Sky - please learn from BT sports

[Tommygilf]

43 minutes ago, Jao 711 said:

Take a look north of Birmingham.Not very “national” ip here.

Take a look closer, lots of RU clubs up here, more in the whole north of England than RL clubs, which perhaps demonstrates the problem of calling RL a northern game, it isn't even that.

[BrisbaneRhino]

There might be a lot of clubs, but very few northern RU teams would be viable as fully time pro clubs. Even Leeds Carnegie, playing out of a stadium for peanuts and using Leeds Rhinos staff, were simply unsustainable as their total income was way too low to compete with the rich southern clubs.  Partly because - shock - nobody was interested in paying to see them.  

But to me one of the problems for RL is summed up in the squad size issue. Just like not really increasing the salary cap and allowing the reserve competition to vanish, trashing Toronto (if they were brought in they should have been properly supported, not hamstrung with less income than everyone else, or just don't bother) we're a sport moving in ever-decreasing circles, looking to survive whilst revenue falls. There's nothing at all about SL that looks like a progressive, vibrant sport with real growth. That was even before COVID.  

Unless something changes like a major investor from outside, the future for RL in England looks pretty bleak to me.

[Dave T]

The claims around North v South were around the professional games at the top level. It is entirely fair to claim that RL has the North covered and RU the rest. Of course if you have a real issue with RL at the moment you can go to great lengths to list places where RL isn't big in the North just to trash the game yet again. But that's stuff we would get peed off with Union trolls doing.

But RU really does have the rest - because what those maps don't show are the teams in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and France - RU has a presence in all of these places at pro level and has for over a hundred years. We shouldn't underestimate the impact this has on our ability to expand, for many people if they are interested in Rugby instead of football, they have their needs met in the UK, Ireland and France.

[Damien]

14 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Take a look closer, lots of RU clubs up here, more in the whole north of England than RL clubs, which perhaps demonstrates the problem of calling RL a northern game, it isn't even that.

Rugby League would love to have the kind of presence, even in much of the North, that RU has in our RL towns and cities that host our biggest clubs like Leeds and Wigan.

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, Damien said:

Rugby League would love to have the kind of presence, even in much of the North, that RU has in our RL towns and cities that host our biggest clubs like Leeds and Wigan.

Similarly RU would love to be able to attract crowds that RL does at Pro level in old-Lancs and Yorkshire. 

At the top level Pro club rugby, RU can't deliver what RL can in the North. 

Of course Union is a far bigger sport and has grassroots everywhere, but based on that, it is a touch strange that the likes of Sale and Carnegie have struggled so much. For me it is because as stated previously if people want top quality Rugby, their needs are met by RL. If you live near Leicester your needs are met by Tigers RU. I think this is one of the challenges we face with expansion into some of these places that already have major RU clubs. 

I find it hard to believe that there isn't a place for two codes of Rugby in some of these cities, but nobody seems to have really made it work. It does tend to be one or the other at Pro club level. 

Maybe this is where you focus on major cities without a big RU club like Sheffield, but football is also pretty unhelpful! 

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

There might be a lot of clubs, but very few northern RU teams would be viable as fully time pro clubs. Even Leeds Carnegie, playing out of a stadium for peanuts and using Leeds Rhinos staff, were simply unsustainable as their total income was way too low to compete with the rich southern clubs.  Partly because - shock - nobody was interested in paying to see them.  

But to me one of the problems for RL is summed up in the squad size issue. Just like not really increasing the salary cap and allowing the reserve competition to vanish, trashing Toronto (if they were brought in they should have been properly supported, not hamstrung with less income than everyone else, or just don't bother) we're a sport moving in ever-decreasing circles, looking to survive whilst revenue falls. There's nothing at all about SL that looks like a progressive, vibrant sport with real growth. That was even before COVID.  

Unless something changes like a major investor from outside, the future for RL in England looks pretty bleak to me.

I don't think the outlook is so bleak. In reality, SL could remain at this size for the next 100 years and we could grow the sport massively through the international game. 

I think we also need to answer the question of why growth is so important. Of course as fans it is natural to want more people to like what we like, but if the sport can live as it is, and it can, is that such an issue? 

Let's ignore soundbites and the fact that you have to grow to standstill etc. but if in 20 years we still have the same teams still playing in front of similar crowds with similar sponsors and similar viewing figures and the bills are being paid, is that such an issue? 

It may be utterly unambitious, but maybe those just cracking on and enjoying watching the sport are enjoying themselves more than many of us who obsess over growth and the business side of the sport? 

[whatmichaelsays]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think the outlook is so bleak. In reality, SL could remain at this size for the next 100 years and we could grow the sport massively through the international game. 

I think we also need to answer the question of why growth is so important. Of course as fans it is natural to want more people to like what we like, but if the sport can live as it is, and it can, is that such an issue? 

Let's ignore soundbites and the fact that you have to grow to standstill etc. but if in 20 years we still have the same teams still playing in front of similar crowds with similar sponsors and similar viewing figures and the bills are being paid, is that such an issue? 

It may be utterly unambitious, but maybe those just cracking on and enjoying watching the sport are enjoying themselves more than many of us who obsess over growth and the business side of the sport? 

There are some fair points in there but whilst I understand where you're coming from with the "soundbites about standing still", I think they do have slightly more substance to them than mere soundbites. 

As a fan of the sport, I want to see the best possible entertainment that I possibly can - I want to see the best talent I possibly can, playing in big events, creating exciting moments and inspiring more young people to play. Whether you like it or not, that requires some people to be interested in "growing the business side" of the sport. 

My worry is that sentiments like "why can't we just be happy leaving it alone and being what we are" come from a place where people are steadfastly objecting to change. There may be a multitude of reasons why, but I'd argue a lot of them not particuarly good ones.

At the risk of changing the subject slightly, I was recently involved in a Twitter discussion about the issue of head injuries, with my point being that I felt the sport had to take the issue seriously and consider making the sport safer. That view was met with a barrage of comments about wanting to "sanitise" or "soften" the sport, with the argument that "the fans watch this because they want to see biff and making it safer would make it less appealing". 

That may be the case for many but, at the same time, I want this sport to survive long into the future - not be be in a position where legal claims, massive insurance premiums and parents refusing to let their kids play make this sport unviable. If your idea of entertainment relies on knowingly subjecting young men to life-limiting brain injuries for (in the most part) sub-par financial reward and you steadfastly refuse to accept otherwise, then that's a pretty damaging and disturbing position. It's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing, but a lot of the fan base seem to want to pee in the opposite direction. 

You can apply the same logic to the commercial side of the sport. If this sport doesn't grow, the fear is that it loses relevance in the public conscience, it becomes financially weaker and, as a result, the product becomes poorer and from then on in, you're in a spiral of decline. If I just wanted to watch my RL as raw and as cheaply as possible, I'd go and watch Stanningley.

My worry is that there simply aren't enough of those people who "just want to crack on" to keep this sport viable and it saddens me to see that the suggested answer to problems like being unable to sell our Wembley or the CC semi finals is to downsize to a smaller venue or have double headers - rather than to make the events more attractive and marketable.

To me, this is all achievable stuff. As you know, I don't buy into the idea that our problem is rooted in geography but instead, I think the issue is rooted in a lack of vision and a criminal under-utilisation of many of the game's biggest assets. This doesn't have to be a particularly expensive problem to fix. 

Don't get me wrong - I don't think this is one of those "the world will end tomorrow  if we don't" sort of thing - more of a death by a thousand cuts sort of thing. This is another one where we can see which way the wind is blowing - towards digital, towards TV, towards a more experiental economy, and many in RL still seem to think we can pee in the other direction. 

[Blind side johnny]

20 hours ago, Dr Tim Whatley said:

Anyone wondering what @whatmichaelsays and I are on about with the Nickelodeon coverage of the NFL, well here you go:

 

Another viewpoint on the impact of money in sport:

A ruthlessly exploitative college football season finally draws to a close | College football | The Guardian

 

[whatmichaelsays]

2 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Another viewpoint on the impact of money in sport:

A ruthlessly exploitative college football season finally draws to a close | College football | The Guardian

 

To be honest, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the NCAA. 

You might find this a decent watch 

 

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

There are some fair points in there but whilst I understand where you're coming from with the "soundbites about standing still", I think they do have slightly more substance to them than mere soundbites. 

As a fan of the sport, I want to see the best possible entertainment that I possibly can - I want to see the best talent I possibly can, playing in big events, creating exciting moments and inspiring more young people to play. Whether you like it or not, that requires some people to be interested in "growing the business side" of the sport. 

My worry is that sentiments like "why can't we just be happy leaving it alone and being what we are" come from a place where people are steadfastly objecting to change. There may be a multitude of reasons why, but I'd argue a lot of them not particuarly good ones.

At the risk of changing the subject slightly, I was recently involved in a Twitter discussion about the issue of head injuries, with my point being that I felt the sport had to take the issue seriously and consider making the sport safer. That view was met with a barrage of comments about wanting to "sanitise" or "soften" the sport, with the argument that "the fans watch this because they want to see biff and making it safer would make it less appealing". 

That may be the case for many but, at the same time, I want this sport to survive long into the future - not be be in a position where legal claims, massive insurance premiums and parents refusing to let their kids play make this sport unviable. If your idea of entertainment relies on knowingly subjecting young men to life-limiting brain injuries for (in the most part) sub-par financial reward and you steadfastly refuse to accept otherwise, then that's a pretty damaging and disturbing position. It's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing, but a lot of the fan base seem to want to pee in the opposite direction. 

You can apply the same logic to the commercial side of the sport. If this sport doesn't grow, the fear is that it loses relevance in the public conscience, it becomes financially weaker and, as a result, the product becomes poorer and from then on in, you're in a spiral of decline. If I just wanted to watch my RL as raw and as cheaply as possible, I'd go and watch Stanningley.

My worry is that there simply aren't enough of those people who "just want to crack on" to keep this sport viable and it saddens me to see that the suggested answer to problems like being unable to sell our Wembley or the CC semi finals is to downsize to a smaller venue or have double headers - rather than to make the events more attractive and marketable.

To me, this is all achievable stuff. As you know, I don't buy into the idea that our problem is rooted in geography but instead, I think the issue is rooted in a lack of vision and a criminal under-utilisation of many of the game's biggest assets. This doesn't have to be a particularly expensive problem to fix. 

Don't get me wrong - I don't think this is one of those "the world will end tomorrow  if we don't" sort of thing - more of a death by a thousand cuts sort of thing. This is another one where we can see which way the wind is blowing - towards digital, towards TV, towards a more experiental economy, and many in RL still seem to think we can pee in the other direction. 

Fair points, and when I say about the game remaining as it is I am talking about still trying to focus on filling Old Trafford, Wembley and Magic Weekend, and getting bigger crowds into Wigan, Leeds, Wire, Saints etc. I am not particularly referring to standing still as such, I am talking about being the best we can be within our existing framework. Now that is heavily frowned upon by some, and I'm not sure that is fair. 

I agree with the areas you talk about that we need to focus on, and I regularly make the point about consistently doing the small things right and investing in the core proposition, but if I;m being honest, as much as I get excited about shiny things like TWP if SL never expands into Canada, well tbh it is no great hardship, it wasn't the strategic imperative that many would have us believe. In fact it was never part of any strategy at all.

This conversation is probably getting muddled between growth and expansion, and I'm loathe to go too into an expansion vs non-expansion thread as we'll be here all day, but I expect my club Warrington to constantly be looking at how they can grow their business, I don't think anyone would argue against that, I think it is probably more about the comp evolving into something that it currently isn't. I think growth is possible without ripping up the blueprint. 

All of the things that you want the game to focus on can be done within the current framework, and the comp could look similar in 20 years, but with more money, better players, better sponsors, better coverage, more fans etc. Some people won't accept that as growth though because we don't have a team in North America. 

I am interested to see where SL goes in the next couple of years, the pandemic has stopped Elstone in his tracks, but there were some positive signs at least around brand and packaging, I do fear we will go in our shell, but my hope is that all the work on sustainability which has been the buzzword for the last decade has set us up to survive and we come out of this with a new outlook and be bold.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

To be honest, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the NCAA. 

You might find this a decent watch 

 

Deadspin, when it was still Deadspin, had a tag for stories with "DEATH TO THE NCAA".

They are a disgusting bunch.

[Pie tries]

On 11/01/2021 at 11:39, gingerjon said:

In the professional era (since 1996) there have been top tier union teams in Leeds, Orrell, West Hartlepool and Doncaster. Mucking around in the division below (so still presumably semi professional) there's been Otley, Manchester and a few others (Darlington?) that I've probably forgotten.

I think you'd struggle to find any part of England where you're not within easy reach of a rugby union team to watch or play for. And that includes everywhere where rugby league is played.

Erm....but at pro level - especially now professionalism has fully embedded the RU heartlands are clear...

[RS50]

I obviously don't know what BT would be like if they took over rugby league from Sky, but if they can keep the camera pointing at the game, while the ball is in play, would be a great improvement.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, RS50 said:

I obviously don't know what BT would be like if they took over rugby league from Sky, but if they can keep the camera pointing at the game, while the ball is in play, would be a great improvement.

If they replicated the Union coverage we would be in for a great boost 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

On 12/01/2021 at 09:31, Damien said:

Rugby League would love to have the kind of presence, even in much of the North, that RU has in our RL towns and cities that host our biggest clubs like Leeds and Wigan.

We're a professional game - a strength and a weakness 

Strength- it's a greater spectacle to watch

Strength - Union is like cricket.... Old fogies like me still play into thier forties/fifties and can help build the local club. 

I'm a southern Hemel lad who played league first and foremost. In my mid forties I play cricket and union and help both my clubs with time/effort

I posit that middle aged/older blokes keep rugby/cricket clubs going. The older they can still play the longer thier loyalty / contribution will last

Maybe club league is more like club soccer.... That's why both have less community clubs / bars / outreach? 

#middleagedmen

 

[AB90]

On 12/01/2021 at 11:18, Dave T said:

Fair points, and when I say about the game remaining as it is I am talking about still trying to focus on filling Old Trafford, Wembley and Magic Weekend, and getting bigger crowds into Wigan, Leeds, Wire, Saints etc. I am not particularly referring to standing still as such, I am talking about being the best we can be within our existing framework. Now that is heavily frowned upon by some, and I'm not sure that is fair. 

I agree with the areas you talk about that we need to focus on, and I regularly make the point about consistently doing the small things right and investing in the core proposition, but if I;m being honest, as much as I get excited about shiny things like TWP if SL never expands into Canada, well tbh it is no great hardship, it wasn't the strategic imperative that many would have us believe. In fact it was never part of any strategy at all.

This conversation is probably getting muddled between growth and expansion, and I'm loathe to go too into an expansion vs non-expansion thread as we'll be here all day, but I expect my club Warrington to constantly be looking at how they can grow their business, I don't think anyone would argue against that, I think it is probably more about the comp evolving into something that it currently isn't. I think growth is possible without ripping up the blueprint. 

All of the things that you want the game to focus on can be done within the current framework, and the comp could look similar in 20 years, but with more money, better players, better sponsors, better coverage, more fans etc. Some people won't accept that as growth though because we don't have a team in North America. 

I am interested to see where SL goes in the next couple of years, the pandemic has stopped Elstone in his tracks, but there were some positive signs at least around brand and packaging, I do fear we will go in our shell, but my hope is that all the work on sustainability which has been the buzzword for the last decade has set us up to survive and we come out of this with a new outlook and be bold.

Agree with this especially the point about people thinking that the only way a sport can achieve growth is through expansion. They are two separate points.

The NRL is a good example as it has 'grown' sustaintially in all aspects over the past 15 years yet it hasn't physically expanded during that time. It's just grown everything it already had aiming to dominate within it's natural heartlands being NSW and QLD.

I do tend to think like you in a sense of, what's wrong with trying to become the second largest sport in the north of England. Focus on Newcastle, York and revitalising Bradford etc then physically expand to new territories.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, AB90 said:

Agree with this especially the point about people thinking that the only way a sport can achieve growth is through expansion. They are two separate points.

The NRL is a good example as it has 'grown' sustaintially in all aspects over the past 15 years yet it hasn't physically expanded during that time. It's just grown everything it already had aiming to dominate within it's natural heartlands being NSW and QLD.

I do tend to think like you in a sense of, what's wrong with trying to become the second largest sport in the north of England. Focus on Newcastle, York and revitalising Bradford etc then physically expand to new territories.

I'm not particularly in the camp of only strengthening the heartlands, I'm an expansionist, but I think this discussion has become so polarised it is damaging the game. There is little pragmatism and middle ground, you are either 100% expansion at all costs with no exceptions, or you are a flat capper. I think that is wrong. 

We all have a different view of how to grow RL, I think being a bit more open to other people's views on this would help. Somebody can be an expansionist but not believe in spending £2m a year in Canada. Similarly, its possible to want to invest in France without trashing the existing game in doing that. 

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

We're a professional game - a strength and a weakness 

Strength- it's a greater spectacle to watch

Strength - Union is like cricket.... Old fogies like me still play into thier forties/fifties and can help build the local club. 

I'm a southern Hemel lad who played league first and foremost. In my mid forties I play cricket and union and help both my clubs with time/effort

I posit that middle aged/older blokes keep rugby/cricket clubs going. The older they can still play the longer thier loyalty / contribution will last

Maybe club league is more like club soccer.... That's why both have less community clubs / bars / outreach? 

#middleagedmen

 

Often it is the less glamorous or the small points that are overlooked that can often have the most profound significance.

There is much talk on these pages about the RFL  maintaining and strengthening the heartlands, undoubtedly essential. However had League had developed the culture that you describe in union or cricket i.e. of volunteering and engagement by ex-players and fans beyond their playing days, the maintenance of those heartlands could be largely taken care of.

This would mean the RFL would not be continually having to `backtrack` to shore up these areas. They then could then be spending their valuable time and resources in the Newcastles, Yorks, Londons etc .where that human infrastructure wouldn`t exist yet, where people may have to be paid to do the all the little things that grow and maintain  a club.

How do we change that culture Bedford, what is different about union and cricket where blokes are still hanging around the club in their 50`s, the time of life when often men are a little more bit financially secure, are looking for something to get passionate about again, and still have a lot to offer in some many different fields.

Is it just because those games are a little easier to play as you get older, that`s a hard one to counter given the physicality of League, or is it just a culture that could be changed if the mentality was changed. The RFL may find it more productive to run `Get involved with your club` campaigns' certainly in the long run. With your experiences what do you think could be changed.

I don`t think the point you make can be underestimated.

 

 

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, AB90 said:

I do tend to think like you in a sense of, what's wrong with trying to become the second largest sport in the north of England. Focus on Newcastle, York and revitalising Bradford etc then physically expand to new territories.

There's a lot wrong with it but two of the key issues are that the North of England (especially the areas RL is prominent in) is neither culturally dominant nor isolated - making "second sport in the North of England" an impossibility.

[DC77]

On 10/01/2021 at 20:44, Rupert Prince said:

Do not let people pretend that the top RU professional game is national. It central and western. The best you can say about London is its western London.

We, the north, broke away from the RFU... and then in the next breath people moan that we are northern game!!

If it was just England that played RU then you’d be right (a southern England game), but having the other three home nations gives it that broader image. When I was at Liverpool University I recall a Six Nations game being shown in the students union (the only oval ball coverage I ever saw in there). Take out Wales, Scotland and Ireland it would just be seen as a “toffs game down south”, but with them it has status throughout England. 

[Rupert Prince]

11 hours ago, DC77 said:

If it was just England that played RU then you’d be right (a southern England game), but having the other three home nations gives it that broader image. When I was at Liverpool University I recall a Six Nations game being shown in the students union (the only oval ball coverage I ever saw in there). Take out Wales, Scotland and Ireland it would just be seen as a “toffs game down south”, but with them it has status throughout England. 

This is true.  RU is a game covering the whole country.  And we ... many northern clubs ... broke away.  Thats why we are a predominantly northern game.  There is no point moaning about that.

On top of that we were able to stand on our laurels for decades by simply 'poaching' Welsh players to fill on our ranks.  This is one way that our game sustained 30 clubs with a reasonably level playing field.  Not that our level of professionalism was much more than theirs, but it was enough.

Now both codes are professional.  We are something of an enclave, but for all of that, in England we find the RU game mainly in the Midlands and West, a M69/M5 corridor if you like.  So I repeat, it's odious for people to moan about the 'M62'.

(PS. I am not sure the RU game is brilliant in Wales or Scotland.  It remains parochial, but it is underpinned by the 6 Nations and international club fixtures)

[unapologetic pedant]

On 16/01/2021 at 22:35, The Rocket said:

Is it just because those games are a little easier to play as you get older, that`s a hard one to counter given the physicality of League, or is it just a culture that could be changed if the mentality was changed. The RFL may find it more productive to run `Get involved with your club` campaigns' certainly in the long run. With your experiences what do you think could be changed.

I don`t think the point you make can be underestimated.

The vast majority of volunteers at a club have a family member who plays for that club, mostly in the junior grades.. For all the reasons we`ve gone through on the Tag/Touch thread, clubs who limit their offer to Tackle are also limiting the number of potential coaches, managers, fundraisers, canteen operators, renovators of clubhouses, etc, etc. The more teams run by a club, the more familial off-field helpers and enablers.

Masters has re-engaged some older blokes, but it probably only appeals to those who played Tackle as an adult. If the NSWRL establish over-35s League Tag across more districts, it could encourage a much wider range of people to get involved.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

On 16/01/2021 at 22:35, The Rocket said:

 

How do we change that culture Bedford, what is different about union and cricket where blokes are still hanging around the club in their 50`s, the time of life when often men are a little more bit financially secure, are looking for something to get passionate about again, and still have a lot to offer in some many different fields.

They are easier games to play is the answer. Plenty of us are fat/unfit and can still roll out for 4th team union/cricket 

Even playing touch league in training kills me. The thought of adding dozens of dragging myself off the grounds each game? Fills me with horror

Maybe 20 mins a side would be good though 

[HawkMan]

Being an old fogey myself I'm interested in this new thing Walking Football for over 50's. I don't know if walking RL would work.