Super League 2021 Start Date

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Davo5 said:

The World Cup,be lucky to have any players fit for selection after shoehorning all those fixtures in.

Won't matter Dav, if the WC does take place it is a one horse race anyway, we can and will most probably flatter to decieve and give us something to hope for, but I doubt things will change, FWIW I think this 'new' generation of Aussies have quashed the myth that after Slater, Thurston, Cronk and Smith are gone they will be ready for taking.

[whatmichaelsays]

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

It's legitimate but try telling club owners who've probably just lost about £20m on the season just gone that they should surrender another £10m.

It's only "surrendering" another £10m if you believe in zero-growth thinking. I mean, why stop at an extra four games, if that's the thinking?

We know that loop fixtures aren't popular with the fan base and for the most part, all they do is thin out what demand there already is, rather than create new demand. Would it really be "surrendering" anything to replace them with something that is potentially much more popular not only with the existing fan base, but new ones as well? 

[M j M]

Just now, whatmichaelsays said:

It's only "surrendering" another £10m if you believe in zero-growth thinking. I mean, why stop at an extra four games, if that's the thinking?

We know that loop fixtures aren't popular with the fan base and for the most part, all they do is thin out what demand there already is, rather than create new demand. Would it really be "surrendering" anything to replace them with something that is potentially much more popular not only with the existing fan base, but new ones as well? 

Well they're not popular with the fans but they still attend anyway, certainly more than you'd gain solely by increasing infrequency.

Moreover though you can't change stuff like this at short notice - by which I mean player contracts are signed over several years based on income assumptions driven by X number of home games and £Y of guaranteed Sky income. They've already taken a hit on the latter for next year on top of losses arising this year.

Long term growth would help remove them but where we are now and the sea of red our clubs are bathing in makes it utterly impractical for 2021.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Southerner said:

What would be the loss of income from dropping these 5 fixtures?

That varies according to how many away fans attend.

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

It's only "surrendering" another £10m if you believe in zero-growth thinking. I mean, why stop at an extra four games, if that's the thinking?

We know that loop fixtures aren't popular with the fan base and for the most part, all they do is thin out what demand there already is, rather than create new demand. Would it really be "surrendering" anything to replace them with something that is potentially much more popular not only with the existing fan base, but new ones as well? 

What else is there that will at least make up the difference in lost revenue from offering season tickets with 3 fewer games, and three fewer corporate nights? It's unrealistic to think that every season ticket holder would happily pay the same for fewer games, or that corporates would pay more per event, and stuff like 9s, or home internationals, just won't cut it, however much we wish they would.

We will only move on from loop games when we can attract additional external income into the sport to enable us to expand to 14 teams without spreading the pot more thinly.  For me, that means taking the PE gamble.        

[whatmichaelsays]

27 minutes ago, M j M said:

Well they're not popular with the fans but they still attend anyway, certainly more than you'd gain solely by increasing infrequency.

Moreover though you can't change stuff like this at short notice - by which I mean player contracts are signed over several years based on income assumptions driven by X number of home games and £Y of guaranteed Sky income. They've already taken a hit on the latter for next year on top of losses arising this year.

Long term growth would help remove them but where we are now and the sea of red our clubs are bathing in makes it utterly impractical for 2021.

Are they attending? Yes, your season ticket holders may turn up through habit or obligation, but I distinctly recall Elstone commenting on falling attendances at the back end of 2019 and remarking on "fan fatigue". 

I think the game has fallen into the accountant's fallacy of believing that 'value' is inherent and therefore the first fixture of Wigan v St Helens of the year is just as valuable, important and marketable as the fourth, fifth and sixth. The truth is much more likely that the fourth, fifth and sixth version of that fixture are devaluing the first, second and third. 

I agree that removing loop fixtures this year wasn't going to happen, but let's not prentend that this wasn't an issue pre-Covid. For all that it might be difficult to force through change, at some point the nettle needs grasping. 

[Spidey]

25 minutes ago, M j M said:

It's legitimate but try telling club owners who've probably just lost about £20m on the season just gone that they should surrender another £10m.

That’s where you need a strong governing body to look after the whole game aspect....

[whatmichaelsays]

5 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

What else is there that will at least make up the difference in lost revenue from offering season tickets with 3 fewer games, and three fewer corporate nights? It's unrealistic to think that every season ticket holder would happily pay the same for fewer games, or that corporates would pay more per event, and stuff like 9s, or home internationals, just won't cut it, however much we wish they would.

We will only move on from loop games when we can attract additional external income into the sport to enable us to expand to 14 teams without spreading the pot more thinly.  For me, that means taking the PE gamble.        

I think the issue here is that I don't think that the game really has properly looked into this issue. How do we know that other events "won't cut it" when there have been few or no attempts to adequately test that market? We have grounds with huge amounts of spare capacity every single week - that's money that is being left on the table by every single club at every single fixture - why isn't there the demand to meet that supply?. 

As above, I think there is an issue when you have a sport run largely by accountants that they believe that the value of the product is largely inherent, and therefore they don't look at how you can add more value by doing things a bit differently. To them, version one of Wigan v St Helens or a Hull Derby is just as important, valuable and marketable as version five, even though the stats don't really back that up. 

It's incredibly hard for, for example, Wigan Warriors to hype up a derby against St Helens when the general public knows that there will probably be another one in seven or eight weeks time. It's difficult for Leeds to hype up a game against Hull KR when everyone remembers Leeds running up 40+ points on them earlier in the year. It's difficult to sell something new and exciting when what is being offered is the same old, same old that, most alarmingly, the sport knows isn't popular. 

What then happens is that you thin the demand across the season, rather than creating new demand, and you cheapen the product. Would I pay more for my ticket in exchange for getting more intense, meaningful games even if it meant less of them? Yes. I want to see quality, not quantity. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

9 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think the issue here is that I don't think that the game really has properly looked into this issue. How do we know that other events "won't cut it" when there have been few or no attempts to adequately test that market? We have grounds with huge amounts of spare capacity every single week - that's money that is being left on the table by every single club at every single fixture - why isn't there the demand to meet that supply?. 

As above, I think there is an issue when you have a sport run largely by accountants that they believe that the value of the product is largely inherent, and therefore they don't look at how you can add more value by doing things a bit differently. To them, version one of Wigan v St Helens or a Hull Derby is just as important, valuable and marketable as version five, even though the stats don't really back that up. 

It's incredibly hard for, for example, Wigan Warriors to hype up a derby against St Helens when the general public knows that there will probably be another one in seven or eight weeks time. It's difficult for Leeds to hype up a game against Hull KR when everyone remembers Leeds running up 40+ points on them earlier in the year. It's difficult to sell something new and exciting when what is being offered is the same old, same old that, most alarmingly, the sport knows isn't popular. 

What then happens is that you thin the demand across the season, rather than creating new demand, and you cheapen the product. Would I pay more for my ticket in exchange for getting more intense, meaningful games even if it meant less of them? Yes. I want to see quality, not quantity. 

I hear what you're saying and don't entirely disagree. But what you're actually asking for is the 'quality' to be more valuable than the 'quantity' to both the clubs and broadcasters. I'm not sure taking loop fixtures out covers that whilst we only have 12 teams. I'm with @Toby Chopra on this -14 teams has to be the plan in future. 

[Ramon Rojo]

Mid March start?

I'm attempting to respect the reasoning & various suggestions but it's going to be a long bleak winter. Our game looks like being more or less off the radar.

So much for the medical advice that watching a likeable sport keeps mental health issues away.

There's nothing to look forward to, period.

Would much prefer a drip fed introduction from late January early February, perhaps 2 or 3 games a week giving every club a balanced initiation fixture wise which gradually builds up to the full programme mid March onwards.

Trying to cram the whole season in from March 11th with the World Cup looming seems to be a random punt at generating cash over product, never mind player welfare suffering from too many games in too short a period.

Who is guaranteeing sizable levels of spectators will be let back in anyway?

[Hela Wigmen]

4 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I hear what you're saying and don't entirely disagree. But what you're actually asking for is the 'quality' to be more valuable than the 'quantity' to both the clubs and broadcasters. I'm not sure taking loop fixtures out covers that whilst we only have 12 teams. I'm with @Toby Chopra on this -14 teams has to be the plan in future. 

We could do that but haven’t we been down that road before? And did it really work? I’d argue that it didn’t and that’s why we sacked it off. 

We could quite easily cobble together fifty players from the Championship clubs promoted with a mixture of additions from Super League, the Championship and most likely, the NRL, more specifically the NSW Cup and QLD Cup and there’s nothing really wrong with that but what’s the bigger picture? Is there enough quality in the player pool to do such a thing without swapping loop fixtures for games that, for many, are going to be meaningless.

I’m not sure fourteen teams is the best way. You bring in a fourteen team league and you just get all the same issues we had last time we tried this. 

[whatmichaelsays]

16 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I hear what you're saying and don't entirely disagree. But what you're actually asking for is the 'quality' to be more valuable than the 'quantity' to both the clubs and broadcasters. I'm not sure taking loop fixtures out covers that whilst we only have 12 teams. I'm with @Toby Chopra on this -14 teams has to be the plan in future. 

Us mere mortals don't know the specifics of the TV deal, but I think it comes down to what RL is to Sky. Is it a form of content that is there to be commercially important and to put bums on sofas, or is it simply something to fill a schedule? 

Are we really suggesting that if the game went to Sky, having done its homework, and said "we've got a strategy to improve audiences in the ground and to increase TV audiences, but it would mean us doing things a bit differently", that they wouldn't at least be prepared to listen?

I'm with @Hela Wigmen - I don't think the argument for 14 clubs adds up. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Are we really suggesting that if the game went to Sky, having done its homework, and said "we've got a strategy to improve audiences in the ground and to increase TV audiences, but it would mean us doing things a bit differently", that they wouldn't at least be prepared to listen?

After 25 years of a SL/Sky partnership, no I don't to be honest. I'm under no illusions that it is nobody but Sky who call the shots in that respect. Sky know what they want from SL - if SL go away and do something innovative with the game play and/or image of the sport, which starts to see an upwards trend, then they'll have more of a leg to stand on. But at the moment Sky crunch the numbers year on year and know what they need to make SL viable for them. 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

I'm presuming, given Covid and travel restrictions, the world club challenge isn't happening next season in which case I must say I fear for it's continuation in the future. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

3 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

I'm presuming, given Covid and travel restrictions, the world club challenge isn't happening next season in which case I must say I fear for it's continuation in the future. 

Was thinking about that myself and weirdly I reckon because it's Melbourne it will go ahead...but in Melbourne. They've made clear in the past they don't want to travel and given that Aus has had a mere fraction of the kind of COVID numbers we've had, I reckon it'll be played. Can't see any reason why it wouldn't work mid February. 

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Won't matter Dav, if the WC does take place it is a one horse race anyway, we can and will most probably flatter to decieve and give us something to hope for, but I doubt things will change, FWIW I think this 'new' generation of Aussies have quashed the myth that after Slater, Thurston, Cronk and Smith are gone they will be ready for taking.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on most of that post.

[Davo5]

7 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Was thinking about that myself and weirdly I reckon because it's Melbourne it will go ahead...but in Melbourne. They've made clear in the past they don't want to travel and given that Aus has had a mere fraction of the kind of COVID numbers we've had, I reckon it'll be played. Can't see any reason why it wouldn't work mid February. 

14 day quarantine period ??

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think the issue here is that I don't think that the game really has properly looked into this issue. How do we know that other events "won't cut it" when there have been few or no attempts to adequately test that market? We have grounds with huge amounts of spare capacity every single week - that's money that is being left on the table by every single club at every single fixture - why isn't there the demand to meet that supply?. 

As above, I think there is an issue when you have a sport run largely by accountants that they believe that the value of the product is largely inherent, and therefore they don't look at how you can add more value by doing things a bit differently. To them, version one of Wigan v St Helens or a Hull Derby is just as important, valuable and marketable as version five, even though the stats don't really back that up. 

It's incredibly hard for, for example, Wigan Warriors to hype up a derby against St Helens when the general public knows that there will probably be another one in seven or eight weeks time. It's difficult for Leeds to hype up a game against Hull KR when everyone remembers Leeds running up 40+ points on them earlier in the year. It's difficult to sell something new and exciting when what is being offered is the same old, same old that, most alarmingly, the sport knows isn't popular. 

What then happens is that you thin the demand across the season, rather than creating new demand, and you cheapen the product. Would I pay more for my ticket in exchange for getting more intense, meaningful games even if it meant less of them? Yes. I want to see quality, not quantity. 

I agree with much of that in principle, I suppose the issue is that we can't look at any of the factors in isolation, we have to see if its possible to address them all at the same time. That is: quality, repetition, player salaries, attendances, viewing figures, subscriptions etc. Each one has an effect on the other, and over time.

For instance in your example about HKR-Leeds is the issue repetition, or the mismatch in quality? If the first game was a high quality nailbiter, fans might well turn up for a second installment. 

So you're right that SL hasn't indicated in the past that it's taken a strategic approach to things. Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but recent comments from Elstone suggest that the SL executive is looking at the big picture, and how to employ "transformative capital" as he calls it to drive through a fundamental change. It seems, however, that not all the clubs are on board, and some want to go it alone with their own business plans. 

In my view a club by club approach is always destined to fail. 

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I feel sorry if you genuinely believe that. 

Of course they’re not comparable. Next season will be longer, will probably be played in front of crowds and with vaccinated and fitter players. 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Won't matter Dav, if the WC does take place it is a one horse race anyway, we can and will most probably flatter to decieve and give us something to hope for, but I doubt things will change, FWIW I think this 'new' generation of Aussies have quashed the myth that after Slater, Thurston, Cronk and Smith are gone they will be ready for taking.

Tonga could beat them imho, in fact I’ve got fifty quid on them at 12/1. 

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Is there enough quality in the player pool to do such a thing

The problem isn't there being not enough quality in the player pool. The problem is/was too many clubs not being able to spend enough money to recruit sufficient quality players to that pool. It certainly was the case in 2014.

That scenario has improved with the current central distribution money covering most of the salary cap, but even now, we have clubs that are incapable of spending to that level in normal times by a 6 figure sum. Aside from Salford's late flurry last year and into this, those teams have been towards the bottom of the table.

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

Of course they’re not comparable. Next season will be longer, will probably be played in front of crowds and with vaccinated and fitter players. 

Of course they are. Teams will likely have the same, if not smaller, squads available to them given the financial effects of the pandemic and the loss of the reserve grade. You’re also, again, asking players to play multiple games a week at times, which is what many coaches were against this year and will likely not be keen on in 2021. 

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

The problem isn't there being not enough quality in the player pool. The problem is/was too many clubs not being able to spend enough money to recruit sufficient quality players to that pool. It certainly was the case in 2014.

That scenario has improved with the current central distribution money covering most of the salary cap, but even now, we have clubs that are incapable of spending to that level in normal times by a 6 figure sum. Aside from Salford's late flurry last year and into this, those teams have been towards the bottom of the table.

There’s also a player pool argument, for sure. It’s not the problem but a small part to a deeper and more in depth problem the game faces. There are plenty of clubs, some in Super League, who are simply not developing players either through an Academy or through any other form.

The problem with widening the league means you’re stretching the player pool further while doing little to address some of the bigger issues in the game in allowing the ambitious clubs to be ambitious and give them the chance to show their ambition whilst doing little to actually solve the problem of clubs who are either stagnating or those who are getting smaller year on year. 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

There’s also a player pool argument, for sure. It’s not the problem but a small part to a deeper and more in depth problem the game faces. There are plenty of clubs, some in Super League, who are simply not developing players either through an Academy or through any other form.

The problem with widening the league means you’re stretching the player pool further while doing little to address some of the bigger issues in the game in allowing the ambitious clubs to be ambitious and give them the chance to show their ambition whilst doing little to actually solve the problem of clubs who are either stagnating or those who are getting smaller year on year. 

I get that to an extent, I suppose its a case of prioritising problems. 

For me the fundamental problem in our game is lack of financial resources. The inability for some clubs to spend up to the cap and recruit a squad of players at a sufficient level is one noticeable result of that which has a detrimental impact on the league.

Player production would come a close second to that, but I think the problems there are wide ranging, more nuanced, and intertwined with the finance point all at once.

[yipyee]

3 hours ago, Markos said:

Serious question and forgive my ignorance - how is the Sky deal broken down? Is it by games shown on TV I.e. SL have to satisfy a number of TV slots across the season?

...or is it stipulated in the Sky deal that SL has to have a number of rounds.

For those saying it’s not as easy as dropping games, why can’t some rounds be split in two so 3 games per round, with 2 televised fixtures per week?

I just don’t get why in unprecedented times, when exceptions and allowances have been made across every sport and business for the past 8 months, why those in charge can’t come up with a better solution than just “that’s what we’ve signed, that’s what we do”

Well you tell your boss your not going to work fridays and see if he still pays you!

The RFL are clearly starting the season later to get fans back in stadiums for the money