I think you misunderstand. I agree that mid-january is too late, I agree that clubs need to know before the start of the year and in plenty of time. It is unfair to everyone that we don’t yet know what we will be going with and they have no way to prepare for it. Which is why I don’t think it is fair to implement anything next season. We have gone too far. We should stop, pause and take the next 6 months to get everyone’s buy-in, everyone’s agreement, announce it and move forward in 2015.

There is no guarantee that any system will work, but it is almost certain to fail if we rush into it whatever is decided.

If nothing is agreed this month, that is the obvious play - from a RFL POV at least.

It gives them a way to give London a pass, and they can put the blame onto the 'rebel' clubs.

I think the RFL would be ready to allow a delay in change in competition structure, to also postpone/seperate the debate about governance structure. The 'rebel's' lever might not be big enough - they'd need to get up to 8 or 9, supporting their case to make any [iimmediate[/i headway then, I reckon. If the RFL don't get a decent sponsorship deal, then that is far from implausible though.

The thing is as well, we are a year out in terms of TV contracts. If as rumoured Sky are a driving force behind this. Then by delaying it a year, we can ask them to share the burden. It seems crazy we are going about this with the TV deals we have in place. If Premier sport own the rights for the championship, and Sky the rights for SL, who owns the 2nd and 3rd groups of 8 are they championship competitions or SL competitions?

(fwiw I don’t think Sky are a big driving force behind it. I don’t really think they care about P+R and would much prefer an NFL style set up and would LOVE an expanded yearly WCC)

I actually think it would be better as well if the governance aspect was sorted before we moved ahead. It seems pretty disjointed to look to move to a new structure and then look to who and how we would run that structure. Surely the who and how needs to be done before or at the same time, whats the logic in doing it after?

This debate is sounding more and more like the debate about World Cup season tickets.

Because we have not been personally informed about the goings on we kick up a fuss.

The SL chairmen are not kicking up a fuss about the lack of an announcement, so as they get to vote on the matter, I'd assume they are happy with the way discussions are going.

Its all about the image or lack of it that the RFL are portaying, I get the impression there is no dynamic approach in anything they do at Red Hall.
I have quite a few freelance photographer mates and some of these are involved in rugby matches for the media, just yesterday I heard the RFL have yet again delayed annual registrations and some of them are thinking of giving up to cover other sports instead.
When will the RFL wake up from there slumber and realise they need to market the game 365 days of the year and not a week before the season starts.

They announced in December that a new title sponsor was about to be announced that very week - then it went quiet.

I can't imagine that was intended. As a sponsor you want your brand out there ASAP - and vice versa for Super League given the 1 year hiatus from having a sponsor.

This silence should be a concern. We're about 25 days from defaulting to the Marwan Koukash Super League.

I read an article recently about Eric Wienberger who is the Executive Producer for NFL networks. He was talking about how the NFL network looked to ‘eventize’ the NFL. This was a network that originally had no live NFL on it but looked to every other part of the game to ‘eventize’ it. They looked at things like the Draft, Draft combine, press conferences with head coaches and built a TV channel around it. This had the effect that every programme on that network became an advertisement for the NFL game that week. It built it up. By making events out of things people didn’t really care about like the Draft Combine, they built up the event that was that player playing in the NFL. This is where Rugby League falls down hugely. They do very very little to ‘eventize’ the game. Sky Sports news have hours and hours and hours of coverage to fill. They have half the attention of people throughout the country. The RFL should be making everything available to them. If our games are to be on Sky Thursday and Friday, Those two days should include hours of RL related content. Live press conferences, live interviews with players and coaches, a look at how they are preparing, interviews with players about their opinions on what will happen, expert opinion from former coaches and pros. If the RFL need to pay for some of that then they should. If the RFL need to go out and find 10 ex pros, 5 ex coaches, put through media training and keep them on the RFL payroll to be made available to media outlets then they should do so.

The game needs to be marketed 24/7 365, not just prior to the big events, not just during the season, not just by sending out leaflets or e-mails to people who have been before. We need to create anticipation, we need to create the conversation.

Dear me, some people live in the clouds. The NFL just signed a new TV rights deal; They are now getting about $14 billion per year in just TV rights. The entire operating budget of rugby league is equivalent to the NFL's stationary budget. That is why they can afford to market 24/7. The RFL have struggled to pay their existing salaries this year!

Yes, because I did of course suggest that the RFL do everything the NFL do. I suggested they set up their own TV network, I suggested they build 32 new stadiums all identical to the home of the Dallas Cowboys. I suggested they spend billions, employing thousands to try and build the game.

Either that or I said the should allow Sky Sports more access (it may have slipped your notice but the net cost of this is £0) and employ a whole 15 people to act as the media ambassadors for the game.

What you also seem to forget is that the NFL network is 11 years old. It is innovative thoughts like doing this, like setting up a dedicated network that not only marketed the game and built up the secondary areas of the game, but pushed rival broadcasters who were screening the NFL to follow their lead and advertise the game for free, to millions, like insisting on sell outs for televised games that means the NFL’s tv rights are worth about $5billion dollars now, when they were only worth a 5th of that in 2003.

had we grown at the same rate since 2003, our TV deal would be worth about £90m per year. As it is, its worth about £18m

Are you sure?

The RFL should employ some successful charity managers. We run great organisations on shoe strings and know how to maximise volunteers, interns and students to deliver big outcomes with little expenditure.

Quote: Saint Simon "Are you sure?'" It's nearer $7bill a year www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenha ... 6-billion/

Quote: Saint Simon "Are you sure?'" It's nearer $7bill a year www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenha ... 6-billion/

Quote: Saint Simon "Are you sure?'" It's nearer $7bill a year www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenha ... 6-billion/

Quote: Saint Simon "Are you sure?'" It's nearer $7bill a year www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenha ... 6-billion/

the pure TV rights deal for the NFL (rather than media rights which is what JB quoted, which is quite a bit more complicated) is $39.6b over 8 years from 2014 to 2022