Good post and it brings us back to the $64 million dollar question.
What do "we" actually want from the sport.

How many current fans want to see a "Super League" made up of 5 English clubs, 5 N .American clubs and 2 French clubs and what benefit will this "dream" league bring to the game of RL.
It's clear that professional RL in Canada and the US would be one hell of an achievement and should RL develop to a point where the game took hold in schools and colleges, that would be one hell of a success.
The follow on question would be, how could "we" make this happen ?

Right now, we are massaging Mr Perez ego, nothing more but there has to be a clear plan, not just a dream or wish list.

Getting back to the earlier question about some kind of international Super League.
IF N. America can be successful in creating 5 successful RL clubs, capable of competing in SL, their next move would be to have their own Super League and what happens then ?

The game in the UK would be decimated and nothing more than semi pro, with the exception of the 5 club lucky enough to make the cut but, what about the rest and where would the "big" clubs go IF the N. Americans want to do their own thing.

I think people have a slight misconception about what marketing is. It isn't, and never has been, about trying to make people like things that they don't like, or that they don't want to like. What it is about is developing a product, promoting that product, and making it easy for people to buy it.

At the moment, the sport just doesn't have a unique selling point any more. We used to claim that our USP was that we were a "family sport", when what we really meant by that was "we don't have a hooligan problem". But in 2018, how many sports have a hooligan problem? Even if you want to point to football, the sport has massively changed perceptions and cleaned up its act in that regard.

So what else do we mean by a "family sport"? That we're a "family day out?". If that's the case, do we honestly believe that places like Belle Vue, like The Jungle, like (until recently) Headingley offer what most families with leisure money to spend in 2018 consider to be a "family day out"? Does queuing in the car park at Salford scream "fun for all the family" when, literally across the road, you have a huge leisure complex full of restaurants, an aquarium, Lego Land and god knows how much else?

So what do we promote ourselves as? We can't claim to have the best talent, because we're losing much of it to other sports and leagues because we can't /won't pay them their worth. We don't have the quality of competition or that "edge of the seat thrill" to sell either - the average winning margin in Super League is higher than the Aviva Premiership, and the proportion of games won by one score or less is lower.

So there we have it. Step one of marketing - have a good product - and too many of the clubs have already failed. They're offering a product that is no better than what people can get elsewhere, they're voting for competition structures that they can't understand, and they're offering a fan / customer experience that is no better than any of the other million-and-one leisure pursuits that you can do with the family on a weekend.

I don't think it needs to be said that the clubs are crap at promotiong the product and telling people about it, and I've spoken before about clubs aren't making it easy for people to buy the product either.

As for TV, I don't think we should be seeing it as a threat. The sort of mentality you express there, whilst I understand where it comes from, makes me think of newspapers arguing that the internet will kill journalism. It doesn't, but it does require a new mindset.

Focusing on TV, or digital, or any other media is simply about getting people to engage in RL content. It doesn't really matter whether that is on the terraces on on the TV - the important point is that for that period of time, people are engaging with the sport through one medium or another. The more you can do that, the more interest you generate, and the more valuable our content becomes. You're right in that TV is more passive a medium, but it offers two big benefits - volume of audience, and it removes geographic barriers.

Look at how some US college football teams use social media to promote themselves - there's a lot that all sports (not just RL) can learn from that.

Don't mistake me.I know you have an opinion,that's fine,but it's become the same old monotonous post after post on marketing. I agreed with Sparky not you,and i have no intention of engaging with you as to why. That's all.

By denying p&r. Your denying them the opportunity to improve them selves. To give them a reason to improve.
Yes some clubs aren't ready/want SL. But to deny them the chance to improve or move forwards just seems wrong to me.

Toronto's stadium isn't all that (2 open stands along the side). And given the last 2 years you can't even play there the first 3 months of the season. But you aren't going to deny them. So why others on that bases.

Yes they should meet certain criterias. But I would focus more on the infrastructure rather than external. The financial rewards will come in SL.

Your right about trying to get a bigger pot.
But given what SL chairmen are trying to do with regards the Sky contract. And what Leneghan said about International RL. Aren't SL chairmen as guilty of not wanting to share the money? Or promote the game.
As Tommy Cruise said in that film, this franchise system will be all about the money. And what SL, the chairmen can get out of it. Nothing with promoting the sport, or moving it forwards in any way. And there's no proof that franchise's can do that. If they can great, but it seems to me that instead of incorporating it. We're relying on it.
And in my opinion this is what's damaging the game more.

Also,
If big clubs aren't relying on away support to a degree. Why have Leeds moved tonight's game and Cas to Elland Road. But not Widnes/Salford?

My posts may be monotonous to you, put at least there is some attempt at making a contribution to the discussion and to put forward ideas. Your contribution to any sort of debate seems to be to nothing more than clapping along to posts that say something that you like, and to insult those you don't. That, of course, is your prerogative, but it doesn't really make for a good discussion.

But if you don't want to engage with me that's fine. I'll keep taking to the grown-ups in here and I won't hold it against you.

Take it from someone who lived not more than 30 yrds from Griffin Park Brentford that you wouldn't have known the Broncos were there apart from a bit of match-day congestion. Once we got hold of the then marketing man (Rabbits warren's son Chris) and arranged for the club to get us some flyers printed, we got a bunch of volunteers to door drop the area......Griffin Park is the only ground the London Broncos left with more fans than they arrived with.
Marketing isn't always about an instant return, but it is key and the fact that the owner of the club refuses to spend any money on "his hobby" is 100% te reason why the club now plays in a lower tier and at a wedding venue! London had 5,000 at one stage......that's more than one or 2 heartland clubs managed in SL.....
Londoners will attend RL if you invite them.........but the debate about who's job it is to send the invites has set back the sport decades in the national psyche.

Moving games to Elland Road comes at significant cost to the Rhinos. Firstly, there is the cost of hiring the venue, and there is the loss of ancillary revenue from concession rents and wet sales.

The decision to move to Elland Road isn't about "away fans", but about what the club can sell to the people of Leeds. In the coming months the club is going to have a lot more premium seats and corporate areas to sell at Headingley, and the Elland Road game was the start of that sales push.

In the last two weeks I have driven past a digital billboard every day with Danny McGuire and Stevie Ward on it. The selling point for last night was all about the return of a local hero. The selling point for the Castleford game is a local derby, and a Grand Final grudge match. We don't have that 'story' for games against Widnes.

The club feels that it can sell those stories well enough to be able to take the gamble of taking on the costs that Elland Road comes with. It has nothing to do with away fans. (Judging by how much of the South Stand was open last night, you're looking at a generous estimate of around 2k Hull fans last night).

That if true is why the super league need hull kr for its fans

The Hull KR following last night was no more remarkable than most other clubs that Leeds will play this season. Hull KR have their merits as a Super League club, but there is no "need" for any club on the basis of how many of their fans will travel to an away game.

Last season the turnstyles at Headingley clicked just short of 250,000 times (249,671 to be precise). If Leeds were to repeat that figure again, 2,000 Hull KR fans would represent less than 1% of those tickets sold.

As I said earlier, selling lattes to students is probably more important to the club than selling tickets to away fans.

Having been at the game last night, I would say while it was hard to gauge how many there was around me, that you are roughly correct. Which considering that it was a thurs night, with the game on TV and dIre weather. Isn't bad. Add in the extras (ie drink,food,programmes etc). Would have meant if it had been at Headingley Leeds would have made a tidy profit.

Like I've said. Your right it shouldn't be all about away support.
But having away support there makes the whole experience of going to a game better.
You wouldn't have wouldn't have wanted that game to be Catalans for example were on TV all there would have been was an end of empty seats. Which hardly promotes the sport to a casual guy who turns on it on to have a look and thinks, well if people who supposedly love the sport can't be bothered going why should I? (The game was poor enough to put them off ).

This whole topic seems to have been changed from looking at the pro's and Cons into anfocusing on 1 aspect. In my opinion while the away support thing is one aspect. There are more important cons, like if Toronto continue to not be able to play at home for the first 3 months how's that benefit SL. What happens to the French Elite division if 2 sides are in SL. Why are not looking at this country to promote the sport first. Would the American sides if successful leave to start there own league. And what happens to SL if they do. Why aren't we willing to incorporate them into an existing structure, rather than just rely on them and change everything for them.

And why are SL chairmen not looking to improve the sport and funding into the sport. But on a pure money grab.

I think that you are being a little disingenuous to the away support there.
KR alone, may represent less than 1% but, you have another 12 "home" fixtures and certainly, the likes of Cas, Wakefield and maybe Saints, would bring decent numbers to Leeds.
IF KR was an average away attendance, then suddenly your 1% becomes 13% and lets remember that those away fans, especially form KR, like a few pints.#
Your comparison with students buying latte's is laughable.
They may buy 1 between 4 of them and their coffee consumption will be a hell of a lot less than than the average alcohol consumption of visiting (and home) fans, who may also have burger & chips etc + programmes.
Greanted, the students will turn up more than 13 times a year but, I'm sure that you get my point.

What? Four people sharing one coffee?

There's a reason why there are coffee shops popping up everywhere in town and city centres, around colleges and univesities - they're high margin products and you can shift a lot of them very quickly and very cheaply.

I don't know what a coffee costs in the Carnegie Cafe but if one student buys just two a week at £2.50 each in a 36 week term (a pretty conservative effort given how packed the Costas and Starbucks' near Leeds Uni seems to be), that one student is worth about £180 in turnover to the club.

I know some away fans can sup, but I doubt they stick £180 behind the bar.

The names may live on but IF RL did take off in NA/the northern hemisphere I very much doubt those clubs would be playing in the same towns as they are now. None of them would be attractive to the big money players who would be NA TV channels and advertisers.

The other thing that everyone is forgetting is that the game of RL is not suited to American TV (sports) viewers, who have the attention span of a gnat - a 60 minute American Football game typically takes more than 3 hrs to play, with, in the 2013 season, the ball being in play for an astounding average of 11mins(!!!) and a 48 min basketball game taking typically 2-2.5hrs.

I get your point though remain unconvinced. Out of interest, what income do Wakey generate on the 350-odd days of the year when RL's not being played? All this community stadium b******s isn't being pursued solely for the service it may provide to the good folk of Wakefield, it's being pursued for what the community will spend there on non-match days if/when it gets built. I dare say they'll even sell coffee



That said, I have little faith in the north American venture.

Wakefields new ground is almost as far away as having 4 N.American clubs in SL
The grim reality is that should the local authority remain so intransigent in actually enforcing the 106 agreement, whilst allowing more and more development at Newmarket, there is every chance that they may "sell" their SL spot to one of the N.American pretenders.

Newmarket, if it ever gets built, would indeed be a community stadium, owned by the trust but, as I say, it's taken so bloody long that your point is irrelevant.
Out of interest, one of the many stumbling blocks was about who would pocket the not RL revenue generated by the stadium and of course, every club is trying to maximise their stadium use outside of match days.

With the possibility of having just a handful of UK based clubs in the all singing, all dancing super, super league, it would be a shrewd move for all of the lower rated SL clubs to cut and run or, they will be left with half (or two thirds) empty stadia and possibly with costs that would see them go bust anyway.
Take the money and if people still want to watch RL, there are always the local amateur sides, mind you, the aspirations of youngsters wanting to play the game would diminish still further but, I'm sure that the men in suits have thought it through so, we'll be ok.

It will kill the game if the intention is to replace UK clubs, as you'll have numerous games with no atmosphere. The worst home game for every club is Catalans. No atmosphere, no tribal mentality. The same when London were around. Multiply that by five and you have many boring afternoons and crowds will suffer, as will the game at grassroots.

The only way it would work is if it was a conference system, with those overseas clubs forming one conference.

They currently are starting the process. On RL on RY, they had the Trinity owner on and he was saying that he's been given the job of looking into how much money we're getting, seeing where it's been spent and where it can be improved. It's only just started but the Clubs are wanting to know more details but like I said the Clubs are after improvements if possible and if any new ideas can be brought to the table in the process.

If there is to be a conference system you need at least four but preferably six clubs in each conference, who play members of their own conference twice, and non-conference clubs once. Also north American clubs and French clubs cannot make up one conference because of the geographical distance. They would have to have one conference each. That would mean a lot more French and north American clubs before we are finished expanding.

With a conference system we would have to peg British Super League clubs to twelve members only, with a priority to finding a place for London (because of its strategic location in the south and because it is the national capital) and Bradford (because of its large grass roots support, which is close to that of Salford, Widnes and Wakefield combined). Cardiff, Edinburgh and Dublin could also be considered for the British conferences. The British Super League clubs would be divided into two conferences.

With members of each conference playing their own conference members twice and every other conference club once that would amount to 28 games a year. The Magic Weekend would have to be discarded of course.

At least you agree that the American clubs cannot be in Super League as currently structured, which sounds like the brainchild of Lenagan.

I do think Lenagan is underestimating how much the grass roots of the game relies on fans in areas without glamorous clubs. You appear to have omitted Castleford from your list of unglamorous clubs, who until recently were a yo-yo relegation club and got crowds on a par with Wakey. When the success subsides, so will the crowds. Equally, you're trumpeting Bradford, whose crowds were built entirely on an unsustainable business model.

If you take away the grass roots smaller clubs (as you no doubt think of them), the game will shrink even more around the M62, to the extent that it will stop being a draw once you get a mile from it, rather than expand to new lands.

Like London, rugby league will attract some interest because it's new. But it won't attract longevity.

Thanks for that. It's good to know.

It's only taken 22 years of SL, for them to start looking at this. But at least they're starting.

Personally would get rid of magic weekend, and the clubs take a game on the road. It might cost them at first, but would broaden knowledge of the game, and could attract more people to the game.
Like I said we should promote Barla more (at the moment I'm thinking of going over to Hull to see the Uni v Mytons derby game in the challenge cup).
I don't know if clubs still do this. But kids for a quid in games were you're not expecting a big attendence . Trying to attract a newer ordinance.
More promotional things at certain games like a French day when playing Catalans etc.
Improve the presentation on sky, making it and the sport look organised.

There are obviously bigger things, but to improve the match day experience will in my opinion get more people in. Get more the people in and the whole sport looks more organised/professional attractive to potential investors.

So it's a loss of revenue and atmosphere. Got you.

When Toronto/Manchester Wolfpack kept scoring against us last week, it was greeted by silence. I LOVED IT...Let's have some more, who needs away fans anyway !!

Toronto already have more fans than Leigh.

Will you and thousands of other Leigh fans be traveling to Toronto for the return match later this year?

Last season every clubs biggest home attendance was for their Toronto fixture, so the no away fan argument is nonsense.

There is no way Wakefield take 1000 away fans, with the exception of maybe Castleford (which is still in Wakefield so doesn’t really count).

Some of the best atmospheres I have experienced at Leeds games in recent years have been our games against Melbourne, Manly, N Queensland, Canterbury and New Zealand. Those nights, the away ends were full, but they were full of Leeds fans.

And Catalans is far from the worst atmosphere at Headingley (nor is it the necessarily the lowest crowd). That's because the club works hard to get the match day experience right and pull in the locals.