Is it happening???

[Scotchy1]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

What I mean is more English players will head Down Under, possibly before we even really see them in Super League. 

As I say, I'm just not worried that happens. It seems an incredibly expensive way around it.

The lower league however... you would think they would want to replicate what has worked for them

[Man of Kent]

4 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

As I say, I'm just not worried that happens. It seems an incredibly expensive way around it.

Don’t follow you. Seems more than possible that the NRL could hoover up the future Sinfields and Burrows while young (and cheap) to play in Australia and not for Leeds, and that Super League becomes more of a retirement home for pensioned off Aussies. 

[M j M]

A much better option than private equity that's for sure.

But there's no evidence anyone at the NRL would know what to do with a regional sport which struggles to get media coverage. Sure they have a sort of parallel in Melbourne but it's hardly the same thing.

The NRL may look successful but structurally they are even more entrapped by the self interests of the clubs than we are. Crowds are middling and they have a disastrous track record on bad publicity.

They do however have a tyrant in charge right now which is almost certainly what we need. But what would such a tyrant seek to do? One thing it's worth remembering about V'Landys is that whilst he may be a hard headed b*****d the changes he's made have been driven by a pretty strong sense of what the fans want: one referee, the six again rule, suburban stadia. And "expansion" will be in Queensland not Perth or NZ. If anything his obsession has been in doubling down on Australian Rugby League's core strengths rather than, at this stage, moving away from them.

Would he or NRL management have as keen an understanding of what Rugby League fans over here want? And would he continue that approach - ie focus on where you are strong because that's where you'll get the best immediate rewards? I suspect that isn't what many on here would want for Super League at all - or would expect from this process.

I'd be on board with it though because maybe we need, at last, to be pragmatic. The NRL can fund Melbourne because of total dominance in their heartlands. We simply have not got that and if I were a pragmatic investor I might well think it would be a lot more productive to use investment to rebuild and reinforce existing core markets than grow new ones, at least in a first phase. Making our northern citadels impenetrable fortresses where tv viewing figures are robust and where you can't take a walk or a drive without being reminded that this is a sport that obsesses the locals and is a proud symbol of local identity would give us a much stronger base from which to later fund genuine expansion.

I could get on board with that approach, sacrilegious as it may be to many Rugby League evangelists. But I suspect it might well be what an NRL controlled Super League would seek to do.

[Oxford]

6 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Don’t follow you. Seems more than possible that the NRL could hoover up the future Sinfields and Burrows while young (and cheap) to play in Australia and not for Leeds, and that Super League becomes more of a retirement home for pensioned off Aussies. 

Illogical reasoning unless you see it as a hostile take over rather than investment in a sporting product. But the argument that will be a far too expensive method of gaining some extra young players does hold water.

[Smudger06]

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

A much better option than private equity that's for sure.

But there's no evidence anyone at the NRL would know what to do with a regional sport which struggles to get media coverage. Sure they have a sort of parallel in Melbourne but it's hardly the same thing.

The NRL may look successful but structurally they are even more entrapped by the self interests of the clubs than we are. Crowds are middling and they have a disastrous track record on bad publicity.

They do however have a tyrant in charge right now which is almost certainly what we need. But what would such a tyrant seek to do? One thing it's worth remembering about V'Landys is that whilst he may an a hard headed b*****d the changes he's made have been driven by a pretty strong sense of what the fans want: one referee, the six again rule, suburban stadia. And "expansion" will be in Queensland not Perth or NZ. If anything his obsession has been in doubling down on Australian Rugby League's core strengths rather than, at this stage, moving away from them.

Would he or NRL management have as keen an understanding of what Rugby League fans over here want? And would he continue that approach - ie focus on where you are strong because that's where you'll get the best immediate rewards? I suspect that isn't what many on here would want for Super League at all - or would expect from this process.

I'd be on board with it though because maybe we need, at last, to be pragmatic. The NRL can fund Melbourne because of total dominance in their heartlands. We simply have not got that and if I were a pragmatic investor I might well think it would be a lot more productive to use investment to rebuild and reinforce existing core markets than grow new ones, at least in a first phase. Making our northern citadels impenetrable fortresses where tv viewing figures are robust and where you can't take a walk or a drive without being reminded that this is a sport that obsesses the locals and is a proud symbol of local identity would give us a much stronger base from which to fund genuine expansion.

I could get on board with that approach, sacrilegious as it may be to many Rugby League evangelists. But I suspect it might well be what an NRL controlled Super League would seek to do.

Decent assessment. 

[Man of Kent]

Just now, Oxford said:

Illogical reasoning unless you see it as a hostile take over rather than investment in a sporting product. But the argument that will be a far too expensive method of gaining some extra young players.

It would be a likely by-product of a takeover IMO but it would absolutely not be the primary reason for a takeover. That would be mental!

There are downsides to everything, I suppose.

[Smudger06]

The one mega advantage over the rival Aussie rules code that the NRL has is that its played Professionally in other major nations, they need to safeguard that, and their (our) code. Makes sense investing in the UK or even the North of England compared to say investing in PNG and tiny and relatively poor Pacific islands. 

[Scotchy1]

8 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Don’t follow you. Seems more than possible that the NRL could hoover up the future Sinfields and Burrows while young (and cheap) to play in Australia and not for Leeds, and that Super League becomes more of a retirement home for pensioned off Aussies. 

But 75m is a really way expensive way of doing that. 

The NRL could spend a couple of hundred grand on scouts and do that anyway right now, they wouldn't need to buy in to SL to do that.

Also, when you factor in the opportunity cost of basically tanking SL it just seems very expensive and hard way of doing that. 

Why not just take the money you can make from a successful SL

[Oxford]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

There are downsides to everything, I suppose.

Only if you're looking hard enough, MoK .

If they're willing to put money in the downsides that will be there will be mitigated a fair bit. If we lived in another country this would be excellent publicity. If the sum of money put in is significant enough can you imagine what might happen?

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

Only if you're looking hard enough, MoK .

If they're willing to put money in the downsides that will be there will be mitigated a fair bit. If we lived in another country this would be excellent publicity. If the sum of money put in is significant enough can you imagine what might happen?

It’s in my nature to think what are the downsides! 

But, who knows, more Wigan/Saints/Leeds lads going Down Under might actually balance the comp a bit more!

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, Manxmanc said:

Interesting. NRL has the potential to have a global footprint with the NRL, NRL Asia, NRL (Super League), and dare I say it, a presence in North America. 

Without seeking to derail this thread, which has has great potential to weave in all manner of directions, there is the tantilising thought of how the NRL would have dealt with/would deal with a Toronto, and their attitude towards the Ottawa and New York developments. Indeed, it could be that one of the main attractions of Super League to them is the investment potential of the North American involvement. It's readily acknowledged that the NRL pulled out all the stops for Melbourne, positively discriminating in their favour, whereas Super League took a rather different approach.

Maybe not too late for TWP then  

[Oxford]

7 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

It’s in my nature to think what are the downsides! 

But, who knows, more Wigan/Saints/Leeds lads going Down Under might actually balance the comp a bit more!

It may be in your nature but you do need a bit of evidence to support your feelings on the issue.

[Man of Kent]

Just now, Oxford said:

It may be in your nature but you do need a bit of evidence to support your feelings on the issue.

Canberra Raiders? There haven’t been this many English imports since Captain Cook thought ‘Hmm, this place looks nice. Let’s set up here’

[del capo]

15 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

It’s in my nature to think what are the downsides! 

But, who knows, more Wigan/Saints/Leeds lads going Down Under might actually balance the comp a bit more!

Not that easy from 31/12/2020

Bosnam and Kolpak both gone after that date.

GBE  ( Governing Body Endorsement )for RL needed but not sure how far RFL have got with the Home Office or on the flip side with ANZAC. ( who are similarly hard wall ), RFU screwed a last minute deal for EU players.

French clubs by the way will henceforth need to source local players far more  -  maybe a positive ? 

[Scotchy1]

4 minutes ago, del capo said:

Not that easy from 31/12/2020

Bosnam and Kolpak both gone after that date.

GBE  ( Governing Body Endorsement )for RL needed but not sure how far RFL have got with the Home Office or on the flip side with ANZAC. ( who are similarly hard wall ), RFU screwed a last minute deal for EU players.

French clubs by the way will henceforth need to source local players far more  -  maybe a positive ? 

It won't really affect the French clubs in the same way. 

[del capo]

1 minute ago, Scotchy1 said:

It won't really affect the French clubs in the same way. 

It will.

Kolpak brought in our Commonwealth arrangements as long as we were part of the EU. That has now gone. Not too sure how many French  Pacific Islanders  play our game.

Welcome to the points system  -   for us and down under

[Scotchy1]

3 minutes ago, del capo said:

It will.

Kolpak brought in our Commonwealth arrangements as long as we were part of the EU. That has now gone. Not too sure how many French  Pacific Islanders  play our game.

Welcome to the points system  -   for us and down under

But the French clubs will still be part of the EU. 

Disappointingly the South of France has declined follow us. 

[del capo]

13 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

But the French clubs will still be part of the EU. 

Disappointingly the South of France has declined follow us. 

Yes but from Australia down to the Cook Islands , previous Kolpak  players protected  by virtue of our  historical colonializations are now out of the game.

Include the Caribbean and even Southern  Africa.

France welcome to sign from Serbia , Spain or Italy.............

[Rupert Prince]

11 hours ago, M j M said:

A much better option than private equity that's for sure.

But there's no evidence anyone at the NRL would know what to do with a regional sport which struggles to get media coverage. Sure they have a sort of parallel in Melbourne but it's hardly the same thing.

The NRL may look successful but structurally they are even more entrapped by the self interests of the clubs than we are. Crowds are middling and they have a disastrous track record on bad publicity.

They do however have a tyrant in charge right now which is almost certainly what we need. But what would such a tyrant seek to do? One thing it's worth remembering about V'Landys is that whilst he may be a hard headed b*****d the changes he's made have been driven by a pretty strong sense of what the fans want: one referee, the six again rule, suburban stadia. And "expansion" will be in Queensland not Perth or NZ. If anything his obsession has been in doubling down on Australian Rugby League's core strengths rather than, at this stage, moving away from them.

Would he or NRL management have as keen an understanding of what Rugby League fans over here want? And would he continue that approach - ie focus on where you are strong because that's where you'll get the best immediate rewards? I suspect that isn't what many on here would want for Super League at all - or would expect from this process.

I'd be on board with it though because maybe we need, at last, to be pragmatic. The NRL can fund Melbourne because of total dominance in their heartlands. We simply have not got that and if I were a pragmatic investor I might well think it would be a lot more productive to use investment to rebuild and reinforce existing core markets than grow new ones, at least in a first phase. Making our northern citadels impenetrable fortresses where tv viewing figures are robust and where you can't take a walk or a drive without being reminded that this is a sport that obsesses the locals and is a proud symbol of local identity would give us a much stronger base from which to later fund genuine expansion.

I could get on board with that approach, sacrilegious as it may be to many Rugby League evangelists. But I suspect it might well be what an NRL controlled Super League would seek to do.

You say on one side that NRL wouldn't know what to do with Superleague, but its better than private equity...??

You admit that NRL don't know what to do... And then ramble on.

[GUBRATS]

Simple answer 

No , it isn't 

[Whippet13]

19 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Simple answer 

No , it isn't 

Obviously, as they are purely in early discussions.

A better question at present is "Could it happen?"

I imagine the smaller clubs with aspirations of reaching or remaing in SL hope not as they likely won't fit the NRL model.

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

The one mega advantage over the rival Aussie rules code that the NRL has is that its played Professionally in other major nations, they need to safeguard that, and their (our) code. Makes sense investing in the UK or even the North of England compared to say investing in PNG and tiny and relatively poor Pacific islands. 

This is where you are spot on, V`landy`s and co. know, as we all do, that international rivalries is where it`s at. Even if you can`t rival us on the international scene yet, there is plenty to work with at your club level, iconic names such as Wigan, Leeds, St. Helens etc. and soon we may have Toulouse to go with Catalans to add further international flavour, Ottawa et. al. later on.

There was a report in the media the other day over here that an afl official said to the NRL you give us Queensland and you can have New Zealand, bet your bottom dollar that V`landy`s wants them both and the Pacific Islands and a northern hemisphere game that realises its true potential value given the size of the market over there. 

 I wouldn`t be surprised if there isn`t Private Equity money involved here somewhere that will will be planning with the NRL to invest in and grow the value of the game over there, they will get there money back with the increased value of the whole product.

If this report is true, then hang on, exciting times ahead, V`landy`s is a break or break through sort of bloke, and so far he always seems to be able to pick a winner when he sees one.

 

[M j M]

57 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

You say on one side that NRL wouldn't know what to done it Superleague, but its better than private equity...??

You admit that NRL don't know what to do... And then ramble on.

Private Equity might walk away from Super League and decide to shut it down, liquidate everything they control.

The NRL may walk away if it doesn't work but they aren't going to kill off the sport in this country in the process.

[Smudger06]

6 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

This is where you are spot on, V`landy`s and co. know, as we all do, that international rivalries is where it`s at. Even if you can`t rival us on the international scene yet, there is plenty to work with at your club level, iconic names such as Wigan, Leeds, St. Helens etc. and soon we may have Toulouse to go with Catalans to add further international flavour, Ottawa et. al. later on.

There was a report in the media the other day over here that an afl official said to the NRL you give us Queensland and you can have New Zealand, bet your bottom dollar that V`landy`s wants them both and the Pacific Islands and a northern hemisphere game that realises its true potential value given the size of the market over there. 

 I wouldn`t be surprised if there isn`t Private Equity money involved here somewhere that will will be planning with the NRL to invest in and grow the value of the game over there, they will get there money back with the increased value of the whole product.

If this report is true, then hang on, exciting times ahead, V`landy`s is a break or break through sort of bloke, and so far he always seems to be able to pick a winner when he sees one.

 

The potential is truly massive. The end product from the long game will blow away anything Union can muster up never mind AFL. 

[Manxmanc]

There's much speculation here about Super League becoming a NRL feeder league. An alternative view would be that they effectively morph into one as a global NRL? entity, the constituent leagues/conferences not in organisational conflict.