Shane Richardson Calls for Overhaul of British Rugby League

[Smudger06]

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

It's an insane proposal. You'd have thought his time at Gateshead and Hull would have taught him at least two things - 

- Hull FC and Hull KR are stronger because of each other, not weaker.

- Marshalling imaginary teams with imaginary fan bases backed by imaginary money into a fantasy league in a severely mature sports market like the UK is a ticket to losing a lot of money.

 

Apparently not though. Bewildering if this is as good a proposal as we're going to see.

True but at least the man has 1) recognised a problem 2) spent a bit of time on a proposal 3) distributed it to stakeholders in both hemispheres and 4) had the minerals to go public about his efforts & recommendations. 

[The Frying Scotsman]

8 minutes ago, M j M said:

 

8 minutes ago, M j M said:

- Hull FC and Hull KR are stronger because of each other, not weaker.

I have not seen any evidence to prove or disprove this, but my impression would be the same as yours. The one city in the UK where we can have a Rugby League derby. Surely we should try to nurture that rather than get rid of it?

[The Rocket]

26 minutes ago, Dave T said:

When the Welsh and London team lose games and end up playing in front of 1500 again we then start to wonder why we sacked off the 7k from Cas etc. If we have 10 teams, is he proposing 18 games? Or more loop fixtures?

 

26 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Ten teams would be OK but instead of a double round Robin (18 games) we'd see an increase in loop fixtures.

You`d have to think he just means home and away, and a bye or a free week-end to organise a game against France, Wales etc. if that`s feasible, that`d give your national team a game then before they played Oz, the Kiwis or both at the end of the year.

But it is a big if just dropping a London, Welsh or maybe to a lesser extent Newcastle team into the comp. 

The only chance it could have was if the salary cap was big enough because of the reduced number of teams in the comp, so that those teams would be able to immediately assemble competitive squads. Other wise you end up with what Dave was saying in the top post, and that would be a disaster.

Is that feasible, the best players from your current 12 team comp condensed into 10 teams.

One advantage you do have, there is no where else for excess players from the NRL or elsewhere to play, so if they want to get paid to play Rugby League it really is NRL or Super League. And I really think there are oodles of good enough players sloshing around to make up 26 good competitive Rugby League teams in the world.

 

[M j M]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

The rivalries are what you can build league around. International and national. From my trade union days merging is usually a sign of weakness, not of strength. Hull derby, Saints vs Wigan, Leeds vs Bulls (before we bankrupted ourselves). 

Get a Manchester team and we can have Manchester vs Salford/ Warrington. Eng vs France, Eng vs Wales. This is the market. 

Quite. Imagine how valuable the Saints-Wigan and Hull derbies are to Sky.

Richardson is coming at this from an Australian perspective and really doesn't seem to have the first clue about the British sport market.

[Oxford]

1 minute ago, M j M said:

Richardson is coming at this from an Australian perspective and really doesn't seem to have the first clue about the British sport market.

Yes considering he worked here his ideas look like he just arrived from Betelgeuse

[Damien]

20 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes. I think that reading covers it.

I think his "radical" vision can be safely ignored by everyone.

Indeed, it's absolutely terrible and he sounds pretty clueless about the game or situation here. Getting rid of the name Super League is the only thing that has any mileage for me, and even at that some like it. Little of it is even original either. 

[The Frying Scotsman]

49 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

 From my trade union days merging is usually a sign of weakness, not of strength. Hull derby, Saints vs Wigan, Leeds vs Bulls (before we bankrupted ourselves). 

As you may be aware from my previous posts, I hate how people on here often live in the past.

However, your post brings back memories of the 'Big West Yorkshire Derby' as I used to call it, and how massive it was. I remember (early 2000s) checking to see who was at home, because if it was Bradford we could expect well over 20,000 in the big stadium. I remember 24,000 on a summer Friday night around 2002 I am sure.

That game was a huge asset to the League as a whole, as it built the profile of the competition. 

Looking back on it now, the decline is absolutely criminal.

[The Frying Scotsman]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Just expand and spread the tv moner thinner and tell the Wakey´s of the world that it´s commercial income you need to grow, not tv handouts. 

In the modern world though, broadcast revenue is what makes or breaks professional sport. Mark Evans(?) the former Melbourne Storm chairman was speaking about precisely that just recently.

You are correct about commercial income being a 'Must Grow' for most clubs (especially the deadbeats) but broadcast revenue will decide the viability of the sport as a professional entity. It will always be Number 1 for now.

[The Frying Scotsman]

8 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Watching those Bulls vs Leeds games on SKY is what got me hooked on RL and the internationals keeps me engaged. Seeing the steam of the players heads on the post match interview, night games, we had a fantastic product. 

They were massive.

Not only that, they were far bigger than anything that "competing sports" had at club level.

The decline, as I say, is criminal.

[Lowdesert]

33 minutes ago, M j M said:

Quite. Imagine how valuable the Saints-Wigan and Hull derbies are to Sky.

Richardson is coming at this from an Australian perspective and really doesn't seem to have the first clue about the British sport market.

I could say that you don’t have a clue about Richardson, which appears to be true.  He does have an idea about the game here, albeit some years back with Gateshead then Hull FC.

Many of the points he raises (and we don’t know them all) have already been mentioned on this Forum.

Richardson is an honest guy who genuinely has the game at heart.  He is providing what he sees as a plan.  What have SLE provided as their plan for the future?

It would be foolish not to look at his suggestions.  We don’t have to take them all, if any, but the worst that should come out of this is that it generates momentum to push the game forward.  The other option is to sit on our hands and wait for more advice -and then say it’ll never work.  We seem to be good at that.

 

[M j M]

16 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I could say that you don’t have a clue about Richardson, which appears to be true.  He does have an idea about the game here, albeit some years back with Gateshead then Hull FC.

 

I mean I literally said that in my post above.

1 hour ago, M j M said:

It's an insane proposal. You'd have thought his time at Gateshead and Hull would have taught him at least two things

 

 

[Damien]

Richardson seems to be respected by some by virtue of being about for a long time. He didn't cover himself in glory at either Gateshead or Hull and was behind the scrapping of the u20s National Youth Competition in Australia, which many disagreed with and which many want brought back. Indeed Phil Gould recently citing this decision as one of the reasons between the widening gap in the NRL. It was also great for pinching Union players, particularly in NZ.

[Lowdesert]

26 minutes ago, M j M said:

I mean I literally said that in my post above.

 

I mean you did say he didn’t have a clue, when he does.

[Lowdesert]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

Richardson seems to be respected by some by virtue of being about for a long time. He didn't cover himself in glory at either Gateshead or Hull and was behind the scrapping of the u20s National Youth Competition in Australia, which many disagreed with and which many want brought back. Indeed Phil Gould recently citing this decision as one of the reasons between the widening gap in the NRL. It was also great for pinching Union players, particularly in NZ.

Nah, can’t agree with that.  He absolutely put Hull FC back on track financially.  Even after merging/pinching Gateshead the club coffers were bare and the next few years became more sustainable.  He did a good job there as well as eradicating the language issues the crowd at the boulevard had developed.  But I don’t know about the under 20s or whether his career in Aus has been as successful as it could have been.

Very genuine, passionate for the whole game bloke.  Maybe his ‘plan’ will gee SLE up, maybe not but they should be considering anything that is good for the game.

 

 

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Nah, can’t agree with that.  He absolutely put Hull FC back on track financially.  Even after merging/pinching Gateshead the club coffers were bare and the next few years became more sustainable.  He did a good job there as well as eradicating the language issues the crowd at the boulevard had developed.  But I don’t know about the under 20s or whether his career in Aus has been as successful as it could have been.

Very genuine, passionate for the whole game bloke.  Maybe his ‘plan’ will gee SLE up, maybe not but they should be considering anything that is good for the game.

 

 

Nah I can't agree with that either. What put Hull FC back on track financially was the big wad of money they got for 'merging' with Gateshead, far in excess of what clubs got from Sky in a season at the time. Let's not forget a Gateshead who had lost a huge amount of money in only one season with Richardson calling the shots.

On language issues, I've no idea. However what I do know is that language and that bear pit mentality tends to improve an awful lot on moving from an old stadium to a modern, sanitised and particularly a big all seater one. This has been the case at Wigan, Saints and Warrington and I've no doubt this would have happened anyway at Hull.

Oh and let's not forget the players Hull got as a result of that. Merging 2 teams tends to improve the situation somewhat, especially with a bundle of cash too.

Huddersfield at a similar boost from the Sheffield merger with no Richardson at the helm.

 

[Lowdesert]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

Nah I can't agree with that either. What put Hull FC back on track financially was the big wad of money they got for 'merging' with Gateshead, far in excess of what clubs got from Sky in a season at the time. Let's not forget a Gateshead who had lost a huge amount of money in only one season with Richardson calling the shots.

On language issues, I've no idea. However what I do know is that language and that bear pit mentality tends to improve an awful lot on moving from an old stadium to a modern, sanitised and particularly a big all seater one. This has been the case at Wigan, Saints and Warrington and I've no doubt this would have happened anyway at Hull.

Oh and let's not forget the players Hull got as a result of that. Merging 2 teams tends to improve the situation somewhat, especially with a bundle of cash too.

Huddersfield at a similar boost from the Sheffield merger with no Richardson at the helm.

 

A new Club will probably always lose money in the early days but I am not a financial guy.

What i do know though The Sky money wasn’t enough to pay off the debt.  There was plenty and I suffered some of that at the time.

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

The rivalries are what you can build league around. International and national. From my trade union days merging is usually a sign of weakness, not of strength. Hull derby, Saints vs Wigan, Leeds vs Bulls (before we bankrupted ourselves). 

Get a Manchester team and we can have Manchester vs Salford/ Warrington. Eng vs France, Eng vs Wales. This is the market. 

You don't seriously think that anyone in Manchester would bother about Manchester vs Salford/ Warrington do you???

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

I have no problem locking teams in if there is a plan but why would you lock teams out? Works in NRL because it´s the number 1 sport, League can´t afford to turn it´s back on great clubs like cas. Just expand and spread the tv moner thinner and tell the Wakey´s of the world that it´s commercial income you need to grow, not tv handouts. 

As @The Frying Scotsmanpoints out TV revenue is what had made pro sport as big as it is, and the game can't increase its budgets without more of that.  Telling the Wakeys of the world that they need to grow commercial income would never work because that's beyond their ability for the simple reason that they're all located in run down economically disadvantaged towns where the money needed for that doesn't exist and therefore they don't have any access to such money.  The same is true of all the traditional clubs with the possible exception of Leeds, and that's the root of the game's problems.

[Smudger06]

It's not the games fault that the Sky money has gone down, Sky are beginning to loose out to other vendors (streaming) ppl are starting to cut the cords in significant numbers now and go with amazon prime; netflicks & DAZN, the gaps filled by FTA TV and free video sites like YouTube. 

What is our fault is the 2 governing bodies in a slightly bigger than small sport & the infighting (or at least failure to reach consensus) between club chairmen, the lack of effort in supporting junior grass roots by all clubs at all levels. We need to unite, streamline, prioritise and then we can jump on board New and direct to consumer cash sources to cut out middlemen (sky) and earn more than ever BEFORE WE MISS THAT BOAT like we missed the social media boat because we were loving our pay TV deal and thought that's all we will ever need.......

[Big Picture]

40 minutes ago, Damien said:

Nah I can't agree with that either. What put Hull FC back on track financially was the big wad of money they got for 'merging' with Gateshead, far in excess of what clubs got from Sky in a season at the time. Let's not forget a Gateshead who had lost a huge amount of money in only one season with Richardson calling the shots.

On language issues, I've no idea. However what I do know is that language and that bear pit mentality tends to improve an awful lot on moving from an old stadium to a modern, sanitised and particularly a big all seater one. This has been the case at Wigan, Saints and Warrington and I've no doubt this would have happened anyway at Hull.

Oh and let's not forget the players Hull got as a result of that. Merging 2 teams tends to improve the situation somewhat, especially with a bundle of cash too.

Huddersfield at a similar boost from the Sheffield merger with no Richardson at the helm.

 

You forget that the main reason why Gateshead lost so much money was that they were denied their fair share of the TV money by the traditional clubs.

[Smudger06]

9 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

You don't seriously think that anyone in Manchester would bother about Manchester vs Salford/ Warrington do you???

As @The Frying Scotsmanpoints out TV revenue is what had made pro sport as big as it is, and the game can't increase its budgets without more of that.  Telling the Wakeys of the world that they need to grow commercial income would never work because that's beyond their ability for the simple reason that they're all located in run down economically disadvantaged towns where the money needed for that doesn't exist and therefore they don't have any access to such money.  The same is true of all the traditional clubs with the possible exception of Leeds, and that's the root of the game's problems.

Big Picture, there are backyard baseball leagues that are becoming huge through effort and determination by a handful of individuals, with no budget whatsoever. Our methods are wrong not our locations. Very few ppl are seeing our massive amount of sports entertainment content we generate but never package and deliver in any logical, exciting or meaningful manner. 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

You forget that the main reason why Gateshead lost so much money was that they were denied their fair share of the TV money by the traditional clubs.

I have never seen this said. Have you a source?

[Big Picture]

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

Err if you build it then yes I think you could create Salford vs Manchester as another rivalry game. Otherwise I wouldn´t have said it so stop with the tedious faux surprise, just say you disagree.

Wakefield can grow their income with the eventual stadium redevelopement and capitalise on increased FTA exposure. By adding more teams that are attractive to commercial partners it will be a way to grow the tv pie long term or at least stabalise it. 

What makes you think that Mancunians would ever think of Manchester vs some-suburb-of-Manchester woukld be a rivalry, especially in the era when competitions like the Champions League, Europa League and Heienken Cup are now standard fare???

Is the sort of money needed to underwrite a big time major pro sports operation is nowhere to be found in Wakefield, how do you expect Wakefield to grow their commercial income???

[Big Picture]

3 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Big Picture, there are backyard baseball leagues that are becoming huge through effort and determination by a handful of individuals, with no budget whatsoever. Our methods are wrong not our locations. Very few ppl are seeing our massive amount of sports entertainment content we generate but never package and deliver in any logical, exciting or meaningful manner. 

Are there now?  Which leagues are those and where are they?

Former St Helens CEO Sean Mcguire has said openly that the locations of the traditional clubs is the main reason why there's so little money in RL.

[Damien]

Just now, Big Picture said:

Are there now?  Which leagues are those and where are they?

Former St Helens CEO Sean Mcguire has said openly that the locations of the traditional clubs is the main reason why there's so little money in RL.

When I saw your first post on this thread I just knew there was going to be a Sean McGuire follow up.

Now for a little oil and water

[Dave T]

I've no doubts that Richardson is good at what he does, his CV is very impressive, but having now read the paper, it really is terrible. To summarise:

1 - To cull 6 existing UK-based teams, making them semi-pro. Replace them with the likes of Wales, London and Newcastle. Hmm, sounds familiar.

2 - 2nd division has no P&R, but the 1st division has P&R from Year 3. Erm, that doesn't work Shane.

3 - In his proposed structure he says "To create this 10 team competition, eight should come from outside England and two external". Clearly it's a typo, and he means inside England, but then Wales isn't in England. Errors like that hardly give confidence.

4 - And that seems to be it. 

5 - Oh no, he wants all in-season internationals scrapped, and he wants to stop wasting all this money on Euro teams. I'm not really sure which teams he refers to when he claims the Euro teams were filled with NRL players and lost loads of cash. 

6 - He also wants a year per 4yr cycle with no England games, and one with no NRL players in Internationals.

TBH, it is one of the most disappointing things I have read, from somebody held in high regard on these shores. It actually feels like a bad joke from these pages.