NRL demands for investment

[gingerjon]

Just now, M j M said:

Maybe not from you. But looking through the posts and it's easy to see plenty of the usual self-loathing of clubs and towns that form the bedrock of our sport. 

I am disdainful of the statement. It’s clumsy and cheap. Which is not how Batley usually present themselves which is why I said elsewhere it felt performative.

Also, as I said, the club owners collectively need to own this mess. They haven’t. I hold them in contempt for that. But I do not hold (most of) them in contempt for how they actually run their clubs. Again, Batley always seem to be a good example of a club who do things the best way in a positive spirit.

[Toby Chopra]

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

I don't think anybody is saying that.

Your own post says:  "It'll be the same as 1995, a small number of teams go ahead and the rest of the sport is allowed to wither."

The creation of Superleague did not cause the rest of the sport to whither, either by action or inaction, and whatever comes next won't either. In fact a thriving Superleague is the best hope we have.    

[whatmichaelsays]

6 minutes ago, M j M said:

Maybe not from you. But looking through the posts and it's easy to see plenty of the usual self-loathing of clubs and towns that form the bedrock of our sport. 

I'm not really seeing the criticism of that statement as particularly aimed at the clubs / towns themselves, but at the actual statement and what it projects. 

The statement is awful. We're led to believe that this is was a high-level meeting of minds to discuss the future direction of a multi-million pound sport, and the statement mentions nothing of that and goes on to thank Tracey for her lovely pies. 

It's nothing against Batley, Tracey or her pies to criticise the image that such a statement projects in the context of what was being discussed. This was a discussion about an elite level sport, discussed publicly as if it was a committee meeting at the local miners club. That's what I think people are, quite fairly, mocking. 

Image matters, how things are perceived by the wider world matters - it seems like the only people who understand that are the very agency that the game seems keen to get rid of. 

[Trojan Horse]

15 hours ago, Eddie said:

Where did you hear this? I can’t think of anything worse as a spectator who cares for the whole game of rugby league tbh. 

Same. 1/5th of the league overseas. Potentially a team in London (if they decide that) which will take years to get up to scratch. 
 

Repetitive fixtures with even more loop fixtures. Naturally the top clubs may be interested for a bigger pie slice but I don’t think it’s right for the sport. 
 

 

[glossop saint]

And yet again we're talking about structure, number of teams and whether they are locked in or not. It has come around even quicker than people were predicting. It really is the curse of rugby league isn't it? 

[M j M]

1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said:

Your own post says:  "It'll be the same as 1995, a small number of teams go ahead and the rest of the sport is allowed to wither."

 

Your post was "if only we hadn't done that [Super League] the game would be thriving."

That's nothing like the same thing.

Super League was great for the big clubs, mine included. But the way it was brought in and implemented was immensely harmful in lots of ways to the clubs and communities beneath them. The sport basically ended up  surrendering what were strong Rugby League areas whilst the big clubs, sort of, flourished.

Was it a good trade off? Maybe. Would the game have been in robust health without it? Unlikely.

But it's no use pretending there wasn't long lasting damage alongside  the positives that SL brought.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

And yet again we're talking about structure, number of teams and whether they are locked in or not. It has come around even quicker than people were predicting. It really is the curse of rugby league isn't it? 

Indeed. The NRL are proposing taking complete control and a 33% stake and the debate, led by the RL writers, is whether X will be able to be promoted, not “Holy handshakes, does this mean the entire game from Wigan to Wigan St Pats will be run from Sydney?”

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Image matters, how things are perceived by the wider world matters - it seems like the only people who understand that are the very agency that the game seems keen to get rid of. 

People don't like this, and like to take a pious view that it doesn't matter and any suggestion otherwise is being mean.

Its not, piety doesn't pay the bills, otherwise Batley wouldn't need a fundraiser for new floodlights.

[M j M]

7 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The statement is awful. We're led to believe that this is was a high-level meeting of minds to discuss the future direction of a multi-million pound sport, and the statement mentions nothing of that and goes on to thank Tracey for her lovely pies. 

 

I don't know what you think this was but it was a meeting of almost exclusively part-time clubs.

 

[Anita Bath]

15 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

Sydney Morning Herald reporting on the meeting in Vegas.

Reported on Channel 9s 100% Footy, NRL looking at a 33% stake to take over the running of the game with the 6 + 2 teams as reported on here with two more to be added.

I am guessing a london presence would be on the cards.

 

[binosh]

It is what it is, if Leigh are out so be it, honestly I’ll watch my team and knock the froth off a cold one no matter where they play, we have spent more of my lifetime outside Super League than in it and the enjoyment factor is exactly the same it’s just playing different teams.

[lucky 7]

The NRL have put their cards on the table. Its either there way or they don't get involved. Super League needs the NRL more than the NRL needs Super League.

Of course the clubs have the option of having Friday night meet raffles in the club bars along with the bingo as already mentioned if they don't like the NRL proposals 

[whatmichaelsays]

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

I don't know what you think this was but it was a meeting of almost exclusively part-time clubs.

 

Who all seem to have ideas on what the elite level of this sport should look like and how it should be run.

Again, to my earlier point, the image that you project to the wider world matters. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Indeed. The NRL are proposing taking complete control and a 33% stake and the debate, led by the RL writers, is whether X will be able to be promoted, not “Holy handshakes, does this mean the entire game from Wigan to Wigan St Pats will be run from Sydney?”

Yep! Its deckchairs on the Titanic level quibbling tbh and is typical of why we are where we are.

Worryingly it is also the same level of discussion many will expect to have been happening in Batley last week.

It all feels like a local Working Mens club committee meeting, not a major professional sport. Sadly, many would prefer it to be that way.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, M j M said:

I don't know what you think this was but it was a meeting of almost exclusively part-time clubs.

 

Leave amateur hour to the amatuers then.

Let the serious organisations do the actual business that lets everyone else enjoy the sport.

[Toby Chopra]

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

Your post was "if only we hadn't done that [Super League] the game would be thriving."

That's nothing like the same thing.

Super League was great for the big clubs, mine included. But the way it was brought in and implemented was immensely harmful in lots of ways to the clubs and communities beneath them. The sport basically ended up  surrendering what were strong Rugby League areas whilst the big clubs, sort of, flourished.

Was it a good trade off? Maybe. Would the game have been in robust health without it? Unlikely.

But it's no use pretending there wasn't long lasting damage alongside  the positives that SL brought.

I just don't see it as a trade off. What was the long lasting damage that occurred that could have been avoided if we hadn't done it? Pretty much every club was already in poor health in 1995. I believe that if we hadn't done it then just about all of them would be worse off than they are now, if they were alive at all.     

[Archie Gordon]

12 minutes ago, M j M said:

I don't know what you think this was but it was a meeting of almost exclusively part-time clubs.

 

Indeed. I expect they talked about matters that are germane to clubs outside the top tier rather than the size of the next Sky TV deal. We are in danger of elevating this meeting -and the club that hosted it - to something much bigger than it is/was.

[Tommygilf]

15 minutes ago, M j M said:

Your post was "if only we hadn't done that [Super League] the game would be thriving."

That's nothing like the same thing.

Super League was great for the big clubs, mine included. But the way it was brought in and implemented was immensely harmful in lots of ways to the clubs and communities beneath them. The sport basically ended up  surrendering what were strong Rugby League areas whilst the big clubs, sort of, flourished.

Was it a good trade off? Maybe. Would the game have been in robust health without it? Unlikely.

But it's no use pretending there wasn't long lasting damage alongside  the positives that SL brought.

Which areas were surrendered (as in lost) vs before? 

We're strong in all the same areas we were before, and are vulnerable to the behemoth that football has become regardless of SL changes or not. In fact, without SL coming in with a fully professional televised top flight, we'd be an irrelevance in the modern sporting landscape by this stage.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

Indeed. I expect they talked about matters that are germane to clubs outside the top tier rather than the size of the next Sky TV deal. We are in danger of elevating this meeting -and the club that hosted it - to something much bigger than it is/was.

Its the second and third highest tiers of the British Professional game. Clubs amongst that group have aspirations of being in the top flight as soon as possible.

If they don't want the responsibility of acting professionally then they need to change their position.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

Indeed. I expect they talked about matters that are germane to clubs outside the top tier rather than the size of the next Sky TV deal. We are in danger of elevating this meeting -and the club that hosted it - to something much bigger than it is/was.

It was part of the strategic review about which we know very little.

It was at the home of one of the clubs that made no secret of wanting to push the RFL chair out, and were successful in doing so.

It is also possible to downplay it too much as well.

[Archie Gordon]

The idea that the Champ/L1 clubs is the tail wagging the dog is just odd. 

What influence on SL might this Batley meeting have?

 

[Trojan Horse]

1 hour ago, glossop saint said:

And yet again we're talking about structure, number of teams and whether they are locked in or not. It has come around even quicker than people were predicting. It really is the curse of rugby league isn't it? 

Agree with this. We are in year 2 of IMG and there are many positive areas of reportable growth in fandom and digital areas. There has also been tangible improvement in infrastructure at some clubs. These figures and improvements that are mostly measurable can be used in the next tv deal discussions. Something we didn’t have in the past. I would at least see how it goes to the next tv deal and see what position we are in.  
 

 

[Cheadle Leyther]

A 10 team league means only 18 games. How can the season to be filled out?

[Roughyed Rats]

Just now, Cheadle Leyther said:

A 10 team league means only 18 games. How can the season to be filled out?

More loopyness.

[sweaty craiq]

22 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

The idea that the Champ/L1 clubs is the tail wagging the dog is just odd. 

What influence on SL might this Batley meeting have?

 

Listen a few PT clubs having a scheduled meeting at one of their owns gaff will send a tsunami through the NRL plans of predatory asset stripping - the biggest fear will be the quality of the mushy peas