NRL eye SL takeover

[Gerrumonside ref]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree, but I don't know where that fits in. I do also worry the opposite of the intended result is possible.

I think they have the greater strength in depth club wise for now so you would need to limit it to the very best of Super League.

Scheduling really comes down to what’s more valuable to the NRL - you would need to make it worth their while financially and to have sporting merit which would be a big process.

That’s the biggest blocker but needn’t mean you don’t start a journey of getting from here to there.

 

Edited March 1 by Gerrumonside ref

[Gerrumonside ref]

I’d like to add that maximising the commercial possibilities of Super League up here while consulting our Australian friends on what had worked for them in their sporting context which might transfer to our sporting context (not as much as we might hope I feel) would be the obvious first step.

 

[Sports Prophet]

5 hours ago, gingerjon said:

It didn’t change when we played each other more and the SL teams won. Why would it change in the future by doing the same?

You’re bang on mate, SL standard is well beyond NRL.

[Anita Bath]

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Are you seriously believing there will be no Pacific Cup because Kangas are in England?

No, I was responding to another post that indicated there wouldnt be because Australia would be otherwise engaged.

Whether there is or there isnt, the lack of any announcement makes NRL as culpable as RFL. We are now into both Superleague and NRL seasons and there have been no announcements of any test matches during or after the seasons.

[Dave T]

32 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

No, I was responding to another post that indicated there wouldnt be because Australia would be otherwise engaged.

Whether there is or there isnt, the lack of any announcement makes NRL as culpable as RFL. We are now into both Superleague and NRL seasons and there have been no announcements of any test matches during or after the seasons.

Wasn't the Pacific Cup only announced well into the season last year?

[Copa]

8 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Yes; one off games won’t shift the dial but a club competition might.

It’s highly unlikely that there will ever be an NRL/SL club competition at all due to player welfare issues. Adding more games to a season contributes to player burnout.

Edited March 1 by Copa

[Gerrumonside ref]

Just now, Copa said:

It’s highly unlikely that there will ever be an NRL/SL club competition at all due to player welfare issues. NRL players want fewer games, not more.

Never sag never.

If the money was right then most people like money and are willing to adapt.

 

[Copa]

3 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Never sag never.

If the money was right then most people like money and are willing to adapt.

 

The Rugby League Players Association in Australia would put limits on how many games an athlete could play if the season was lengthened. The RLPA already says the current NRL season length is unsustainable.

[Gerrumonside ref]

2 minutes ago, Copa said:

The Rugby League Players Association in Australia would put limits on how many games an athlete could play if the season was lengthened. The RLPA already says the current NRL season length is unsustainable.

Yes. but at the end of the day they are professional athletes playing for money.

If the money is right, the scheduling would be adapted.

Things change in sport when money gets involved.

[Henson Park Old Firm]

 

[Sports Prophet]

6 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

No, I was responding to another post that indicated there wouldnt be because Australia would be otherwise engaged.

Whether there is or there isnt, the lack of any announcement makes NRL as culpable as RFL. We are now into both Superleague and NRL seasons and there have been no announcements of any test matches during or after the seasons.

I misunderstood you sorry.

Agree with your sentiments around equal responsibility. I would like to have known of the Ashes details by now. Pacific Cup doesn’t need anywhere near as much lead in time.

[Worzel]

The plans must be getting serious now, the Daily Telegraph in Sydney has started inventing stories about it (they always do this with every vague, half-formed idea that one person mentions in a bar, so that if it does happen years later they can say "you heard it here first!") 

 

 

[Father Gascoigne]

What does buying a stake in SL look like? Are you buying percentages of the clubs? 

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, Worzel said:

The plans must be getting serious now, the Daily Telegraph in Sydney has started inventing stories about it (they always do this with every vague, half-formed idea that one person mentions in a bar, so that if it does happen years later they can say "you heard it here first!") 

 

 

Callum Walker credited another article. Well I never.

Edited March 6 by Damien

[Worzel]

20 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:

What does buying a stake in SL look like? Are you buying percentages of the clubs? 

Nothing in this concept makes sense really, no.

But ultimately no you wouldn't be buying clubs you'd be taking over control of the competition, of which the (independently owned) clubs are members. You then run that comp, and seek to increase its value by increasing the value of media and commercial deals. But the reality is there's no direct financial upside for the NRL if they were able to do so: You'd need to reinvest any growth in the European comp itself, rather than take any money back to Australia, so really the question at stake is "does the Aussie league want to take over the European league, in order to run it better, because they believe that having a better European league is in the best interests of the NRL in Australia and the Pacific".

"Best interests" might include talent pathway synergies, or strengthening the international game in order to make the NRL a more attractive proposition when selling its own TV rights etc. But that indirect benefit is the only reason to do it.  

[Father Gascoigne]

1 minute ago, Worzel said:

Nothing in this concept makes sense really, no.

But ultimately no you wouldn't be buying clubs you'd be taking over control of the competition, of which the (independently owned) clubs are members. You then run that comp, and seek to increase its value by increasing the value of media and commercial deals. But the reality is there's no direct financial upside for the NRL if they were able to do so: You'd need to reinvest any growth in the European comp itself, rather than take any money back to Australia, so really the question at stake is "does the Aussie league want to take over the European league, in order to run it better, because they believe that having a better European league is in the best interests of the NRL in Australia and the Pacific".

"Best interests" might include talent pathway synergies, or strengthening the international game in order to make the NRL a more attractive proposition when selling its own TV rights etc. But that indirect benefit is the only reason to do it.  

I'm with you on the 'best interests' bit, that seems the likeliest outcome. 

It does make more sense that they'd be buying into the competition itself, rather than the clubs. I assumed that was the case, but thanks for clarifying.

To me it suggests this could actually happen, as there's little risk being taken on both sides, since the NRL wouldn't be buying into that which holds the real value (the clubs). 

[Worzel]

12 minutes ago, Father Gascoigne said:

I'm with you on the 'best interests' bit, that seems the likeliest outcome. 

It does make more sense that they'd be buying into the competition itself, rather than the clubs. I assumed that was the case, but thanks for clarifying.

To me it suggests this could actually happen, as there's little risk being taken on both sides, since the NRL wouldn't be buying into that which holds the real value (the clubs). 

Yes, they wouldn't need to put any money down. They'd need to provide people to do better work, and probably investment finance to pay for any activities they believe will grow the game over here.

Given they have about $300m in reserves, if it was me I'd do it, I think the long-term benefits for the NRL to be able to position itself as a global sport (versus AFL) are very significant. Depending on whose numbers you believe, the AFL TV contract is between $150-$250m per season larger than the NRLs. That's a big number to be able to chase after by improving your product positioning. 

 

[Balmainboy]

So Daily Telegraph in Aus are reporting a proposal from NRL club bosses is going to be put to the NRL for them to bid for a majority stake in the Super League. Gus Gould in his podcast also mentioned "an announcement in the next few weeks" but didn't specify what it was about. Seems it has some legs. Obviously a very long way to go before the RFL properly considers any deal. 

Easy to understand the benefits to the NRL of buying the SL. A re-brand to "NRL-Europe" or something similiar would be likely IMO, great opportunity to sell NRL to the British public/more content to sell to FoxSports in Aus etc etc. But really, it's hard to make any sense of whether this is a positive for the game in the NH unless we know what the NRL would want to change? Can't see them buying it and keeping everything the same but just adding a bit of extra funding. If they pumped a bunch of extra money into expansion clubs like Toulouse and London for instance, that would be a great development IMO. Who knows what the plans would be. 

One thing to me seems certain from my five years in London though - rugby league in the UK is on the decline and something needs to change to shift that trajectory. Who knows if this is it. 

 

[Treizistance]

56 minutes ago, Balmainboy said:

So Daily Telegraph in Aus are reporting a proposal from NRL club bosses is going to be put to the NRL for them to bid for a majority stake in the Super League. Gus Gould in his podcast also mentioned "an announcement in the next few weeks" but didn't specify what it was about. Seems it has some legs. Obviously a very long way to go before the RFL properly considers any deal. 

Easy to understand the benefits to the NRL of buying the SL. A re-brand to "NRL-Europe" or something similiar would be likely IMO, great opportunity to sell NRL to the British public/more content to sell to FoxSports in Aus etc etc. But really, it's hard to make any sense of whether this is a positive for the game in the NH unless we know what the NRL would want to change? Can't see them buying it and keeping everything the same but just adding a bit of extra funding. If they pumped a bunch of extra money into expansion clubs like Toulouse and London for instance, that would be a great development IMO. Who knows what the plans would be. 

One thing to me seems certain from my five years in London though - rugby league in the UK is on the decline and something needs to change to shift that trajectory. Who knows if this is it. 

Cryptic comment by Gus on '6 Tackles' insinuating this open secret. Is the Superleague vision going to be finally delivered by a unified body in Australia 30 years on?! Whatever materialises, NRL involvement in the game here would be a boon for the sport here and allow a restart/refresh.

[Copa]

4 hours ago, Balmainboy said:

So Daily Telegraph in Aus are reporting a proposal from NRL club bosses is going to be put to the NRL for them to bid for a majority stake in the Super League. Gus Gould in his podcast also mentioned "an announcement in the next few weeks" but didn't specify what it was about. Seems it has some legs. Obviously a very long way to go before the RFL properly considers any deal. 

Easy to understand the benefits to the NRL of buying the SL. A re-brand to "NRL-Europe" or something similiar would be likely IMO, great opportunity to sell NRL to the British public/more content to sell to FoxSports in Aus etc etc. But really, it's hard to make any sense of whether this is a positive for the game in the NH unless we know what the NRL would want to change? Can't see them buying it and keeping everything the same but just adding a bit of extra funding. If they pumped a bunch of extra money into expansion clubs like Toulouse and London for instance, that would be a great development IMO. Who knows what the plans would be. 

One thing to me seems certain from my five years in London though - rugby league in the UK is on the decline and something needs to change to shift that trajectory. Who knows if this is it. 

 

If it’s something proposed by club bosses then I wonder if it’s simply about getting feeder clubs?

I suspect something created and developed by the NRL itself would have a harder business edge to it than anything club bosses develop.

[Coggo]

Why would the NRL acquire Super League? TV, perhaps. It would strengthen the NRL’s contract negotiating hand.

What might Super League offer Aussie broadcasters that it doesn’t already have? Summer rugby…?

[Gerrumonside ref]

With all due respect I’d be opposed to this as it would forever relegate Super League to the status of a feeder league for Australia run in the interests of Australia.

I don’t think that because the NRL are malicious or spiteful, but the dynamics of the UK sporting landscape are very different to Australia and it would take too much money to achieve anything else.

Also I see no motive for creating a competing entity to the NRL so you could probably wave goodbye to things like the WCC.

There are some green-shoots of recovery being seen with IMG and I would rather see them come to fruition before selling the family silver to the NRL (which is doing brilliantly and I do enjoy watching).

Edited March 7 by Gerrumonside ref

[Anita Bath]

1 hour ago, Coggo said:

Why would the NRL acquire Super League? TV, perhaps. It would strengthen the NRL’s contract negotiating hand.

What might Super League offer Aussie broadcasters that it doesn’t already have? Summer rugby…?

Summer rugby….we already have the two seasons alligned and you certainly couldnt switch the NRL season to the summer.

All super league games are already shown on Foxtel down under.

[The Future is League]

3 hours ago, Coggo said:

Why would the NRL acquire Super League? TV, perhaps. It would strengthen the NRL’s contract negotiating hand.

What might Super League offer Aussie broadcasters that it doesn’t already have? Summer rugby…?

There is no value for the NRL to buy Super League or even a percentage of it. While the NRL wants to expand the RFL/Super League are happy just to be a M62 corridor competition, with no wanting any more than 2 clubs from outside the M62 playing in it.

[RS]

21 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

There is no value for the NRL to buy Super League or even a percentage of it. While the NRL wants to expand the RFL/Super League are happy just to be a M62 corridor competition, with no wanting any more than 2 clubs from outside the M62 playing in it.

Surely if the NRL own it they can dictate policy.

In regards to expansion teams until it makes economic sense expansion teams in SL won’t happen whoever runs the comp. 
 

We can all put pins in the map but you only have to look at Salford to look at the loses that can incur even with a squad without excessive spend never mind having to pay over the odds for players to relocate.