Another Restructure?

[whatmichaelsays]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Just admit it , you don't know 

Just like the rest of us , none of us have the answer , not you , certainly not me , not Ralph , not Robert , not Mr Vlandys , not some marketing consultancy that will charge a fortune to come to the same conclusion as you and me 

We are discussing one of life's huge conundrums , how to grow RL 

You're twisting what I'm saying to make this same circular argument. I've stated what steps I would take to set about addressing some of RLs challenges - on this thread and others. If you want to ignore or dismiss those then that is your prerogative, but it doesn't mean that I don't know how I would go about things. If you want to tell me why the steps I've suggested wouldn't work, given your experiences, I'm all ears. But I'm confident in my own experiences. 

You yourself have said that you're a fan of P&R so, if a club has to rely on handicapping the competition to remain competitive, then removing those handicaps gives them a stark choice - invest in growth or in all likelihood, get relegated. I don't think it's right that the players at one club should be forced to pay for the poor commercial performance of another club. 

[GUBRATS]

41 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 

What is it about the concept of the sport trying address its challenges by researching, understanding and finding new audiences do you find so unreasonable / unrealistic? What's your alternative?

 

What makes you think the clubs aren't trying to address the challenges facing them and the sport ?

What exactly do you want them to do ?

[GUBRATS]

34 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

You're twisting what I'm saying to make this same circular argument. I've stated what steps I would take to set about addressing some of RLs challenges - on this thread and others. If you want to ignore or dismiss those then that is your prerogative, but it doesn't mean that I don't know how I would go about things. If you want to tell me why the steps I've suggested wouldn't work, given your experiences, I'm all ears. But I'm confident in my own experiences. 

You yourself have said that you're a fan of P&R so, if a club has to rely on handicapping the competition to remain competitive, then removing those handicaps gives them a stark choice - invest in growth or in all likelihood, get relegated. I don't think it's right that the players at one club should be forced to pay for the poor commercial performance of another club. 

So it's a licenced SL you want ?

That's fair enough , set out who you want and why ?

And what do you want the clubs left out to do ? 

[whatmichaelsays]

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So it's a licenced SL you want ?

That's fair enough , set out who you want and why ?

And what do you want the clubs left out to do ? 

Not necessarily. As much as I might think there are merits to one, there's nothing in my posts in this thread that suggest I want a licensed SL or to kick out / replace particular teams - I don't understand the thought process you've gone through to conclude that. 

The original post you responded to was me replying to and disagreeing with a suggestion that the league should level down to one that Wakefield could afford to compete with. Given that Wakefield is the only club out of 11 that finished SL last year who either haven't won, or got within 80 mins of winning, any silverware in the last eight years, and given that the man running that club has a well documented and public record of treating his players pretty abysmally, maybe - just maybe - the problem is one for then to solve and not the rest of the league? 

[sweaty craiq]

5 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Where from?  Ask the clubs that refused the investment income.  Without new income there is nothing to underpin the expansion of the game.

Of course investment can be frittered away.  And thats whats happened to 4 years worth of TV money that went to non SL clubs.

The PE offer was a joke - only made sense to those walking to death row. Leigh voted against, purely in the short term interests of Leigh that was a stupid decision - but the right one for the sport.

The figure needed to be about £150m to make any sense

 

[WakefieldCityLoyal]

18 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Not necessarily. As much as I might think there are merits to one, there's nothing in my posts in this thread that suggest I want a licensed SL or to kick out / replace particular teams - I don't understand the thought process you've gone through to conclude that. 

The original post you responded to was me replying to and disagreeing with a suggestion that the league should level down to one that Wakefield could afford to compete with. Given that Wakefield is the only club out of 11 that finished SL last year who either haven't won, or got within 80 mins of winning, any silverware in the last eight years, and given that the man running that club has a well documented and public record of treating his players pretty abysmally, maybe - just maybe - the problem is one for then to solve and not the rest of the league? 

We’ve got the most settled and best squad we had in years, more players signing contract extensions than ever before in recent seasons.  Can’t be treated that abysmally.

Up the Trin 

Love this club 

Love this City 

 

[whatmichaelsays]

5 minutes ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

We’ve got the most settled and best squad we had in years, more players signing contract extensions than ever before in recent seasons.  Can’t be treated that abysmally.

Up the Trin 

Love this club 

Love this City 

 

That, or it's a depressed market for player movements. 

One of the last clubs to agree a COVID pay deal, players being stood down for refusing to wear GPS vests, players leaking stories to the press, players breaching COVID social distancing restrictions, owner calling out players for complaining that they need second jobs, mocking a player's union social media campaign and telling his squad to "grow a pair" whilst the head coach talks to the media about sacking players. Yep, seems really harmonious. 

[Oldbear]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

How do they ' " get their house in order " and if they don't , what do you suggest should happen to them , or who should replace them ?

This is a key point. If we really started getting tough on teams who don’t get their house in order then we would end up with a very small league because we don’t have automatic replacements. This is why going down the licensing route with minimum standards is so difficult since unless you set those standards really low you end up with most teams failing to meet those minimum standards, and if you do set them really low then why bother having them?

[Tommygilf]

35 minutes ago, Oldbear said:

This is a key point. If we really started getting tough on teams who don’t get their house in order then we would end up with a very small league because we don’t have automatic replacements. This is why going down the licensing route with minimum standards is so difficult since unless you set those standards really low you end up with most teams failing to meet those minimum standards, and if you do set them really low then why bother having them?

Whilst 15 years ago I'd have agreed with you, now that isn't strictly true - certainly on the facilities front where we have a group of about 4 or 5 championship clubs with all modern stadiums and even more with upgraded traditional grounds. I'm thinking York, Toulouse, Widnes, Newcastle, even Doncaster in League 1 and of course Leigh who have now come up to Super League.

It's no longer a case for several clubs of "we're just Wakey, KR or Cas without the £1.8million sky money" as it was in the past and arguably still is at the likes of Fev, Halifax etc., the Championship clubs are now objectively better on most off field metrics when their second division status is considered.

The minimum standards around crowds (which is of course entirely hypothetical) seems to be the only sticking point for some of those other options when compared with the weakest Super League clubs by "minimum standards". Given that for those clubs the crowds issue almost certainly is related to not being in the top flight I think they can be forgiven that.

[Tommygilf]

56 minutes ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

We’ve got the most settled and best squad we had in years, more players signing contract extensions than ever before in recent seasons.  Can’t be treated that abysmally.

Up the Trin 

Love this club 

Love this City 

 

Ever heard the phrase "beggars can't be choosers"? 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Not necessarily. As much as I might think there are merits to one, there's nothing in my posts in this thread that suggest I want a licensed SL or to kick out / replace particular teams - I don't understand the thought process you've gone through to conclude that. 

The original post you responded to was me replying to and disagreeing with a suggestion that the league should level down to one that Wakefield could afford to compete with. Given that Wakefield is the only club out of 11 that finished SL last year who either haven't won, or got within 80 mins of winning, any silverware in the last eight years, and given that the man running that club has a well documented and public record of treating his players pretty abysmally, maybe - just maybe - the problem is one for then to solve and not the rest of the league? 

So basically it's all Wakefield's fault , because they haven't managed to sneak a final and don't have a friendly council ?

So it's just the one club ?

[The Rocket]

4 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I take your points WMS and TommyG but I think there is some merit in Rockets idea.

Surely if Wakefield were in the top 3 or 4 clubs for a few years, vying for trophies, it might well increase their home town support.

The same could be said for every club surely?

Salford's support rose dramatically as they approached the GF.

Not claiming its the answer to all our problems but a truly competitive league, where the result of every game was unpredictable would I believe, whet people's appetites and increase home-town support. 

Thank you Irish that is what I meant but failed to say in my own bumbling way,  and realised it after I had got into bed, yes we are not talking about  a one off year here but where every year those teams are a chance and even do sometimes win the comp maybe two in a row. Whatever. 

When a team hasn`t won a comp for a while or win one for the first time, and we`ve seen a few times over here the last 20 years, it is amazing how all the old supporters come out of the woodwork and new supporters in those regions come on board, shops festooned with team colours, houses decorated, local media and businesses climbing on board, kids wanting to be like the most talented player in the team, and that doesn`t have to be a superstar worth millions.

Salford was the team I was thinking of as an example but wasn`t sure it was them, but I remembered all the hype about a low ranked team making the CC Final. Imagine if they won it then won it again. The big clubs might even benefit from the extra competitors and more competitive matches.

Anyway my point was and its pretty clear if you want to revitalise Rugby league in all those regions, with their Rugby League history and probably strong latent support, get them winning comps and being up the top every year. Worry about the rest of England after that, maybe just maybe this time if those clubs can regain some vigour expanding the game could be done properly.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Thank you Irish that is what I meant but failed to say in my own bumbling way,  and realised it after I had got into bed, yes we are not talking about  a one off year here but where every year those teams are a chance and even do sometimes win the comp maybe two in a row. Whatever. 

When a team hasn`t won a comp for a while or win one for the first time, and we`ve seen a few times over here the last 20 years, it is amazing how all the old supporters come out of the woodwork and new supporters in those regions come on board, shops festooned with team colours, houses decorated, local media and businesses climbing on board, kids wanting to be like the most talented player in the team, and that doesn`t have to be a superstar worth millions.

Salford was the team I was thinking of as an example but wasn`t sure it was them, but I remembered all the hype about a low ranked team making the CC Final. Imagine if they won it then won it again. The big clubs might even benefit from the extra competitors and more competitive matches.

Anyway my point was and its pretty clear if you want to revitalise Rugby league in all those regions, with their Rugby League history and probably strong latent support, get them winning comps and being up the top every year. Worry about the rest of England after that, maybe just maybe this time if those clubs can regain some vigour expanding the game could be done properly.

Said it all along , RL needs a ' Leicester City ' to give it some mainstream media attention , unfortunately the way we run our competition also makes that less likely , we saw a build up for several months as they hit the top and managed to stay there , Linekar stating he'd do MOTD in his undies , everybody in the country ' rooting ' for them ( for our Aussie friends who have a different meaning of that word , it means supporting them , hoping they can do it ) , all the non sport anchors/reporters mentioning it , the whole country talking about it 

But if say Salford or Wakey finished top , we know they'd still lose in the GF if they got there , and the usual suspect would win from 5th 

[Oldbear]

So realistically I only see two reasons why you would restructure the league. The first one is worrying, because it would be to protect the TV revenue for the current SL incumbents, which in itself implies the TV revenue is falling, with little expectation of any future increase. That is the road to long term decline, and a faster decline for those clubs left out of the plan. The other reason is you restructure to give the TV companies something they want to pay decent money for. That probably requires a level of radical change which clubs are only prepared to accept if they aren’t affected in any big way. Now I haven’t a clue what is going to make TV execs want to open their wallets, but I do suspect they want something that looks visually good on TV, and has most of the games outcomes not already decided before a ball is kicked. This latter point is very important because throughout the history of SL we still only have a handful of clubs who have actually won a grand final, and realistically again virtually none of us sees that changing for some time. It’s a little like Scottish football, where every season is virtually a two horse race from the outset.

[Oldbear]

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

But if say Salford or Wakey finished top , we know they'd still lose in the GF if they got there , and the usual suspect would win from 5th 

Which is the big problem, the existing format suits the usual suspects since it preserves their dominance. Don’t get me wrong, I like the Grand Final concept, but the reality is it reduces the likes of a smaller club winning through unless they are phenomenally lucky with things like injuries and suspensions. It works great in Aus because they have so many big clubs, but in the UK it favours the 4-5 clubs with the resources and long periods of dominance by a few teams doesn’t make for a vibrant competition. The game needs to find a way to make more clubs big enough to realistically challenge, not handicap the big boys, but that requires an increase in revenue, and I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

[The Rocket]

13 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Said it all along , RL needs a ' Leicester City ' to give it some mainstream media attention , unfortunately the way we run our competition also makes that less likely , we saw a build up for several months as they hit the top and managed to stay there , Linekar stating he'd do MOTD in his undies , everybody in the country ' rooting ' for them ( for our Aussie friends who have a different meaning of that word , it means supporting them , hoping they can do it ) , all the non sport anchors/reporters mentioning it , the whole country talking about it 

But if say Salford or Wakey finished top , we know they'd still lose in the GF if they got there , and the usual suspect would win from 5th 

I know what `rooting` means, both definitions, the American version you refer to and the quaint Aussie expression where you ask a bird " do you wanna root ?"

Mate you`ve got 8 potential Leicester Cities right there in front of you, maybe it`s time they got together and out voted the big 4 and tilted the playing field to themselves a little or a lot.

 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, The Rocket said:

I know what `rooting` means, both definitions, the American version you refer to and the quaint Aussie expression where you ask a bird " do you wanna root ?"

Mate you`ve got 8 potential Leicester Cities right there in front of you, maybe it`s time they got together and out voted the big 4 and tilted the playing field to themselves a little or a lot.

 

So what do you want them to vote for ?

[The Rocket]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So what do you want them to vote for ?

I don`t know mate, but whatever it would take for them to be able to start winning a few comps. Jeez Gubrats you of all people I thought would like the idea of a less wealthy club standing on the podium holding up the winners trophy for a couple of years, instead of the same tired old faces and jumpers. Who cares if it isn`t fair.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I don`t know mate, but whatever it would take for them to be able to start winning a few comps. Jeez Gubrats you of all people I thought would like the idea of a less wealthy club standing on the podium holding up the winners trophy for a couple of years, instead of the same tired old faces and jumpers. Who cares if it isn`t fair.

Yes I would , strictly speaking it's Leigh's ' turn ' to win the Challenge Cup this year as we win it every fifty years 21/71/21

But there isn't anything the other clubs can vote for that will change anything 

[zylya]

10 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

For starters, I'd stop obsessing about geographically-specific terms. The aim should not be to find "Mancunians" or "Liverpudlians" who might watch RL, but to instead find "audiences" that might be tempted to watch RL - be that in person, on TV or online. 

Decide the audience you want to reach and then cater the product to the audience. "Mancunians" or "Liverpudlians" aren't an audience segment in the same way that "millenials" aren't an audience segment- they share no common characteristics other than one very broad commonality and in turn, they're no different to "[Insert city of your choice]ians".   

You're essentially suggesting that Super League clubs spend more time thinking about their "customer persona" and I think you're right - I'd be surprised if many (or any) of the Super League clubs had a good idea who their target audience really is.

 

However, given that Rugby clubs are traditionally very rooted in their communities, it becomes very difficult to separate the geographically-specific part out of the club's offer. For example, I'm based in the South of England and right now, despite being someone who works in marketing (relevant only in as much as I like to think about marketing concepts such as these) and has a long involvement in RL, I can't think of a way that any of the Super League teams could attract me as a paying fan. I'm not even really that keen on London, which is the closest professional team to me.

 

What kind of things do you think would allow Super League clubs to expand their reach? And if it's not based on geography, but instead some other consumer characteristics - what do you imagine those characteristics would be?

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, zylya said:

You're essentially suggesting that Super League clubs spend more time thinking about their "customer persona" and I think you're right - I'd be surprised if many (or any) of the Super League clubs had a good idea who their target audience really is.

 

However, given that Rugby clubs are traditionally very rooted in their communities, it becomes very difficult to separate the geographically-specific part out of the club's offer. For example, I'm based in the South of England and right now, despite being someone who works in marketing (relevant only in as much as I like to think about marketing concepts such as these) and has a long involvement in RL, I can't think of a way that any of the Super League teams could attract me as a paying fan. I'm not even really that keen on London, which is the closest professional team to me.

 

What kind of things do you think would allow Super League clubs to expand their reach? And if it's not based on geography, but instead some other consumer characteristics - what do you imagine those characteristics would be?

I'm not sure how *any* rugby league team could tap into it - certainly without massively affecting their own fans and I'm not sure of the sustainability - but you do see certain clubs (St Pauli for example) essentially becoming totems for people who have no intention of going to see them play but will put money into the club via merchandise, memberships etc.

Either that, or we set up myrugbyleagueclub.com and get 20,000 people to put £100 each in and we buy Hunslet.

[whatmichaelsays]

8 hours ago, zylya said:

You're essentially suggesting that Super League clubs spend more time thinking about their "customer persona" and I think you're right - I'd be surprised if many (or any) of the Super League clubs had a good idea who their target audience really is.

However, given that Rugby clubs are traditionally very rooted in their communities, it becomes very difficult to separate the geographically-specific part out of the club's offer. For example, I'm based in the South of England and right now, despite being someone who works in marketing (relevant only in as much as I like to think about marketing concepts such as these) and has a long involvement in RL, I can't think of a way that any of the Super League teams could attract me as a paying fan. I'm not even really that keen on London, which is the closest professional team to me.

What kind of things do you think would allow Super League clubs to expand their reach? And if it's not based on geography, but instead some other consumer characteristics - what do you imagine those characteristics would be?

You say that the clubs are traditionally rooted in their communities, but have they adapted to how those communities have changed? 

RL communities now are very different to what they were even a relatively short time ago - they're much more diverse (by many different measures of diversity), and I'd argue that RL probably hasn't reflected that. 

Look at new housing developments in places like Wakefield and Huddersfield - most are now much more likely to advertise how close they are to the nearest motorway than they are the town centre. These places are commuter towns now - a large proportion of the people living there probably have a closer tie to other areas than the one they actually live in and to them, "localism" isn't really a thing. How do have our clubs adapted to that? 

How have our clubs responded to the other leisure activities that people can now do in an area? How have they adapted match experiences to ensure that, irrespective of the result, people enjoy themselves? Because that matters. If I'm trying to find something to amuse Junior with on Sunday afternoon, do I take him to something like the trampoline park or ski slope, which I know he loves, or do I take him to the rugby, which he might enjoy if the match is good but equally, might be bored stiff? Those are real considerations for people when they're looking to spend £20-£50 on a family day out and as a result "varience management" becomes a very real thing that clubs need to understand. 

Clubs complain about Thursday night attendances but in all honesty, are we saying that there aren't people within our local communities looking for a way to amuse themselves on Thursday nights? 

But this goes beyond simply trying to sell tickets. Remember that the clubs are also collectively responsible for "Brand Super League" as well as their own brands (as was their wish, let's not forget) and Brand Super League is how we engage with people outside of those communities. 

You say you're not fussed about watching the Broncos, but what about watching RL on TV? How about watching RL in the pub in London? What if Super League could do more to increase its TV viewership and increase demand for RL on TV? That might not sell tickets to the next match at Wakefield or sell a few extra pints at Headingley, but it does support the value of the TV deal - the sport's biggest source of revenue.

What if we could grow RL's online audience? What if Super League could build it's audience on social media, on YouTube and on its streaming platforms? Again, it might not be £20 being handed over at the turnstyles in Wigan or at Craven Park, but it gives us an audience that we might be able to sell to sponsors for slightly more than a car boot full of stuffed-crust pepperonis. 

Like you, I've moved out of RL-land in the past. What you appreciate when you do that is that RL makes it bloody hard for you to buy it when you're out of ear-shot of the M62 (and even more so if you move overseas). The online service is garbage, it's nigh-on impossible to follow your team or the game meaningfully and even the merchandising of most clubs isn't tempting enough for you to at least part with a few quid. How many RL fans does the game lose simply because it doesn't make it easy for people whose careers / family lives take them outside of the heartland to buy it? 

You might say that this all sounds difficult and it all sounds expensive, but I guarantee that it isn't anywhere near as expensive as, if the reports are accurate, plugging a £10m-a-year hole in broadcast revenue. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

29 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

You say that the clubs are traditionally rooted in their communities, but have they adapted to how those communities have changed? 

RL communities now are very different to what they were even a relatively short time ago - they're much more diverse (by many different measures of diversity), and I'd argue that RL probably hasn't reflected that. 

Look at new housing developments in places like Wakefield and Huddersfield - most are now much more likely to advertise how close they are to the nearest motorway than they are the town centre. These places are commuter towns now - a large proportion of the people living there probably have a closer tie to other areas than the one they actually live in and to them, "localism" isn't really a thing. How do have our clubs adapted to that? 

How have our clubs responded to the other leisure activities that people can now do in an area? How have they adapted match experiences to ensure that, irrespective of the result, people enjoy themselves? Because that matters. If I'm trying to find something to amuse Junior with on Sunday afternoon, do I take him to something like the trampoline park or ski slope, which I know he loves, or do I take him to the rugby, which he might enjoy if the match is good but equally, might be bored stiff? Those are real considerations for people when they're looking to spend £20-£50 on a family day out and as a result "varience management" becomes a very real thing that clubs need to understand. 

Clubs complain about Thursday night attendances but in all honesty, are we saying that there aren't people within our local communities looking for a way to amuse themselves on Thursday nights? 

But this goes beyond simply trying to sell tickets. Remember that the clubs are also collectively responsible for "Brand Super League" as well as their own brands (as was their wish, let's not forget) and Brand Super League is how we engage with people outside of those communities. 

You say you're not fussed about watching the Broncos, but what about watching RL on TV? How about watching RL in the pub in London? What if Super League could do more to increase its TV viewership and increase demand for RL on TV? That might not sell tickets to the next match at Wakefield or sell a few extra pints at Headingley, but it does support the value of the TV deal - the sport's biggest source of revenue.

What if we could grow RL's online audience? What if Super League could build it's audience on social media, on YouTube and on its streaming platforms? Again, it might not be £20 being handed over at the turnstyles in Wigan or at Craven Park, but it gives us an audience that we might be able to sell to sponsors for slightly more than a car boot full of stuffed-crust pepperonis. 

Like you, I've moved out of RL-land in the past. What you appreciate when you do that is that RL makes it bloody hard for you to buy it when you're out of ear-shot of the M62 (and even more so if you move overseas). The online service is garbage, it's nigh-on impossible to follow your team game meaningfully and even the merchandising of most clubs isn't tempting enough for you to at least part with a few quid. How many RL fans does the game lose simply because it doesn't make it easy for people outside of the heartland to buy it? 

You might say that this all sounds difficult and it all sounds expensive, but I guarantee that it isn't anywhere near as expensive as, if the reports are accurate, plugging a £10m-a-year hold in broadcast revenue. 

I’m glad you’ve mentioned how poor the online offering is and how difficult it is to track the progress of your favourite team or players through those means.

We’re very much stuck in the 1990’s in that regard in that we still seem to have a predominant model of people watching live/on tv and then hoping they’ll pick up a hard copy of match reports/news on a selected day, the rest of the online service seems an afterthought compared to other sports leagues.

Even if we could come up with the most brilliant marketing in the world to get people to tune into or even come to a rugby league event who normally wouldn’t, I think we’d struggle to retain them without a steady dripfeed of available news and highlights in between game rounds available online to deepen an attachment to players or teams.

We’re very much just catering to the older hardcore fan and that’s not a healthy situation.

[Smudger06]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

You say that the clubs are traditionally rooted in their communities, but have they adapted to how those communities have changed? 

RL communities now are very different to what they were even a relatively short time ago - they're much more diverse (by many different measures of diversity), and I'd argue that RL probably hasn't reflected that. 

Look at new housing developments in places like Wakefield and Huddersfield - most are now much more likely to advertise how close they are to the nearest motorway than they are the town centre. These places are commuter towns now - a large proportion of the people living there probably have a closer tie to other areas than the one they actually live in and to them, "localism" isn't really a thing. How do have our clubs adapted to that? 

How have our clubs responded to the other leisure activities that people can now do in an area? How have they adapted match experiences to ensure that, irrespective of the result, people enjoy themselves? Because that matters. If I'm trying to find something to amuse Junior with on Sunday afternoon, do I take him to something like the trampoline park or ski slope, which I know he loves, or do I take him to the rugby, which he might enjoy if the match is good but equally, might be bored stiff? Those are real considerations for people when they're looking to spend £20-£50 on a family day out and as a result "varience management" becomes a very real thing that clubs need to understand. 

Clubs complain about Thursday night attendances but in all honesty, are we saying that there aren't people within our local communities looking for a way to amuse themselves on Thursday nights? 

But this goes beyond simply trying to sell tickets. Remember that the clubs are also collectively responsible for "Brand Super League" as well as their own brands (as was their wish, let's not forget) and Brand Super League is how we engage with people outside of those communities. 

You say you're not fussed about watching the Broncos, but what about watching RL on TV? How about watching RL in the pub in London? What if Super League could do more to increase its TV viewership and increase demand for RL on TV? That might not sell tickets to the next match at Wakefield or sell a few extra pints at Headingley, but it does support the value of the TV deal - the sport's biggest source of revenue.

What if we could grow RL's online audience? What if Super League could build it's audience on social media, on YouTube and on its streaming platforms? Again, it might not be £20 being handed over at the turnstyles in Wigan or at Craven Park, but it gives us an audience that we might be able to sell to sponsors for slightly more than a car boot full of stuffed-crust pepperonis. 

Like you, I've moved out of RL-land in the past. What you appreciate when you do that is that RL makes it bloody hard for you to buy it when you're out of ear-shot of the M62 (and even more so if you move overseas). The online service is garbage, it's nigh-on impossible to follow your team or the game meaningfully and even the merchandising of most clubs isn't tempting enough for you to at least part with a few quid. How many RL fans does the game lose simply because it doesn't make it easy for people whose careers / family lives take them outside of the heartland to buy it? 

You might say that this all sounds difficult and it all sounds expensive, but I guarantee that it isn't anywhere near as expensive as, if the reports are accurate, plugging a £10m-a-year hole in broadcast revenue. 

You are bang on about the massive amount of New housing around RL communities, these newbies don't interact with their communities because they get home deliveries from Amazon or Uber Eats and they go to large Tesco / Asda Super markets, they ain't gonna hear Rugby chat down the pub or queuing at the fish & chip shop, but their kids will go the local school, so yo reach this new local customer they must redouble their efforts in schools, get to them through their kids. More important than ever. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

11 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Said it all along , RL needs a ' Leicester City ' to give it some mainstream media attention

Unfortunately, I don't think a RL equivalent of Leicester City would make any noticeable impact on mainstream media attention whatsoever. Castleford's and Salford's successful recent seasons didn't capture the imagination of the wider public or mainstream media. Domestic RL unfortunately just isn't relevant to the vast majority of the country. The same could arguably be said of domestic cricket and rugby union - how many people off the street could name last year's cricket and RU domestic winners? I'd hazard a guess and say not many. But I bet loads more could name Liverpool as having won the Premier League.

Conversely, if you switched the focus on to the England cricket and RU teams, then I expect far more people would have an awareness. Domestic RL would see the biggest knock-on effects in terms of increased media attention come from a far more extensive international calendar and a higher profile national team -  it's the only thing that is going to capture the imagination of the wider public IMO.

Changes to SL and other domestic competition structures might have some interest for those of us who already follow the sport. But in terms to trying to create a more attractive product for the wider public, it's akin to moving deckchairs on the Titanic.