Don't forget the "dark forces" at play in both the media and the schools,yes the schools,contribute to this.

I agree with most of what you say, but what's the solution?

Take 10% or 20% of the sky cash back away from the clubs and spend it promoting the game across the country.....this will give you a few million to spend and the media will be after this coin...leverage more exposure through it.

ALAS....... The result of this strategy? A dozen or so RL club chairmen whining and moaning and the RFL backing down.

This is the problem with RL! The clubs run the sport as a professional entity and no amount of conspiracy theories as to why RL isn't front page news will change that. Other sports have a strong governing body that lays down the law, places it's internationals at the top/pinnacle of their sports and ensures that development/exposure/media coverage is all choreographed centrally.

The 888 system and binning of licencing was as a direct result of some club chairmen believing that the extra million pounds their club would get for SL will turn their clubs into Leeds. It's short sighted and short termism at it's best.

I'd also start to play hardball with the TV companies. The BBC must be made to show the SL show at a reasonable time nationally of lose it and SKY need to reinvigorate the coverage they give the game. We've fallen behind darts on SKY now.....it's time for a change.

Agree the strategy is difficult to come up with, mainly because there's little money to go around anyway.

But I'd start by having the RFL retain more of the TV money than they currently do and use it to run a proper marketing department that does more than just send out emails to current RL fans about events, especially the internationals.

Unfortunately RL is caught between a rock and a hard place. We only have limited money so need plenty of domestic games to bring money in for the sport and the clubs. But RL is such a physically demanding sport we're pretty much on the limit for how many games we can ask our top players to play.

So I'd start by at the start of each season, a 40-man preliminary England squad be named. These 40 players then can't play more than 25 SL games (excluding the playoffs & Cup final).
Then we'd have an annual France vs England 3-match series played in France. Plus a 3-match Yorkshire v Lancashire series mid-season.
Plus whatever internationals we'd have at the end of season.

This depends largely upon having a set international calendar (& the Fr v Eng & Yorks v Lancs series marketed well in advance each year) so everyone knows when and where they're happening. I'd prefer an international calendar something along the lines of:
Year 1 - Test Series (2 of England, Australia & New Zealand, the 3rd playing a mini tour against France, Wales or PNG, Fiji etc)
Year 2 - 4/5 Nations (The big 3 plus 1 or 2 others)
Year 3 - Test Series
Year 4 - World Cup

But it has to be set, so we all know what's happening.

That's the stuff on the pitch, off it, something like you suggested of TV money being spent to promote the game. I don't think we can do it across the country unfortunately, we'd need to target it and use it in conjunction with the clubs in certain areas. For instance in Newcastle, the RFL would spend money to help get people to watch Newcastle. This will no doubt infuriate heartland clubs but it's just tough I'm afraid, we need new areas of the country. Also spend money to help ensure Newcastle is run relatively well and obviously to take advantage of events like the Magic Weekend.
Unless we help these "new" areas then they'll either likely fold or stagnate in the lower leagues.

I'd also hold back some of the TV money to ensure the RFL itself is run professionally, and as you rightly point out, to ensure that it runs the sport not the clubs. The clubs are entitled to have a say and an influence on things but not the entire running of the sport, which is what it appears at the moment and so we've now effectively got a governing body that doesn't lead the sport, it reacts to the whims of the clubs short term concerns.

I agree to a point on the TV, especially Sky. It's been very poor of them lately with little to no pushing of RL at all. The Beeb is another matter, as I reckon if we pushed them on the SL show they'd threaten to pull it entirely. Though I find the SL show rather dreary and boring at the best of times. As if it's all rather rushed through and not particularly thought out. But we can give Sky a good go at, especially with the rise of BT Sport.

These are a mix of thoughts off the top of my head and some I've thought about for a while, so it's not a clear, defined strategy in its entirety! But I'd agree entirely we need a strong RFL to centralise and choreograph the direction of the sport, because it's all over the place at the moment.

I spent the best part of two years watching RL whilst sat alongside guys from all the major tabloids and broadsheets. Trust me. There's a southern bias.

International RL is miles behind RU and has a lot of catching up to do, however I have seen some positive signs over the last 3/4 years. We are now in a place where England, NZ and Australia could play one another and you'd expect a close game. Whereas 10-15 years ago you'd expect an Aussie win.

Playing at the Olympic stadium is a good move, and I think the strong ticket sales so far show its been a good choice. The next step would be to take a 2nd Test game to to a 'big' ground such as the Etihad, St James' Park etc instead of the mid sized KC/DW/John Smiths.

The other thing RL badly needs is the likes of France, Samoa, Fiji to step up and give the big 3 a game, which Samoa did last year in the 4 Nations and it was a better tournament as a result. We need to get to a place where say England could go to France and you'd at least consider an upset, not the game be a training session like it is now.

I'm sure i'll get over the disappointment