Does rugby league need another fighter like Maurice Lindsay?

[Dave T]

I don't think we became less ambitious in the late 90s, we were probably hampered by over-ambition and its probably a good example of how these 'fantasy RL' ideas are nice to discuss on forums, but often they don't work in the real world. 

We had a GB tour in 1996 which looked great on paper, there were no Kangaroos, but we stubbornly cracked on (sound familiar) and went with games versus PNG and Fiji as well as the NZ leg which were generally subsidised by the Kangaroo tour. It was a disaster, and Lindsay even sent players home early to save some money. 

1997 saw the WCC. This was possibly the most ambitious club thing we had ever done - but it was over-ambitious, a crazy format and didn't work, despite some outstanding games. Even now this tournament is often used to quash any suggestions of an expanded WCC. 

We then had some poor performances from GB in internationals for the rest of that decade, probably not helped as RU players stopped coming to join our sport. 

The Grand Final was launched in 1998 which has been a great success. 

The 2000 World Cup looked good, ambitious, exciting, to grow on the 1995 tournament, it had sponsors lined up in advance paying proper money, some big names really if you go back and look. But for a myriad of reasons, and some bad luck, the tournament flopped massively. One of the major factors in the loss was the level of ambition. 

We saw the likes of Paris flop from SL as a bit of a car crash. 

We need to learn from some of these things when we look to go bold, Richard Lewis and Co did, they went back to basics to an extent before driving exciting change.

We can all get carried away with exciting initiatives, but these things do have to have solid foundations, I hope IMG appreciate that. 

[Damien]

32 minutes ago, Scubby said:

It was built on straw and clubs were on their knees financially. No TV income, beer and fag sponsorships and salaries out of control compared to club incomes.

Pretty much like all sports at that time, even Football only changed in 1992 with the Pemier League. Let's not make out RL was unique in much of this.

The perilous times you cite started well before the 90s, clubs were in financial strife and selling grounds in the 70s and 80s. Also the game and clubs are entirely at fault for things like salaries being out of control. Let's not forget many clubs also suffered from the involvement of let's say some dubious characters that saw them run into the ground and selling their grounds too. The game has long suffered from mismanagement. 

What Craig said was quite correct, as was the examples he gave. The game was certainly on the up and had a raised profile. For whatever reason this quickly disappeared and the game gave up and accepted its lot. All the SL talk quickly turned into disastrous expanded World Club Championship, a disastrous 2000 World Cup, salary caps and doffing our cap to RU and giving up any fight. It was certainly an opportunity lost in my opinion.

Edited May 22, 2022 by Damien

[Toby Chopra]

34 minutes ago, Scubby said:

It was built on straw and clubs were on their knees financially. No TV income, beer and fag sponsorships and salaries out of control compared to club incomes.

I think also the late-80s/early-90s were the perfect background environment for league, which it made the most of, but (with hindsight) couldn't last: football still not long past its Heysel/Hillsborough nadir, union still amateur but less able to get away with dirty dealing, still largely old mass media/TV etc. 

The following decade saw the football boom accelerate, union professionalise, multi-channel TV beaming so many more sports into homes and the acceleration of huge economic and social changes that, relatively at least, didn't serve league communities well.

I'm sure there were lots of things those in charge could have done differently/better over the last 20 years or so. But I always tend towards the view that given the backdrop, to still be alive and well (-ish) today is an achievement of sorts, and we had no right to assume any golden period - if it indeed was one - would continue.        

Edited May 22, 2022 by Toby Chopra
spelling

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Pretty much like all sports at that time, even Football only changed in 1992 with the Pemier League. Let's not make out RL was unique in much of this.

The perilous times you cite started well before the 90s, clubs were in financial strife and selling grounds in the 70s and 80s. Also the game and clubs are entirely at fault for things like salaries being out of control. Let's not forget many clubs also suffered from the involvement of let's say some dubious characters that saw them run into the ground and selling their grounds too. The game has long suffered from mismanagement. 

What Craig said was quite correct, as was the examples he gave. The game was certainly on the up and had a raised profile. For whatever reason this quickly disappeared and the game gave up and accepted its lot. All the SL talk quickly turned into disastrous expanded World Club Championship, a disastrous 2000 World Cup, salary caps and doffing our cap to RU and giving up any fight. It was certainly an opportunity lost in my opinion.

Surely the 1997 WCC and 2000 WC were clear examples of the game not accepting its lot? 

They were two examples of huge ambition in RL. 

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Surely the 1997 WCC and 2000 WC were clear examples of the game not accepting its lot? 

They were two examples of huge ambition in RL. 

I can't remember being more excited than when the 1997 WCC was announced. Of course the fan in me was pumped but the craziness of the idea unfolded very quickly 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

I can't remember being more excited than when the 1997 WCC was announced. Of course the fan in me was pumped but the craziness of the idea unfolded very quickly 

I think the sad thing from that is that it was abandoned completely rather than streamlined, but it didn't help that our top teams were poor too. 

I think the sport here went through a bit of an odd spell, the move to summer affected standards as we needed to work through what the game looked like, as well as the challenges from Union. I think it weakened us at club and test level and it was the early 2000's before it started to improve again with some quality Ashes series (although the end result remained the same ). 

[Damien]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Surely the 1997 WCC and 2000 WC were clear examples of the game not accepting its lot? 

They were two examples of huge ambition in RL. 

I was thinking more domestically. However even those two examples I see differently. We did the 1997 WCC and gave up. We didn't even try say a top 4. We had the World Cup in 2000 and then gave up on it for 8 years. I actually think the 1995 World Cup, being the first of its kind and with the emerging nations tournament, arguably showed more ambition too.

In a very short time the game quickly lost its ambition and gave up on these things and retreated into its shell. It went from parity with RU in terms of salary and quickly gave up competing. It gave up on the 2 French clubs SL vision, and never actually tried it, and retreated into more of the same. It went from internationals at Wembley to matches at Blackburn and Watford. We even had the likes of Leeds and Wigan edging their bets with tie ins with RU clubs.

The elite game gave up and to me began to think it could no longer do the things it had done very successfully just a few years previously. Considering we had got a huge windfall from Sky just a few years prior I think it's fair to question if the game could have done much better.

Edited May 22, 2022 by Damien

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I was thinking more domestically. However even those two examples though I see differently. We did the 1997 WCC and gave up. We had the World Cup in 2000 and then gave up on it for 8 years.

In a very short time the game quickly lost its ambition and gave up on these things and retreated into its shell. It went from parity with RU in terms of salary and quickly gave up competing. It gave up on the 2 French clubs SL vision, and never actually tried it, and retreated into more of the same. It went from internationals at Wembley to matches at Blackburn and Watford.

It gave up and to me accepted it could no longer do the things it had done very successfully just a few years previously. Considering we had got a huge windfall from Sky just a few years prior I think it's fair to question if the game could have done much better.

The reality is though that these things cost an absolute bomb and almost broke the RFL, although IIRC the WCC was underwritten by News Ltd. That can't be ignored.

The WCC was a freebie that couldn't be funded any longer as it was a bit of a disaster and the Aussies were focusing on their internal restructures. The UK game remained interested in the WCC and always has, but it is the minor partner and doesn't have the funding or noise to deliver it without Aussie interest. 

The World Cup went into hibernation, but that wasn't really the RFL's issue - we had staged a tournament in 1995 and 2000, we weren't due to stage one, it took 8 years for the Aussies to pick up the baton. We then picked it back up and have continued to do so. 

Whilst there was a small number of years where we regrouped with modest sized international series' the the 2000s saw us:

Launch the very successful Tri Nations

Admit Gateshead to SL (with terrible results) 

Launch Magic Weekend

Admit Catalans to SL (with great results) 

Launch licensing. 

That is a lot of ambitious stuff for a decade. 

 

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Cheshire

Manchester

Calder

Cumbria

South Yorkshire

Humberside

It's  not hard to see how many of those were rich in personal and local attatchment.

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

The reality is though that these things cost an absolute bomb and almost broke the RFL, although IIRC the WCC was underwritten by News Ltd. That can't be ignored.

The WCC was a freebie that couldn't be funded any longer as it was a bit of a disaster and the Aussies were focusing on their internal restructures. The UK game remained interested in the WCC and always has, but it is the minor partner and doesn't have the funding or noise to deliver it without Aussie interest. 

The World Cup went into hibernation, but that wasn't really the RFL's issue - we had staged a tournament in 1995 and 2000, we weren't due to stage one, it took 8 years for the Aussies to pick up the baton. We then picked it back up and have continued to do so. 

Whilst there was a small number of years where we regrouped with modest sized international series' the the 2000s saw us:

Launch the very successful Tri Nations

Admit Gateshead to SL (with terrible results) 

Launch Magic Weekend

Admit Catalans to SL (with great results) 

Launch licensing. 

That is a lot of ambitious stuff for a decade. 

 

It's a good point on the WCC, that was just something offered as part of the Superleague war. Once peace was reached and the Aussie end didn't need it, the writing was on the wall.

We're lucky that Murdoch didn't think the whole UK Superleague concept was superfluous once he got (some) of what he wanted in Australia, given without the war I wonder if UK Superleague would have got off the ground in the way it did. But that reflected that Sky saw some intrinsic value there.     

[Oxford]

1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said:

without the war I wonder if UK Superleague would have got off the ground in the way it did

That was proof of Mo's eye for the gap!

TOOHK

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The reality is though that these things cost an absolute bomb and almost broke the RFL, although IIRC the WCC was underwritten by News Ltd. That can't be ignored.

The WCC was a freebie that couldn't be funded any longer as it was a bit of a disaster and the Aussies were focusing on their internal restructures. The UK game remained interested in the WCC and always has, but it is the minor partner and doesn't have the funding or noise to deliver it without Aussie interest. 

The World Cup went into hibernation, but that wasn't really the RFL's issue - we had staged a tournament in 1995 and 2000, we weren't due to stage one, it took 8 years for the Aussies to pick up the baton. We then picked it back up and have continued to do so. 

Whilst there was a small number of years where we regrouped with modest sized international series' the the 2000s saw us:

Launch the very successful Tri Nations

Admit Gateshead to SL (with terrible results) 

Launch Magic Weekend

Admit Catalans to SL (with great results) 

Launch licensing. 

That is a lot of ambitious stuff for a decade. 

You have moved into a completely different time frame now though to what I was talking about and I would have no argument with this. It was when Richard Lewis started that things picked up and got better and the game got a sense of confidence and ambition again. Things like Catalans, Magic, licensing are all 2006 and later. Then we had the 2008 World Cup that was fantastic and revitalised the concept. That's a decade after the launch of SL though. 

[Anita Bath]

huddersfield/sheffield to become huddersfield? Hull/gateshead to become hull?

[Toby Chopra]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

I was thinking more domestically. However even those two examples I see differently. We did the 1997 WCC and gave up. We didn't even try say a top 4. We had the World Cup in 2000 and then gave up on it for 8 years.

In a very short time the game quickly lost its ambition and gave up on these things and retreated into its shell. It went from parity with RU in terms of salary and quickly gave up competing. It gave up on the 2 French clubs SL vision, and never actually tried it, and retreated into more of the same. It went from internationals at Wembley to matches at Blackburn and Watford. We even had the likes of Leeds and Wigan edging their bets with tie ins with RU clubs.

The elite game gave up and to me began to think it could no longer do the things it had done very successfully just a few years previously. Considering we had got a huge windfall from Sky just a few years prior I think it's fair to question if the game could have done much better.

I think to say they gave up is a little unfair. It would have taken way more money than Sky gave us to keep pace with union salaries, bankroll French expansion long-term and keep going big on venues. That Sky money was to fund a full-time professional rugby league competition, which we did. Maybe we could have spent some of it differently, but only small amounts. Nobody ever got rich playing or owning a Superleague club back then, or now, despite what some on here seem to think.

We needed serious outside investors to do those things, and they just weren't forthcoming. So, yes, we turned inward in a way, but the next period also saw some of our core clubs grow in strength with new stadiums and higher crowds (Warrington, Saints, Catalans etc) and they are our biggest strengths today. 

When you look at the wider context, I don't see a 'Sliding Doors' moment where we blew an obvious chance for things to be different.  

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

You have moved into a completely different time frame now though to what I was talking about and I would have no argument with this. It was when Richard Lewis started that things picked up and got better and the game got a sense of confidence and ambition again. Things like Catalans, Magic, licensing are all 2006 and later. Then we had the 2008 World Cup that was fantastic and revitalised the concept. That's a decade after the launch of SL though. 

So which time frame exactly lacked the ambition, because I've covered from 1996 to 2010? 

1996 - ambitious GB tour to NZ, Fiji and PNG

1997 - WCC and Ashes

1998 - Launch of Grand Final, Kiwi Tour 

1999 - Gateshead launched, GB entered first Tri series Down Under. 

2000 - most ambitious WC to date

2001 to 2003 - game regrouped 

2004 - relaunched Tri Nations as a major tournament in UK

2006 - Catalans joined SL

2007 - Magic Weekend launched

2008 - World Cup Down Under

2009 - Licensing launched

We have had loads of failed initiatives, but I dont think we should confuse that with not trying things. We're just not great at delivering things, usually as they are badly planned and we have little spare cash. 

[Toby Chopra]

36 minutes ago, Oxford said:

That was proof of Mo's eye for the gap!

TOOHK

It was absolutely the right call to jump on board with Murdoch in that moment, in the absence of any remotely similar offers. 

But at the same time that meant we were pawns in a much bigger game, and when that game changed, a lot of what happened next was out of our hands. But as I say, still the right call overall.   

Edited May 22, 2022 by Toby Chopra
spelling

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So which time frame exactly lacked the ambition, because I've covered from 1996 to 2010? 

1996 - ambitious GB tour to NZ, Fiji and PNG

1997 - WCC and Ashes

1998 - Launch of Grand Final, Kiwi Tour 

1999 - Gateshead launched, GB entered first Tri series Down Under. 

2000 - most ambitious WC to date

2001 to 2003 - game regrouped 

2004 - relaunched Tri Nations as a major tournament in UK

2006 - Catalans joined SL

2007 - Magic Weekend launched

2008 - World Cup Down Under

2009 - Licensing launched

We have had loads of failed initiatives, but I dont think we should confuse that with not trying things. We're just not great at delivering things, usually as they are badly planned and we have little spare cash. 

You know the years after 1996 up to around 2000 as in the posts you replied to. 

If you want to now go to 2010 that's fine. These things move on but it's clear that isn't what I was referring to or indeed Craig. As I said I agree with you on the Richard Lewis era that you moved to so I'm not sure why you are still trying to argue on that. That's when a lot of good stuff really started to happen again domestically and when a clear vision started to emerge.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

You know the years after 1996 up to around 2000 as in the posts you replied to. 

If you want to now go to 2010 that's fine. These things move on but it's clear that isn't what I was referring to or indeed Craig. As I said I agree with you on the Richard Lewis era that you moved to so I'm not sure why you are still trying to argue on that. That's when a lot of good stuff really started to happen again domestically and when a clear vision started to emerge.

I've covered 1996 to 2000 in my post. Some of the most exciting there. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by Dave T

[Damien]

49 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've covered 1996 to 2000 in my post. Some of the most exciting there. 

Are you really just looking to argue here Dave? Is the entente cordial over

Im not sure if there are some crossed wires or not. Before you even replied to me I had already mentioned the 1997 WCC and 2000 World Cup being part of the reason we gave up. You even initially replied to it. I know what was going on, things like you cite failed and comparable things like internationals were poorer than what had gone on before, which was Craig's point about the early 90s. I never said the 1997 WCC or 2000 World Cup wasn't exciting or didn't show ambition. It was though what caused us to be less ambitious and there was no great SL boom and what was tried largely failed. Indeed the end result was that we even had the original deal negotiated down by Sky. As I said I think it's fair to question if the game could have done better, Sky obviously felt so.

You even say yourself above that 2001-2003 the game began to regroup. That is exactly what I am talking about, salary cap introductions, loss of players to RU, losing 64-10 in mid season tests etc. I don't see tests at Wigan, Huddersfield, Watford and Blackburn as ambitious when a few years previously we were playing at Wembley and Old Trafford. You may call that regrouping but that to me is the period when the game lost its ambition, lost its fight and lost its mentality to create something bigger and better.

Edited May 22, 2022 by Damien

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

We have had loads of failed initiatives, but I dont think we should confuse that with not trying things. We're just not great at delivering things, usually as they are badly planned and we have little spare cash. 

There is a tendency with the RFL to highlight certain aspects of their game but a bit Boris in the media like to distract from real issues.

The forethought is what lacks between the trying and failure of some things. That and not sticking with what you tried because it was an immediate success.

It might be argued that they were throwing good money after bad but the shortness of their efforts is more indicative of a lack of will than any failure of vision and newness.

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

when the game lost its ambition,

No, it lost its nerve, and whereas they are always happy to say we should have stuck with, say mergers for example, they've never been a model for this or led from the front in that way.

TOOHS

Edited May 22, 2022 by Oxford

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

Are you really just looking to argue here Dave? Is the entente cordial over

Im not sure if there are some crossed wires or not. Before you even replied to me I had already mentioned the 1997 WCC and 2000 World Cup being part of the reason we gave up. You even initially replied to it. I know what was going on, things like you cite failed and comparable things like internationals were poorer than what had gone on before, which was Craig's point about the early 90s. I never said the 1997 WCC or 2000 World Cup wasn't exciting or didn't show ambition. It was though what caused us to be less ambitious and there was no great SL boom and what was tried largely failed. Indeed the end result was that we even had the original deal negotiated down by Sky. As I said I think it's fair to question if the game could have done better, Sky obviously felt so.

You even say yourself above that 2001-2003 the game began to regroup. That is exactly what I am talking about, salary cap introductions, loss of players to RU, losing 64-10 in mid season tests etc. I don't see tests at Wigan, Huddersfield, Watford and Blackburn as ambitious when a few years previously we were playing at Wembley and Old Trafford. You may call that regrouping but that to me is the period when the game lost its ambition, lost its fight and lost its mentality to create something bigger and better.

 

If you are talking about a 3 year period where we regrouped after going broke, I agree with you. It was entirely right to do that though. 

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

But as I say, still the right call overall. 

It was the right call because it got the game out of its rut though it did very few of the promises that were put forward to engage us, the fans, in the process.

TOOHs!

Edited May 22, 2022 by Oxford

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

If you are talking about a 3 year period where we regrouped after going broke, I agree with you. It was entirely right to do that though. 

I think it was more than 3 years to be honest, more like 6 but I'm happy to agree to disagree. Bar the Wayne Bennett inspired Tri-Nations reviving the international scene (which in itself showed what a decline there had been) there was little of note domestically until Richard Lewis started to make headway and the introduction of Catalans in 2006.

Im not really sure why clubs should have been any more broke either. The 2000 World Cup was also a little weird, in true RL fashion, because it was actually announced as making a £2 million profit. The WCC was paid by Sky. The clubs should have still been fine either way.

[Oxford]

To be fair they're not the only ones with a heroes' clay feet in all this. There are plenty of examples of real dyed in the wool TGG crucaders and evagelists who've lost their courage, tenacity and belief in all this. There are many who look like shadows of their former avatars, so much so they seem like strangers. Some seem more like apologists for everything negative about TGG than fighters for the cause. And, as with all causes it's never the enemies without but the friends within that remain the real issue.

TOOHS

Edited May 22, 2022 by Oxford

[Wigan Riversider]

52 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think it was more than 3 years to be honest, more like 6 but I'm happy to agree to disagree. Bar the Wayne Bennett inspired Tri-Nations reviving the international scene (which in itself showed what a decline there had been) there was little of note domestically until Richard Lewis started to make headway and the introduction of Catalans in 2006.

Im not really sure why clubs should have been any more broke either. The 2000 World Cup was also a little weird, in true RL fashion, because it was actually announced as making a £2 million profit. The WCC was paid by Sky. The clubs should have still been fine either way.

Seem to recall that the 2000 world cup initially made a £3million profilt; then it broke even, then it made a £3million loss.

Jason Heatherbarrow was in charge

Weather was disastrous as were the choices of certain venues: Belfast, Twickenham, Gloucester RU, Watford FC (went to latter three). Tickets were given away for the final.