Sky TV deal

[steve oates]

15 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

There is nothing wrong with us being regional...  what's wrong is we are not a vibrant regional game.  We need to put that right first.  We broke away.  That's why we are regional.  And our huge disadvantage is that we have a low international profile.

Is the low international profile because Australia and new Zealand aren't bothered about playing us? What can we do to make them?.

I do think that if London and Newcastle were in Superleague you could not call it regional any more?

 

[Big Picture]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

I do agree with the pitch markings, even watching some of the old games knocking around it looks much better with the nice logos and markings etc. I'm surprised we don't have the digital ones that are in the NRL yet. 

What I would say though is that I don't buy a new fan would be confused by the pitch markings. I don't think they consider them much at all. I like it for aesthetic reasons, but there are no numbers on a football pitch. 

Soccer fields might not have numbers, but they're always clearly marked one standard way, all of the time with no exceptions.  Ditto RU fields, NFL fields, NCAA gridiron fields, ice hockey rinks, NBA courts, NCAA basketball courts, handball courts, hockey fields, lacrosse fields, CFL fields, etc.  Such standard and invariant markings are the norm for major and minor sports alike.

In stark contrast to that British RL stands out with its haphazard mishmash of field markings which sometimes (as you can see for yourself in the example I've included) were barely even visible at all as an unprofessional, badly organized sport which has the cap-doffing mentality of having to make do.

 

[Exiled Wiganer]

I am a proponent of better branding, better pitch marking and I also think all of our SL clubs should jointly consider their kits, to see how much standardisation can be achieved. Anything that makes us look pro to the casual viewer ought to pay for itself. I would also agree with dropping Tez and Baz. I know I am biased, and he talks a lot of rubbish, but I think that Clarke, alongside Carney and Wells look and sound like they are vaguely professional whereas those 2 are classic Working Men’s Club acts. So, there are clearly cosmetic tweaks we can make, which would increase our chances with the floating voter. 

The next area that concerns me is scarcely populated modern grounds and dumps. I would be inclined never to show games at Trinity or Salford, as these factors set us back as a sport. If we only showed games at Wire, Hull, Leeds and Saints, we would present a more professional face to the world. I don’t know if the clubs with rubbish crowds/grounds would complain, but the way out is in their own hands. 

However, over arching this is the question which I had assumed was in Sky’s mind when it gave us a year to show what we can do - what is our strategy, what are our goals, what is our direction of travel? Expansion? Minimum standards? Is a cap making us competitive with the NRL an aim? What we have is the slow downward decline into obscurity, while our competitors (remember when u—— got hundreds to their big club games) go from strength to strength. What is Elstone, why is Super League? Because frankly if we are simply going to rely on the clubs pulling themselves ever upwards - as many do - then there really is no point in having anyone in positions of leadership. 

As for the international game, I have no doubt that the next World Cup over here, whenever it takes place, will be another triumph. Considering the lack of investment in the international game, our World Cups are a singular success. Our international game has never had remotely the range of talented teams, and profile across the South Pacific as it has currently. On that basis, I would argue that blaming the international game for SL’s shortcomings is ridiculous. 

[Hela Wigmen]

49 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Is the low international profile because Australia and new Zealand aren't bothered about playing us? What can we do to make them?.

I do think that if London and Newcastle were in Superleague you could not call it regional any more?

 

The low international profile is due to England not playing games at all. Let’s not blame others here. We haven’t played since 2018 and are staring at going into the World Cup having not played in three years. We bizarrely chose to resurrect the GB name a year out from a proposed Ashes series and two out from a World Cup. Granted, 2020 was rubbed out by Covid but it doesn’t make up for the GB debacle and our general arrogance around international rugby league, that sees us wanting to play an exhibition game against The Exiles, instead of playing a proper national team. 

[Hela Wigmen]

6 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I am a proponent of better branding, better pitch marking and I also think all of our SL clubs should jointly consider their kits, to see how much standardisation can be achieved. Anything that makes us look pro to the casual viewer ought to pay for itself. I would also agree with dropping Tez and Baz. I know I am biased, and he talks a lot of rubbish, but I think that Clarke, alongside Carney and Wells look and sound like they are vaguely professional whereas those 2 are classic Working Men’s Club acts. So, there are clearly cosmetic tweaks we can make, which would increase our chances with the floating voter. 

The next area that concerns me is scarcely populated modern grounds and dumps. I would be inclined never to show games at Trinity or Salford, as these factors set us back as a sport. If we only showed games at Wire, Hull, Leeds and Saints, we would present a more professional face to the world. I don’t know if the clubs with rubbish crowds/grounds would complain, but the way out is in their own hands. 

However, over arching this is the question which I had assumed was in Sky’s mind when it gave us a year to show what we can do - what is our strategy, what are our goals, what is our direction of travel? Expansion? Minimum standards? Is a cap making us competitive with the NRL an aim? What we have is the slow downward decline into obscurity, while our competitors (remember when u—— got hundreds to their big club games) go from strength to strength. What is Elstone, why is Super League? Because frankly if we are simply going to rely on the clubs pulling themselves ever upwards - as many do - then there really is no point in having anyone in positions of leadership. 

As for the international game, I have no doubt that the next World Cup over here, whenever it takes place, will be another triumph. Considering the lack of investment in the international game, our World Cups are a singular success. Our international game has never had remotely the range of talented teams, and profile across the Pacific as it currently. On that basis, I would argue that blaming the international game for SL’s shortcomings is ridiculous. 

There’s some good points here. 

[The Rocket]

16 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I think your earlier point about commentators and pundits underestimates their effect on the quality of the show RL is able to put on. Other sports do have some awful ones, but ours are uniquely awful. If you combined Sky`s commentators and pundits with NRL-standard visuals, would it really make much difference?

Now that Sky has given the RFL the greenlight to produce Championship games themselves, 'Clubs are free to arrange their own coverage..." as long as they meet minimum standards, I wonder whether this is an opportunity for the RFL to take them up on this offer, interview some budding wannabee `Sports Callers` and give them a run. 

Public youth radio does a similar thing over here and unearths new talent all the time. Of course you wouldn`t just throw anyone on air, they would have to be properly vetted, even put on initially with Sky`s designated caller so that they can co-call. But you never know what you might unearth, even better if you could unearth pairs that have an on-air chemistry.

A friend of my son`s wants to be a motor sports race caller, practices at home taping himself calling races, you never know what`s out there. Dare say it is the same over there. Got to be better than Baz and Ted by the sounds of it.

[whatmichaelsays]

The issue with the international game is that we seem to have too many parties pulling in different directions. 

• We have the NRL wanting to focus on the NRL and Origin because that's more commercially viable for them. 
• We have Super League clubs reluctant to reduce the league calendar, we well as being reluctant to release players for mid-season rep games. 
• England vs home nations games aren't competitive enough (generally) to have much commercial appeal. 
• We have players unions on both sides of the world pushing for reduced player workloads. 
• We have an England team that is split across two sides of the world, so mid-season travel is a particular issue for us no matter who or where England plays. 

I think as much as I would love to see the international game thrive, I don't think it's a basket where we can put too many eggs. Going back to the point about things that the Super League / the RFL can control - internationals isn't one of those things at this moment in time. 

I also note someone mentioned about how an England World Cup win would be a kick-start to the sport, but I'm personally not so sure. Let's say England does win the WC in November, it's likely 2-3 months before there is another professional RL game played in this country - that's a lot of time for people to forget. 

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The issue with the international game is that we seem to have too many parties pulling in different directions. 

• We have the NRL wanting to focus on the NRL and Origin because that's more commercially viable for them. 
• We have Super League clubs reluctant to reduce the league calendar, we well as being reluctant to release players for mid-season rep games. 
• England vs home nations games aren't competitive enough (generally) to have much commercial appeal. 
• We have players unions on both sides of the world pushing for reduced player workloads. 
• We have an England team that is split across two sides of the world, so mid-season travel is a particular issue for us no matter who or where England plays. 

I think as much as I would love to see the international game thrive, I don't think it's a basket where we can put too many eggs. Going back to the point about things that the Super League / the RFL can control - internationals isn't one of those things at this moment in time. 

I also note someone mentioned about how an England World Cup win would be a kick-start to the sport, but I'm personally not so sure. Let's say England does win the WC in November, it's likely 2-3 months before there is another professional RL game played in this country - that's a lot of time for people to forget. 

I actually think some of those points offer opportunities, particularly having our team split over the NRL and Super League. Having an England team play Wales, France, Ireland and Scotland, even Jamaica, in the regular season, perhaps in summer, made up of Northern Hemisphere based players makes a lot of sense.

1. It doesn't require the massive hassle of getting the NRL based players over, its entirely within the RFL sphere of influence. Call it a Super League Summer Series if they want.

2. It gives players for all of those nations a chance to play competitive and reasonably high profile internationals outside of a World Cup. Internationals have so much more profile and interest than club games and by leveraging the interest in England, the likes of Wales, France, Ireland and Scotland could benefit - especially if England deliberately played most games away from home or in non-heartland areas for at least the first few years. See it as a loss leader.

3. Connected with the other two hopefully it would mean less "stepping stoning" of the other home nations on the way to an England call up. You can play for Ireland or Wales every year, or indeed if you're a fringe England player you can stake your claim for England too without the automatic NRL selections getting in first.

4. Long term it could strengthen Super League as a competition. I'm not advocating a Union style ban on players playing outside England being picked for the national team, but a simple caveat that to play in these specific mid season games you need to be based in the Northern Hemisphere may over time sway a few players when considering Australia vs England caps. It may also break the correllation between NRL player and automatic England selection as others get a chance to demonstrate their abilities.

5. Perhaps most critically, it will help build the strength of the game in the Northern Hemisphere. One of the critical successes of the NRL has been its uptake in the Pacific, where Tonga, PNG and Fiji have all beaten at least one of Australia, New Zealand or England/GB and Samoa are strong too. If anything just to avoid being left behind the RFL need to be at least trying to emulate and support that growth in the Home Nations and France. Its still a travesty for example that England haven't played Scotland since the first and only test in the 2016 4 Nations.

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I agree with you in the sense that it's important not to throw the baby out with the bath water on a lot of this sort of thing. As much as I think a lot does need to change, I also recognise that there is a lot that RL does pretty well. 

I've linked to this before but I think it's an exagerated, if not entirely unfair, analogy for how RL is often sold in this country - a brilliant piece of content that's sold in a rather uninviting, slapdash and "cheap" way that makes the whole thing seem like it's not going to be particuarly good. 

TLDR: Shouting "TGG" at people whilst at the same time, handing out Groupon vouchers because you can't sell the ground out just doesn't add up - people won't believe that what you're selling is any good if you can't even sell it cheaply. The same principle applies when you're dressing the sport for TV. 

For me the question that nobody in the games seems to know the answer to (if indeed they're even asking) is what do we offer the punter who might be tempted to watch the sport (be that in person, on TV or online), but isn't interested in the "full fat" version. How does RL look in the multi-channel, YouTube and Instagram era where first impressions and instant gratification is key? In a world where there are more than 30+ versions of Coca Cola in your local supermarket, can the sport afford to only ever offer 'Original'? 

I think this is part of the point I was making when we discussed some of this last week. I don't see the big issue here being the 'product' in the old fashioned sense (the Rugby) - I think it is generally primed for these digital channels, and it sits in quite a nice place of being a full-fat version of a sport (gaining credibility) but fast enough to be able to dip in and out of. 

I think it is the 'product' in the more holistic sense that it is the packaging, the ancillary parts, the branding, the softer elements. 

On your last para - I wonder if this is a problem that is in our heads - is there a demand for RL Lite? The likes of Cricket and RU Lite versions of their sports really do offer something different - I'm not sure that is a big problem for RL. That's not to say I am against new formats, comps, 9's whatever - I'm just not sure we are solving a problem with that.

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Do we have a logo that is recognisable by the general public ? Most major sporting organisations have a logo that is recognised by people who might only have a passing interest in the sport.

With clubs being encouraged to rebrand maybe the whole comp needs to follow suit.

For 24 years we had the S logo - which was absolutely recognisable, that has been rebranded for 2020, and that logo is used pretty much everywhere. Surely you saw the logo as it was on screen at every game, and on all Sky RL branding?

I'm referring more to the comp rather than governing body, but could you (without any google help) imagine now what the logo is for the RU Prem? Or the Cricket Championship? 

I'm not saying the SL logo is great, but again, we need to be careful of asking them to do things they have actually done.

[Rupert Prince]

We should have had 3 tests but for Covid, so its totally irrational to criticize the RFL for lack of tests since the ill fated GB tour .

[Hela Wigmen]

2 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

We should have had 3 tests but for Covid, so its totally irrational to criticize the RFL for lack of tests since the ill fated GB tour .

It’s completely understandable, IMO, to criticise the RFL for the debacle of a GB tour a year out from a planned Ashes and two out from a home World Cup. 

[whatmichaelsays]

55 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this is part of the point I was making when we discussed some of this last week. I don't see the big issue here being the 'product' in the old fashioned sense (the Rugby) - I think it is generally primed for these digital channels, and it sits in quite a nice place of being a full-fat version of a sport (gaining credibility) but fast enough to be able to dip in and out of. 

I think it is the 'product' in the more holistic sense that it is the packaging, the ancillary parts, the branding, the softer elements. 

On your last para - I wonder if this is a problem that is in our heads - is there a demand for RL Lite? The likes of Cricket and RU Lite versions of their sports really do offer something different - I'm not sure that is a big problem for RL. That's not to say I am against new formats, comps, 9's whatever - I'm just not sure we are solving a problem with that.

I think it's understanding whether either the demand is there, or whether the demand can be created. Do you use short-form of faster versions of RL to fill a gap in the market, or do you use it as a gateway to the full version? 

I'm a bit more of the view that isn't as "fast paced" or InstaFaceTube-friendly as we might like to think it is. If you compare with T20 for instance, you're unlikely to be more than an over away from the next six / wicket - that's what the sport is engineered to do. In the darts world championship, the scoring format is deliberately designed to create quite dramatic swings in momentum (a player can very easily go from having three match darts, to having to throw for three more sets). 

In RL, it would be very easy to channel-flick onto a game and see a blow-out scoreline or a lot of "dead time". Yes, all sports have that, but the trend has most definately been for sports to try and minimise those moments as much as possible. Even rugby union has tried to do that and I think it's a slightly dated view to suggest that they need a short-form version to be as exciting as the "full fat" version of RL. We might think that in our little RL bubble, but does the guy flicking through the channels know it?

[Rupert Prince]

13 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s completely understandable, IMO, to criticise the RFL for the debacle of a GB tour a year out from a planned Ashes and two out from a home World Cup. 

But we had several test matches in the GB tour.  They were English (qualified) players.  It's not RLFs fault that 3 games against Australia were cancelled.   They would have given a boost to our game, and experience for our players.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think it's understanding whether either the demand is there, or whether the demand can be created. Do you use short-form of faster versions of RL to fill a gap in the market, or do you use it as a gateway to the full version? 

I'm a bit more of the view that isn't as "fast paced" or InstaFaceTube-friendly as we might like to think it is. If you compare with T20 for instance, you're unlikely to be more than an over away from the next six / wicket - that's what the sport is engineered to do. In the darts world championship, the scoring format is deliberately designed to create quite dramatic swings in momentum (a player can very easily go from having three match darts, to having to throw for three more sets). 

In RL, it would be very easy to channel-flick onto a game and see a blow-out scoreline or a lot of "dead time". Yes, all sports have that, but the trend has most definately been for sports to try and minimise those moments as much as possible. Even rugby union has tried to do that and I think it's a slightly dated view to suggest that they need a short-form version to be as exciting as the "full fat" version of RL. We might think that in our little RL bubble, but does the guy flicking through the channels know it?

I understand all that, but I think many of the examples of newer formats of games are fixing quite major things in sports.

Cricket had an issue of being a sport that took a whole day (or 5) and wasn't that inviting for families - T20 allowed it to cater to a different market.

RU has a sport that often battles with an issue around being a kickathon, forward battle that struggles with tries - they created a mini version to be all about entertainment rather than a game for purists. 

I'm not really sure of your point on darts, RL also has a scoring structure that encourages a certain kind of game (a very exciting one imho). 

RL doesn't have the issues that the likes of Cricket and RU were addressing. It has constantly evolved and made changes to be an attractive and entertaining sport - when talking about darts scoring, we have purposely moved away from RU scoring structure = DG's at 1 point, penalties at 2 etc. 

I do think there are some opportunities around 9's, but I think it is for a slightly different aim, imho it can be used for international development a bit more, rather than something that is going to modernise RL for a new audience. 

But tbh, we just aren't going to agree on this overall principle, and that's fine, however I do find these criticisms completely ignore things like dead time in other sports but see them as issues for RL. If there is a market for sports like Football, RU and Cricket with their low energy moments I don't think we should focus on that as a main issue.

[Hela Wigmen]

12 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

But we had several test matches in the GB tour.  They were English (qualified) players.  It's not RLFs fault that 3 games against Australia were cancelled.   They would have given a boost to our game, and experience for our players.

We could have had several as England, building that brand up leading into two years of (planned) “home” games in the Ashes and the World Cup. It was a strange time to resurrect it and still an unexplained one. No one is blaming the postponements on The RFL, it was impossible to play those games but it was a poorly timed and executed GB tour. 

[Eddie]

I love the history of RL, but one of the problems is that there’s never an opportunity missed to go on about how it’s a working class game played by miners and mill workers, set in smog and poverty. Yes it was, and the break away from Union was brilliant, but it’s now the 21st Century and if we want the game to grow we need to move on from that (but not forget it). Even the start of We Play League was a predictable statement about that, not about what an exciting game it is or anything else. It’s just not going to appeal to people from elsewhere. No wonder our sponsors are Cash Converters and Dacia instead of Sainsburys and BMW.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I understand all that, but I think many of the examples of newer formats of games are fixing quite major things in sports.

Cricket had an issue of being a sport that took a whole day (or 5) and wasn't that inviting for families - T20 allowed it to cater to a different market.

RU has a sport that often battles with an issue around being a kickathon, forward battle that struggles with tries - they created a mini version to be all about entertainment rather than a game for purists. 

I'm not really sure of your point on darts, RL also has a scoring structure that encourages a certain kind of game (a very exciting one imho). 

RL doesn't have the issues that the likes of Cricket and RU were addressing. It has constantly evolved and made changes to be an attractive and entertaining sport - when talking about darts scoring, we have purposely moved away from RU scoring structure = DG's at 1 point, penalties at 2 etc. 

I do think there are some opportunities around 9's, but I think it is for a slightly different aim, imho it can be used for international development a bit more, rather than something that is going to modernise RL for a new audience. 

But tbh, we just aren't going to agree on this overall principle, and that's fine, however I do find these criticisms completely ignore things like dead time in other sports but see them as issues for RL. If there is a market for sports like Football, RU and Cricket with their low energy moments I don't think we should focus on that as a main issue.

Tend to agree with this - we have a good product, in principle. In fact the NRL and sometimes SL proves the formula for the game works and is incredible at times.

More specifically with SL however we've known for a long time blow out scores do not entertain anybody - not even the fans of the winning team, dare I say. How do we stop casual fans tuning in on a Thursday night to watch Cas put 40 unanswered points on an understrength Hull KR side? We as dedicated fans will know why that happened (injuries, 4 day turnaround, resting players for CC etc) but those games get aired far too often for me.

So, along with the other more cosmetic things I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is my take on what we need to address quickly in the actual games. Minimum 5 days between games and ending loop fixtures would help with some of the above. 

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Now that Sky has given the RFL the greenlight to produce Championship games themselves, 'Clubs are free to arrange their own coverage..." as long as they meet minimum standards, I wonder whether this is an opportunity for the RFL to take them up on this offer, interview some budding wannabee `Sports Callers` and give them a run. 

Never understood why broadcasters think that a good pundit will have played the game at a high level. They`re hardly the same jobs. It applies to all sports, but is a particular problem for RL. Because of the social and educational backgrounds of most of our players an obscurantist, anti-intellectual ethos dominates. They`re content to take pride in the "simple game" "run hard, tackle hard" "keep turning up for each other" platitudes.

Former or current coaches generally make better pundits than those who have only played. Going into coaching, leaving the player group culture behind, compels and enables them to think more. And allied to the truth about punditry, good coaches do not need to have excelled as players.

Sky should scour amateur, women`s and student RL for their pundits. Too much emphasis on ex-SL players will sadly not produce articulate, incisive commentaries and analysis.

[Hela Wigmen]

9 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Tend to agree with this - we have a good product, in principle. In fact the NRL and sometimes SL proves the formula for the game works and is incredible at times.

More specifically with SL however we've known for a long time blow out scores do not entertain anybody - not even the fans of the winning team, dare I say. How do we stop casual fans tuning in on a Thursday night to watch Cas put 40 unanswered points on an understrength Hull KR side? We as dedicated fans will know why that happened (injuries, 4 day turnaround, resting players for CC etc) but those games get aired far too often for me.

So, along with the other more cosmetic things I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is my take on what we need to address quickly in the actual games. Minimum 5 days between games and ending loop fixtures would help with some of the above. 

I’m not disagreeing with you at all but we’ve seen clubs say they need a minimum of 13 games to break even (I believe that was the figure) thus why we’ve ended up with loop fixtures. The “easy” alternative seems to be expanding the league to accommodate more clubs to reduce those loop games but as I’ve always questioned, does that address the issue (the big scores, crowds, entertainment value etc) or is it merely a pretty poor alternative? And would enough of them accept the “well, you need to work on your alternative income streams” (or along those lines) as the alternative, if we cut, say, two home games?

[Eddie]

21 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Tend to agree with this - we have a good product, in principle. In fact the NRL and sometimes SL proves the formula for the game works and is incredible at times.

More specifically with SL however we've known for a long time blow out scores do not entertain anybody - not even the fans of the winning team, dare I say. How do we stop casual fans tuning in on a Thursday night to watch Cas put 40 unanswered points on an understrength Hull KR side? We as dedicated fans will know why that happened (injuries, 4 day turnaround, resting players for CC etc) but those games get aired far too often for me.

So, along with the other more cosmetic things I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is my take on what we need to address quickly in the actual games. Minimum 5 days between games and ending loop fixtures would help with some of the above. 

I agree that blow out games are dull as dishwater but you get them in all sports, there’s nowt that can be done about it. I don’t think the format of RL needs to be changed to make it more entertaining personally, it’s great as it is. 

[whatmichaelsays]

12 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I’m not disagreeing with you at all but we’ve seen clubs say they need a minimum of 13 games to break even (I believe that was the figure) thus why we’ve ended up with loop fixtures. The “easy” alternative seems to be expanding the league to accommodate more clubs to reduce those loop games but as I’ve always questioned, does that address the issue (the big scores, crowds, entertainment value etc) or is it merely a pretty poor alternative? And would enough of them accept the “well, you need to work on your alternative income streams” (or along those lines) as the alternative, if we cut, say, two home games?

For me, the whole issue with loop fixtures is that it comes from a zero-growth mindset, where the sport isn't thinking about developing the sort of offering that the punters who might buy it want to buy, nor is it thinking about the longer-term. 

We know that loop fixtures aren't popular with the fan base. We've had comments of "fixture fatigue" in the past and it's one of the most often-discussed issues on forums like this. But we have them because the clubs feel that they need to pad-out the season ticket with stuff that people don't necessarily want. For me, loop fixtures are like those channels that only show repeats of four-year-old episodes of Traffic Cops that are bundled into your Sky Sports package in order to make it look like there is some added value there. You don't watch them, you don't want to pay for them, but you're basically stuck with them. That's why 'unbundled' services like Netflix and NowTV are becoming more popular. 

You might look at average attendances and think "well fans do like loop fixtures because they're attending", but how much of that attendance is through inertia and compulsion?  At some point, generations of fans aren't going to have that inertia of buying season tickets and they won't have that compulsion of turning up to games they don't care for. 

That's the point where loop fixtures are actively damaging the product over the long term because of instead of actually trying to add value to the ticket to make it more valuable and more in demand, they're relying on propping up that value on an inertia that is eventually going to run out.

12 minutes ago, Eddie said:

 I don’t think the format of RL needs to be changed to make it more entertaining personally, it’s great as it is. 

The issue is that it's not you or I that needs to be sold to. We're already bought in. 

[Oldbear]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

I love the history of RL, but one of the problems is that there’s never an opportunity missed to go on about how it’s a working class game played by miners and mill workers, set in smog and poverty. Yes it was, and the break away from Union was brilliant, but it’s now the 21st Century and if we want the game to grow we need to move on from that (but not forget it). Even the start of We Play League was a predictable statement about that, not about what an exciting game it is or anything else. It’s just not going to appeal to people from elsewhere. No wonder our sponsors are Cash Converters and Dacia instead of Sainsburys and BMW.

Now remember I have not lived in the UK for 12 years, but when I did I would watch the televised Challenge Cup games on the BBC. It always seemed then that the cameras would focus, pre game on a nearby (often derelict), mill, or the local pit head, depending upon where the game was coming from. That was the image being put out to a national audience, I’m not sure if that has changed much, if not then the old stereotype is still being reinforced. Our focus needs to be on the game, it’s exciting, players are fit and talented and it’s great to see, both live and on TV. Never forget your past, but don’t let it frame your future.

[Eddie]

17 minutes ago, Oldbear said:

Now remember I have not lived in the UK for 12 years, but when I did I would watch the televised Challenge Cup games on the BBC. It always seemed then that the cameras would focus, pre game on a nearby (often derelict), mill, or the local pit head, depending upon where the game was coming from. That was the image being put out to a national audience, I’m not sure if that has changed much, if not then the old stereotype is still being reinforced. Our focus needs to be on the game, it’s exciting, players are fit and talented and it’s great to see, both live and on TV. Never forget your past, but don’t let it frame your future.

It’s very much the image still given off now sadly. RL players must be the all round fittest team sport players out there, but it’s never mentioned. 

[RobertAM]

I've been in Canada since i was a teenager and now in my mid 60's but as I always tell people my head may be in Canada but my heart is in (the north of) England. Moral of the story - never forget your roots but adapt and adopt to your current surroundings. Rugby League needs to do the same..we may have the best game on earth with the fittest and most skilled athletes and I believe we do but if we don't sell this aspect on to the new generations in new surroundings it will wither and die. What this has to do with a new TV deal thats for you local consumers to decide..I'm just missing seeing it live over here.