Re: Changes to the structure : Mon May 13, 2013 12:53 pm  

I've no problem with Wilkin as a front man, but I would not have him as an idea's man. He speaks very clearly, but it's a bit different being asked your opinion on something as a pundit and being questioned and asked to come up with idea's, that can be funded.

It's the difference between those politicitions who are out of power and promise the world and those in power, who have to fund promises, which means finding the money or taking the money away from someone to give to someone else.

That's what I mean about marketing, it's fine to say we need better marketing, but someone has to get paid for doing that, if better marketing costs say £1million, that has to come from somewhere either a new revenue stream or taking it away from someone else ie the clubs. If that marketing only adds a few thousand here or there, is it money well spent??

Re: Changes to the structure : Mon May 13, 2013 3:26 pm  

The money for increased and better marketing has to come from increased sponsorship! which Nigel Woods & his team have failed miserably in the past few seasons to understand how to sell. The only serious money coming in to the game currently is from Sky, we can't survive that way. The way we handle national media is a joke, every time we stage an event say the Super League season launch it is so amateur. Until we get real professionals this side will never improve and it the same people who are coming up with crazy ideas to restructure the game, it is no wonder the stick they have come in from in the weekly RL media today, but they seem like Teflon that it does not affect them in the least and the club let them continue to run the game of RFL??

Re: Changes to the structure : Mon May 13, 2013 8:45 pm  

Really good point but the art is to have the majority of clubs on your side. The Yorkshire clubs protect the Leeds powerbase. The governing body would be better based in Huddersfield the birthplace or even Manchester with no club link.

Re: Changes to the structure : Tue May 14, 2013 7:07 am  

What we need is a man with vision like Dana White. He took a failing sport with no commercial TV worth, adjusted and turned MMA (UFC organisation) into one of the most exciting and highly sought after sports in the world.

There is only one way RL will stay relevant and that is to mirror the Aussies, somehow we need to convince the broadcasters that a vastly increased TV deal is needed. The game needs money to keep its best British players and it needs money to attract the best overseas players. The problem is do we have the ability to convince Sky, BT, Premier Sports, ESPN to see the benefit of SL being the Premier League of RL? It's never going to happen but that's the only option for our game if it is to survive as a competition of any quality. With all due respect, the top clubs can't possibly justify £25 a game to watch a team of Chamionship quality players, which is where we could end up inside 5 years.

Re: Changes to the structure : Tue May 14, 2013 12:49 pm  

I still think we need to push a shortened version of the game. For me the issue is reach. We cannot reach a wide enough audience when there is such a geographical gap between the game and the audience.

People want to be able to get involved and for me the shortened version of the game is the key to this. I know that die hards will say the product we have is good enough, but just like in cricket a shorter sharper version of the game is something you can take on the road and get people to buy into.

The big issue is players. Who would play and will the clubs release them?? If you want innovation then you have to accept changes and as the option 3 idea shows anything that requires a change away from the norm gets blasted by coaches and fans.

But with a 7's game you could take it on the road, play it indoors. There are various options open to it. Just like boxing you would get several quick games on the card. But you have to free it up to allow the players to keep some of the money. That's where the issue is for clubs. If the players are earning in the shortened game does it threaten the larger game? That's why our current 7's tornements are held in RL heartlands on a wednesday night with no great players playing.

Re: Changes to the structure : Tue May 14, 2013 1:12 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

But with a 7's game you could take it on the road, play it indoors. There are various options open to it. Just like boxing you would get several quick games on the card. But you have to free it up to allow the players to keep some of the money. That's where the issue is for clubs. If the players are earning in the shortened game does it threaten the larger game? That's why our current 7's tornements are held in RL heartlands on a wednesday night with no great players playing.

Except RL plays 9s.

Re: Changes to the structure : Wed May 15, 2013 8:20 pm  

What a load of tosh. The ONLY way to get more sponsorships is to make the game more competetive and entertaining. You cant sell a turd !!!! or a shortened version of a turd !


3/4 of the season is irrelevant and it shows. Appart from the top 3 nobody is interested in hub and cup because they know its impossible.

80% of clubs can't invest because they simply dont have the money

Whilst youngsters need to be developed and some will excel they can't be the focus of top tier rugby.

My opinion ( after all thats what a forums about)

1 Get rid of Stevo and the Club Call.

2 Get back to a situation where the referees apply the rules and not their opinions. There is only 1 interpretation (Stevo). Its based on writen english and why rules are written.

3 Change the TMO rules so that refereees have to be specific about what they are questioning and limit the TMO to that specific question, its ridiculous that TMO's replay the last play and referee the whole thing again. If the ref missed it. He missed it

4 get back to a league being a league that means something scrap the playoffs

4 Create a super cup for the top 8

6 Change the distribution of cash from sky and league ( not sure how this currently works):- so

6a a proportion of the money is means tested and payed according to need. Including a proportion to support the youth development.

6b a proportion of the money is performance related and payed on results

7 Return to promotion and relegation for those clubs that can provide the necessary facilities

Then maybe in a few years we might start to compete with football and RU.

Re: Changes to the structure : Thu May 16, 2013 1:13 pm  

St Huffy wrote:

What a load of tosh. The ONLY way to get more sponsorships is to make the game more competetive and entertaining. You cant sell a turd !!!! or a shortened version of a turd !


3/4 of the season is irrelevant and it shows. Appart from the top 3 nobody is interested in hub and cup because they know its impossible.

80% of clubs can't invest because they simply dont have the money

Whilst youngsters need to be developed and some will excel they can't be the focus of top tier rugby.

My opinion ( after all thats what a forums about)

1 Get rid of Stevo and the Club Call.

2 Get back to a situation where the referees apply the rules and not their opinions. There is only 1 interpretation (Stevo). Its based on writen english and why rules are written.

3 Change the TMO rules so that refereees have to be specific about what they are questioning and limit the TMO to that specific question, its ridiculous that TMO's replay the last play and referee the whole thing again. If the ref missed it. He missed it

4 get back to a league being a league that means something scrap the playoffs

4 Create a super cup for the top 8

6 Change the distribution of cash from sky and league ( not sure how this currently works):- so

6a a proportion of the money is means tested and payed according to need. Including a proportion to support the youth development.

6b a proportion of the money is performance related and payed on results

7 Return to promotion and relegation for those clubs that can provide the necessary facilities

Then maybe in a few years we might start to compete with football and RU.

I stopped reading the second time you appeared to insist that Stevo runs the game. Sorry to break this to you, but he's a tv commentator.

Re: Changes to the structure : Thu May 16, 2013 1:18 pm  

There is nothing wrong with the current set up. There is promotion and relegation, it's just that the RFL have not had the balls to relegate either Cas or Wakey. If a SL had gone in either of the licencing periods, there would have been a clear gateway for Championship clubs to get promotion.

The three year licencing period has allowed teams like Wakey, Cas, London etc to give youth players a chance rather than fill their squads with journeyman Aussies like they did when they were under yearly threat of relegation.

My thoughts would be:

Drop the league to 12 and have the top 6 play off (though I still think I preferred the 5), this rids us of the ridiculous club call.
To ensure that every game remains competitive, have one of the relegation criteria as average points per game. Lowest contributes to relegation, that should go a way to stopping teams coasting towards the end of the year.

Re: Changes to the structure : Thu May 16, 2013 1:40 pm  

Just get rid of Wigan, that would lift the dark cloud covering the sport.