10-team Leagues

[M j M]

5 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

So again. Comparing crowds that a club gets in the champ to what a club gets in SL is you missing the point. Or budget,  if I took Wakeys 1.5mil away would they have the same squad?  Of course not,  so its disengenous to pretend York would carry the same squad with 1.5 million extra. 

Unless you think yorks crowds are static and wouldnt grow the point being made is if York were in SL they would be bigger or at least equal to Wakefield. 

People on here seem to willfully miss the point or dont have the honestly to say 'I think York would be lower than Wakey if York were in SL'. 

I disagree as York is a thriving affluent city with 2 universities and can tap into the commercial income in the área. 

I hope that Wakey can capture a new market with updates but saying because York have an inferior squad in Champ is reason why it would be lower than Wakey in SL is a stupid arguement. 

York have never been a larger club than Wakefield. You can wish it were the case, you can imagine that maybe if they'd been in Super League for 20 years maybe they would have become larger but you can't state it as fact. The reality is the UK sport market is acutely mature and very entrenched and there is little reason to think York would start getting larger crowds than Wakefield if they were in SL.

But most of all remember that Rugby League is a sport and that it has fans. You can decide that achievement on the field is irrelevant. You can decide that Wakefield, who have won and repeatedly defended their position in Super League on the field, often against the odds, sometimes quite heroically, should surrender their place to another, smaller, club because the other club inhabits a "thriving, affluent city". But don't expect that there won't be a loss of fans and a loss of TV subscribers as you try to shoehorn clubs deemed to be more appealing into the league.

Rugby League and its fans largely inhabit the negative space away from the thriving and away from the affluent - and telling them this isn't the sport for them is so dumb and so counterproductive. This cultural cringe some fans have, and their desperation to disassociate the sport from its reality, from its embarrassing unfashionable, non-affluent fan base, is a constant theme. And you seem willing to kill off a couple of clubs and destroy the integrity of the sport to achieve it.

[Tommygilf]

14 minutes ago, M j M said:

York have never been a larger club than Wakefield. You can wish it were the case, you can imagine that maybe if they'd been in Super League for 20 years maybe they would have become larger but you can't state it as fact. The reality is the UK sport market is acutely mature and very entrenched and there is little reason to think York would start getting larger crowds than Wakefield if they were in SL.

But most of all remember that Rugby League is a sport and that it has fans. You can decide that achievement on the field is irrelevant. You can decide that Wakefield, who have won and repeatedly defended their position in Super League on the field, often against the odds, sometimes quite heroically, should surrender their place to another, smaller, club because the other club inhabits a "thriving, affluent city". But don't expect that there won't be a loss of fans and a loss of TV subscribers as you try to shoehorn clubs deemed to be more appealing into the league.

Rugby League and its fans largely inhabit the negative space away from the thriving and away from the affluent - and telling them this isn't the sport for them is so dumb and so counterproductive. This cultural cringe some fans have, and their desperation to disassociate the sport from its reality, from its embarrassing unfashionable, non-affluent fan base, is a constant theme. And you seem willing to kill off a couple of clubs and destroy the integrity of the sport to achieve it.

Rugby League is a sport, Super League (and pro Rugby League more broadly) is a sports entertainment business. Businesses make decisions on target markets and investment areas all the time.

[HKR AWAY DAYS]

What we thinking now then, ladies and gents? Seems to be gathering pace this one. 

[Jughead]

1 hour ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

What we thinking now then, ladies and gents? Seems to be gathering pace this one. 

Is it? Where?

It remains, largely, an internet rumour, as the last news we had from a reputable journalist was club chairmen rejecting the ten team league proposal at the back end of last year. 

[HKR AWAY DAYS]

27 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Is it? Where?

It remains, largely, an internet rumour, as the last news we had from a reputable journalist was club chairmen rejecting the ten team league proposal at the back end of last year. 

Social media. Where else eh.

[Josef K]

2 hours ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

What we thinking now then, ladies and gents? Seems to be gathering pace this one. 

Definitely not a fan. 

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

What we thinking now then, ladies and gents? 

That the league structure isn't the biggest problem the game faces.

[Northern Eel]

7 hours ago, HKR AWAY DAYS said:

Social media. Where else eh.

Mick G is kicking the idea around again. 

[whatmichaelsays]

On 05/05/2022 at 19:26, dboy said:

Carter (and it's directly from his own mouth), says they do not bring money into the comp.

It costs UK clubs money having French teams in (and Toronto).

It's about cash.

Carter is a board member of Super League Europe - an entity set up to maximise the commercial potential of the competition from, amongst other things, TV rights and sponsorships. 

If having French clubs in Super League isn't bringing in revenue from those sources, then Carter (amongst others) is not doing his job. 

[whatmichaelsays]

On 05/05/2022 at 21:57, M j M said:

This cultural cringe some fans have, and their desperation to disassociate the sport from its reality, from its embarrassing unfashionable, non-affluent fan base, is a constant theme. And you seem willing to kill off a couple of clubs and destroy the integrity of the sport to achieve it.

I don't think that's entirely fair. 

I think there's only a very small fringe that would argue for artificially planting clubs in affluent or fashionable parts of the country. What I think most argue for RL should be doing more to appeal to more affulent audiences - many of which are on its doorstep and in its heartlands - as well as making it easier for people outside those heartlands to "buy" RL in one way, shape or form. To keep Wakefield as an example, there's plenty of money around its southern greenbelt, and many of our RL towns are now commuter areas for people working in well-paying tech, legal and finance sectors in Leeds and Manchester. 

There's no rule that RL supporters have to be from non-affluent backgrounds. There isn't something that triggers in your brain that means you find RL boring once you hit a certain salary band. But what we often see is people talking about how RL is only a sport for the skint, how trying to appeal to anyone outside the base is trying to attract people who "aren't proper RL fans" and that doing anything is a waste of time if people aren't going to go on and buy season tickets. If the sport wants to grow, and I would suggest most fans would want to see that, then it has to broaden it's appeal because there's enough evidence to show that the "core" base is one that is both shinking, and unable to really sustain that growth. That invariably means ensuring that RL is catering to the wants and expectations of different audiences, ensuring that it is better at speaking to those audiences and yes, dare I say it, making RL more fashionable. 

[Tommygilf]

51 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

That invariably means ensuring that RL is catering to the wants and expectations of different audiences, ensuring that it is better at speaking to those audiences and yes, dare I say it, making RL more fashionable. 

On that point particularly, it really bugs me when people say RL is popular in the North. If it was genuinely at that level, it would be able to piggyback the cultural rise and fashion-ability of key northern cities like Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester that have broken out of that morbid representation of the North as the land of Kez. 

Jamie Peacock made a good point during the Challenge Cup coverage that so many people do not want to see the sport die, but they do not want it to grow either. Its natural I suppose, most people are inherently small c conservatives; a trait which increases as people get older and older people have more sway in major organisations. 

The most obvious example of that is from those who do not see the difference between a sport and a sports entertainment business.

The former at its heart is a Corinthian ideal, though even then as can be seen throughout the history of virtually every major sport in this country that survived over the past century, that Corinthian ideal would be discarded if protectionism was a far more convenient option.

The latter is what top level sport has become in the past 25 to 30 years. Cups aren't as important as they were, Clubs are fundamentally businesses with employees and loyal customers, TV and associated revenue has become the single most important factor for a sport. New terms like "legacy fans" have been publicly derided, but they come from a key recognition that the reasons many people will start watching a certain sport or sports club now are not necessarily the same reasons as they did 40 or 50 years ago, at least not to the same extent. People aren't tied to their local club in the same way, people can pick up clubs in other countries even if they so wish, people may grow up with an affinity for a big club and then move to something totally different as their priorities change - all this has happened previously, but nothing like to the same levels.

Lots of people do not like this change. Can RL adapt to it?

Another point made by a poster on this forum referenced how RL is the "5th Biggest Sport" in the country. Not only does that mask a myriad of problems, but it also ignores how ranking by "sport" is not how the industry works. Individual competitions and leagues are now in competition with eachother. RL as a sport might be "5th Biggest", but where is Super League and the Challenge Cup? The Broadcast deal for Super League would suggest somewhere in line with Scottish Football. Is that sustainable? The movements from the powers that be would suggest they do not think so.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Tommygilf

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

5 hours ago, Northern Eel said:

Mick G is kicking the idea around again. 

If Mick G said grass was green I'd go and check. 

[whatmichaelsays]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

The latter is what top level sport has become in the past 25 to 30 years. Cups aren't as important as they were, Clubs are fundamentally businesses with employees and loyal customers, TV and associated revenue has become the single most important factor for a sport. New terms like "legacy fans" have been publicly derided, but they come from a key recognition that the reasons many people will start watching a certain sport or sports club now are not necessarily the same reasons as they did 40 or 50 years ago, at least not to the same extent. People aren't tied to their local club in the same way, people can pick up clubs in other countries even if they so wish, people may grow up with an affinity for a big club and then move to something totally different as their priorities change - all this has happened previously, but nothing like to the same levels.

Lots of people do not like this change. Can RL adapt to it?

This isn't just a sports issue either. It happens across all of the business and entertainment world. 

I think I've used this comparison before, but Porsche has a dedicated following of enthusiasts - the sort of people who join owners clubs and buy the branded merchandise - who were absolutely outraged when the company started making SUVs. To these people, they "weren't proper Porsches", they wouldn't be bought by "proper Porsche drivers" and these products would "kill the brand". Yet the Cayenne SUV now outsells the 911, Boxter and Spyder models combined and Porsche is now (if I recall rightly) the most profitable car manufacturer in the world. 

You might roll your eyes at comparing RL to a premium sports car manufacturer, but the problems that the two entities faced is the same - there are only so many people willing or able to buy one product and, as consumer tastes shifted, that group of people was getting smaller, so you need to adapt. You can cater to new audiences and yes, whilst it might irk your "hardcore" or "legacy fans" who buy the club memberships and wear the merchandise, it doesn't mean you have to abandon them entirely. There is room for both to co-exist. 

There are other examples too. We have clubs taking money from Sky to play games in midweek, only to complain about having to play midweek because Thursday nights, and to some extent Fridays, aren't popular with match-going crowds. This was an issue the cinema industry had until it successfully turned Wednesday nights from the worst-performing night of the week to the second-most popular (after Saturday) by finding the sorts of audiences that were looking for something to do on Wednesday nights (students, young adults, DINKs, etc) and coming up with the right incentives. 

RL needs to get into that mindset of understanding what audiences are out there, which of those it wants to attract and what those audiences want. Whilst I know that suggestions of things like 9s splits the room here, what is to say that a 9s comp couldn't be RL's version of the Porsche Cayenne? Why can't Thursday nights be the night where RL succeeds in attracting that millennial crowd or DINK (dual income, no kids) couples who have plenty of spare time and don't have to worry about the following morning's school run? What is it that the RL clubs are so afraid of when it comes to trying to reach new people? 

Edited June 7, 2022 by whatmichaelsays

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This isn't just a sports issue either. It happens across all of the business and entertainment world. 

I think I've used this comparison before, but Porsche has a dedicated following of enthusiasts - the sort of people who join owners clubs and buy the branded merchandise - who were absolutely outraged when the company started making SUVs. To these people, they "weren't proper Porsches", they wouldn't be bought by "proper Porsche drivers" and these products would "kill the brand". Yet the Cayenne SUV now outsells the 911, Boxter and Spyder models combined and Porsche is now (if I recall rightly) the most profitable car manufacturer in the world. 

You might roll your eyes at comparing RL to a premium sports car manufacturer, but the problems that the two entities faced is the same - there are only so many people willing or able to buy one product and, as consumer tastes shifted, that group of people was getting smaller, so you need to adapt. You can cater to new audiences and yes, whilst it might irk your "hardcore" or "legacy fans" who buy the club memberships and wear the merchandise, it doesn't mean you have to abandon them entirely. There is room for both to co-exist. 

There are other examples too. We have clubs taking money from Sky to play games in midweek, only to complain about having to play midweek because Thursday nights, and to some extent Fridays, aren't popular with match-going crowds. This was an issue the cinema industry had until it successfully turned Wednesday nights from the worst-performing night of the week to the second-most popular (after Saturday) by finding the sorts of audiences that were looking for something to do on Wednesday nights (students, young adults, DINKs, etc) and coming up with the right incentives. 

RL needs to get into that mindset of understanding what audiences are out there, which of those it wants to attract and what those audiences want. Whilst I know that suggestions of things like 9s splits the room here, what is to say that a 9s comp couldn't be RL's version of the Porsche Cayenne? Why can't Thursday nights be the night where RL succeeds in attracting that millennial crowd or DINK (dual income, no kids) couples who have plenty of spare time and don't have to worry about the following morning's school run? What is it that the RL clubs are so afraid of when it comes to trying to reach new people? 

I wish I was a DINK.

 

[fighting irish]

11 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I wish I was a DINK.

 

I'd retire but my wife won't go full time. 

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

What is it that the RL clubs are so afraid of when it comes to trying to reach new people? 

Good article in the FT today on how 'fan capture' of organisations leads to atrophy, and what can be done about it.

What I found interesting was that these superfans often include an organisation's producers and leaders as well as its core consumers.  

Lots of this visible in rugby league. 

https://www.ft.com/content/0134c4ae-9582-42fe-809c-eced441dfb65

[paywall, but I don't pay, so you probably get some free] 

[whatmichaelsays]

5 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Good article in the FT today on how 'fan capture' of organisations leads to atrophy, and what can be done about it.

What I found interesting was that these superfans often include an organisation's producers and leaders as well as its core consumers.  

Lots of this visible in rugby league. 

https://www.ft.com/content/0134c4ae-9582-42fe-809c-eced441dfb65

[paywall, but I don't pay, so you probably get some free] 

A decent read and I agree, lots of parallels with what RL is going through. 

A lot of ideas that get floated on here often get met with "but why would I want that?", "how does that appeal to me?" or "I only turn up for the game - why would I be interested in....?, as if the future of RL has to be moulded in the exact image of the current supporter base. As long people have that mindset, it's very difficult for the sport to change.

 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

This isn't just a sports issue either. It happens across all of the business and entertainment world. 

I think I've used this comparison before, but Porsche has a dedicated following of enthusiasts - the sort of people who join owners clubs and buy the branded merchandise - who were absolutely outraged when the company started making SUVs. To these people, they "weren't proper Porsches", they wouldn't be bought by "proper Porsche drivers" and these products would "kill the brand". Yet the Cayenne SUV now outsells the 911, Boxter and Spyder models combined and Porsche is now (if I recall rightly) the most profitable car manufacturer in the world. 

You might roll your eyes at comparing RL to a premium sports car manufacturer, but the problems that the two entities faced is the same - there are only so many people willing or able to buy one product and, as consumer tastes shifted, that group of people was getting smaller, so you need to adapt. You can cater to new audiences and yes, whilst it might irk your "hardcore" or "legacy fans" who buy the club memberships and wear the merchandise, it doesn't mean you have to abandon them entirely. There is room for both to co-exist. 

There are other examples too. We have clubs taking money from Sky to play games in midweek, only to complain about having to play midweek because Thursday nights, and to some extent Fridays, aren't popular with match-going crowds. This was an issue the cinema industry had until it successfully turned Wednesday nights from the worst-performing night of the week to the second-most popular (after Saturday) by finding the sorts of audiences that were looking for something to do on Wednesday nights (students, young adults, DINKs, etc) and coming up with the right incentives. 

RL needs to get into that mindset of understanding what audiences are out there, which of those it wants to attract and what those audiences want. Whilst I know that suggestions of things like 9s splits the room here, what is to say that a 9s comp couldn't be RL's version of the Porsche Cayenne? Why can't Thursday nights be the night where RL succeeds in attracting that millennial crowd or DINK (dual income, no kids) couples who have plenty of spare time and don't have to worry about the following morning's school run? What is it that the RL clubs are so afraid of when it comes to trying to reach new people? 

Absolutely. Porsche used to be an old mans car brand. Now its an old mans car brand, and a glitzy SUV brand, and looks almost certain to be an F1 team in the next 5 years too.

Land Rover did a very similar rebranding exercise with Range Rover. 

Seems like we have a very monochrome view of our target market.

[Jughead]

Cricket has created an audience in Twenty Twenty cricket that is very different from their audience who watch county championship cricket. There’s a place for both audiences in cricket, regardless of what one group thinks of the other, and I do not think Rugby League is that different to cricket that something similar could happen within the game, if done properly. 

[Tommygilf]

26 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Cricket has created an audience in Twenty Twenty cricket that is very different from their audience who watch county championship cricket. There’s a place for both audiences in cricket, regardless of what one group thinks of the other, and I do not think Rugby League is that different to cricket that something similar could happen within the game, if done properly. 

Absolutely, but cue "you can't shorten a rugby league game, simple as" etc comments...

[Toby Chopra]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Absolutely, but cue "you can't shorten a rugby league game, simple as" etc comments...

You can of course and perhaps that may be part of the future. But actually I think game length is always a bit of a distraction, in that cricket had a particular problem with the length of its matches which made it hard to attract certain types of spectators and was less than ideal for broadcasters. 

RL broadly has a fan and media friendly game length - the issue is what those games offer. 

For me the biggest lesson of T20 - and more specifically franchise cricket like the IPL and (dons hard hat) The Hundred - is the borrowing of players from their existing clubs for a short period, and packaging them up and selling them to a new audience.

Could we even dream of trying something like that? 

[iffleyox]

42 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Cricket has created an audience in Twenty Twenty cricket that is very different from their audience who watch county championship cricket. 

some of that's desperation though - at 41 I'd lower the average age of a county championship spectator dramatically if they were more interested in actually scheduling matches over weekends where I actually stood a chance of being able to watch them.

as it is I tend to watch more T20 and one day than I otherwise would, simply because that's what's on on a Friday night or over the weekend. Neither is actually my preferred format though FWIW. 

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

You can of course and perhaps that may be part of the future. But actually I think game length is always a bit of a distraction, in that cricket had a particular problem with the length of its matches which made it hard to attract certain types of spectators and was less than ideal for broadcasters. 

RL broadly has a fan and media friendly game length - the issue is what those games offer. 

For me the biggest lesson of T20 - and more specifically franchise cricket like the IPL and (dons hard hat) The Hundred - is the borrowing of players from their existing clubs for a short period, and packaging them up and selling them to a new audience.

Could we even dream of trying something like that? 

The Hundred and T20 are both already longer than a rugby league game that plays out two periods of golden point extra time.

If 9s is the answer (or some variant like 9s) then it is an answer to a different question.

What's interesting - insofar as anything about The Hundred is interesting - is that in this second season a lot of big name players who were available have not been signed. Instead, some of the biggest money has gone on players who might struggle to be recognised in their own living room but who can be pretty much guaranteed to be consistent and not likely to have any sudden last minute demands on their time from elsewhere.

So there's not a lot being put into it (and the marketing reflects this) about star names but there is, again, a huge amount about match day experience, value for money, and diversity.

[gingerjon]

52 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Cricket has created an audience in Twenty Twenty cricket that is very different from their audience who watch county championship cricket. There’s a place for both audiences in cricket, regardless of what one group thinks of the other, and I do not think Rugby League is that different to cricket that something similar could happen within the game, if done properly. 

I think this oversimplifies something that cricket often, not always, does well.

It has multiple different audiences going to the same event.

Most grounds now have very distinct and obviously separate sections for the beer snakers versus the families, for those who are there to watch the cricket all day and not move versus those who are going to get up and check out the eateries and drinkeries behind the stands ... 

[Toby Chopra]

2 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

some of that's desperation though - at 41 I'd lower the average age of a county championship spectator dramatically if they were more interested in actually scheduling matches over weekends where I actually stood a chance of being able to watch them.

as it is I tend to watch more T20 and one day than I otherwise would, simply because that's what's on on a Friday night or over the weekend. Neither is actually my preferred format though FWIW. 

But don't the numbers speak for themselves? I know it's not often enough for loyal red ball fans, but there ARE county championship games on at the weekend, even in high summer this year. They get a fraction of the audience that the Blast does. 

Cricket bit the bullet and realised it had to come up with an offer that reached beyond its existing fans, as important and loyal as they are. 

As @whatmichaelsays says, rugby league isnt even sure if it wants a new audiences, and if it does, which ones?

Until we answer that, we can't even start to think HOW to attract it.