Another Restructure?

[sweaty craiq]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Tbf I did say I was being positive, I actually think PE came down to plugging the gap a drop in Sky funding was likely to mean

at a hugely inflated cost that allowed them to control the game and get their money back in a few years even if they failed.

We know the introducers fee, I can only imagine what the successful fee would have been £7/8/9/10m is my guess which puts a huge hole in what would have been paid

It amounts to clubs putting up short term investment of £4m, they could raise that themselves via the owners, fans or secured loans on the Sky funding without giving away control

RL is pennies to own clubs, surely we are not that skint each one couldnt raise £4/5m 

[fighting irish]

15 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s and interesting proposal, I’ll give you that. However, what happens in the case of a team doing the double and winning the league and cup? 

Give 'em the town hall clock.

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

And of the people who knew the sport existed most people would assume it was Leeds, Wigan or maybe Saints anyway.

People across the country don't tend to care about regional oddities. Why would someone in Newcastle or Bristol care about Leeds vs Castleford? England on the other hand, gives something to buy into.

Internationals, internationals, internationals.

The trouble is that the England RL team is underpinned by a league which is a regional oddity as you put it, is comprised mostly of players from that one region, plays almost all its matches in that one region and later this year (or next depending on COVID) will play in a tournament which will be primarily played in that one region.

How exactly do you think that will get those who don't tend to care about regional oddities to buy into it?

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Big Picture said:

The trouble is that the England RL team is underpinned by a league which is a regional oddity as you put it, is comprised mostly of players from that one region, plays almost all its matches in that one region and later this year (or next depending on COVID) will play in a tournament which will be primarily played in that one region.

How exactly do you think that will get those who don't tend to care about regional oddities to buy into it?

People buy into England. Doesn't matter what it is, but people watch and support England (and Wales, Scotland etc) in a way no club game can dream of. Even in football its a masse event.

Cricket is a village sport alien to the inner cities, RU is as foreign to most as RL is (for different reasons), yet they gain masses of exposure purely through their national team(s). Their club games are relatively small by comparison.

[Big Picture]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

People buy into England. Doesn't matter what it is, but people watch and support England (and Wales, Scotland etc) in a way no club game can dream of. Even in football its a masse event.

Cricket is a village sport alien to the inner cities, RU is as foreign to most as RL is (for different reasons), yet they gain masses of exposure purely through their national team(s). Their club games are relatively small by comparison.

I know that, but you're overlooking the fact that all other England teams play sports which have a national footprint and they primarily play in London with just some of their matches in other parts of England.  Neither of those apply to the RL England team, so it doesn't automatically follow that it will get the same buy-in.

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

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.

Obviously we have to look at the relative starting points , but as I put , our structure ( this is a structure debate ) doesn't lend itself to the way Leicester caught the non football watching populations imagination , we might have a less fashionable/smaller club finish top of our league , but that isn't THE prize , and as I put , one of the usual suspects then wins it from 5th 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Obviously we have to look at the relative starting points , but as I put , our structure ( this is a structure debate ) doesn't lend itself to the way Leicester caught the non football watching populations imagination , we might have a less fashionable/smaller club finish top of our league , but that isn't THE prize , and as I put , one of the usual suspects then wins it from 5th 

I don't think that it's an issue with structure at all I'm afraid. The Leicester story was building throughout the season - Lineker threatening to present in his underpants etc etc as you mention. The Castleford and Salford seasons gained zero mainstream interest prior to them reaching the Grand Final, regardless of the fact that they fell at the final hurdle. Unfortunately, domestic RL just has no relevance to the wider public in this country at present (much the same as domestic cricket and RU). 

One of the things that has struck me reading this thread, is that whilst this topic is about SL structure, it's impossible to deal with these things in isolation. Any structural solutions need to be a whole-game approach, from top to bottom and also factoring in the international game. Anything else is just a sticking plaster. There's no point SL restructuring their comp if it doesn't complement what is happening in the leagues below and at grassroots level. And it also needs to factor in sufficient opportunity to develop the international game, because this is ultimately the thing that is going to have the biggest impact in helping to grow SL IMO.

[steve oates]

18 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So what do you want them to vote for ?

If we are fed up with the same clubs winning the trophies then could they vote for the following:-

1. Remove the marquee player allowances. Make it a straight level salary cap.

2. Ring fence local talent for the local SL team. Do not allow the top SL clubs to take talent from lower clubs development.

This would be voting for a more even spread of talent, that could lead to a more even playing field, and maybe see more clubs win cups. I've only posted this to provide you with an answer to chew on? What do you think?   

 

 

[Tommygilf]

25 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

I know that, but you're overlooking the fact that all other England teams play sports which have a national footprint and they primarily play in London with just some of their matches in other parts of England.  Neither of those apply to the RL England team, so it doesn't automatically follow that it will get the same buy-in.

England have played to significant 5 figure crowds in Yorkshire, the North West, the West Midlands and London in the past 5 years and will seek to add the North East to that group with the World Cup this Autumn. Barring East Anglia, the East Midlands and the South West they've covered everywhere they can with general success (I'd argue the North West has been the only real disappointment), in spite of the obvious challenges.

Given as many people turned up in Bristol to watch the Cook Islands v the USA on a rainy Tuesday night than watched England v France in Leigh, I have no worries about England being the vehicle the game uses to spread the word outside the heartlands - certainly far more than any irrelevant "on the road" club game.

[Tommygilf]

19 minutes ago, steve oates said:

If we are fed up with the same clubs winning the trophies then could they vote for the following:-

1. Remove the marquee player allowances. Make it a straight level salary cap.

2. Ring fence local talent for the local SL team. Do not allow the top SL clubs to take talent from lower clubs development.

This would be voting for a more even spread of talent, that could lead to a more even playing field, and maybe see more clubs win cups. I've only posted this to provide you with an answer to chew on? What do you think?   

 

 

You've got to be joking?

[Tommygilf]

43 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Obviously we have to look at the relative starting points , but as I put , our structure ( this is a structure debate ) doesn't lend itself to the way Leicester caught the non football watching populations imagination , we might have a less fashionable/smaller club finish top of our league , but that isn't THE prize , and as I put , one of the usual suspects then wins it from 5th 

Which "unfashionable club" would it be that had it stolen away from them by a side in 5th? Warrington or Wigan?

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

57 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

I know that, but you're overlooking the fact that all other England teams play sports which have a national footprint and they primarily play in London with just some of their matches in other parts of England.  Neither of those apply to the RL England team, so it doesn't automatically follow that it will get the same buy-in.

I can only speak personally, but it was watching the national side that got me hooked on RL. I've since become a massive fan of the domestic game, despite living nowhere near a pro team. If it hadn't have been for watching the 1990s Ashes between GB and Australia on Grandstand, I'd never have then watched the Regal Trophy which was on telly after the test series finished. 31 years later and I'm still hooked on RL.

[Hela Wigmen]

19 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

England have played to significant 5 figure crowds in Yorkshire, the North West, the West Midlands and London in the past 5 years and will seek to add the North East to that group with the World Cup this Autumn. Barring East Anglia, the East Midlands and the South West they've covered everywhere they can with general success (I'd argue the North West has been the only real disappointment), in spite of the obvious challenges.

Given as many people turned up in Bristol to watch the Cook Islands v the USA on a rainy Tuesday night than watched England v France in Leigh, I have no worries about England being the vehicle the game uses to spread the word outside the heartlands - certainly far more than any irrelevant "on the road" club game.

While taking nothing away from the attendance at Bristol, The RFL has shown consistently since the 2013 RLWC that they have any plans on working with the marketing/advertising agency used then or any others. While the attendance for a World Cup game in an “alien” location was impressive, without some sort of ‘help’ in the form of an agency, I think The RFL wouldn’t bother advertising at all (they’ve been guilty of this before) and we’d get a poor crowd. 

 

[GUBRATS]

30 minutes ago, steve oates said:

If we are fed up with the same clubs winning the trophies then could they vote for the following:-

1. Remove the marquee player allowances. Make it a straight level salary cap.

2. Ring fence local talent for the local SL team. Do not allow the top SL clubs to take talent from lower clubs development.

This would be voting for a more even spread of talent, that could lead to a more even playing field, and maybe see more clubs win cups. I've only posted this to provide you with an answer to chew on? What do you think?   

 

 

Your second one isn't legal ?

[Moove]

19 minutes ago, steve oates said:

If we are fed up with the same clubs winning the trophies then could they vote for the following:-

1. Remove the marquee player allowances. Make it a straight level salary cap.

2. Ring fence local talent for the local SL team. Do not allow the top SL clubs to take talent from lower clubs development.

This would be voting for a more even spread of talent, that could lead to a more even playing field, and maybe see more clubs win cups. I've only posted this to provide you with an answer to chew on? What do you think?   

 

 

So if you're unfortunate enough to be born / living outside the catchment area of a SL club who's going to support their development and give them the chance to play at the top level?

Half the clubs being talked about here can't afford the basic cap as it is, never mind the dispensations. Some don't even have a half decent local talent pool to pull from in the first place, nor the finances or expertise to develop top players. Who's going to donate millions to Wakefield to allow them to build a top class development pathway to match Wigan, Saints, Leeds etc?

This is professional sport not the primary school sports day where you have to let the fat kid win something to avoid hurting his feelings.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

29 minutes ago, steve oates said:

If we are fed up with the same clubs winning the trophies then could they vote for the following:-

1. Remove the marquee player allowances. Make it a straight level salary cap.

2. Ring fence local talent for the local SL team. Do not allow the top SL clubs to take talent from lower clubs development.

This would be voting for a more even spread of talent, that could lead to a more even playing field, and maybe see more clubs win cups. I've only posted this to provide you with an answer to chew on? What do you think?   

I don't think the first point would make much difference to be honest. The marquee player rule is relatively recent and hasn't really changed the status quo. The second point may have more impact, but in the same breath, I expect most of the Wigan, Saints and Leeds academy players are probably from their local areas already.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

While taking nothing away from the attendance at Bristol, The RFL has shown consistently since the 2013 RLWC that they have any plans on working with the marketing/advertising agency used then or any others. While the attendance for a World Cup game in an “alien” location was impressive, without some sort of ‘help’ in the form of an agency, I think The RFL wouldn’t bother advertising at all (they’ve been guilty of this before) and we’d get a poor crowd. 

 

I agree tbf, but I feel you'll get far more returns on any investment for a game involving the national side.

That said my preferences would be for England to primarily play away from home, to build home interest in the other nations who don't have major RL events. You could be savvy with the 1 or 2 England home games in a 3 match summer series by playing it in close/accessible locations (Wales in Bristol, Scotland in Newcastle, France in London), though I don't think that is the be all and end all.

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

at a hugely inflated cost that allowed them to control the game and get their money back in a few years even if they failed.

We know the introducers fee, I can only imagine what the successful fee would have been £7/8/9/10m is my guess which puts a huge hole in what would have been paid

It amounts to clubs putting up short term investment of £4m, they could raise that themselves via the owners, fans or secured loans on the Sky funding without giving away control

RL is pennies to own clubs, surely we are not that skint each one couldnt raise £4/5m 

Absolutely

[Tommygilf]

21 minutes ago, Moove said:

So if you're unfortunate enough to be born / living outside the catchment area of a SL club who's going to support their development and give them the chance to play at the top level?

Half the clubs being talked about here can't afford the basic cap as it is, never mind the dispensations. Some don't even have a half decent local talent pool to pull from in the first place, nor the finances or expertise to develop top players. Who's going to donate millions to Wakefield to allow them to build a top class development pathway to match Wigan, Saints, Leeds etc?

This is professional sport not the primary school sports day where you have to let the fat kid win something to avoid hurting his feelings.

100% ^this^

[GUBRATS]

37 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I don't think that it's an issue with structure at all I'm afraid. The Leicester story was building throughout the season - Lineker threatening to present in his underpants etc etc as you mention. The Castleford and Salford seasons gained zero mainstream interest prior to them reaching the Grand Final, regardless of the fact that they fell at the final hurdle. Unfortunately, domestic RL just has no relevance to the wider public in this country at present (much the same as domestic cricket and RU). 

One of the things that has struck me reading this thread, is that whilst this topic is about SL structure, it's impossible to deal with these things in isolation. Any structural solutions need to be a whole-game approach, from top to bottom and also factoring in the international game. Anything else is just a sticking plaster. There's no point SL restructuring their comp if it doesn't complement what is happening in the leagues below and at grassroots level. And it also needs to factor in sufficient opportunity to develop the international game, because this is ultimately the thing that is going to have the biggest impact in helping to grow SL IMO.

Indeed , I have also pointed out that a whole sport solution is needed and International participation is a massive part of that 

But we have neither the money or the viable opposition for either , and while on this thread today we've seen loads of problems , nobody has put forward one single way of achieving a solution 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

35 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Indeed , I have also pointed out that a whole sport solution is needed and International participation is a massive part of that 

But we have neither the money or the viable opposition for either

So are you happy to accept for the sport to wither on the vine and die?

37 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

and while on this thread today we've seen loads of problems , nobody has put forward one single way of achieving a solution 

On the contrary - I've seen lots of people suggesting solutions on this thread, not least WhatMichaelSays in his discussions with yourself. It's just that those ideas don't fit with your preconceived idea of what a 'solution' actually is.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

So are you happy to accept for the sport to wither on the vine and die?

On the contrary - I've seen lots of people suggesting solutions on this thread, not least WhatMichaelSays in his discussions with yourself. It's just that those ideas don't fit with your preconceived idea of what a 'solution' actually is.

Not really no , all parts of the sport need to do their best to improve all aspects , and then redo , again and again , I've often suggested if you have an empty seat , you could have done better 

Solutions suggested yes , but no way of actually doing it , that is if ' it ' is actually real , because it's usually some obscure " RL needs to do this " announcement , but no breakdown of how to achieve ' it ' 

 

 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

15 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Solutions suggested yes , but no way of actually doing it , that is if ' it ' is actually real , because it's usually some obscure " RL needs to do this " announcement , but no breakdown of how to achieve ' it ' 

I think we must be interpreting some of these posts quite differently, as lots of the solutions presented are very achievable, with some clear detail as to how they can be achieved.

If, however, you mean whether these ideas can get traction and buy-in from the SL clubs, then I agree they may not be achievable. But that is a problem with the mentality of the SL clubs - not with the ideas themselves.

 

[GUBRATS]

54 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I think we must be interpreting some of these posts quite differently, as lots of the solutions presented are very achievable, with some clear detail as to how they can be achieved.

If, however, you mean whether these ideas can get traction and buy-in from the SL clubs, then I agree they may not be achievable. But that is a problem with the mentality of the SL clubs - not with the ideas themselves.

 

I think we must be , not much detail if any as far as I can see 

As for ' buy in ' , probably not , but as you say , you are primarily a RL fan , the owners of the clubs are club specific fans , their priority lies with their club , force them to do stuff to the detriment of their club and they'll pack it in , do you believe there are others to replace them who would be happy to see their club do less well as a result of their actions ? 

And indeed their fans ? 

[Oldbear]

40 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

As for ' buy in ' , probably not , but as you say , you are primarily a RL fan , the owners of the clubs are club specific fans , their priority lies with their club , force them to do stuff to the detriment of their club and they'll pack it in , do you believe there are others to replace them who would be happy to see their club do less well as a result of their actions ? 

This is the reality for every sport, even the owners of mighty NFL clubs do things because they can see the benefit to their club as well as the game as a whole, and the leadership of the NFL has been successful in achieving this, hence why the owners are happy to work together. In RL it seems that too often a decision benefits some but not all. The trick is to take action that allows everyone to benefit and this is why strong leadership is necessary as well as a willingness to work together, I’m just not sure RL has either at this time, hence any change is going to be something forced on the game (probably by Sky), which may not necessarily be for the good.