To be fair though, premier league TV rights were getting out of control. There had to come a point where the TV networks said no more.

BT sport have realised that to take majority of games off sky would cost a ridiculous amount of money and were not gonna be prepared to pay that. Sky realised they had no real threat this time.

The last contract was so big as there was real speculation that beIN sports were gonna come into the UK TV market plus BT sport was new on the block. Sky paid well over the odds to retain them rights.

Regarding rugby league. Kinda depends on if sky actually have any genuine competition. I not sure BT sport will be interested. If anything we could see Amazon shock everyone. Amazon is now buying up sports TV rights so I would keep an eye on them.

I think you may need to aim your first question at Nigel Wood as it appears that he may have been the person who enticed/encouraged Toronto to strive to join SL, it wasn't an accident and IF this is the right thing for the game, it would be utterly stupid to have them work their way up through the leagues, finally make it to the "promised land" and then "allow" them to be relegated.
If this were to happen, it would have been better to never involve them in the first place and the same applies to Toulouse.
They would have been better to leave them in the French League.

As to whether these clubs strengthen the competition, you would have to ask the power brokers at The RFL & Sky.
The international flavour does give the sport more appeal to the outside world and it MAY lead to increased revenue coming into the sport (which can only be a positive) but, again, why go through the charade of making them fight their way into the top flight only to put them through the qualifiers and probable relegation, it just doesn't make sense.

So we come back to the silence for the make up of SL for next season.

Maybe, just maybe, The RFL (and Sky) are wanting to know if Toronto and Toulouse will be "suitable" for SL before showing their hand ?
We (as supporters) just have to hope that "they" get this one right.

The Super League clubs are all meeting at Rugby Expo on the 18th April in Coventry. Hopefully some progress will be made there.

The problem with the previous franchising model is that it measured the wrong things, in the wrong way and it encouraged the wrong behaviours. It measured crowds based on "average attendance", rather than "ticket revenue", and that encouraged clubs to under-sell their tickets to maximise their average crowd. Bradford and Wakefield didn't go bust because of franchising, they went bust because they didn't generate enough revenue, they reduced the profit margin on one of their key revenue sources and when the brown stuff hit the fan, they didn't have enough revenue streams to make up the shortfall.

I think the sport is at a point where any new structure really has to prioritise commercial needs over the playing side of the sport. We're not strong enough to support sustainable promotion and relegation, and there is little evidence to suggest that the notion of "jepoardy" is anywhere near the attraction that many people argue that it is.

For me, that means franchising - probably with 12 teams (home and away plus Magic Weekend, and a 5/6 team play-off). A Super League competition should be an elite competition, and I don't think we have that by admitting too many clubs with a talent pool that can't at the present time sustain it.

That franchising model should have much more focused criteria that encourages the right sort of behaviour from the clubs. Metrics should be revenue based, rather than being based on easily-fudged numbers (instead of targeting "10,000 averages", target "£xm of ticket revenue"icon_wink.gif. There should be growth targets, and each and every club needs to present a sales, commercial and marketing plan that demonstrates how they will achieve that growth. And there should be criteria around youth development, about player welfare and about local participation.

And the sport needs to get the product right to reengage the audiences that we have and have lost, and to enthuse new audiences. Demographics have changed, people have changed and the way that they spend their leisure dollar has changed, the expectations of sponsors has changed and yet we're still pushing (largely) the same stuff that we always were - and wondering why it isn't working.

Part of that, for me, means expansion. I think there are new audiences out there and new markets that this sport can reach outside the heartlands. Will that upset some people and clubs? Undoubtedly. But our heartland clubs have had long enough to prove that they can develop, grow and reach new audiences, and too many have failed to do that. "Away fans" is not a strong enough argument.

Another way I would try to engage new audiences is to reduce the number of league games in favour of more 'big events'. International development is obviously the dream but it relies on the cooperation of the NRL and we can't wait around for them, so let's focus on hyping up the club game that we have.

I'd keep the Magic Weekend - it's a great event that showcases a very good aspect of our sport. I think the recent game with Leeds and Castleford showed that there is a business case for encouraging pairs of clubs to take more fixtures to alternative venues at key weeks in the season - St Helens v Warrington at Anfield, Leeds v Wigan at Elland Road or Etihad for example. Put on big events, hype them up, and push the sales message hard. It's not a particuarly difficult thing to do.

I'd also look at the viability of a 7s or 9s weekend. Create an event that really shows off our flair players, that shows off our skills and shows off the speed of this sport, and either take it to an audience in London, or sell it to local tourist boards. I think that would enthuse new audiences a lot more than another 7 rounds of "middle eights".

These are the sorts of events that I think would engage new supporters and make us more valuable to broadcasters. Much gets said on here about how much we get from Sky, but Sky, BT, Amazon or anyone else aren't going to pay us more just because we think that they should. Sky knows exactly what RL content is worth to the business (it knows how many subscriptions depend on RL, it knows how much ad slots are worth) and so it is up to the clubs and the sport to make RL more attractive to TV audiences, TV advertisers and to broadcasters.

Like I said, this isn't going to please everyone, and I fully expect the usual suspects to throw out their childish remarks, but, I don't think that you can come up with a plan for an elite competition that ever will please everyone. There will always be fans and clubs that think they deserve a shot at it, who think that their clubs deserves more money, or who want to reign in the top clubs so that they can keep up. Ideally, we'd determine the composition of Super League on the field, but too many clubs are too far behind others not just at the top of RL, but in other sports as well. The sport has spent too long standing still whilst others around us have moved on to make 'on field' criteria, in the short term at least, a sustainable way to determine the make up of the sport's premium, highest profile and most saleable asset.

Let’s get rid of localisation while we have it. Have 12 teams called:

Tigers RL
Rhinos RL
Dragons RL
Vikings RL
Saints RL
Warriors RL
Giants RL
Rovers RL
Airlie Birds RL
Red Devils RL
Wolves RL
Trinity RL

They don’t have to play in their home town then, can grown their brand nationally and internationally, can sell 12 games to the highest bidders while having occasionally heritage home games in day Warrington or Widnes. Which in turn is likely to increase home game attendance as people want to see the game they can see. You don’t sell season tickets then you sell matchday tickets and commercial income from host cities and local sponsors. You could even have the club nominate their home city to make sure they host at least 3 games in their own city/town.

Let’s match the salary cap in the NRL while we are at it regardless of revenue and see what happens.

It would then make the lower league clubs more attractive as they could buy the moniker and don’t necessarily have to be wholly tied to the location or worry about not getting enough fans.

So if someone wants to buy Broncos RL they could play 3 games across London and 9 games in other areas. Ditto Bulls RL, Knights RL, Raiders RL, Crusaders RL, etc.

How come in aus they do not have p and r and dam site more teams then us and are better then us

Couldn’t agree more with Bramley’s post.

The commercial/financial side of RL has been neglected by the vast majority of clubs and by the RFL for decades and is, in my opinion, the biggest factor as to why we are where are now.

It needs to be prioritised now.

You don't need to get rid of the localisation. You just need to put on a spectacle and sell it.

As I type this there is a huge crowd in London for a regular season game between Bath and Leicester - teams that are both 110 miles from the venue they're playing at.

A) There are only 16 sides in the NRL. And most of them are in Sydney, with 3 in Queensland.

B) RL is more of a national sport over there, with far better media rights. We are at best the 4th thought of sport (and as with all other sports so far behind football it's almost a joke), and almost an after thought with regards any media coverage.

C) There infrastructure is superb. Both with regards player development, and local clubs (who are mostly affiliated with an nrl club). We aren't bothered about infrastructure much (if we were they'd be a reserve league). They also quite regularly do on the road games to strengthen there appeal.

D) Some of there iniatives (like having 2 referees), have worked and made the game more appealing. We can't sort out the ruck area, and as for the obstruction rules. They're trying to speed up the game, we seem to be trying to slow it down.

And let's face it, the NRL is so insular the only thing there bothered about is SOO, League then some way behind international.

How about a cross between promotion and relegation and franchising.

Any team finishing Super League in last placed over a 3 year period will be considered for relegation while any team winning the championship over the same time frame will be considered for promotion, everyone else is safe.

This would mean we can offer Toronto protection (as long as they are well run off the field) and any club that loses a Super League franchise will have finished in last place.

So, you are proposing promotion and relegation every 3 years on a points system, based on certain criteria ?

The elephant in the room here is whether N.American clubs will actually benefit the game.
Clearly there is the potential for some new revenue streams.
However, there wont be significant media interest over there and the new clubs will be "Aussie" clubs in disguise for the next 25 years as, even if the game were "successful" over there, the home grown talent would take a generation to start to come through the system.

In one sense we want to clear the history of the game and destroy many of the heartland clubs and experiment with teams of mercenaries in another country, which actually seems bonkers, apart from the Yankee dollar ??

The bottom line at the moment is that in the Championship there is only Toronto that can offer something "extra" to SL and the potential of Toulouse (if they were playing in a larger stadium).
Featherstone will remain SL a quality SL outfit but, would really struggle to survive in SL.
Leigh have potential but, you could argue, blew their chance
and then Sky's wet dream of a resurgent Bulls side, who are at present, miles away from being the force that they once were.

We then have another couple of N. American clubs who are staring at the bright light's of SL
Again, for them to "make it" into SL, they will need out spend the rest of the comp and fill their side(s) with "Aussie" players.

Is this really what we want for the sport and $64000 question, will their inclusion really elevate the game to the lofty status that some pretend will save the sport ?

NY Giants
Minnesota Vikings
LA Rams
Washington Redskins
Miami Dolphins
Green Bay Packers
Chicago Bulls
etc, etc

Dont play at home ? LUNATIC

Don't sell season tickets ? Like all the NFL Clubs you mean *who do* & all of which including poor performers have revenue far in excess of any RL Club !

One off or even bi-annual away day home games would be the absolute limit.

Far better idea, get a big group of Clubs to play all of their pre-season in Japan, China, Dubai, Germany, Canada/USA & they might eat it up !
Charter flights for those Clubs who want/have the vision/money to do it. The 6 or 7 best supported SL Clubs would possibly buy in + 2 to 4 from Championship, make it a Tournament even ?


Imagine the cash money that 'could' be invested by wealthy Japanese, Chinese, Arabian & North American billionaires if just one or two buy in/fall in love with the sport ?

Just to be clear my post was very much tongue in cheek and sarcastic.

Like Catalan had Jean?

Like Catalan had Jean?