NRL demands for investment

[Eddie]

Is anyone else in despair about the future of English pro and semi-pro rugby league? The two options seems to be;

1. Stay controlled by the big SL clubs who’ll contract further by kicking Catalan out and replacing them with an M62 basket case - probably Bradford. 

2. NRL take over (with only an 33% stake) and form a boring loop filled 10 team closed shop with only 8 English teams in, leaving the rest to wither. 

I’m not sure which of the above is more terrible. 

[up the robins]

For rugby league to be successful in this country we need all the leagues all the way down to be competitive and respected and a clear pathway for ambitious clubs to rise through the league structure to the very top but also a competitive competition for those that are more comfy lower down the league structure.

For me a reduced super league down to 10 teams will see a widening of the gap between the top league and the championship.

A reduction down to 10 teams will see a really repetitive fixture list, 12 is bad enough with more money going into them elite clubs.

For all the extra money that they will get most of it will be taken up by massivly inflated player wages driven my clubs trying to out bid the other for the best players.

Look at Wigans team and compare that with the wage bill at any other NRL club and see who has value for money, they can compete with any of them clubs on a fraction of the budget.

We already have a great product and have seen a really competitive super league with new clubs challenging for trophy's in recent years, we just need to promote and manage our game better.

[M j M]

6 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Is anyone else in despair about the future of English pro and semi-pro rugby league? The two options seems to be;

1. Stay controlled by the big SL clubs who’ll contract further by kicking Catalan out 

 

 

I think we've at least established that this is a load of rubbish and was never likely to happen. It might be the excitable thoughts  of one or two of our more flamboyant owners but the serious people, including Nigel Wood, were never for it.

Apart from that I share your despair. The NRL plan of selecting a handful of lucky clubs who happened to be sitting when the music stopped and sod  the rest of the game seems a particularly dystopian future.

[jacksy]

Bit of nostalgia here, but to fill out the fixtures they could consider bringing back the old cups.

 

[Copa]

36 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Is anyone else in despair about the future of English pro and semi-pro rugby league? The two options seems to be;

1. Stay controlled by the big SL clubs who’ll contract further by kicking Catalan out and replacing them with an M62 basket case - probably Bradford. 

2. NRL take over (with only an 33% stake) and form a boring loop filled 10 team closed shop with only 8 English teams in, leaving the rest to wither. 

I’m not sure which of the above is more terrible. 

Don’t be surprised if the NRL reduce the number of games teams play each season. 

[phiggins]

23 minutes ago, Copa said:

Don’t be surprised if the NRL reduce the number of games teams play each season. 

They will. But I can't see them reducing it to 18 games

[Damien]

24 minutes ago, Copa said:

Don’t be surprised if the NRL reduce the number of games teams play each season. 

It's all very well saying that but are they going to make up the financial shortfall? There is not a chance we will have an 18 game season. If we have 10 teams it'll be a cert that every team plays 3 time for a 27 game season.

[Roughyed Rats]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's all very well saying that but are they going to make up the financial shortfall? There is not a chance we will have an 18 game season. If we have 10 teams it'll be a cert that every team plays 3 time for a 27 game season.

I'm bored just thinking about it. Remember playing London 4 times in an 8 team league division. Awful.

Edited April 9 by Roughyed Rats

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's all very well saying that but are they going to make up the financial shortfall? There is not a chance we will have an 18 game season. If we have 10 teams it'll be a cert that every team plays 3 time for a 27 game season.

There’s a whole bunch of teams on the other side of the world that apparently would be under the same umbrella. IF this were to happen, surely there would be some expectation they would play each other as well.

[Roughyed Rats]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

There’s a whole bunch of teams on the other side of the world that apparently would be under the same umbrella. IF this were to happen, surely there would be some expectation they would play each other as well.

Particularly if they move NRL Europe to winter, so that the seasons align.

[Treizistance]

Just now, Roughyed Rats said:

Particularly if they move NRL Europe to winter, so that the seasons align.

The seasons align now?

Regarding numbers, 10 would be a starting point which would grow to 12 and 14 fairly quickly, removing the 3rd fixtures

[David Shepherd]

Just now, Treizistance said:

The seasons align now?

Regarding numbers, 10 would be a starting point which would grow to 12 and 14 fairly quickly, removing the 3rd fixtures

Are Sky really going to fork out serious money to cover only 8 UK teams?  If we're going with 8 UK and 2 French, then we really need to see a substantial TV deal coming from France, worth at least 1/5 of the revenue we get from Sky.

Playing clubs 3 times in a season is not only a bit boring, but also increases costs. Especially for the two French teams.

[Damien]

13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

There’s a whole bunch of teams on the other side of the world that apparently would be under the same umbrella. IF this were to happen, surely there would be some expectation they would play each other as well.

I can't see that at all. There will be 18 teams in the NRL by the time any of this comes to pass, if it does. Within a decade that is likely to be 20. There are already complaints about too many games in the NRL as is, they aren't going to give up NRL games to play SL teams (beyond a WCC which we already struggle to fit in).

Edited April 9 by Damien

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I can't see that at all. There will be 18 teams in the NHL by the time any of this comes to pass, if it does. Within a decade that is likely to be 20. There are already complaints about too many games in the NRL as is, they aren't going to give up NRL games to play SL teams (beyond a WCC which we already struggle to fit in).

Aye, I’m not really convinced myself.

I do not see how anything that anyone is proposing improves on what we had in place and were building from.

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Are Sky really going to fork out serious money to cover only 8 UK teams?  If we're going with 8 UK and 2 French, then we really need to see a substantial TV deal coming from France, worth at least 1/5 of the revenue we get from Sky.

Playing clubs 3 times in a season is not only a bit boring, but also increases costs. Especially for the two French teams.

Surely costs are reduced regardless of league numbers for French teams if there are 2 French teams? At worst its going to be no different.

[Eddie]

14 minutes ago, Treizistance said:

The seasons align now?

Regarding numbers, 10 would be a starting point which would grow to 12 and 14 fairly quickly, removing the 3rd fixtures

Why would they start at 10 and then slowly increase it, rather than starting at 14? Within a year the existing 10 would be light years ahead of the others financially. 

[Eddie]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Aye, I’m not really convinced myself.

I do not see how anything that anyone is proposing improves on what we had in place and were building from.

The single good thing about it is two French teams, but that could and has happened with the existing arrangement anyway. Also there is no way there’s going to be a material French TV deal, even with two teams. 

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

Why would they start at 10 and then slowly increase it, rather than starting at 14? Within a year the existing 10 would be light years ahead of the others financially. 

You're thinking in the way the UK expands. The NRL (and predecessors) have successfully added numerous teams, some from a standing start. They look at what the proposed club's financial backing is, and analyse what the club could be if given a place in the top league, but they support them heavily once they're in.     

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

You're thinking in the way the UK expands. The NRL (and predecessors) have successfully added numerous teams, some from a standing start. They look at what the proposed club's financial backing is, and analyse what the club could be if given a place in the top league, but they support them heavily once they're in.     

That works in Australia where it’s a popular sport and there are plenty of willing investors. I don’t see people lining up to do that here though sadly.  At the risk of sounding pessimistic a Lilly scenario is SL would just become a farm for NRL players and the rest of the British game would become amateur. 

[sam4731]

If this means that we get a more meaningful WCC (not just champions vs champions), that will be something good to come from it.

[Treizistance]

25 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Why would they start at 10 and then slowly increase it, rather than starting at 14? Within a year the existing 10 would be light years ahead of the others financially. 

You'd imagine they'd want to do expansion carefully and properly, rather than add filler to the 8 English and 2 French clubs, like they have now.

Gus does a great segment on this on his 6 Tackles podcast today (from 28:31)

Edited April 9 by Treizistance

[The Rocket]

29 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Are Sky really going to fork out serious money to cover only 8 UK teams?  If we're going with 8 UK and 2 French, then we really need to see a substantial TV deal coming from France, worth at least 1/5 of the revenue we get from Sky.

Playing clubs 3 times in a season is not only a bit boring, but also increases costs. Especially for the two French teams.

It`s being reported over here that the broadcast deals for each of the Super League, NRL and International Rugby League all become available at the end of 2027. The speculation is that V`landys is working on the idea that they will be able to bundle all the rights and attempt to do a deal with International Sports streamer DAZN, recent purchaser of the pay and streaming service provider Foxtel, long time holder of the NRL broadcast rights.

So let`s say NRL does a $650m (Oz) broadcast deal, $50-60m (~22-30m pound) per annum for Super League. How`s that sound.

 

[wilsontown]

36 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I do not see how anything that anyone is proposing improves on what we had in place and were building from.

Exactly this. Smashing things up for no gain that I can discern.

[Treizistance]

37 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Are Sky really going to fork out serious money to cover only 8 UK teams?  If we're going with 8 UK and 2 French, then we really need to see a substantial TV deal coming from France, worth at least 1/5 of the revenue we get from Sky.

Playing clubs 3 times in a season is not only a bit boring, but also increases costs. Especially for the two French teams.

Do you think losing say Leigh, Castleford and Huddersfield and gaining London and Toulouse would reduce the TV deal? Perpignan and Toulouse may not have Sky satellite dishes on the back of their houses but they at least give the perception that a NRL Europe is a forward moving, cosmopolitan, growing league as opposed to the insular M62, post-industrial junction vibes it has now. An image sponsors want to be associated with, unless they only want to flog their products to a narrow band of northern England.

[Barley Mow]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

It`s being reported over here that the broadcast deals for each of the Super League, NRL and International Rugby League all become available at the end of 2027. The speculation is that V`landys is working on the idea that they will be able to bundle all the rights and attempt to do a deal with International Sports streamer DAZN, recent purchaser of the pay and streaming service provider Foxtel, long time holder of the NRL broadcast rights.

So let`s say NRL does a $650m (Oz) broadcast deal, $50-60m (~22-30m pound) per annum for Super League. How`s that sound.

 

The British game may be happy with those figures (slight increase on current deal).

The concerns would be:

1. How it would impact the visibility of the the sport here to the casual sports fan if SL were no longer on Sky.

2. What the NRL plans would be for the structure of the game in the UK and France.

3. The implications of control of the sport globally being at the whim of one group of people for whom the Australian game is of primary importance.

Edited April 9 by Barley Mow