NRL commence SL takeover discussions

[The Rocket]

14 hours ago, Griff said:

What's in this for the NRL?

 

We are continually told that for the NRL to maximize its` broadcast deals over here it needs more content. The current mania for expansion, 4 teams in probably ten years, madness really, is testament to that.

Given the ambition of Peter V`landys I suspect that he wants to include the English game more in future broadcast deals, the best way to do that, and to shape the involvement of the English game to suit that end, exactly to the NRL`s liking, well what better way than to buy a controlling interest in it.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

We are continually told that for the NRL to maximize its` broadcast deals over here it needs more content. The current mania for expansion, 4 teams in probably ten years, madness really, is testament to that.

Given the ambition of Peter V`landys I suspect that he wants to include the English game more in future broadcast deals, the best way to do that, and to shape the involvement of the English game to suit that end, exactly to the NRL`s liking, well what better way than to buy a controlling interest in it.

The rights are already available for a pittance, there is no way overseas rights will ever be worth any more than a fraction of any outlay.

[The Rocket]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

The rights are already available for a pittance, there is no way overseas rights will ever be worth any more than a fraction of any outlay.

We have no idea of what plans the NRL have for the English game, with control we may see the return of the club challenge and other marquee events involving the best English teams, which although it may surprise you, are pretty well known over here and could add valuable content.

[Dave T]

I do genuinely think there is room for commercial improvement in the UK game. I think we're at a bit of a low at the moment, and a well run sport here with a decent level of investment in the right things could see some returns. However, it does feel like there are easier investments to be had for what are probably quite modest returns. 

I'm not sure there is enough in this for the NRL to invest millions of quid into the UK game. And that's what is needed really to make any material change quickly. 

I think the best that can come out of these conversations is an improved relationship with the top league in the world where they understand the challenges faced here and how they can play their part in supporting the UK game for the benefit of themselves, us, and the world game. As per one of my recent posts, for me that is fully supporting the World Club and International game. 

[ATLANTISMAN]

NRL won't invest a penny of they do it will be on their own P 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

NRL won't invest a penny of they do it will be on their own P 

I don't know what this means. 

[Damien]

42 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

We have no idea of what plans the NRL have for the English game, with control we may see the return of the club challenge and other marquee events involving the best English teams, which although it may surprise you, are pretty well known over here and could add valuable content.

That can all return without NRL control, its not the English clubs or game that are a barrier to these things. If they did return the NRL without NRL control then they would still profit from any rights.

In an age when the NRL are moving to 20 teams there isn't a chance we are going to get substantially more games between NRL and SL clubs anyway.

Edited August 21 by Damien

[welshmagpie]

29 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't know what this means. 

NRL won't invest a penny of they do it will be on their own P
-

The NRL won’t invest a penny in the RFL or Super League itself, if they are to invest in the sport in the northern hemisphere it will be through creation of their own league/competition.

Paul

 

[Griff]

1 minute ago, welshmagpie said:

NRL won't invest a penny of they do it will be on their own P
-

The NRL won’t invest a penny in the RFL or Super League itself, if they are to invest in the sport in the northern hemisphere it will be through creation of their own league/competition.

Paul

 

Google Translate?

[Damien]

If the NRL were genuinely interested in something like this I don't know why they wouldn't just do it in France. It would be a blank slate with heaps of potential upside that I just can't see in the English game. It would also be great for the game and all at a far smaller outlay

[JohnM]

France is stony ground for RL, though. 

[JM2010]

Maybe with the expansion of the NRL the investment in the UK might be aimed at producing players for the NRL

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, welshmagpie said:

NRL won't invest a penny of they do it will be on their own P
-

The NRL won’t invest a penny in the RFL or Super League itself, if they are to invest in the sport in the northern hemisphere it will be through creation of their own league/competition.

Paul

 

Yeah, but that would be them investing in the UK game. Which is the same thing. 

[Dunbar]

22 hours ago, The Daddy said:

I see both potential positives and negatives of an NRL takeover. (Not sure if it would be a full takeover or just acquiring a share of ownership rights)

Where that leaves the IMG situation who knows. But I would be highly in favour of adopting the NRLs model where licensing and grants are issued to clubs that bring added commercial value to the competition. Also, I'd be in favour of giving newly promoted clubs a 2-3 year period to build the club before entering SL. The current and previous incarnations are unworkable.

I would also be in favour of any ownership model that takes power away from the clubs because they've proven that they can't make decisions without thinking about the wider interests of RL in the UK.

Let's see how this pans out. 

 

The headline says that dialogue between Super League and the NRL over a potential takeover has begun.

Super League could be taking over the NRL.

[The Daddy]

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The headline says that dialogue between Super League and the NRL over a potential takeover has begun.

Super League could be taking over the NRL.

Never thought about that

[The Daddy]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

If the NRL were genuinely interested in something like this I don't know why they wouldn't just do it in France. It would be a blank slate with heaps of potential upside that I just can't see in the English game. It would also be great for the game and all at a far smaller outlay

Agree on this. France is a better 'investment'. And I think the NRL would get less resistance from the French Federation. 

There's much greater upside with several areas that have a great RL history but just need a bit of investment and direction 

[Sports Prophet]

22 hours ago, sam4731 said:

SL will be a reserve grade NRL comp within 5 years.

I don’t understand people pushing this theory.

Historically, the Sydney club competition, the NSWRL expanded to include non metro teams like Canberra, Wollongong, Newcastle, Brisbane, Auckland and Nth Queensland and along the way evolve into the ARL. This wasn’t done to see the sport whither in these locations, but instead to thrive.

In a takeover situation, why wouldn’t the NRL want the same of the European game? two peak performing conferences, challenging one another for global supremacy? I mean if the NRL owned the professional game in Europe, surely they would be happy to see it succeed and thrive. Wouldn’t they?

[The Daddy]

6 hours ago, Eddie said:

In Australia over the last 30 years. 

The NRL preside over a franchise system and take a strategic commercial approach to bringing new teams into the competition.

It's a normal feature of a franchise system to favour a club over another based on varying factors, whether it be adding value to TV rights, having a presence in an emerging market or political reasons as we see in the PNG situation. The NRL appear to have an influence in forcing Norths onto a Perth based franchise is another example of what could be deemed as over involvement or favouring one club over another. I don't always agree with it.

It's different to what is done over here, but the proof is in the pudding. The AFL operate the same/similar system and both the AFL and NRL are vastly better run organisations, the value of their respective tv deals is a real indicator of this. 

I'm not totally in favour of NRL ownership of SL (not against it either), but I can't see them operating any sort of system where clubs have only 2 months to prepare to be in SL. Whether that's promotion/relegation, a Super 8s system or the current IMG system. 

Their NRL license/grant allocation model would be the best system for Super League and if they were to takeover I hope they implement it.

Remember, the NRL are only in the picture because the UK RL has collectively failed to manage its affairs effectively for years. If things were done properly in the first place we wouldn't be where we are now. 

One of the reasons why I would be in favour of an NRL takeover would be to have a single clear strategic decision maker for the sport and not a direction taken that's voted on by clubs. 

Edited August 21 by The Daddy

[sam4731]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

I don’t understand people pushing this theory.

Historically, the Sydney club competition, the NSWRL expanded to include non metro teams like Canberra, Wollongong, Newcastle, Brisbane, Auckland and Nth Queensland and along the way evolve into the ARL. This wasn’t done to see the sport whither in these locations, but instead to thrive.

In a takeover situation, why wouldn’t the NRL want the same of the European game? two peak performing conferences, challenging one another for global supremacy? I mean if the NRL owned the professional game in Europe, surely they would be happy to see it succeed and thrive. Wouldn’t they?

So you think that they will divert an equal level of investment on both sides of the world? Encourage an even divide of the best players? Give equal focus to both competitions?

Ultimately, I think they will treat RL in the NH as a side project, something they can use to bolster the main focus of the NRL.

[GeordieSaint]

6 hours ago, Roughyed Rats said:

The game would split. NRL Franchises for the big 6 or so, topped up with new ones and the rest left to run their own separate competition. From my own personal perspective, I'd happily continuing watching my club in a semi-professional UK league. 

You should start a new thread with your suggestions. We have never discussed those types of ideas on this forum before…

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, The Daddy said:

 

One of the reasons why I would be in favour of an NRL takeover would be to have a single clear strategic decision maker for the sport and not a direction taken that's voted on by clubs. 

This is the interesting bit for me. Why do you think the NRL would be able to do this?  Why would clubs sign over power when they've never been comfortable to do so to the RFL, SLE, IMG etc?

This is an interesting article about NRL expansion into PNG:

NRL clubs set for $2m a year windfall as part of PNG expansion plan | NRL | The Guardian

A new club that brings with it substantial costs also brings investment that supports covering costs for the existing clubs. When this is even briefly mentioned with any expansion discussion in the UK it soon becomes a stick to beat UK clubs and they are described as backwards and that they should suck up the costs. The NRL have also previously used the model of clubs paying travel costs, although moved onto funding that in other ways. 

The world is completely different over there, and there are funding streams that are just not available here, and likely never will be. Maybe the NRL would do a good job, but I do think we need to be careful what we wish for.

[The Daddy]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is the interesting bit for me. Why do you think the NRL would be able to do this?  Why would clubs sign over power when they've never been comfortable to do so to the RFL, SLE, IMG etc?

This is an interesting article about NRL expansion into PNG:

NRL clubs set for $2m a year windfall as part of PNG expansion plan | NRL | The Guardian

A new club that brings with it substantial costs also brings investment that supports covering costs for the existing clubs. When this is even briefly mentioned with any expansion discussion in the UK it soon becomes a stick to beat UK clubs and they are described as backwards and that they should suck up the costs. The NRL have also previously used the model of clubs paying travel costs, although moved onto funding that in other ways. 

The world is completely different over there, and there are funding streams that are just not available here, and likely never will be. Maybe the NRL would do a good job, but I do think we need to be careful what we wish for.

In response to your questions: 

This is the interesting bit for me. Why do you think the NRL would be able to do this? 

Depends what is agreed with the SL clubs. 

Why would clubs sign over power when they've never been comfortable to do so to the RFL, SLE, IMG etc?

This is what I'm thinking and possibly a sticking point. It's all hypothetical discussion at this point. 

In regards to your other point about responses to what a new club would bring to SL. Because the sport is so much smaller over here than the NRL and has trouble attracting investment I see that as a mute point. What club getting promoted to SL in the last 20 years adds value on a significant level to the same extent the Dolphins has or a Perth team would?

What club in any of the UK leagues automatically adds immediate tangible and quantifiable value to SL TV deal and to the competition overall? And I'm not talking about peanut economics that gets talked about when people bring up away fans. 

Edited August 21 by The Daddy

[The Daddy]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is the interesting bit for me. Why do you think the NRL would be able to do this?  Why would clubs sign over power when they've never been comfortable to do so to the RFL, SLE, IMG etc?

This is an interesting article about NRL expansion into PNG:

NRL clubs set for $2m a year windfall as part of PNG expansion plan | NRL | The Guardian

A new club that brings with it substantial costs also brings investment that supports covering costs for the existing clubs. When this is even briefly mentioned with any expansion discussion in the UK it soon becomes a stick to beat UK clubs and they are described as backwards and that they should suck up the costs. The NRL have also previously used the model of clubs paying travel costs, although moved onto funding that in other ways. 

The world is completely different over there, and there are funding streams that are just not available here, and likely never will be. Maybe the NRL would do a good job, but I do think we need to be careful what we wish for.

What I will say though is, if the SL clubs don't change their outlook RL will become less and less relevant in the UK sporting landscape in the future. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

In response to your questions: 

This is the interesting bit for me. Why do you think the NRL would be able to do this? 

Depends what is agreed with the SL clubs. 

Why would clubs sign over power when they've never been comfortable to do so to the RFL, SLE, IMG etc?

This is what I'm thinking and possibly a sticking point. It's all hypothetical discussion at this point. 

In regards to your other point about responses to what a new club would bring to SL. Because the sport is so much smaller over here than the NRL and has trouble attracting investment I see that as a mute point. What club getting promoted to SL in the last 20 years adds value on a significant level to the same extent the Dolphins has or a Perth team would?

What club in any of the UK leagues automatically adds immediate tangible and quantifiable value to SL TV deal and to the competition overall? And I'm not talking about peanut economics that gets talked about when people bring up away fans. 

But that's the point isn't it. If the NRL couldn't get financial backing for expansion, or come up with a way for this to work, they wouldn't do it - but it is frowned upon when we demand that costs are covered for new ventures. It's a sensible way to do things, but the NRL being in charge here would soon have to face into the fact that there isn't a fund for hundreds of millions of quid to bring in new expansion clubs for example.

Now that isn't to say that they would make the same decisions as the RFL have, and wouldn't do a better job - but I think they would face many of the same challenges, and they are much harder to overcome than in Oz where they are able to dig into substantial pots of money to overcome them.

However, I do think it comes back to those first couple of points - I don't see why the game would hand over substantial amounts of control without receiving substantial amounts of money - and that brings us back into private equity conversations really, which the sport has once rejected.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

What I will say though is, if the SL clubs don't change their outlook RL will become less and less relevant in the UK sporting landscape in the future. 

But what does that actually mean?