The first question is what do the RFL want? Growth, stability, promotion, recognition, bigger sponsors, more money, a strong game in the heartlands, national success, global domination?

There's no continuous plan and no goal to work towards. It's just a series of experimental ideas, gimmicks, tinkering and tampering. How does a club go about marketing a sport which in the last two decades has had multiple different league formats, play-off structures, end of season outcomes, and rule changes? Maybe if the RFL could come up with a long term plan for the game, and stick to it, the clubs might be more inclined to do their bit.

For a game that's been around for over a century, it couldn't be more in its infancy.

You'll have to explain that one coz i'm puzzled what extra money ?????????

...He's a Bulls fan. Extra Money always confuses them, especially when they have to PAY IT BACK

Its pretty plain that the sport needs a circuit breaker to be able to fundamentally change things for the better. Nobody, including Hearn, would be able to do much if all we are doing is going to Sky, sponsors etc and basically just presenting a rebadged SL. You might get a short-term blip upwards, but the longer term decline will continue.

That's why IMO if we are to make a change we might as well go boots and all, and to me the possible circuit breaker is expansion. Going back to sponsors with two French clubs, at least one in London and even one or more in North America would give someone like Hearn something to sell. But if we go that route there needs to be a plan, and some straight talking about what this might mean, including - horror of horrors - that some clubs would lose out.

Blaming smaller clubs isn't the issue though - we've seen plenty of times one or more of the supposed bigger clubs back moves that in the long run have hurt the sport. At Leeds we've seen Hetherington helping block increases to the salary cap and scrapping reserve grade without a proper feeder system to replace it, both of which have damaged the sport IMO. Some smaller clubs have undoubtedly help hold the game back, but I don't think any club is blameless for the current state of the game.

That is the nature of Professional sports......we've known this for decades, football are surprisingly late the realisation party whilst AFL and Rugby Union are learning quickly.......if you look at the GAA in Ireland, they rule their "amateur" sport with a rod of iron and it is such management that get results......even the AFL have a semblance of control over their game, but in League, the ARL are toothless and now the RFL are too......28 clubs run the game and
if you want to join the party then you need to bring something special to the table, be that TV, commercial Partners or other fiscal value....

I could not disagree more. Its those 12 peoples jobs to promote and maximise for their clubs and to worth with the SL authorities.

IF it were just down to the clubs, you would end up with far too much self interest and a situation like we had in the late 1980's / early 1990's where one club not just dominated, but effectively dictated the running of the league.

Your disregard of Hearn is clear, but I fail to see why you are not prepared to see what he has to offer / suggest. That attitude is indicative of why RL is in the state it is.

Nonsense!

Do you think football stadiums are full of high earners week in week out? Football (specifically the premier league) fills most of its stadia on a weekly basis on ticket prices north of £50 per person. This is in a sport where media income means that they could actually charge NOTHING to the paying spectator and it would not really impact on the financial side of the clubs.

Yet, they charge the prices they do as any perceived cheapness would devalue the image of the sport. In economic terms this is know as a "Geffin Good".

Another post on this thread suggested that £60 for two adults and a child is too much. £20 per head.

Go to a theatre production of any real quality, tickets will be north of £40 for a decent seat. I went to see a stand up comedian at a theatre in Leeds, so thats one bloke on stage, no other performers, ticket price was £28.

Is it really too much to ask for £25 to watch top level RL, on which that price has to fund the wages of players / non-playing staff.

Prices are not the issue, its fan apathy which is a problem. Football does not seem to have fan apathy, yet most on here would agree that even an bang average game of RL holds your interest more than the vast majority of football matches. How does football do this? Through force feeding (via the media) that every game is a huge deal. How often do you hear the expression "Another massive weekend in the Premier League". I can tell you, its EVERY weekend.

Just a coupleof throw away thoughts because the rest has been done to death. I cannot think of another major team sport with such a diverse demographic in terms of age and sex of supporters, surely we could play on that to sell the game. Secondly I was talking to the mother of a young (15 year old) casual fan who went to Warrington to watch against Widnes ??? because his team, Saints, were away. He got beaten up outside the ground by a group of Warrington fans and is unlikely to be allowed to continue his exploration of our game.

I don't think the meeting with Hearn had anything to do with him coming into RL. I do think it had a lot to do with Ralph Rimmer getting a selfie in order to try and get some profile and glamour to rub off on him as he tries to secure the permanent CEO job.

Sorry, but I don't agree with that. We're talking about a competitive sporting environment here. Where one club raises the bar, the others need to step up their game to compete. Whether that is in the area of talent development, in community engagement, in supporter experience, in facilities, in marketing or in media relations - whilst there will always be big teams and small teams, that competitive progress applies to every professional sporting environment. It's why RU teams are spending more on more on talent identification and nurturing, why F1 teams invest millions in making their cars 0.001 second a lap faster and why football teams spend their pre-season tours opening Megastores in Hong Kong.

We already have mechanisms in place to prevent the sort of situation you describe. For starters, we have a fully professional league - not one professional club in a largely part-time structure, and we have a salary cap that prevents the hoarding of talent.



I've no issue with any external party wanting to bring ideas to the table. What I take issue with is this search for an easy answer - that is the real attitude that leaves RL in the state that it is in. I cannot think of another professional sport where the clubs involved are constantly looking towards the governing body to do their job for them.

It's the clubs job to engage the audience at a local level, it's the club's job to find new audiences, and it's the club's job to develop the talent and the on-field product. The RFL has a role in raising profile, of course it does, but that role is more focused around media consumption (online audiences, TV audiences and so on). It is the clubs that are the primary point of consumption here, and I firmly believe that they are the biggest point of failure.

Do you think rugby league attendances change much according to price then? Personally, I think people either want to go to the game or don't, and the price only becomes a factor when they can't afford it. I reckon the crowd would largely be the same for an SL game with the prices at £15 or £30, and thus many would benefit from increasing prices rather than decreasing.

It would be interesting to analyse. There are obviously many factors at play but I do think that ticket prices approaching £30 are pricing some people out of games or making them pick and choose which games they attend.

The thing is, your comparisons don't really work - the theatre or a comedian are 1 off shows, it's not a weekly expense (or bi-weekly if you have a season ticket), and you're paying for the quality of the seating and the production.

The premier league is a better example as it's a sporting season, but the difference is the demand is there for Premier League, and also, the Premier League is pretty much accepted as the best standard of l
Football league in the world, Super League isn't.

As I say , I choose to still go and pay the current prices, so I can't really complain, but I can see why many families wouldn't have that kind of disposable income, or would choose to spend it a different way.

I do agree that we don't want to cheapen the sport, but there is a balance, and I think it's probably a bit steep for the quality nowadays.

I dont go to every home game, purely because with myself, Mrs James and 3 mini james all wanting to go, it costs a fortune when you factor in petrol, drinks and food

Regards

King James

Surely it would be easier to fly from Carcassonne than to drive all that way.