NRL eye SL takeover

[Damien]

It's weird how people can be for a NRL takeover but so anti IMG and the process which is meant to fix many of the issues we see. Indeed we have seen huge improvements by some clubs already who have really bought into it.

The NRL aren't a charity, they arent giving SL tens of millions. The rest we are already improving but somehow that's considered bad. The only things the NRL could implement on top of what we are already doing would be pretty unacceptable to many.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

It's weird how people can be for a NRL takeover but so anti IMG and the process which is meant to fix many of the issues we see. Indeed we have seen huge improvements by some clubs already who have really bought into it.

The NRL aren't a charity, they arent giving SL tens of millions. The rest we are already improving but somehow that's considered bad. The only things the NRL could implement on top of what we are already doing would be pretty unacceptable to many.

Yes. People want the NRL experts and put trust in them, but don't do the same with IMG experts.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's weird how people can be for a NRL takeover but so anti IMG and the process which is meant to fix many of the issues we see. Indeed we have seen huge improvements by some clubs already who have really bought into it.

The NRL aren't a charity, they arent giving SL tens of millions. The rest we are already improving but somehow that's considered bad. The only things the NRL could implement on top of what we are already doing would be pretty unacceptable to many.

 

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes. People want the NRL experts and put trust in them, but don't do the same with IMG experts.

Just for clarity gents, i'm in no way anti IMG - I agree with a lot of what they set out. I think the NRL would be best place to support delivering on that vision and moving on further from there. SL as it is and it's clubs will make the small quick win changes but nothing that will propel the game and that will become demonstrable at the next TV deal negs. 

[Father Gascoigne]

18 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yes. People want the NRL experts and put trust in them, but don't do the same with IMG experts.

Like when Elstone was recruited, the NRL are adept at looking great in their backyard. Is Everton CEO a taxing job? You sit back and watch the biggest clubs drive up your revenues and the value of your club. What value does that bring to the challenges RL faces? If I'm not mistaken his stint isn't remembered fondly.

The NRL have no expertise in British sports. IMG at least do, and plenty of it, having worked with the PL for decades, among others. 

Apart from doling out funds in exchange for concessions, I'm still at a complete loss as to what people think the NRL can do.

 

 

Edited February 26 by Father Gascoigne

[Welshleaguelover]

30 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:

The NRL have no expertise in British sports.

This is the big thing for me. I read the opinions of lots of Australian rugby league personalities and fans across different sites and social media and I just don't think they grasp how different the circumstances are over here.

[Sports Prophet]

45 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:

Like when Elstone was recruited, the NRL are adept at looking great in their backyard. Is Everton CEO a taxing job? You sit back and watch the biggest clubs drive up your revenues and the value of your club. What value does that bring to the challenges RL faces? If I'm not mistaken his stint isn't remembered fondly.

The NRL have no expertise in British sports. IMG at least do, and plenty of it, having worked with the PL for decades, among others. 

Apart from doling out funds in exchange for concessions, I'm still at a complete loss as to what people think the NRL can do.

 

 

I think opinion that the NRL has no experience in British sports is highly overstated.

It’s not like the culture of the two countries are chalk and cheese. Plenty of Australians in many sports participate in and administer British sports successfully. 

It certainly doesn’t take a genius to understand where RL currently lies in the standing of profile in Britain either.

Considering the diminished profile RL and its stars have in the UK since the 80s and 90s under the predominant administration of the British, maybe it’s the experience in British sports which is the issue rather than the lack thereof?

Edited February 26 by Sports Prophet

[Copa]

On 25/02/2025 at 20:37, Father Gascoigne said:

If one stops to think about it for more than three seconds, they'd come to the realisation that there is nothing the NRL could do to boost the game in Britain. 

It would come down to how little money the NRL can get away with 'investing' in order to procure benefits in a decidedly one-sided relationship (dictating the calendar, player pathways that would benefit the NRL, and other such details that cement the NRL as the chief overlord of the game). 

Getting SL to Vegas seems to be a bit of a boost.

[Dave T]

51 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:

Like when Elstone was recruited, the NRL are adept at looking great in their backyard. Is Everton CEO a taxing job? You sit back and watch the biggest clubs drive up your revenues and the value of your club. What value does that bring to the challenges RL faces? If I'm not mistaken his stint isn't remembered fondly.

The NRL have no expertise in British sports. IMG at least do, and plenty of it, having worked with the PL for decades, among others. 

Apart from doling out funds in exchange for concessions, I'm still at a complete loss as to what people think the NRL can do.

 

 

I think there are skills that can be brought with the right people in leadership roles. There is a fair argument that the NRL leadership would make sure we had stronger leaders who would apply decent strategies and make good decisions on a more consistent basis. That's one I can buy into. 

However I do feel that the lack of serious funds is the overriding factor here that would make delivering any major change a challenge. I think it is the same as what we've seen with IMG to an extent - in reality, it is a series of small changes that can be done, that hopefully add up to substantial change for the sport in this country, but substantial is ultimately modest in the grand scheme of things. 

I'm not just blindly dismissing them because they are the Aussie governing body, although that is where some of their behaviour has demonstrated the red flags I refer to, but I'm just not seeing the real large opportunities here that would make it worthwhile for them or us to take the risks associated with something like this. 

As, I think Damien mentioned, if the proposal was to bring along £40m investment for a ten-year expansion plan in London and France, then let's talk, but that money would be swallowed up with zero commercial return for the NRL. 

I just don't really see any kind of model that brings substantial benefits to them. 

[EastLondonMike]

I think NRL involvement in SL doesn't necessarily mean they try and implement what they have done in Australia in the UK in a like-for-like fashion.

What I'd imagine they would bring is capable and proven leadership, strategy and vision. There are many small things the game could do to make it more professional and attractive to investors and potential viewers - but even those simple fixes seem invisible or unable to be achieved with the current leadership.

I'd welcome their involvement now more than ever - despite sharing some of the same concerns as others - as i honestly don't think the game is making the progress it needs/should be.

[Just Browny]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

I think opinion that the NRL has no experience in British sports is highly overstated.

It’s not like the culture of the two countries are chalk and cheese. Plenty of Australians in many sports participate in and administer British sports successfully. 

It certainly doesn’t take a genius to understand where RL currently lies in the standing of profile in Britain either.

Considering the diminished profile RL and its stars have in the UK since the 80s and 90s under the predominant administration of the British, maybe it’s the experience in British sports which is the issue rather than the lack thereof?

The cultures are very different, let's be real. They might be closer together than the UK and Indonesia, say, but there are big differences in:

- The sporting landscape RL has to work in. Simple version: in Australia it's a big fish, in UK it is a small fish even in the 'heartlands'.

- How Brits and Australians support their teams. The only people singing and making a noise in Vegas will be Wigan and Warrington fans; a few Aussies will be holding up a bedsheets with a dodgy pun on it. Gameday experience very different too: not many leagues clubs in UK.

- Australians get very confused by cup competitions.

[Expatknight]

I remember when Super League was first started by Rupert Murdoch in both hemispheres, here we went along with it because of the TV money it brought in, down under it was like civil war between the ARL and Super League, guess who won? There are still a lot of people who are bitter about those days , so why would the NRL. ( different name but essentially the ARL) want to be involved in the game here . Like I have said before there is nothing in our game to attract them. As has been said on here many times the Aussies look at sport in a totally different way to us, here it is still very tribal with passionate supporters a lot of whom would live and die (metaphorically speaking) for their club, it just isn’t the same there, with maybe the exception of State of Origin, but that’s because NSW and QLD hate each other in the sporting world.

[Sports Prophet]

43 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

The cultures are very different, let's be real. They might be closer together than the UK and Indonesia, say, but there are big differences in:

- The sporting landscape RL has to work in. Simple version: in Australia it's a big fish, in UK it is a small fish even in the 'heartlands'.

- How Brits and Australians support their teams. The only people singing and making a noise in Vegas will be Wigan and Warrington fans; a few Aussies will be holding up a bedsheets with a dodgy pun on it. Gameday experience very different too: not many leagues clubs in UK.

- Australians get very confused by cup competitions.

But those differences are minor and easily understandable. No one with at least the tiniest knowledge of British sport will understand RL is not a big fish in Britain. The NRL will now that. It’s no great secret. So what? RL in Aus didn’t magically just become one of the dominant codes in Australia did it? It took nurturing.

As to how the fans support their teams with singing etc, again, I think you are overstating how that difference in crowd participation would put the NRL behind the 8 ball as the administrator of SL. So fans sing at games, so what? These are still RL clubs, in English speaking towns (mostly) attracting fans to an entertaining spectacle. 

As to any confusion around cup competitions, it’s hardly a riddle. There’s nothing confusing about it. There are obvious reasons why they succeed in British sport and why they don’t in Australian. I wouldn’t call that culturally different but more a delivery model which suits the promo relegation pyramid of pro sports in country of over 60m people with a landmass I guess to be smaller than most Australian states.

It’s like saying the NFL will have no chance of delivering successful events because of their lack of experience in the UK market yet time and time again for over a decade and since day one, they get it right in London.

 

Edited February 26 by Sports Prophet

[Sports Prophet]

33 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

I remember when Super League was first started by Rupert Murdoch in both hemispheres, here we went along with it because of the TV money it brought in, down under it was like civil war between the ARL and Super League, guess who won? There are still a lot of people who are bitter about those days , so why would the NRL. ( different name but essentially the ARL) want to be involved in the game here . Like I have said before there is nothing in our game to attract them. As has been said on here many times the Aussies look at sport in a totally different way to us, here it is still very tribal with passionate supporters a lot of whom would live and die (metaphorically speaking) for their club, it just isn’t the same there, with maybe the exception of State of Origin, but that’s because NSW and QLD hate each other in the sporting world.

Hogwash. Tell that to the winter sports fans in Victoria, SA and WA.

Edited February 26 by Sports Prophet

[Damien]

15 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

But those differences are minor and easily understandable. No one with at least the tiniest knowledge of British sport will understand RL is not a big fish in Britain. The NRL will now that. It’s no great secret. So what? RL in Aus didn’t magically just become one of the dominant codes in Australia did it? It took nurturing.

As to how the fans support their teams with singing etc, again, I think you are overstating how that difference in crowd participation would put the NRL behind the 8 ball as the administrator of SL. So fans sing at games, so what? These are still RL clubs, in English speaking towns (mostly) attracting fans to an entertaining spectacle. 

It’s like saying the NFL will have no chance of delivering successful events because of their lack of experience in the UK market yet time and time again for over a decade and since day one, they get it right in London.

Rugby League has always been one of the dominant codes in Australia. It was the dominant sport from its beginning in NSW and Queensland and has been so for 100+ years. It was dominant when I was a kid in the 80s and 90s to the extent that 2 media moguls spent huge money and caused the SL war fighting over it. It's not like the NRL came along and established this. Even at that it still has much work to do elsewhere in Australia, which is most akin to the scene in the UK.

Edited February 26 by Damien

[Dave T]

Culture may be the wrong word, although there clearly are cultural differences. I think its more about the environment that the two organisations operate in. 

But for me, this does keep coming back to nobody has ever articulated why this would be a good idea. Other than they aren't the RFL, which isn't good enough. If we think we need change, campaign for that, but be very careful selling out to an organisation whose existence is to look after and grow RL in Australia. It will always be Oz first.

For a takeover/sale, whatever we want to call it, it would require a large investment which does bring us back into private equity territory, which the game decided against.

This is what people are advocating in reality, because the people who are running the game in Oz are not moving over here and running the game. It'd still be people running it in the UK with similar constraints, getting the same criticism as ever.

And that's all fine, and people may want the RFL out so bad that they don't care who is in charge, but we just aren't getting somebody whomis gonna come in and make us the NRL in the UK.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

20 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

It’s like saying the NFL will have no chance of delivering successful events because of their lack of experience in the UK market yet time and time again for over a decade and since day one, they get it right in London.

It's a fair point and sadly one I can see repeating itself in years to come in RL. As SL stagnates/regresses in future and the money starts to dry up even more, we will of course still have a fan base for the sport. The NRL will seize on this to bring the Australian NRL 'on the road'. By then we'll be so starved of high quality RL in this country that when they come fans will go in their droves to watch <insert mediocre NRL team v mediocre NRL team) as these are the stars of the game they now watch most. Just like the NFL. I'm sure there are those on here that don't think that will happen, but it's the future I see if we don't get into bed with the NRL sooner rather than....never. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

be very careful selling out to an organisation whose existence is to look after and grow RL in Australia. It will always be Oz first.

Just on this point - I may be wrong but aren't the ARLC and the NRL still different? To what extent I don't know.

[Dave T]

Just now, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Just on this point - I may be wrong but aren't the ARLC and the NRL still different? To what extent I don't know.

Yes, you're right, and I think i acknowledged this in another post that for the purposes of this discussion we pretty much have to see them all together. The lines are so blurred that almost everything you see is wrapped under the NRL brand, including internationals.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

It's a fair point and sadly one I can see repeating itself in years to come in RL. As SL stagnates/regresses in future and the money starts to dry up even more, we will of course still have a fan base for the sport. The NRL will seize on this to bring the Australian NRL 'on the road'. By then we'll be so starved of high quality RL in this country that when they come fans will go in their droves to watch <insert mediocre NRL team v mediocre NRL team) as these are the stars of the game they now watch most. Just like the NFL. I'm sure there are those on here that don't think that will happen, but it's the future I see if we don't get into bed with the NRL sooner rather than....never. 

That's awfully defeatist. SL has started great this season with some great attendances and record broken. It has more well financed clubs than I have ever seen before with richer backers than I have ever seen before. Media and promotion has come on leaps and bounds, by both clubs and SL, in that time too. Based on what we have seen there is no reason to think SL is stagnating or regressing. There is plenty to be optimistic about.

NFL is a completely different beast and the NRL is not the NFL. Not even close. Most British people ain't got a clue what the NRL is. There's a fair few RL fans that don't follow it either. I've been to 3 NFL games in London, and frankly I find it a bit boring live, but people go because it's the NFL and something rare (well it was). Despite that I'd probably still go again because it's just one of those big event type things where I catch up with friends. I know various people who can't stand American Football that have still gone to these games. With the best will in the world the NRL doesn't have that lure beyond a small audience.

[Dave T]

The Aussies have had the best players for years but there is little evidence to suggest that UK fans would prefer to watch NRL teams over UK teams.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

36 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's awfully defeatist. SL has started great this season with some great attendances and record broken. It has more well financed clubs than I have ever seen before with richer backers than I have ever seen before. Media and promotion has come on leaps and bounds, by both clubs and SL, in that time too. Based on what we have seen there is no reason to think SL is stagnating or regressing. There is plenty to be optimistic about.

NFL is a completely different beast and the NRL is not the NFL. Not even close. Most British people ain't got a clue what the NRL is. There's a fair few RL fans that don't follow it either. I've been to 3 NFL games in London, and frankly I find it a bit boring live, but people go because it's the NFL and something rare (well it was). Despite that I'd probably still go again because it's just one of those big event type things where I catch up with friends. I know various people who can't stand American Football that have still gone to these games. With the best will in the world the NRL doesn't have that lure beyond a small audience.

I don't mean to be so gloomy about it - but as I said previously, even with the small wins SL is making, if you were to map out each leagues trajectories, by various metrics, one is just about stabilising whilst the other is shooting up.

I'm not saying that's where we are now but you know as well as I do, when the league is so heavily reliant on one income stream, any major changes in that could be perilous. What happens when the next TV deal comes round - the changes made so far might mean Sky will say we'll give you another 3 years at 20(ish) million a year? In real terms that's another cut. IMG have some bold aspirations - I just don't see how they're met if the league/clubs start to have even less money. Wealthy owners might paper the cracks for a while, but as we see already we're never far from some clubs going pop. 

I'm not comparing the NRL to the NFL scale wise - you're right, there is no comparison. But could I see a time where the UK game is a shadow of where it is now and the NRL hoover up UK RL fans? Definitely. Not all of course, but as per Dave's comments - that's true now, but we're still a big enough market for them to be interested in. The NRL wants to be the only name in RL - competition wise. Their brand is the game. I maintain, we can either run with them or limp on by ourselves, for as long as we can. 

[Damien]

15 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I don't mean to be so gloomy about it - but as I said previously, even with the small wins SL is making, if you were to map out each leagues trajectories, by various metrics, one is just about stabilising whilst the other is shooting up.

I'm not saying that's where we are now but you know as well as I do, when the league is so heavily reliant on one income stream, any major changes in that could be perilous. What happens when the next TV deal comes round - the changes made so far might mean Sky will say we'll give you another 3 years at 20(ish) million a year? In real terms that's another cut. IMG have some bold aspirations - I just don't see how they're met if the league/clubs start to have even less money. Wealthy owners might paper the cracks for a while, but as we see already we're never far from some clubs going pop. 

I'm not comparing the NRL to the NFL scale wise - you're right, there is no comparison. But could I see a time where the UK game is a shadow of where it is now and the NRL hoover up UK RL fans? Definitely. Not all of course, but as per Dave's comments - that's true now, but we're still a big enough market for them to be interested in. The NRL wants to be the only name in RL - competition wise. Their brand is the game. I maintain, we can either run with them or limp on by ourselves, for as long as we can. 

All leagues are reliant on TV money. SL isn't alone in that regard. The NRL itself was limping along until it got its bumper TV deals which fuelled the growth and money we see now.

Again the NRL operates in a completely different market. It is one of the two dominant players in its sporting landscape and what it gets is very much linked to the AFL deal. The AFL gets a bumper deal then the NRL does. This is all very well and good when you are a dominant player in a market but isn't applicable to SL and the British market at all. SL isn't life or death for TV networks and isn't going to be for the foreseeable future.

The NRL aren't going to takeover and change that with SL suddenly getting massive TV deals. Unless you are saying they are going to invest tens of millions a year they aren't changing the income streams of SL anytime soon beyond the levels you are criticising.

[Sports Prophet]

What I think people are forgetting is the credibility and influence the NRL would bring with them when recruiting commercial partners and negotiating TV contracts.

While I don’t expect the NRL to simply turn up and immediately double or triple the existing broadcast deal, I would expect the NRL to do a damn finer job in selling the sport than the RFL have done for some time.

Further to your concerns @Dave T about the remit of the NRL/ARLC, we can’t group them together as you would like to for the argument you are making although often the lines are blurred when you have the Commission Chairman doing more or the talking than the NRL CEO. Similarly blurred when the NRL Report discusses participation rates, which isn’t really their remit, but the outcome is for the best part, wholly reliant on the financial capacity of the NRL.

The NRLs foremost function is to deliver a the dominant club rugby competition for which the ARLC reap the profile and financial benefits.

I would expect that should an NRL takeover occur, then the league would be aptly named and differentiated from the existing product in the SH to something like NRL Europe. I would expect part of any takeover, the clubs would ensure the constitution or purpose of NRL Europe is to deliver the best club rugby competition in Europe. I mean any sale of SL to NRL will be subject to the pro club support and without a specified interest in delivering the best outcomes in Europe, for the benefit of the game in Europe, then the clubs wouldn’t vote it in anyway.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

What I think people are forgetting is the credibility and influence the NRL would bring with them when recruiting commercial partners and negotiating TV contracts.

While I don’t expect the NRL to simply turn up and immediately double or triple the existing broadcast deal, I would expect the NRL to do a damn finer job in selling the sport than the RFL have done for some time.

Further to your concerns @Dave T about the remit of the NRL/ARLC, we can’t group them together as you would like to for the argument you are making although often the lines are blurred when you have the Commission Chairman doing more or the talking than the NRL CEO. Similarly blurred when the NRL Report discusses participation rates, which isn’t really their remit, but the outcome is for the best part, wholly reliant on the financial capacity of the NRL.

The NRLs foremost function is to deliver a the dominant club rugby competition for which the ARLC reap the profile and financial benefits.

But that is exactly my point. It is blurred, and when these organisations are so closely aligned we are really talking the same thing here, particularly as none of these actual people would be the people who would lead the UK game anyway.

 

Returning to your first couple of paras, I think this is a simplistic view of the world. Club RU is seeing a similar issue with TV deals, yet being weak negotiators of TV deals has never really been thrown at them. But their Premier club comp is now on Premier Sports and apparently the value of the English league has dropped to similar levels as us.

I think its naive to just believe that the NRL get good deals because they are good negotiators and SL don't because they are poor negotiators.

[Father Gascoigne]

 

19 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I think opinion that the NRL has no experience in British sports is highly overstated.

It’s not like the culture of the two countries are chalk and cheese. Plenty of Australians in many sports participate in and administer British sports successfully. 

It certainly doesn’t take a genius to understand where RL currently lies in the standing of profile in Britain either.

Considering the diminished profile RL and its stars have in the UK since the 80s and 90s under the predominant administration of the British, maybe it’s the experience in British sports which is the issue rather than the lack thereof?

When I speak of understanding, I'm referring to things like contacts and intricacies of the market and players involved that the lay person isn't privy to. If we're going to put the NRL and IMG next to eachother, it would be asinine to conclude that the NRL knows anywhere near as much as a contractor who has worked in the country for decades with various stakeholders. And if, at the moment, a number of fans are displeased with IMG's performance, what does that say about the prospects for the NRL taking charge? 

That's one of the reasons Elstone was brought in, was it not? He was supposed to use his knowledge and links with broadcasters to help boost the SL TV deal. Maybe I'm misremembering this, but I imagine his experience and industry links as a PL CEO at a time of burgeoning media deals was seen as a bonus that could be used for SL's benefit when he was hired. 

I said in my initial post that the one thing the NRL could do is pump money into the British game, not dissimilar to private equity. And like PE, they would be looking for ways to extract value from that above their outlay. 

What the NRL is not going to do is boost player numbers. It's not going to fund startup professional clubs in major cities. It's not going to have any sway on English media, as it does in NSW and Queensland. It's not going to strongarm the British government into favourable deals of any kind, as it does in Australia.

What then can they realistically do that would propel the domestic game to new heights? 

I view any NRL interest in the SL cynically. They'll do what's good for them, not for the British game. On occasion those interests might align. But that's not a strategy I'd be pinning my hopes on. 

19 hours ago, Copa said:

Getting SL to Vegas seems to be a bit of a boost.

In what sense? It's a boost in a sense they're getting new eyes on the game in a foreign territory. That said, I would be incredulous of any claim the Vegas exhibition is what's behind the positivity surrounding the early rounds of the SL season. 

18 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think there are skills that can be brought with the right people in leadership roles. There is a fair argument that the NRL leadership would make sure we had stronger leaders who would apply decent strategies and make good decisions on a more consistent basis. That's one I can buy into. 

However I do feel that the lack of serious funds is the overriding factor here that would make delivering any major change a challenge. I think it is the same as what we've seen with IMG to an extent - in reality, it is a series of small changes that can be done, that hopefully add up to substantial change for the sport in this country, but substantial is ultimately modest in the grand scheme of things. 

I'm not just blindly dismissing them because they are the Aussie governing body, although that is where some of their behaviour has demonstrated the red flags I refer to, but I'm just not seeing the real large opportunities here that would make it worthwhile for them or us to take the risks associated with something like this. 

As, I think Damien mentioned, if the proposal was to bring along £40m investment for a ten-year expansion plan in London and France, then let's talk, but that money would be swallowed up with zero commercial return for the NRL. 

I just don't really see any kind of model that brings substantial benefits to them. 

Great post. The only thing I'd push back on is the leadership aspect.

I suspect we're in agreement that any NRL involvement would not be as chief decision-maker. SL owners would never agree to that.

Short of jettisoning each and every SL owner and installing puppets that adhere to the company line--which isn't happening--the NRL would have their hands tied behind their backs even with the best minds in place.  

With so many voices at the table, what would end up happening is there'd be competing views on any and all proposed ideas. Like so many enterprises without a leader to enact change as he sees fit, it would likely devolve into bickering and disagreement, with the inevitable acrimonious split.  

If we can't get past how the NRL would make SL owners obedient from the outset, it's effectively a non-starter. The way private equity gets around that is by doing its best impression of a loan shark. 

That's not something SL should be getting mixed up with fullstop.