NRL eye SL takeover

[hunsletgreenandgold]

39 minutes ago, Damien said:

Wigan went to the NRL and made that happen and paid for the travel. It didn't take a takeover of SL. It was also mutually beneficial, let's not pretend there isn't anything in it for the NRL to have thousands of England fans going. They were persuaded of the benefit of that with the number that went last year.

Both leagues working together and co-operating for the betterment of the game on all fronts is exactly what people want to see. We want things like an Ashes tour to be confirmed rather than V'landys just saying how important the international game is. None of that is requires a takeover.

So why did it take Wigan to make that happen - where were SL in all this? Also the NRL let it happen, so mutually beneficial or not they are the ones that made this happen. 

I just don't get what the risks are - they are a proven business in this field, quite literally. Of course you make part of the negotiations to make them commit more to Internationals etc - that's how you dangle that carrot and stop them being so insular. The NRL doesn't need to chase SL, and that's what Vlandys is basically saying - so the idea they'll just sit down and co-operate with a far lesser organisation is just fanciful - anything they do will be because it benefits them and at best may benefit SL/RFL as a byproduct. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

43 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Vegas was Wigan’s idea by the way, it had nothing to do with reimagining anything.

An idea is nothing if the NRL said no. 

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

So why did it take Wigan to make that happen - where were SL in all this? Also the NRL let it happen, so mutually beneficial or not they are the ones that made this happen. 

I just don't get what the risks are - they are a proven business in this field, quite literally. Of course you make part of the negotiations to make them commit more to Internationals etc - that's how you dangle that carrot and stop them being so insular. The NRL doesn't need to chase SL, and that's what Vlandys is basically saying - so the idea they'll just sit down and co-operate with a far lesser organisation is just fanciful - anything they do will be because it benefits them and at best may benefit SL/RFL as a byproduct. 

Fanciful that a governing body cooperates with another? Jesus wept.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

Just now, Damien said:

Fanciful that a governing body cooperates with another? Jesus wept.

You say Jesus wept - how's it going? What is on the horizon that makes you think that will improve? 

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

You say Jesus wept - how's it going? What is on the horizon that makes you think that will improve? 

What's that got to do with anything? So because the NRL don't cooperate and just because you don't think they have any intention of cooperating you just let them take over instead? Like everything will then suddenly be better with an organisation that's been ambivalent at best prior? There is absolutely nothing to indicate that.

How will the NRL owning SL mean that the Ashes tests would now be announced or a WCC played? It doesnt and there is absolutely nothing stopping these things happening whether SL owns SL or not.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

So why did it take Wigan to make that happen - where were SL in all this? Also the NRL let it happen, so mutually beneficial or not they are the ones that made this happen. 

I just don't get what the risks are - they are a proven business in this field, quite literally. Of course you make part of the negotiations to make them commit more to Internationals etc - that's how you dangle that carrot and stop them being so insular. The NRL doesn't need to chase SL, and that's what Vlandys is basically saying - so the idea they'll just sit down and co-operate with a far lesser organisation is just fanciful - anything they do will be because it benefits them and at best may benefit SL/RFL as a byproduct. 

I think there are substantial risks.

1. Competence. Just because the NRL are a strong governing body in a territory where RL is very strong doesnt mean they would be successful in the UK. Despite their so called superiority and large wallet, they haven't always just been able to translate that success to other things, I.e. world cups.

2. Financial. They have to make money to be interested. So where does that come from? SL has been bold with expansion clubs, but not been able to afford to fund them like the NRL have. Similarly, the NRL are spending millions on the Vegas thing. I just don't see huge pots of gold for the NRL, unless it comes from the game and clubs as it is, or on a private equity type deal which we have rejected. They aren't going to do it for charity.

3. Knowledge. What knowledge of the local market does the NRL have. Sure they can hire the knowledgeable people, but that brings us to point 2.

4. Be careful what you wish for. The Aussie sporting landscape is very different to the UK's. If people found 1995 unpalatable, then I think they'd really struggle with the NRL. I'd expect a closed shop, anything below as feeder leagues. Challenge Cup gone. Likely mergers and/or clubs to move.

5. Motive. There is a risk that we become an official feeder league. Sure some will say that is the case now, but we really should be wary of an organisation that has already shown many times how ruthless they will be in looking after themselves first.

6. What's in it for us? This is about SL, so wouldn't really fix the international game. The best I could see would be real cooperation on an international club game which delivers a new asset to sell, but that never appears to be discussed and based on the lack of interest in the WCC seems to be off the table.

The positives that can be achieved through this can be achieved by having a supportive governing body who is happy to work together on things like international windows and schedules and world club tournaments. Hopefully the Vegas event can demonstrate benefits of working together rather than a takeover.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

What's that got to do with anything? So because the NRL don't cooperate and just because you don't think they have any intention of cooperating you just let them take over instead? Like everything will then suddenly be better with an organisation that's been ambivalent at best prior? There is absolutely nothing to indicate that.

How will the NRL owning SL mean that the Ashes tests would now be announced or a WCC played? It doesnt and there is absolutely nothing stopping these things happening whether SL owns SL or not.

That's naive at best. Why would they even bother taking over SL if they didn't have aspirations to bring RL to a more global audience? WCC (or something even better) and internationals would have to form a part of that - they just want to control how it's done and their track record suggests they would make it a success. Don't mistake their current ambivalence as them not being interested in those areas of the game - they're not that stupid. Again i'll ask, what's the risk here? Seems strange to me so many want the NRL's co-operation and involvement but fearful of them actually owning the league. Why? 

[Gerrumonside ref]

The main interest of the NRL is the NRL.

There’s no logic to acquiring Super League and doing anything that would endanger the primacy.

Thats why even if they think Super League is undervalued, I believe they would enforce a permanent state of feeder league status.

It would be very difficult and ultimately very costly to achieve anything else over here.

You may argue we are already at feeder league status but we have more motive and freedom to change that then we would under the auspices of an NRL protecting its main cash cow.

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

That's naive at best. Why would they even bother taking over SL if they didn't have aspirations to bring RL to a more global audience? WCC (or something even better) and internationals would have to form a part of that - they just want to control how it's done and their track record suggests they would make it a success. Don't mistake their current ambivalence as them not being interested in those areas of the game - they're not that stupid. Again i'll ask, what's the risk here? Seems strange to me so many want the NRL's co-operation and involvement but fearful of them actually owning the league. Why? 

If you think that's naive you want to take a look at your own posts.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think there are substantial risks.

1. Competence. Just because the NRL are a strong governing body in a territory where RL is very strong doesnt mean they would be successful in the UK. Despite their so called superiority and large wallet, they haven't always just been able to translate that success to other things, I.e. world cups.

2. Financial. They have to make money to be interested. So where does that come from? SL has been bold with expansion clubs, but not been able to afford to fund them like the NRL have. Similarly, the NRL are spending millions on the Vegas thing. I just don't see huge pots of gold for the NRL, unless it comes from the game and clubs as it is, or on a private equity type deal which we have rejected. They aren't going to do it for charity.

3. Knowledge. What knowledge of the local market does the NRL have. Sure they can hire the knowledgeable people, but that brings us to point 2.

4. Be careful what you wish for. The Aussie sporting landscape is very different to the UK's. If people found 1995 unpalatable, then I think they'd really struggle with the NRL. I'd expect a closed shop, anything below as feeder leagues. Challenge Cup gone. Likely mergers and/or clubs to move.

5. Motive. There is a risk that we become an official feeder league. Sure some will say that is the case now, but we really should be wary of an organisation that has already shown many times how ruthless they will be in looking after themselves first.

6. What's in it for us? This is about SL, so wouldn't really fix the international game. The best I could see would be real cooperation on an international club game which delivers a new asset to sell, but that never appears to be discussed and based on the lack of interest in the WCC seems to be off the table.

The positives that can be achieved through this can be achieved by having a supportive governing body who is happy to work together on things like international windows and schedules and world club tournaments. Hopefully the Vegas event can demonstrate benefits of working together rather than a takeover.

1. They don't own world cups

2. and 3. This is fair and why I think they're doing massive due diligence before even considering making any moves. 

4. I do understand that - I just think I view that differently to most it seems. If we want to stay a bordering on semi pro comp that has clubs on the verge of collapse season in season out but keep ownership here then I guess that's what we're destined for. 

5. I don't understand this argument - because as you say we are already and it's been fully normalised now that the NRL is the 'test' for the best players.  And in reverse, nobody comes to SL because it's a better or even on par comp, it's fringe and ageing players. If the NRL owned SL then it changes that dynamic as they have a vested interest to make it a strong comp even them out.

6. As I just said in the reply to Damien, their perceived lack of interest is because they don't own it. Of course they know the merits of the International game - the only sports that don't are the ones that only have professional leagues in 1 country. They just want to do it on their terms, not not at all. 

Vegas highlights the opposite for me. It highlights big UK clubs frustrated by the lack of bold ideas of their own league owners and in the NRL they've found an organisation that are those kind of things to promote this great game. 

 

 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

If you think that's naive you want to take a look at your own posts.

Overall we want the same things - a strong UK league, an international calendar and possibly some kind of cross-comp fixtures. Right? I'm not naive because I'm aware what i'm saying i'd like to happen probably never will - but you are because you think or hope something will change from the status quo..but I don't know why you think it will? The NRL owes the UK comp nothing, although to read many threads on here, you'd think it does. 

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

2. Financial. They have to make money to be interested. So where does that come from? SL has been bold with expansion clubs, but not been able to afford to fund them like the NRL have. Similarly, the NRL are spending millions on the Vegas thing. I just don't see huge pots of gold for the NRL, unless it comes from the game and clubs as it is, or on a private equity type deal which we have rejected. They aren't going to do it for charity.

I agree with all your post but just wanted to pick up on this. The NRL haven't really funded expansion clubs and look for huge government support. All very well and good if you are dominant in a market open to that but that's not happening in the UK. Also their expansion teams have been the Dolphins and Gold Coast, both strong RL areas and like SL expanding to Oldham.

The last team before that, and most analogous to the UK, was Melbourne which was a SL product and bankrolled by News Corporation for years to tune of near $100 million. Any expansion team in the UK is facing those kind of hurdles. We don't have a city like Manchester or Liverpool that loves RL just waiting to be put in. Neither do we have the backing, either centrally or at government level, to pay for areas that at best barely care about RL.

If the NRL were coming in and saying we'll bankroll London, Cardiff and Toulouse for 10 years then sure the whole idea would go up in my estimations. That's not the case though.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Overall we want the same things - a strong UK league, an international calendar and possibly some kind of cross-comp fixtures. Right? I'm not naive because I'm aware what i'm saying i'd like to happen probably never will - but you are because you think or hope something will change from the status quo..but I don't know why you think it will? The NRL owes the UK comp nothing, although to read many threads on here, you'd think it does. 

I've not heard a single person say the NRL owes the UK comp anything. The WCC and internationals are not the UK comp.

V'Landys keeps harping on about the international game and the importance of England in it. If you believe him then you must also believe that status quo will change. That would be great.

If you are saying that this isn't the case and he has no intention of doing that then there is zero reason to believe he will improve the game here in any way.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

1. They don't own world cups

2. and 3. This is fair and why I think they're doing massive due diligence before even considering making any moves. 

4. I do understand that - I just think I view that differently to most it seems. If we want to stay a bordering on semi pro comp that has clubs on the verge of collapse season in season out but keep ownership here then I guess that's what we're destined for. 

5. I don't understand this argument - because as you say we are already and it's been fully normalised now that the NRL is the 'test' for the best players.  And in reverse, nobody comes to SL because it's a better or even on par comp, it's fringe and ageing players. If the NRL owned SL then it changes that dynamic as they have a vested interest to make it a strong comp even them out.

6. As I just said in the reply to Damien, their perceived lack of interest is because they don't own it. Of course they know the merits of the International game - the only sports that don't are the ones that only have professional leagues in 1 country. They just want to do it on their terms, not not at all. 

Vegas highlights the opposite for me. It highlights big UK clubs frustrated by the lack of bold ideas of their own league owners and in the NRL they've found an organisation that are those kind of things to promote this great game. 

 

 

1. The point on World Cups is that if they are so far ahead of the UK governing bodies, why haven't they been able to smash the likes of the 2013 WC out of the water? Similar with the 4N, they've had some successes but modest, considering they are in the biggest RL market in the world. Who owns World Cups isn't relevant.

2 - 4 - no issues with you landing in a different place to me here, I accept my view could be seen as pessimistic, and thats because I don't trust them for a second to take actions that are good for the UK even if not for Aus. It would always be Aus first. And tbh, that's fine, but it's why we don't need governing bodies owning each other and we should have a strong independent I tarnation body.

5. I get your argument there, but a more formal agreement with limited financial benefits would see the NRL needing more benefits from SL. That may have to be more as us acting like a conveyor belt more formally. Again, I'm calling out risks rather than exactly what would happen, as obviously we don't know.

6. I'm mot sure this is a compelling enough argument to let them have everything, just because they are like spoiled children and won't play unless they own it.

On Vegas, that's one interpretation, but clubs have always been able to do things like this, and Barcelona etc. The clubs know they haven't got millions to spend on stuff like this, and if they want to wonder why, they should probably look at things like how one of their fellow clubs behaved last week in undermining the season launch.

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

I agree with all your post but just wanted to pick up on this. The NRL haven't really funded expansion clubs and look for huge government support. All very well and good if you are dominant in a market open to that but that's not happening in the UK. Also their expansion teams have been the Dolphins and Gold Coast, both strong RL areas and like SL expanding to Oldham.

The last team before that, and most analogous to the UK, was Melbourne which was a SL product and bankrolled by News Corporation for years to tune of near $100 million. Any expansion team in the UK is facing those kind of hurdles. We don't have a city like Manchester or Liverpool that loves RL just waiting to be put in. Neither do we have the backing, either centrally or at government level, to pay for areas that at best barely care about RL.

If the NRL were coming in and saying we'll bankroll London, Cardiff and Toulouse for 10 years then sure the whole idea would go up in my estimations. That's not the case though.

Yes, absolutely. I didn't go into the funding models, but as you say they have huge investors, whether private, public or from huge media companies. 

I know you and I differ slightly in our view of funding models, im absolutely supportive of being cheekier and getting others to pay and demanding more of a club that wants to join the pyramid, but that brings huge challenges too and does stop us being too proactive.

But back to the point, the NRL are able to pick which huge pot of investment they take. It's a different world.

[Just Browny]

The NRL isn't going to take over Super League. It would be an extremely costly and complex business and I've not seen anyone set out a clear case for why it would be worth the NRL taking on that sort of risk.

The NRL has had more success than the UK in expanding its boundaries, but it is still fundamentally quite a risk-averse organisation - probably wisely. We still haven't had a Perth or a New Zealand 2 team: they are still trying to add more Brisbane clubs and the PNG bid was accepted because it came with an enormous government cheque.

Fixtures like Vegas are limited risks which can be abandoned if the losses don't justify the exposure. 'Buying SL' is potentially a complete money pit and there are frankly better things they could spend their money on in parts of the world that Australians understand far better.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

42 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've not heard a single person say the NRL owes the UK comp anything. The WCC and internationals are not the UK comp.

V'Landys keeps harping on about the international game and the importance of England in it. If you believe him then you must also believe that status quo will change. That would be great.

If you are saying that this isn't the case and he has no intention of doing that then there is zero reason to believe he will improve the game here in any way.

I believe him - I just think the way the status quo changes is more wholesale than at co-operation level

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I believe him - I just think the way the status quo changes is more wholesale than at co-operation level

Well you don't if you think arranging games, as we have done for 100+ years, is incredibly complex and involves wholesale changes. It doesn't. It just requires 2 willing parties.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

1. The point on World Cups is that if they are so far ahead of the UK governing bodies, why haven't they been able to smash the likes of the 2013 WC out of the water? Similar with the 4N, they've had some successes but modest, considering they are in the biggest RL market in the world. Who owns World Cups isn't relevant.

2 - 4 - no issues with you landing in a different place to me here, I accept my view could be seen as pessimistic, and thats because I don't trust them for a second to take actions that are good for the UK even if not for Aus. It would always be Aus first. And tbh, that's fine, but it's why we don't need governing bodies owning each other and we should have a strong independent I tarnation body.

5. I get your argument there, but a more formal agreement with limited financial benefits would see the NRL needing more benefits from SL. That may have to be more as us acting like a conveyor belt more formally. Again, I'm calling out risks rather than exactly what would happen, as obviously we don't know.

6. I'm mot sure this is a compelling enough argument to let them have everything, just because they are like spoiled children and won't play unless they own it.

On Vegas, that's one interpretation, but clubs have always been able to do things like this, and Barcelona etc. The clubs know they haven't got millions to spend on stuff like this, and if they want to wonder why, they should probably look at things like how one of their fellow clubs behaved last week in undermining the season launch.

I mean how the World Cups are organised are fully separate conversations in themselves, as I know you know, Dave. I don't think we can point any fingers at the NRL for that though.

Look, I think all i'm trying to say is I see 2 comps on very different trajectories - if we were ever lucky enough to have the one that makes money be interested in buying the one that is literally kept alive by an ever decreasing TV deal and some wealthy owners, why shouldn't that be at least sounded out? 

[JohnM]

1. I like the concept of having a common global branding for our sport.

2. I like the idea of having a TLA name: NRL

3. I think the real growth and money for the sport, the teams and the players lies in TV rights.

4. I believe that such real growth can be triggered by the individual comps and clubs growing.

5. I also believe that 1, 2 and 3 drive 4  above in a sort of virtuous spiral.

5. I believe that the NRL are best placed to lead this. I think that they will be seen at the high political and commercial levels where they need to operate as a national body, rather than as a northern regional sport. 

6. I believe the general public has a level of  empathy with "foreign" cultures that speak English, the Aussie accent more acceptable to the Northern accent.

6. I believe I am right.

7. Belief relies on faith. Do I have such faith? Hmmm...To die, to sleep—To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub, for in that sleep of death what dreams may come.

[Sports Prophet]

The way I look at it is, the SL is an improving, yet with an underperforming profile and finances. That presents the SL as an enticing product to an ambitious and experienced buyer.

The NRL have a hoard of corporate and media partners, many of which could harbour commercial aspirations in Europe and may be willing to financially partner such an expedition, so I don’t expect it will be the NRL against Europe on their own.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I mean how the World Cups are organised are fully separate conversations in themselves, as I know you know, Dave. I don't think we can point any fingers at the NRL for that though.

Look, I think all i'm trying to say is I see 2 comps on very different trajectories - if we were ever lucky enough to have the one that makes money be interested in buying the one that is literally kept alive by an ever decreasing TV deal and some wealthy owners, why shouldn't that be at least sounded out? 

I think for the purposes of this discussion we can only look at this as Aus governing body compared to UK governing body, as obviously it wouldn't just be a case of the same people running the gane here. But the world cups here were absolutely RFL events in the same way the Aussie WC's were hosted by the Aus governing body. But it was used more as a point that they don't have the midas touch and everything they do turns to gold, even with loads of cash, government funding and huge interest.

On your last line, we should never take anything off the table, we should sound everything out, which I think ee have, and are doing. We've tried different governing body models, explored private equity, formed a partnership with IMG and discussed an NRL takeover. Thats all fine. Where we are disagreeing is you are claiming there is no risk here. I think you are miles off with that assessment.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Well you don't if you think arranging games, as we have done for 100+ years, is incredibly complex and involves wholesale changes. It doesn't. It just requires 2 willing parties.

Indeed. Internationals and World Club tournaments can be delivered now. And to be honest, ownership ain't the big issue here, the 4N was owned by the governing bodies, and it's likely a World Club tournament was simply be NRL/SL owned. That isn't the problem. It's that they don't really need it. They are getting huge tv deals that are unlikely to be grown through a tournament with Wigan, Saints and Leeds. Not initially.

But this is where the bigger picture is sometimes needed to be the focus.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think for the purposes of this discussion we can only look at this as Aus governing body compared to UK governing body, as obviously it wouldn't just be a case of the same people running the gane here. But the world cups here were absolutely RFL events in the same way the Aussie WC's were hosted by the Aus governing body. But it was used more as a point that they don't have the midas touch and everything they do turns to gold, even with loads of cash, government funding and huge interest.

On your last line, we should never take anything off the table, we should sound everything out, which I think ee have, and are doing. We've tried different governing body models, explored private equity, formed a partnership with IMG and discussed an NRL takeover. Thats all fine. Where we are disagreeing is you are claiming there is no risk here. I think you are miles off with that assessment.

Yeah but all that does is further illustrate how the game is so far off when it comes to internationals, which obviously includes World Cups. We just let each governing body do what they want - the IRL isn't fit for purpose and the NRL knows it, especially as Abdo and Vlandys sit on the board. IMO the NRL treat the international element of RL with contempt they believe it deserves, in it's current state. Are we saying the onus is on the NRL to fix it? 

There will always be risks but as you're pointing out, we've tried all sorts over the years so for me the most obvious choice, if it was ever put on the table, would be to sit down with the NRL and flesh out a deal. I'd comfortably say now 'NRL Europe' would secure the game's long term professional future far better than anything SL/IMG/RFL could ever dream up. Cold hard cash is what is needed for a lot of the issues we have at the moment and they have it and better still, know how to get a return on it. 

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Yeah but all that does is further illustrate how the game is so far off when it comes to internationals, which obviously includes World Cups. We just let each governing body do what they want - the IRL isn't fit for purpose and the NRL knows it, especially as Abdo and Vlandys sit on the board. IMO the NRL treat the international element of RL with contempt they believe it deserves, in it's current state. Are we saying the onus is on the NRL to fix it? 

There will always be risks but as you're pointing out, we've tried all sorts over the years so for me the most obvious choice, if it was ever put on the table, would be to sit down with the NRL and flesh out a deal. I'd comfortably say now 'NRL Europe' would secure the game's long term professional future far better than anything SL/IMG/RFL could ever dream up. Cold hard cash is what is needed for a lot of the issues we have at the moment and they have it and better still, know how to get a return on it. 

A country hosting a world cup and international tournaments through their hoverning body is perfectly standard (although separate companies will usually be set up). 

It worked well in 2013, and technically worked well in 2017 and 2021 but the point is that the delivery of 2017 compares poorly to the UK tournaments considering the advantages Australia has compared to the UK.

You could well be right on things being better under the NRL. My personal view is that they have shown more than enough red flags to be extremely wary of them, but I do take the point that if they 'owned it they would be less aggressive to us.

But we should remember that when the Aussie game needs to get clubs on board, they usually just throw buckets of cash at the existing clubs to buy their support. This isn't an option here, and it's unlikely to change any time soon, and in fact when our governing body demands that expansion clubs pay in they are criticised massively.