Re: Takeover ratification? : Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:32 am  

Bullseye wrote:

IMO the option of letting them go to the championship might sound like the kindest thing to do looking at their current position. However the game needs a top flight presence in the capital. Otherwise it looks like a small time minority sport. If we want to go back to part time rugby league and forget about ever competing with NZ and Australia ever again then fine.

Spot on - you do need a successful London presence to attract national media coverage and sponsorship. And though our narrowminded clubs rarely put the game as a whole first it is in their interest to have a London club generating attention. However as is clear there is not sufficient cash in the game to support much of the current Super League clubs as Bulls fans know only too well, so not sure where the cash required to put London on a sound footing would come from. But reading the comments above you can see the game at all levels is drifting and who has responsibilty for the game: the RFL

Re: Takeover ratification? : Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:21 am  

What do you suggest the RFL do? Go out & find a major sponsor? Why would anyone want to pump millions into a M62 sport watched by working class people not interested in broadening their RL horizons? Unless it's gambling or beer, which I am not sure whether they are still off-limits, I don't know where it's coming from.

Re: Takeover ratification? : Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:07 am  

tigertot wrote:

What do you suggest the RFL do? Go out & find a major sponsor? Why would anyone want to pump millions into a M62 sport watched by working class people not interested in broadening their RL horizons? Unless it's gambling or beer, which I am not sure whether they are still off-limits, I don't know where it's coming from.

That is the Catch-22. You need a London presence to attract the national media and sponsors, but currently cannot afford to do it successfully.

But at the moment we have so much uncertainty: what is going to be the future format?, will the Bulls status be ratified?, what cup competitions will be running?, will we find even a minor sponsor ? These are areas where the RFL should be showing leadership.

Re: Takeover ratification? : Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:16 am  

tigertot wrote:

What do you suggest the RFL do? Go out & find a major sponsor? Why would anyone want to pump millions into a M62 sport watched by working class people not interested in broadening their RL horizons? Unless it's gambling or beer, which I am not sure whether they are still off-limits, I don't know where it's coming from.

Well, because it gets the second highest viewing figures on Sky year after year. There are more people live within 30 minutes travel of the M62 than on the entire east coast of Australia. I'm not making case for getting rid of London but at a talk recently I think Phil Caplan said that more kids played RL in the suburb of Newcastle (Sydney) than across our heartland.
Even the big derby games don't always top 20k attendances.

I think there's a massive room for expansion and investment in our own area. The abandonment of Sheffield for instance. York is a huge area/population compared to 30 years ago. Maybe what I'm musing on is the catapulting of Super league clubs into areas where there's traditionally been no game needs a rethink. I'm far from convinced Sky would abandon the game because London weren't represented any more than I think getting rid of London is remotely desirable.

I also think the issue of 'class' is interesting. When I was a kid the game was popular among teachers far more than football. The stand at Headingley or Odsal may have had working class roots but it was and probably still is an aspiring working class/lower middle class group.

[Bullseye]

Re: Takeover ratification? : Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:26 am  

RL used to attract some big name sponsors (Powergen/Guinness/Tetleys) so why couldn't that happen again?

Nowt wrong with brewery sponsorship IMO.

Re: Takeover ratification? : Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:32 am  

Bullseye wrote:

RL used to attract some big name sponsors (Powergen/Guinness/Tetleys) so why couldn't that happen again?

Nowt wrong with brewery sponsorship IMO.

Agreed - one of the few things that unites most fans - a decent pint. Mind you would be happy to take sponsorship from an industrial cat's mickey brewery providing I did not have to drink their stuff!

Re: Takeover ratification? : Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:42 am  

I think there's a problem with French TV and beer advertising. There was something about Aussie shirts causing a fuss because they had VB as their sponsor

Re: Takeover ratification? : Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:51 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

Well, because it gets the second highest viewing figures on Sky year after year. There are more people live within 30 minutes travel of the M62 than on the entire east coast of Australia. I'm not making case for getting rid of London but at a talk recently I think Phil Caplan said that more kids played RL in the suburb of Newcastle (Sydney) than across our heartland.
Even the big derby games don't always top 20k attendances.

I think there's a massive room for expansion and investment in our own area. The abandonment of Sheffield for instance. York is a huge area/population compared to 30 years ago. Maybe what I'm musing on is the catapulting of Super league clubs into areas where there's traditionally been no game needs a rethink. I'm far from convinced Sky would abandon the game because London weren't represented any more than I think getting rid of London is remotely desirable.

I also think the issue of 'class' is interesting. When I was a kid the game was popular among teachers far more than football. The stand at Headingley or Odsal may have had working class roots but it was and probably still is an aspiring working class/lower middle class group.

I am not disputing the things you say (other than the bit about Newcastle; I have been there & cannot believe there are more play than Wigan/Hull/Leeds etc combined, not that that is much to celebrate) but where is the funding going to come from for long term investment in Sheffield, York or anywhere? Advertisers, who pump in the money, are bothered about the class of viewer & supporter. On average no-one watches polo, tennis or golf, apart from once or twice a year, but look at the bling sponsors they get. I am not impressed with Nigel Wood, but that is more his physical appearance than anything he has particularly done, but I was by Richard Lewis who was doing such a good job that he was head hunted by tennis. But he struggled to make any headway.

Re: Takeover ratification? : Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:18 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

I think there's a problem with French TV and beer advertising. There was something about Aussie shirts causing a fuss because they had VB as their sponsor

Well if it keeps the French happy I don't mind being sponsored by Moet, Lanson or Tattinger, Mrs Relic would be over the moon

Re: Takeover ratification? : Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:22 pm  

tigertot wrote:

I am not disputing the things you say (other than the bit about Newcastle; I have been there & cannot believe there are more play than Wigan/Hull/Leeds etc combined, not that that is much to celebrate) but where is the funding going to come from for long term investment in Sheffield, York or anywhere? Advertisers, who pump in the money, are bothered about the class of viewer & supporter. On average no-one watches polo, tennis or golf, apart from once or twice a year, but look at the bling sponsors they get. I am not impressed with Nigel Wood, but that is more his physical appearance than anything he has particularly done, but I was by Richard Lewis who was doing such a good job that he was head hunted by tennis. But he struggled to make any headway.

Lewis got a sponsor for the elite comp at least. Nobody watches polo period. It's hugely susbsidised by its participants to the extent it can hardly be called a professional game. Tennis has a huge international circuit which draws viewers all across the world. It's as cheap to film something in London and send it to Singapore as it is to send it to Edinburgh.

I agree in part about advertisers looking at demographics but it's a great deal more complicated than you're making out. A huge factor in ITV pushing the boat out for Champions League football was that the advertisers want access to young men of all classes because as a group they're disappearing from the TV watching group and they tend to get money and spend every penny. As a group many will have more disposable income for instance than a young middle class couple with two kids.

I think where we disagree is on your point about where to find the money for long term investment in the big cities on our fringe. I think the failure to market the game with it's TV partners and subsequent failure to get a sponsor for the WC or SL is inexcusable. I've never understood why SKY or the RFL allow clubs to play on Friday in direct competition with the Sky game. The Friday night game and Monday night footy should be THE big TV events. Friday with 4 games and Saturday tea time is a total waste.