful at growing the RL's market share in the UK than the RFL has been, and B. that it's even possible to grow the sports market share to anything like PL's, which it may or may not be depending on certain circumstances. Also, growing to the size of PL wouldn't happen overnight and it'd take a lot of time, money, and resouces, some which you can't just buy.

The NRL would have everything to lose in your scenario, not only would they be taking a big risk making huge investments that might not come off, but that investment of time and resources would come at the expense of things that could be and should be done in Australia. What I'm trying to say is that even if the were successful in the UK, which isn't anywhere as certain a bet as you are making out, they'd probably end up like the Firefighter who's house burns down while he's away saving other people's houses.

The NRL should start off by conquering Australia and maybe NZ before they try to conquer the world, it'd be cheaper, less risky, and they are much more likely to pull it off.

[The Great Dane]

34 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The NRL couldnt afford to do that. If they could, they would be doing it now. 

If they owned the Super League it'd change everything, and frankly they are slowly and steadily achieving that.

Every year more and more pommy players are heading down here, and if the gap in wages continues to increase that will continue to happen.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

As with everything Gus is flying a kite here and posters are taking a paragraph and making a big deal of it.

To start with, as has been posted already the existing Super League "powerbrokers" are not going to give up their role anytime soon. In addition, most NRL clubs are still attached to their Leagues clubs rather than in private ownership.

That of course does not prevent NRL Club owners or Australiasian entrepreneurs buying up UK Clubs, after all where do you think the London Broncos moniker came from originally. If you had money and the ability to transfer players  to / from to the Northern Hemisphere you could make the capital club or any other expansion club a success. The problem is though the heartland clubs would scream Unfair ! and additionally you might have the problem back home of keyboards being pounded as to why money is being diverted elsewhere to support a loss making club overseas.

Its not that this has not been on the agenda of some Super League clubs, For example, initiatives, such as the link up between Leeds and South Sydney touted a few years ago which flounderd owing to different agenda's..

The Super League has been a feeder league to the NRL for a while now. It's not conjecture, it's a statement of fact. If your a player you test yourself in the best league. Once you can no longer play in that league you come back for a  lucrative farewell stint and get lauded on how your "brand" (rather than your diminshed playing ability) enhances Super League depending on whose team said player has signed for on this board

For sure, Internationals up here are more lucrative than down under and the potential for Rugby League to make serious money is greater. But there is one big problem that stymies this - "The poms can't play" and that's it in a nutshell - England / Great Britain is not beating Australia on a regular basis and New Zealand is now another team composed of NRL players. Gary Hetherington proposed "World Club Challenge" between the top four in each hemisphere flounders on the rock of NRL invincibility at home as was proved in 1997 (Let's not place too much store on the Trial game played up here out of the NRL season annually). Why is it that an Origin Jumper is seemingly prized more than a Kangaroo jumper. - Because the standard of competition is perceived to be higher and tha's not going to change until Australia start losing on a consistent basis.

So in line with Global Britain maybe the new trade deals with Australia and New Zealand will encourage investors to buy into the British game and develop the sport in the British Isles, Increasing the games footprint and media coverage but as is said up north you get "N'owt for N'owt" and there would be some consequences coming out of this that may prove unpalatable to Heartland fans.

So there you have it we come back to the same question that has haunted Super League since it's inception do you develop the game in this Country or stay put as a declining second tier sport. And if you don't have the plan or the money to expand as Gary Hetherington has admitted Super League never has, do you leave it for money from abroad to do this and make the required changes to the sport in this country to reap the long-term benefit.?

[Man of Kent]

Surprised nobody has mentioned winter rugby. Fox League shows reruns for half the year...

[Henson Park Old Firm]

8 hours ago, Marauder said:

Why ?

Because some NRL club who is almost broke (due to poor on and off field management) would kick up a massive stink about how they need the money and resources to help save the club and juniors from the death door. Standard NRL practice...

[DoubleD]

2 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

I'm certain that neither the NRL, nor the RFL and Super League clubs, would be interested in a unification under those circumstances at all.

The NRL would only be interested if they had complete control and they stood to gain significantly financially from any investment, and the RFL and Super League clubs wouldn't give them that control for nothing, or at they'd be absolutely mad to give them that control for nothing.

Why? The RFL might not but the commercial aspects fall under SLE, but I'm pretty sure SL clubs would be, instead of having Elstone & co.

Gaining inroads into the North American market would be in NRL's interest too.

[Rupert Prince]

14 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Yes, I thought the later comment about the NRL not being a brand was highly contradictory too.

Searching for a headline ???

[Rupert Prince]

5 hours ago, DoubleD said:

It’s all conjecture. I’m pretty sure what people would most like is a unification of oversight of the 2 comps with NRL utilising their expertise to maximise the commercial opportunities in the northern hemisphere, and take full advantage of the North American market, which is also a target for the NRL comp. That isn’t the same as buying out SL

The Australusns are parochial, they are not really interested in internationals.  The idea that they are interested in SL is a joke.  They are not.  This is a pointless exercise.  Just a load of blarney from a pushy journo.