Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12670 Location: Leicestershire.
Big Dave T wrote:Depends really. Clubs jumping ship would be an interesting one.
I'd be more inclined to think that due to the loyal fan base RL has in its northern heartland we may be sustainable as a sport but just with slightly lesser players playing the game. If the level of the players drops slightly across the board theoretically it would all be relative and the competition should still be competetive enough to keep the fans interested. Does mean imo that the RFL will have to shift their mindset though away from growth to survival.
Would Sky pay anything like what they do now for a feeder sport? Union has its attrative-to-advertisers demographic and successful International competitions at least.
Union is not without its issues and they mirror League's in some respects.
This interview with Ian McGeechan highlights some of their issues and a few will look familiar to RL fans (if back to front on North-South).
Big Dave T wrote:Depends really. Clubs jumping ship would be an interesting one.
I'd be more inclined to think that due to the loyal fan base RL has in its northern heartland we may be sustainable as a sport but just with slightly lesser players playing the game. If the level of the players drops slightly across the board theoretically it would all be relative and the competition should still be competetive enough to keep the fans interested. Does mean imo that the RFL will have to shift their mindset though away from growth to survival.
Would Sky pay anything like what they do now for a feeder sport? Union has its attrative-to-advertisers demographic and successful International competitions at least.
Union is not without its issues and they mirror League's in some respects.
This interview with Ian McGeechan highlights some of their issues and a few will look familiar to RL fans (if back to front on North-South).
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Mild Rover wrote:Would Sky pay anything like what they do now for a feeder sport? Union has its attrative-to-advertisers demographic and successful International competitions at least.
I'm not sure of the exact figures but i'd guess Union gets far more sponsorship from Sky than RL does already?
It's also interesting as you say that Union can attract sponsors of the size of Aviva. Just further highlights our inability to compete in the future.
That's £18 million per season between 12 clubs, which is £1.5 million per club. SL clubs get £1.2 million from Sky iirc. The big difference will be in revenues earned and distributed by the RFU from the international game. Our television revenue covers 75% of our cap, theirs covers 37.5%.
That £4 million cap is high too for most GP clubs which might be why Leicester and Wasps have won 12 of the 14 professional championships. There has been talk of lowering it and enforcing it properly - a team that plays about 300 metres from where I'm sitting is regarded with suspicion by their rivals, I belief. And I can't see much potential for growth tbh. The silver lining to having a crap int'l game is the potential for improvement. Don't think I'd ever want it to dominate the sport though - I'm unashamedely club-first.
Sky and Setanta paid £54 million for 3 seasons of GP:
That's £18 million per season between 12 clubs, which is £1.5 million per club. SL clubs get £1.2 million from Sky iirc. The big difference will be in revenues earned and distributed by the RFU from the international game. Our television revenue covers 75% of our cap, theirs covers 37.5%.
That £4 million cap is high too for most GP clubs which might be why Leicester and Wasps have won 12 of the 14 professional championships. There has been talk of lowering it and enforcing it properly - a team that plays about 300 metres from where I'm sitting is regarded with suspicion by their rivals, I belief. And I can't see much potential for growth tbh. The silver lining to having a crap int'l game is the potential for improvement. Don't think I'd ever want it to dominate the sport though - I'm unashamedely club-first.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
That's £18 million per season between 12 clubs, which is £1.5 million per club. SL clubs get £1.2 million from Sky iirc. The big difference will be in revenues earned and distributed by the RFU from the international game. Our television revenue covers 75% of our cap, theirs covers 37.5%.
That £4 million cap is high too for most GP clubs which might be why Leicester and Wasps have won 12 of the 14 professional championships. There has been talk of lowering it and enforcing it properly - a team that plays about 300 metres from where I'm sitting is regarded with suspicion by their rivals, I belief. And I can't see much potential for growth tbh. The silver lining to having a crap int'l game is the potential for improvement. Don't think I'd ever want it to dominate the sport though - I'm unashamedely club-first.
Interesting thanks for that. (just to be a pedant its now the AP)
Mild Rover wrote:Sky and Setanta paid £54 million for 3 seasons of GP:
That's £18 million per season between 12 clubs, which is £1.5 million per club. SL clubs get £1.2 million from Sky iirc. The big difference will be in revenues earned and distributed by the RFU from the international game. Our television revenue covers 75% of our cap, theirs covers 37.5%.
That £4 million cap is high too for most GP clubs which might be why Leicester and Wasps have won 12 of the 14 professional championships. There has been talk of lowering it and enforcing it properly - a team that plays about 300 metres from where I'm sitting is regarded with suspicion by their rivals, I belief. And I can't see much potential for growth tbh. The silver lining to having a crap int'l game is the potential for improvement. Don't think I'd ever want it to dominate the sport though - I'm unashamedely club-first.
Interesting thanks for that. (just to be a pedant its now the AP)
Big Dave T wrote:Sadly there's no answer to keeping good young players. We have to ackonwledge that in the next 10-15 years the shift may even go further meaning RL becomes more a feeder competition for RU.
If that happens you have to think it is over as a full-time sport. Clubs would either operate as Championship clubs do now or jump ship to RU. Heart says the former, head says it'd be a slow death.
RL in England won't die, nor will it become a feeder competition for RU. People have been suggesting that since RU went professional in 1995 (or whenever it was), yet RL attendances and TV audiences have been on the up ever since. Next season I believe attendances will increase even further. A sport that is averaging >10K per game over the season is not dying, and should be able to support a full-time structure.
Looking back over the players that we've lost to RU, how many of them do we really miss? Apart from Robinson, and maybe Ashton and Vainikolo, I can't think of any that have had a detrimental impact to the international game. RL and RU are just too different to justify massive player shifts between the codes.
Our biggest problem is Englands lack of competitiveness against NZ and Aus. We can put this down to crap imports/coaching/player development/dodgy refs , but not RU poaching players from RL.
flatcap wrote:RL in England won't die, nor will it become a feeder competition for RU. People have been suggesting that since RU went professional in 1995 (or whenever it was), yet RL attendances and TV audiences have been on the up ever since. Next season I believe attendances will increase even further. A sport that is averaging >10K per game over the season is not dying, and should be able to support a full-time structure.
Looking back over the players that we've lost to RU, how many of them do we really miss? Apart from Robinson, and maybe Ashton and Vainikolo, I can't think of any that have had a detrimental impact to the international game. RL and RU are just too different to justify massive player shifts between the codes.
Our biggest problem is Englands lack of competitiveness against NZ and Aus. We can put this down to crap imports/coaching/player development/dodgy refs , but not RU poaching players from RL.
Dont think RL will die, but our success may decrease based on a number of factors. The one thing not touched upon is the youth setups. With more and more money in RU it may well be that they start to pick up top RL kids from the junior sides for their academies. That to me is one of the changes that i think is likely to happen that will have a far bigger impact then picking up a handful of established 1st teamers. I know for example that Ionians have a lot of good local RL kids playing for them. I also know that as part of the Aviva sponsorship deal an element will be spent on skills schools around the north of the country attracting kids to RU from RL backgrounds. We cant stop that either.
RL may not die but the development of RL will plateu if the anticipated changes start to happen.
Big Dave T wrote:and no matter how much RL tries to spread the international game we need to understand that RL will never be as successful having the international spread as union. There's no way for example that we will end up with quality RL teams in Argentina, South Africa, Italy, Ireland, Scotland (made up of scots not Aussies) etc
Part of me is thinking that the RFL should stop concentrating on expansion of the game in the UK and focus on what it knows works. On the back of the world RL should maybe stop concentrating on growth and just focus again on what works.
Sadly there's no answer to keeping good young players. We have to ackonwledge that in the next 10-15 years the shift may even go further meaning RL becomes more a feeder competition for RU.
Couldn't agree more, as a strategy the RFL need to look at what is acheivable and focus on that. Expansion world wide of the game is a nice thought but in reality it's not going to happen so why waste money, time and effort over chasing the end of the rainbow.
I believe the countries love affair with football is waning and people are looking for an alternative to prancing primadonnas driving ferraris and treating the paying public like thick peasants. RU will benefit from this and I believe that if we market and improve our domestic comp that too can benefit. The product we have is already a pretty good one, has decent viewing figures and as long as we walk before we run it can be a profitable venture. There is just a fear that if we carry on looking for world domination we could ruin what we already have.
Joined: Mar 22 2009 Posts: 2397 Location: East Hull
Major think that can help world wide would be over the big pond. They hardly have a league set up (if at all) and 1 during the NFL off season could be a goldmine.
[quote="Adeybull"] so the panel took the same view as your excellent assessment.[/quote]
very red robin wrote:Major think that can help world wide would be over the big pond. They hardly have a league set up (if at all) and 1 during the NFL off season could be a goldmine.
The biggest problem I'd see with this is that anyone even half good enough to play RL will be snapped up by an NFL team where the money is huge. If football has struggled to get a foothold (mainly a girls sport) over there I would think RL will rerally struggle.
Joined: Mar 22 2009 Posts: 2397 Location: East Hull
But not everyone can play NFL full time, just an elite few hundred out of the whole of the US. plus if its in the off season many will get onboard, especially the fans.
[quote="Adeybull"] so the panel took the same view as your excellent assessment.[/quote]
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
