1. "Pretty much filling it" for one WCC's is totally different to filling it for Bradford.

2. Elland Road capacity is 40,000 so "pushing this over 25k with marketing efforts" would do little to no good whatsoever.

It would be a good idea, on a rare occasion as a marketing tool.

The RFL have got it partly right in staging the Leeds V Bradford derby on maundy thursday every year, the Hull Derby and the Saints v Wigan derby on the easter weekend as well. I would like to see them put more effort into this round of games. It is a double bank holiday. Near enough in the summer. It could really be something to build around.

Why not a few on the road games. But dont go too far, and really sell them. Have them the same day, over easter, in the same place, every year. Leeds V Bradford at Elland Road on Maundy Thursday, The Hull derby at the City Ground on Good Friday. Cas v Hudds at Bramall Lane on Good Friday. Saints V Wigan at the Reebok, Anfield or Goodison Park on the Saturday. Crusaders v Widnes at the Britannia. Warrington v Salford at the CoM. Quins v Catalans at Espanyol's new stadium on Sunday.

All within two hours of the clubs, market it well, get adverts in papers, on TV etc. Organise travel and sell tickets through amatuer clubs, do deals with coach companys etc to get the clubs 'normal' fans going, plus market it to the area as an event and use it to build interest.

With a long build up, and building a tradition, ive no doubt that we could sell out a couple of the games, and sell a lot of tickets for the others.

How could you do that without either scraping the MM or introducing a 28 round?! Would it be classed as home or away for which club?

For example if you classed ER as the Rhinos home match, it wouldn't be fair on Bradford for Leeds to make a shed load of money on the back of RFL Marketing and an increase 40k Elland Road crowd, and if you were to split the difference it wouldn't be fair on Leeds who've lost money on it.

alternate the 'home' team every year, split the profits 50/50

Why would any of the clubs be interested in getting less money that usual? [i(I'm assuming 50% of a bumper crowd less costs for renting a huge stadium would give you less money than you'd get for just getting capacity at your own ground.)[/i

What would happen when a new club comes in?

Why should Quins fans have an extra game in France to pay for?

Why would clubs want the disadvantage of losing out on a genuine home fixture which you're suggesting is played on an unfamiliar pitch?

Not a fan

I dont think you have understood.

The games would be the same as they would at the moment. Tomorrow Leeds play Bradford as their home game in the league. Under what i have proposed, Leeds this year would exchange a home game for 50% of the profit for a game against Bradford at Elland Road. Along with the less tangible benefits of the visibility it gives the game and the clubs, and the fact your product is seen by more than twice the amount of people it normally would. You would expect at least some of these would be converted into more regular fans, increasing your support base in the future.

The next year, Bradford would exchange their home game for 50% of the profit for a game against Leeds at Elland Road. So clubs would only miss a home game once every two years.

There wouldnt be any extra games, Quins wouldnt go to Les Catalans twice, they would go once, simply instead of going to Perpignan they would go to Barcelona.

There's some Walter Mitty moments going on here - the literary character, not the rlfans persona.

Why are people going to watch Leeds v Bradford if it's at Elland Road/Valley Parade rather than at Headingley/Odsal? If spectators aren't interested enough to go watch it at the traditional venue, what - other than heavily discounting tickets, which kills your profits - is going to persuade them to go watch it at a different one?

WCC attendances have absolutely no relevance to the discussion. That's a one-off game, attended by plenty of neutrals and provides the only opportunity to see an NRL club side "in the flesh" for the majority of people.

All well and good except I'm sure that Leeds would rather get 100% of a Headingley crowd that 50% of a ER crowd.

OK... so what I have to say doesn't actually relate to the idea of playing a local derby or a big game at a neutral venue but it is related to marketing of RL in general.
For starters what the RFL need to recognise is that their aim of widening the appeal of the game outside of the M62 corridor cannot and will not be achieved by using the same techniques they have been implementing for some time. The franchise system, although offering them the opportunity to artificially engineer a league incorporating more non-M62 teams, does not improve the PR for the game. I do acknowledge that the criteria for receiving a franchise does incorporate aspects which can be seen to be positive PR, for example the need to have a well established junior and community programme. However the net result, it would seem to me, is that for the sake of putting a welsh team in the league, with the aim of increasing the popularity of the sport in that region, the negative publicity generated has a detrimental effect on the sport overall.
In addition holding a special season opener, or whatever you want to call it, that takes place in a stadium so large that it looks completely empty also does little for the PR of the game.
What the powers that be need to recognise is that they have a crucial role in ensuring the integrity of the game, encouraging development of teams and players, encouraging the formation of junior teams and leagues across the country, disciplinary proceedings to make sure that bad behaviour is punished fairly and being accountable for the state of the game. What they also need to recognise is that marketing and public relations for the sport should be undertaken by professionals who know what they are doing.
Mistakes have been made, the franchise system is a good start, demoralising for any lower league club with aspiration and a desire to grow. What they need to be able to start doing is thinking about their marketing strategy not as individual events or games but as a whole. More placement of high profile players in the media would be a good start.

They probably would. Im also sure the would rather get 50% of an Elland Road crowd than 0% of an Odsal crowd. Whilst they would lose out one year, they would gain the next. And they would get the benefits of higher visibility, better awareness, and the chance to showcase the product to 40 thousand people every year.

Did you happen to see Question of Sport by any chance, which featured two RL related "identify the player" type questions which neither side were able to get?

The first one was Andy Platt, so I can cut a bit of slack there. If you weren't interested in the game in the late 80s, early 90s you probably wouldn't know who Andy Platt was.

The second however was Jamie Peacock, who Phil Tufnell incorrectly identified from the picture board as Wladimir Klitschko.

If two teams of people involved in professional sport can't identify two great rugby league players of the past and present, why would advertisers be interested in using them to endorse their products?

More high profile players in the media is a given. We need to sell the story of the game The stories sport offer of sacrifice, redemption, excellence, team work, etc all come of the back of the people involved. We need to get faces in the media.

As for selling 'events' rather than the game as a whole. Events are the game as a whole. Every game needs to be sold and marketed as an event. Some bigger than others. So 'events' are how we sell the game.

That's the Captain of England RL. We've got no hope!

We could do with a high-ish profile player "smashing it to" Lady Gaga. That'd do it.