NRL Europe? In Winter?

[Hopie]

NRL already has too much power, selling them some more would be a disaster.

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, sam4731 said:

If this were to happen it would be catastrophic for the game here. We would become a feeder league for the NRL, we can wave goodbye to ever beating Australia if not the international game altogether and we will have to concede to whatever rule changes the NRL wants. These are just a few of the many, many issues with this horrendous idea.

I don’t ever understand this concept that the SL would become a feeder league to the NRL.

Surely as a commercial investor, the NRLs primary interest would be for the SL to be as big and strong as possible.

As to the other matters. I expect this will give England a better chance of beating Aus as the standards of SL will be improved and the SL already accepts almost all NRL law changes anyway. Would it be better that both hemispheres are playing to the same rules anyway?

 

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Don't worry they will do it on their own and will drain the swamp

Yeah, I don’t know what value the NRL or SL gets out of the NRL being a 50% shareholder. There is no controlling interest there.

What I don’t get is how a buyout would fit with the current IMG partnership.

[ghost crayfish]

If the NRL does invest in the Super League I doubt it would come with the same pitiful lack of control granted to IMG, who have been enabled to make 'recommendations' the Super League clubs can still reject. The NRL would expect to be able to say: 'we're doing it this way now'. And with the money to make the clubs actually fall in line, it would work too (while no doubt p*ssing off a lot of fans). This is just what rugby league in England needs - someone who can say, for example: London is critical to the game's future, they must be in Super League, we will support them with funding and strategy, and we will increase funding for the other clubs so they stop crying about the lack of away fans or whatever.

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, ghost crayfish said:

If the NRL does invest in the Super League I doubt it would come with the same pitiful lack of control granted to IMG, who have been enabled to make 'recommendations' the Super League clubs can still reject. The NRL would expect to be able to say: 'we're doing it this way now'. And with the money to make the clubs actually fall in line, it would work too (while no doubt p*ssing off a lot of fans). This is just what rugby league in England needs - someone who can say, for example: London is critical to the game's future, they must be in Super League, we will support them with funding and strategy, and we will increase funding for the other clubs so they stop crying about the lack of away fans or whatever.

Yep, the only thing that has held the SL from realising the vision back in the 90s is the unwavering stance of club owners to act primarily, secondarily and subsequently in their own interests.
 

There has always been a reluctance to work together for the collective good. Baffling when the sum of all their strengths far outweighs their individual strengths alone.

[gingerjon]

9 hours ago, Coggo said:

REPORTS in Australia are suggesting that the NRL has received an approach from the RFL seeking an investment in the Super League competition.

"Could you lend us a fiver till payday ..."

[rlno1]

10 hours ago, sam4731 said:

If this were to happen it would be catastrophic for the game here. We would become a feeder league for the NRL, we can wave goodbye to ever beating Australia if not the international game altogether and we will have to concede to whatever rule changes the NRL wants. These are just a few of the many, many issues with this horrendous idea.

Plus the character of the sport will just evolve into another Australian knows all league............boring

[rlno1]

4 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Yep, the only thing that has held the SL from realising the vision back in the 90s is the unwavering stance of club owners to act primarily, secondarily and subsequently in their own interests.
 

There has always been a reluctance to work together for the collective good. Baffling when the sum of all their strengths far outweighs their individual strengths alone.

I think the Premier league has inadvertently hindered RL from growing....it just has more appeal and glamour

Edited May 22 by rlno1

[RP London]

10 hours ago, sam4731 said:

If this were to happen it would be catastrophic for the game here. We would become a feeder league for the NRL, we can wave goodbye to ever beating Australia if not the international game altogether and we will have to concede to whatever rule changes the NRL wants. These are just a few of the many, many issues with this horrendous idea.

OR

its about time both leagues played to the same rules, to have 1 game with 2 strong leagues both playing slightly different rules and then coming together to play internationals under another set of rules is utterly utterly idiotic. 

The NFL merger was said similarly, what would the upstart AFL get out of it etc... and yet now its a massive sport with great coverage worldwide and the two came together to have one of the biggest single sporting occasions in the world.. World Club Challenge done properly anyone??

Even if it did become a "feeder league" that does not mean we wave goodbye to beating Australia ever again.. it may mean the exact opposite (as has been said) due to our best English youngsters going to play in the "stronger" comp

Because it is so early there is a convincing counter to everything you said, and everything I said.. until there is more meat on the bones it would be impossible to say but the positives could easily outweigh the "we are owned by the NRL" negative connotations, after all who knows who "owns" what comps really?

[Adelaide Tiger]

10 hours ago, sam4731 said:

If this were to happen it would be catastrophic for the game here. We would become a feeder league for the NRL, we can wave goodbye to ever beating Australia if not the international game altogether and we will have to concede to whatever rule changes the NRL wants. These are just a few of the many, many issues with this horrendous idea.

What do you mean by ‘feeder’ league?

How would that differ from now where NRL teams are identifying and signing young British players?

[sam4731]

15 minutes ago, RP London said:

OR

its about time both leagues played to the same rules, to have 1 game with 2 strong leagues both playing slightly different rules and then coming together to play internationals under another set of rules is utterly utterly idiotic. 

The NFL merger was said similarly, what would the upstart AFL get out of it etc... and yet now its a massive sport with great coverage worldwide and the two came together to have one of the biggest single sporting occasions in the world.. World Club Challenge done properly anyone??

Even if it did become a "feeder league" that does not mean we wave goodbye to beating Australia ever again.. it may mean the exact opposite (as has been said) due to our best English youngsters going to play in the "stronger" comp

Because it is so early there is a convincing counter to everything you said, and everything I said.. until there is more meat on the bones it would be impossible to say but the positives could easily outweigh the "we are owned by the NRL" negative connotations, after all who knows who "owns" what comps really?

The difference between the NFL example and the one you've given us that this wouldn't be a merger. The NRL would just view us as a second tier comp with no interest in bringing us to the same level as their own.

I agree that we should have one set of rules but it should be an independent body that brings together representation from both leagues (as well as FRXIII, NZRL, ERL and APRL) to collaborate on the best rules for the game, not just one party dictating to others.

As far as beating Australia is concerned, you only have to look at the talks of making Samoa/Tonga a tier 1 nation, making anyone representing them ineligible for Australia. I'm sure if we started to test them, they'd find a way of engineering it so that we fall behind again.

[sam4731]

8 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I don’t ever understand this concept that the SL would become a feeder league to the NRL.

Surely as a commercial investor, the NRLs primary interest would be for the SL to be as big and strong as possible.

As to the other matters. I expect this will give England a better chance of beating Aus as the standards of SL will be improved and the SL already accepts almost all NRL law changes anyway. Would it be better that both hemispheres are playing to the same rules anyway?

 

Making SL a commercial success is far different from a strong competition to rival the NRL on the field. A good PR department wouldn't need standards to improve. As for the other points, I've answered above.

[sam4731]

3 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

What do you mean by ‘feeder’ league?

How would that differ from now where NRL teams are identifying and signing young British players?

Think Dual Reg but on a bigger scale. We'd end up getting fringe players coming over to get some game time against weaker opponents to get them ready for the big time.

[Wakefield Ram]

On 22/02/2024 at 18:38, Henson Park Old Firm said:

When I read the article and watch the video... it sounds like it's just going to be a NRL dumbing ground for mediocre players or players ready to retire from the game who are eating into the salary cap. I couldn't see the NRL clubs letting their top players go.

Plus it's going to be in peak winter.

That's happening already we used to get the likes of Wally Lewis, Mal Meninga, Brett Kenny etc.. in their prime. Now we get players who can't even get an NRL contract...

[Damien]

44 minutes ago, RP London said:

OR

its about time both leagues played to the same rules, to have 1 game with 2 strong leagues both playing slightly different rules and then coming together to play internationals under another set of rules is utterly utterly idiotic. 

The NFL merger was said similarly, what would the upstart AFL get out of it etc... and yet now its a massive sport with great coverage worldwide and the two came together to have one of the biggest single sporting occasions in the world.. World Club Challenge done properly anyone??

Even if it did become a "feeder league" that does not mean we wave goodbye to beating Australia ever again.. it may mean the exact opposite (as has been said) due to our best English youngsters going to play in the "stronger" comp

Because it is so early there is a convincing counter to everything you said, and everything I said.. until there is more meat on the bones it would be impossible to say but the positives could easily outweigh the "we are owned by the NRL" negative connotations, after all who knows who "owns" what comps really?

You don't need a merger to play under the same rules. As reasons for a merger go that shouldn't even be on the list.

A merger within the same country and overlapping areas is completely different to what is being discussed to the point that it is irrelevant.

Edited May 22 by Damien

[RP London]

38 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

The difference between the NFL example and the one you've given us that this wouldn't be a merger. The NRL would just view us as a second tier comp with no interest in bringing us to the same level as their own.

I agree that we should have one set of rules but it should be an independent body that brings together representation from both leagues (as well as FRXIII, NZRL, ERL and APRL) to collaborate on the best rules for the game, not just one party dictating to others.

As far as beating Australia is concerned, you only have to look at the talks of making Samoa/Tonga a tier 1 nation, making anyone representing them ineligible for Australia. I'm sure if we started to test them, they'd find a way of engineering it so that we fall behind again.

oh ok so you are just guessing but with absolute assurance you are correct.. 

Why on earth would you invest in a league to downplay it, it would make more sense for the NRL to bring the Super League up to a challenger status and therefore get return on the investment, if it just became a feeder league the level or ROI would be negligible so it just doesn't make any business sense for what you say to happen. 

I agree with the independent body but we have tried that and it doesnt work, we are dictated to by the NRL anyway and  I dont see that changing anytime soon as there is no money for an independent world body.. 

The last paragraph, IMHO, is just silly... They have not interest in the international game at the moment due to state of origin.. that isnt changing anytime soon from what we can see, there is the pacific champs and they may start to see how it brings money into the game to have the international teams actually competing properly against each other. 

As I say for every argument at the moment there is a counter.. what I dont see there being an argument about is that it would make zero business sense to put any money in just to hold the super league as a feeder league when if they could grow the league there would be massive return on investment.

[RP London]

27 minutes ago, Damien said:

You don't need a merger to play under the same rules. As reasons for a merger go that shouldn't even be on the list.

A merger within the same country and overlapping areas is completely different to what is being discussed to the point that it is irrelevant.

I'm not saying that that is a reason for a merger at all.. I was just answering the points Sam made in turn.. not that one would lead to another. 

equally the NFL example was just that, an example of where questions were raised about what one entity could get out of it and yet both have thrived.. again, as said right at the beginning, it is too early to say anything about how it is going to be set, it was just a set of counter arguments to the ones Sam was making which were overly negative.  I wouldnt expect it to look like the NFL, of course, however, I also dont see the logic behind the NRL investing to just have a us as a feeder league. 

Edited May 22 by RP London

[Copa]

1 hour ago, sam4731 said:

The NRL would just view us as a second tier comp with no interest in bringing us to the same level as their own.

The NRL would be interested in making the SL as big and as profitable as possible.

[JohnM]

The whole Re-imagining Rugby League project makes the prospect of an acquisition, merger, take-over more appealing to the NRL since it shows that finally, at last, the sport here is putting itself on a sound and professional basis.  

Such a merger will catapult the sport into the national sporting consciousness.

[gingerjon]

47 minutes ago, Copa said:

The NRL would be interested in making the SL as big and as profitable as possible.

Yes. I think this is why they are highly unlikely to invest.

[Sports Prophet]

23 minutes ago, JohnM said:

The whole Re-imagining Rugby League project makes the prospect of an acquisition, merger, take-over more appealing to the NRL since it shows that finally, at last, the sport here is putting itself on a sound and professional basis.  

Such a merger will catapult the sport into the national sporting consciousness.

And let’s not forget the grand vision of the whole Super League War. It was to globalise the club game and effectively, this would be one step in seeing that become a reality.

Its been a long time coming and I think the future of the sport relies on it.

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Copa said:

The NRL would be interested in making the SL as big and as profitable as possible.

And are they going to invest the tens if millions that will be required to do that, if not more? What return will they be expecting?

Rugby Leagues issue in the UK is ultimately geography and footprint, it will take far more than the NRL will stump up to change that. There is only so much anyone can wring out of the existing setup.

I see nothing in this for the big clubs,  they don't particularly need the relatively small amounts of money and loss of control. Yeah sure smaller clubs may look for a quick buck.

[JohnM]

It's not (just) about the money. It's also about knocking a few heads together to get some action.

[Adelaide Tiger]

2 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Think Dual Reg but on a bigger scale. We'd end up getting fringe players coming over to get some game time against weaker opponents to get them ready for the big time.

But how would Dual Reg work?  There are only 12 SL clubs compared to 17 NRL clubs.  So that would mean 5 NRL clubs would not have a Dual Reg or have a Dual Reg with a Championship club.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Yes. I think this is why they are highly unlikely to invest.

Yeah, I try to be open minded on stuff like this despite my instinct to be to steer well clear, but I just don't see what the Aussies get out of this. On one hand, the investment could be modest, tens of millions of quid could be found I'm sure - but I'm not sure where the returns come on that. I think there is plenty growth to be had, but we have never been a sport in the UK that is awash with funds that can be returned to investors.

I don't think the Aussies are bothered about strengthening the international game through this - if that was the aim, I think there are more direct ways to do that. 

I'm struggling to see what the Aussies could do/invest/bring to the table that is going to get them a substantial return.