NRL demands for investment

[M j M]

23 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. 

For all the wealth the NRL has their record on expansion is utterly abysmal. They have one team located in a place where Rugby League wasn't already very popular. To be fair to them (or more precisely to News) that team was given tens of millions of dollars in support over its early years to keep it going.

Since then they have added more teams in RL heartlands or heartland adjacent. They seem unable to even commit to launching the Perth team without substantial government support.

 

[M j M]

8 minutes ago, Treizistance said:

Do you think losing say Leigh, Castleford and Huddersfield and gaining London and Toulouse would reduce the TV deal? 

Obviously it would, yes.

[Gooleboy]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Leave amateur hour to the amatuers then.

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

Like they did when they brought Elstone in, and look how that ended up.

[Bull Mania]

13 minutes ago, Treizistance said:

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.

Yes because they've just lost a chunk of their market. I don't see why folk think the UK population will be interested in watching French rugby league teams. Did anyone here watch Weder Bremen V Frankfurt at the weekend?

It's this insecurity with our image that's allowed the game to contract. No one will tune into Wigan/saints in front of a full house and think 'urgh that's two small northern towns, give me London v toulouse in front of 500 people where you can hear a pin drop, because you know cosmopolitan and all that"

[Damien]

48 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.     

Their support is essentially the grant that all clubs get from the TV deal. The NRL don't support new clubs anymore than existing clubs.

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, jacksy said:

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

 

Cracking trophies, but knowing the RFL, they probably don't know where they are.

[north yorks trinity]

2 hours 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. 

Absolutely.  I'd love there to be an option 3, namely something that isn't utterly barking mad and that isn't designed to create schism and sipp off large numbers of the core supporter base. However, this is RL so I won't hold my breath.

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

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

We won it RR, but you are right it was awful.

[Damien]

25 minutes 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.

 

So no better than now?

[Eddie]

21 minutes ago, Damien said:

So no better than now?

Worse actually, as Sky is visible to the casual sports fan with a subscription. 

[sweaty craiq]

47 minutes 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.

 

Shocking SL deal. 

[sweaty craiq]

Common sense will prevail. Nobody is after ditching Cats, everybody realises they need to get a TV deal and with it you can go to 14 and include TO. 
we have a very marketable product and now have someone to SELL it at last in Moran plus a seriously wealthy and respected Wigan owner to attract like minded folk. A partnership with the NRL is desired by most but not a controlling one.

RL is on a big upward curve, time to talk it up and ignore those creating negative smokescreens, Leigh sold 4000 semi tickets yesterday and Wire similar HKR will sell out York, Everton gone by Monday and all eyes on the Ashes opener.

Enjoy the positivity

[north yorks trinity]

13 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Common sense will prevail. Nobody is after ditching Cats, everybody realises they need to get a TV deal and with it you can go to 14 and include TO. 
we have a very marketable product and now have someone to SELL it at last in Moran plus a seriously wealthy and respected Wigan owner to attract like minded folk. A partnership with the NRL is desired by most but not a controlling one.

RL is on a big upward curve, time to talk it up and ignore those creating negative smokescreens, Leigh sold 4000 semi tickets yesterday and Wire similar HKR will sell out York, Everton gone by Monday and all eyes on the Ashes opener.

Enjoy the positivity

Do hope you're right. Any basis for your positivity? Apart from "because it makes sense" which rarely features prominently in RL decision making.

[RogerT]

6 hours ago, Simon Hall said:

Pie & Peas plus a donation to the floodlights. 
 

Surprised they didn’t have a meat raffle. 

Now that's a good idea.

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, Treizistance said:

Do you think losing say Leigh, Castleford and Huddersfield and gaining London and Toulouse would reduce the TV deal? 

Depends what Toulouse and London do between now and 2028. TV companies want teams to be competitive. 

[DACS]

I'm not sold on a 10 team competition. I assume that's based on a view that there aren't enough good players for a strong league with 12 clubs. May be true today, but with development the aim should be at least 14, particularly if you have two French clubs and London. Personally I'd look to keep 12 clubs, just from the perspective of keeping the competition interesting.

While there are some obvious issues with the NRL taking over - particularly the need to make an effort to understand how the game in England works top to bottom before making any rash decisions - the two things hugely in favour of an NRL takeover are access to cash by leveraging the immense value of the NRL in TV terms (and also genuine blue chip sponsors and advertisers, not local chip shops), and the simple fact that the NRL itself is a very professional organisation. Longer term there should be benefits in terms of younger players moving back and forth, developing genuine pathways to the top flight in England and being able to plan an international calendar.

While there is a risk that the NRL could mess things up, right now SL is running in ever-decreasing circles simply due to there not being enough money in the sport and individual clubs pulling in far too many different directions. In fact, the most likely cause of any deal falling apart is individual SL owners.

But frankly, if you got Wigan, Sts, Wire, Leeds and the Hull clubs, from an NRL perspective you've got about 90% of the "value" of SL. Add Cats, a London team (I knew there was a reason Hetherington is heading south!) and maybe Toulouse and you're almost there. I'm not saying that's who would be in, but if those top five or six teams sign up, the choice for anyone else invited would be pretty stark - join us or enjoy playing Championship RL forever. There may be a "civil war", but if the big guns are all on one side I don't think the NRL would care.

If it does happen, now is probably the right time. Its not that long ago that the NRL was a bit of a mess, partly due to club self interest. Money cured that particular problem. 

Just on "London", having lived there for a while I think the only sensible option is to try team up with one of the football teams that doesn't play in a mega stadium, and badge it as such. For all the discussion on another thread about Aussies not understanding the UK sporting environment and vice versa, its fairly clear a lot of people don't get how sport works in London either.  

[sweaty craiq]

13 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Do hope you're right. Any basis for your positivity? Apart from "because it makes sense" which rarely features prominently in RL decision making.

Reading between the bull really, certain folk made a big thing of the Batley meeting, they omitted to say it was for non SL clubs. Then we had the same soothsayers predicting the end for Cats unless we had an NRL takeover which would mean the end of a number of current SL clubs. This coincided with a witch hunt for Woods McManus and Beaumont.

Finally a review will evaluate everything and so far it’s been kept behind closed doors, a first for RL and possibly why works of fiction are being sold as facts

[sweaty craiq]

9 minutes ago, DACS said:

I'm not sold on a 10 team competition. I assume that's based on a view that there aren't enough good players for a strong league with 12 clubs. May be true today, but with development the aim should be at least 14, particularly if you have two French clubs and London. Personally I'd look to keep 12 clubs, just from the perspective of keeping the competition interesting.

While there are some obvious issues with the NRL taking over - particularly the need to make an effort to understand how the game in England works top to bottom before making any rash decisions - the two things hugely in favour of an NRL takeover are access to cash by leveraging the immense value of the NRL in TV terms (and also genuine blue chip sponsors and advertisers, not local chip shops), and the simple fact that the NRL itself is a very professional organisation. Longer term there should be benefits in terms of younger players moving back and forth, developing genuine pathways to the top flight in England and being able to plan an international calendar.

While there is a risk that the NRL could mess things up, right now SL is running in ever-decreasing circles simply due to there not being enough money in the sport and individual clubs pulling in far too many different directions. In fact, the most likely cause of any deal falling apart is individual SL owners.

But frankly, if you got Wigan, Sts, Wire, Leeds and the Hull clubs, from an NRL perspective you've got about 90% of the "value" of SL. Add Cats, a London team (I knew there was a reason Hetherington is heading south!) and maybe Toulouse and you're almost there. I'm not saying that's who would be in, but if those top five or six teams sign up, the choice for anyone else invited would be pretty stark - join us or enjoy playing Championship RL forever. There may be a "civil war", but if the big guns are all on one side I don't think the NRL would care.

If it does happen, now is probably the right time. Its not that long ago that the NRL was a bit of a mess, partly due to club self interest. Money cured that particular problem. 

Just on "London", having lived there for a while I think the only sensible option is to try team up with one of the football teams that doesn't play in a mega stadium, and badge it as such. For all the discussion on another thread about Aussies not understanding the UK sporting environment and vice versa, its fairly clear a lot of people don't get how sport works in London either.  

Agree with a lot of that, especially with NRL being clueless of the UK market. RL requires leadership and cash. It seems to be getting some leaders at last and working with the NRL to expand the market is a win/win for both if it avoids division

[Martyn Sadler]

3 hours ago, M j M said:

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.

And contradicts the idea that the NRL is somehow super smart.

[JM2010]

1 hour ago, sweaty craiq said:

Common sense will prevail. Nobody is after ditching Cats, everybody realises they need to get a TV deal and with it you can go to 14 and include TO. 
we have a very marketable product and now have someone to SELL it at last in Moran plus a seriously wealthy and respected Wigan owner to attract like minded folk. A partnership with the NRL is desired by most but not a controlling one.

RL is on a big upward curve, time to talk it up and ignore those creating negative smokescreens, Leigh sold 4000 semi tickets yesterday and Wire similar HKR will sell out York, Everton gone by Monday and all eyes on the Ashes opener.

Enjoy the positivity

Less of the positivity please. We don’t want that on here. 
Let’s discuss RL dying instead

[DACS]

What evidence is there that SL can manage itself into a brighter future? Crowds are decent (actually far higher than for long periods in the sport's history), but to claim we have a marketable product is laughable. If so, why is our TV deal getting smaller? Why are several clubs on the verge of collapse? Why does RL in England have a far lower presence in the sporting landscape in the UK than it did 30 years ago?

Also, why on earth would the NRL "partner" with SL? What benefits does SL as it stands bring to the NRL, and what serious investors in any business hand over cash without getting control? Clue - the answers to these questions can be written on the back of a postage stamp.

[Treizistance]

1 hour ago, Bull Mania said:

Yes because they've just lost a chunk of their market. I don't see why folk think the UK population will be interested in watching French rugby league teams. Did anyone here watch Weder Bremen V Frankfurt at the weekend?

It's this insecurity with our image that's allowed the game to contract. No one will tune into Wigan/saints in front of a full house and think 'urgh that's two small northern towns, give me London v toulouse in front of 500 people where you can hear a pin drop, because you know cosmopolitan and all that"

What chunk of the market would they be losing? I'm intrigued. Will the fans of clubs in the Championship who don't have the sustainability or ambition to play at the top professional tier give up on their RL fandom? If you don't think London and Toulouse are more attractive to broadcasters and casual sports fans than the filler, then I don't know what else to say.

I mean I subscribe to WatchNRL as the the image it presents of the sport is of an exciting, fresh, buoyant competition which is growing and you want to be part of it. The presentation, content and brand embody that. I don't bother with tired UK RL... at the moment.

Listen, I understand the 'insecurity' of fans of the have-nots, but those have-nots should not be an anchor on those that can sustain themselves (I was one myself during the regionalisation of Welsh RU in 2003, 9 professional RU clubs based along a stretch of motorway in hindsight was clearly unsustainable, ring any bells?).

I don't think some fans really understand the existential threat the sport is under at the professional level unless it grows (thankfully Wigan and Warrington can see this). It also turns a blind eye to how the international arena can be a massive asset to the game, in an international/NRL Europe league and stronger France and Wales rep sides who can give England a game. Look at the recent excitement for the Ashes tour and ticket sales for starters about international rep RL and the coin that is bringing in to a skint governing body. The NRL knows where the money is at. They have lifted the international game in their backyard the past 5 years, brought in PNG and looking at NZ2, looking at reducing their regular season to accommodate more rep footy, and they are finally coming to save us!

The London side should not be looked in isolation either but as a bridgehead to attaining larger Challenge Cup Final and Wembley Test attendances.

Edited April 9 by Treizistance

[Treizistance]

29 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

4 hours ago, M j M said:

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.

And contradicts the idea that the NRL is somehow super smart.

What's that meant to mean? Surely having the big clubs on board and not the unsustainable clubs and those than don't bring in value is 'smart'?

[EggFace]

47 minutes ago, DACS said:

I'm not sold on a 10 team competition. I assume that's based on a view that there aren't enough good players for a strong league with 12 clubs. May be true today, but with development the aim should be at least 14, particularly if you have two French clubs and London. Personally I'd look to keep 12 clubs, just from the perspective of keeping the competition interesting.

While there are some obvious issues with the NRL taking over - particularly the need to make an effort to understand how the game in England works top to bottom before making any rash decisions - the two things hugely in favour of an NRL takeover are access to cash by leveraging the immense value of the NRL in TV terms (and also genuine blue chip sponsors and advertisers, not local chip shops), and the simple fact that the NRL itself is a very professional organisation. Longer term there should be benefits in terms of younger players moving back and forth, developing genuine pathways to the top flight in England and being able to plan an international calendar.

While there is a risk that the NRL could mess things up, right now SL is running in ever-decreasing circles simply due to there not being enough money in the sport and individual clubs pulling in far too many different directions. In fact, the most likely cause of any deal falling apart is individual SL owners.

But frankly, if you got Wigan, Sts, Wire, Leeds and the Hull clubs, from an NRL perspective you've got about 90% of the "value" of SL. Add Cats, a London team (I knew there was a reason Hetherington is heading south!) and maybe Toulouse and you're almost there. I'm not saying that's who would be in, but if those top five or six teams sign up, the choice for anyone else invited would be pretty stark - join us or enjoy playing Championship RL forever. There may be a "civil war", but if the big guns are all on one side I don't think the NRL would care.

If it does happen, now is probably the right time. Its not that long ago that the NRL was a bit of a mess, partly due to club self interest. Money cured that particular problem. 

Just on "London", having lived there for a while I think the only sensible option is to try team up with one of the football teams that doesn't play in a mega stadium, and badge it as such. For all the discussion on another thread about Aussies not understanding the UK sporting environment and vice versa, its fairly clear a lot of people don't get how sport works in London either.  

10 teams will kill the game and we need Hull FC, Wakefield, Castleford and Leigh need to be in the Super Duper League.

[Smudger06]

V'Landys is no fool. 

England v Australia is a sleeping giant, a State of Origin on Steroids which could generate vastly more revenue than SoO. 

So the investment into SL is to make England competitive again perpetually. You need the two rivals in the series to have competitive balance or it doesn't work anywhere near as well. 

Additionally he can maximise the Saturday 10.35am BST NRL game into the UK market and fix a Saturday 10pm Super League game into the Australian market (1pm BST kick off) off the back of it all generating more sales and exposure across the board. ARLC wants to capture external markets outside of Australia, NZ and especially PNG + Pacific Islands are break even financially but earn a deeper player pool whilst the UK market is the best place to start international expansion due to an existing community game and pro clubs. V'Landy knows full well if they want to expand then the UK must be destination #1. 

You had people questioning why England women were the opponents of Australia Women, that's because there is a vastly better market behind them which might spend with NRL products than NZ for example, even if NZ were to produce a far better fixture.