Maurice Lindsay's Revolution: Super League Success or Failure?

[Oldbear]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree there is a problem with self interest to an extent, but I don't think its entirely fair to blame Wakefield etc for their continued persistence in Super League. They're belligerent if nothing else and as far as I see it, most of the alternatives for these clubs for the majority of the past 20 years wouldn't be noticeably much better or bigger.

With the cap, there is often a clear suggestion that essentially cash poor and/or somewhat unsavvy owners of smaller clubs have pushed for the cap to be lower, when in reality they have just agreed to it as proposed by others. The RFL (and some of the less well off owners) have, despite most of the evidence, kept believing it will make the competition more even and the top clubs see how it keeps their costs down. I think the protectionist issues come in most notably with money - Bradford, Toronto and Leigh in various years emphasise that.

There is also a problem that certain "big clubs", notably Wigan and Hull at the moment, are ran with a mentality more akin to the smaller clubs. That is to say in a rather long winded fashion, that these clubs votes can, for a relatively small sum, be bought by the highest bidder. 

Not knocking Wakefield, they are doing what they are required to do, however as you say, the so called bigger clubs have hardly behaved that way, hence the whole small club mentality.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Oldbear said:

Correct. One big difference between the UK sports management system and the US is that in the US the owners are smart enough to hire GM’s with experience in sports management, marketing or entertainment. My youngest son is studying sports management at university in Ontario, former alumni include the current Maple Leafs GM, the former Raptors GM, at least 4 members of Olympics Canada and a former Blue Jays GM. Running sports organizations is taken very seriously here.

In fairness RL clubs aren't alone in that aspect over here, plenty of non-premier league football teams are ran similarly. However, you would hope that the competitive market would drive innovation and RL would be striving to be like the best rather than accepting mediocrity or worse.

Between a mixture of jobs for the boys, unwillingness to pay for top talent, and frankly a few people being a bit out of touch by being out of their field in the entertainment business, we are where we are.

[M j M]

It's really important to not try and pretend sport and Rugby League are conventional parts of the entertainment industry. It can be informed by that business and elements of it can be very useful in enhancing the experience. But the core of going to watch sport remains the game itself and the teams that are playing. 

You don't watch films with certain actors in because your dad and granddad liked those actors. You don't go back to the theatre when the events there last time you went so enraged you that you sulked for days on end. 

People also don't tend to watch sport because it's innovative or even often because it's terribly skilful (witness rugby union). They watch more commonly because they share an identity with a team playing or they have gained a perception that what they are watching is important or consequential.

Attaching those perceptions to the sport is much more important than people shuffling ranks of fans around in hypothetical mergers like Hitler and his phantom armies or concocting invented teams in made up leagues with no suggestion of how to fund them. We need Rugby League to feel important and relevant. We have decent core values to play with - integrity, honesty, authenticity - it's what you do with those to hook more people in that matters, not least the millions in the north of England who are easiest to get at.

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, Johnoco said:

Spending hundreds of millions of pounds, for no significant growth is not a fantastic achievement. 
Yes, it’s probably true that it’s in a stronger position than pre SL but it’s still virtually the same game with the same problems but with even less presence than it had. 

There is a cost - a very high one - to even standing still. There's also a danger of believing that rugby league is uniquely affected by things that are universal.

I'm willing to bet that if you ask people to name an England rugby union player more would say Will Carling than would know the name of *whoever is England rugby union captain now*.

I'm not remotely going to pretend that things are rosy in our rugby league garden. I actually think we're in a really poor position in many ways. But was the Super League revolution a success? Oh god, yes. We just need another one now.

[gingerjon]

21 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Yes I know there are other factors at play. But the way I see it, it's like winning £5M on the lottery and buying a council house. Then blowing the rest on gambling and looking back in 5 years and saying 'well I'm better off than 5 years ago'. Which technically, would be correct but you could have done so much more with what you had.

Above that, people might not be able to name an England RU player but they'll know they are playing on Saturday on ITV. They aren't invisible like England RL.

England RL's games are usually on the BBC. The issues around that are entirely internal (which I know is also your point). Super League's revolution worked. Crowds went up. Playing standards went up. The game expanded (Rugby League Conference) and was more visible but then ... what followed was more in line with what you described.

Which is why I disagree with the concept of the article - although it is nicely written. It's got the same looking back to look forward problem that a lot of rugby league has. There is literally nothing to be gained by recapping the early 90s, almost certainly nothing to be gained by reviewing the 2000s and much of the 2010s. And nothing, nothing at all, will come from middle-aged, lifelong fans of the game wondering why no one else is watching.

If we want to expand the game then our money has to be spent finding out why the people we want to be involved (and there's a whole separate discussion there) aren't, and taking action to address that.

[Tommygilf]

7 hours ago, M j M said:

It's really important to not try and pretend sport and Rugby League are conventional parts of the entertainment industry. It can be informed by that business and elements of it can be very useful in enhancing the experience. But the core of going to watch sport remains the game itself and the teams that are playing. 

The problem with that is that it is relying on an increasingly more narrow scope of people and ultimately presumes that their are people who like rugby league within commuting distance from RL clubs who currently aren't going. I think that is a flawed premise from which to look at the problem from.

7 hours ago, M j M said:

You don't watch films with certain actors in because your dad and granddad liked those actors. You don't go back to the theatre when the events there last time you went so enraged you that you sulked for days on end. 

Plenty of people now have a relationship like that with cinema. Massive franchises like Star Wars and Marvel are successful on the basis of mass fandoms (with successful casual appeal too). Casual fans go for the big events like the headline movies (or Grand/Cup finals) and less and less take an interest in the more niche regular content (or regular season games). There's more parallels beyond those.

8 hours ago, M j M said:

People also don't tend to watch sport because it's innovative or even often because it's terribly skilful (witness rugby union). They watch more commonly because they share an identity with a team playing or they have gained a perception that what they are watching is important or consequential.

Which given that many Super League games are close to being forgone conclusions that becomes a pretty weak position. I agree that little needs to be changed about the sport on field, in general it is sound. The increasingly narrow spectrum of RL fanbase however is something in need of serious consideration if your argument is about sharing an identity with the team playing.

8 hours ago, M j M said:

Attaching those perceptions to the sport is much more important than people shuffling ranks of fans around in hypothetical mergers like Hitler and his phantom armies or concocting invented teams in made up leagues with no suggestion of how to fund them. We need Rugby League to feel important and relevant. We have decent core values to play with - integrity, honesty, authenticity - it's what you do with those to hook more people in that matters, not least the millions in the north of England who are easiest to get at.

I agree, mergers shouldn't be seen as a stacking concept. They are about prioritising resources in strategic areas and perhaps vainly believing they can bring in multiple clubs into that process.

I think referring to "importance" and being "relevant" is the most difficult strategy RL could go with given what it currently has and what is its direct competition. It would be ideal to be able to solve those factors of course, but its the most difficult. Far easier would be to have each club look at their target audiences and pitch themselves accordingly; on a basic level make going to the RL an enjoyable thing to do for more people than currently. Where we are most obviously in the entertainment industry is where people are choosing alternative things to spend their money on (or not even considering RL as an option in the first place).