Did that even last a year. Agreed great idea, but as is always the case with the RFL, they didn't stick with it and carry it on. Frustrating.

Another factor for RU clubs such as Bath, Leicester, Northampton, Worcester, Exeter etc is that they draw support from their counties/regions. I live in North Warwickshire, about 23 miles from Leicester and folk around here support Leicester Tigers (not many tbf, most are Villa or Blues fans) as do people in Rutland at the other end of the county. In Super League, only the two Hull clubs and Catalans could justifiably identify themselves as teams representing their regions. All the other SL clubs are hamstrung by their proximity to each other.

The Extraordinary Rugby was a good concept but it had many points of failure. One of those was that it exposed one of the key risks of placing the emphasis on the players themselves and the ability of the players.

The campaign was launched for the 2012 play-offs but in the first week of the play-offs, the winning margins were 40 points, 22 points, 22 points and 36 points. That's not what the extraordinary campaign was about. The extraordinary campaign was about the finest athletes competing in an intense arena, yet nobody could argue that Catalans or Huddersfield shipping 46 points, or Wakefield shipping 42 points, was really selling that message.

Put the emphasis of your marketing on what you can control. You can, in the main, control the matchday experience. You can't control the quality of the match, or the performance of the players themselves.

There were other issues that still, in fairness, exist today. There was little integration between the RFL marketing and the clubs for example - it seemed like the RFL handed over all of this branding, and left the clubs to it. In fairness, the clubs should be left to do their own marketing, but unfortunately an assumption was made that the clubs were competent in that regard.

Yet more incisive, well informed comment from the pseudo king.
Each club has at least 2 or 3 "star" players, usually the ones that feature on the club's own advertising.
Players like Tomkins, Moon, Murdoch Masila, James Roby, Gale etc, etc
They may not be the same "draw" as Thurston or Cronk but, they can all be used to draw peoples attention to our fine sport.

What we are more lacking of are the people clever enough to actually market the game.

Christ, if they can attract 1000's to watch overweight blokes drink and throw darts at a small target, there should be hope for RL

Nowt like RL fans with half empty pots. We have a great sport, made for TV. We need more TV cash as the product weighs far more than the price paid, we must constantly talk our sport up, get rid of the fools commentating on sky and ensure any media interviewee uses the power words used in RU - exciting, powerful, ultimate, unbelievable, success, impact, must see etc

Does it though? I mean, really? From what I see, the viewing figures are falling, the crowds are falling, and the sport doesn't appeal to audiences that advertisers want to reach. On what basis do we believe we're being underpaid by Sky in that context?

The whole "talk the sport up" thing really isn't enough (although, that's what most people are arguing that is what clubs should be doing). It's like Brexiters arguing that the UK will be fine if only we "talk the country up!", despite a whatever evidence to the contrary.

Club games still draw greater audiences than RU, hence too little is paid. If you constantly tell a positive story at every opportunity you create a positive perception - unlike like the remoaners constantly creating doom

Quote ="maurice"Club games still draw greater audiences than RU, hence too little is paid. '" The stats don't necessarily offer a fair comparison given that BT Sport's audience base is 1.5m vs Sky's 8m-ish. What is clear though is that the Aviva Premiership's TV audience is growing. Quote Average Live TV match audiences on BT Sport are up 13% up on last season and 5% up on our highest ever season (2014-15); 4.41 million have watched live Aviva Premiership Rugby this season on BT Sport; Read more at https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/b ... tkzcdfe.99'" But if we're comparing RU, we need to compare the quality of audience. Advertisers want to reach RU audiences, which makes the rights to that sport more valuable. It's not unreasonable to conclude that if we want more from Sky, we have to offer more to them. We're offering smaller audiences than we once were, audiences that advertisers have little interest in paying much to reach, and the product on screen is arguably declining (due to our best talent playing in another competition). Sky aren't just going to write a bigger cheque just because we ask them to, and I don't see a lot of interest from other broadcasters. It's possible to tell a positive story whilst still acknowleding some harsh realities - that's an important component of any debate and is anything but "remoaning" .

Quote ="maurice"Club games still draw greater audiences than RU, hence too little is paid. '" The stats don't necessarily offer a fair comparison given that BT Sport's audience base is 1.5m vs Sky's 8m-ish. What is clear though is that the Aviva Premiership's TV audience is growing. Quote Average Live TV match audiences on BT Sport are up 13% up on last season and 5% up on our highest ever season (2014-15); 4.41 million have watched live Aviva Premiership Rugby this season on BT Sport; Read more at https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/b ... tkzcdfe.99'" But if we're comparing RU, we need to compare the quality of audience. Advertisers want to reach RU audiences, which makes the rights to that sport more valuable. It's not unreasonable to conclude that if we want more from Sky, we have to offer more to them. We're offering smaller audiences than we once were, audiences that advertisers have little interest in paying much to reach, and the product on screen is arguably declining (due to our best talent playing in another competition). Sky aren't just going to write a bigger cheque just because we ask them to, and I don't see a lot of interest from other broadcasters. It's possible to tell a positive story whilst still acknowleding some harsh realities - that's an important component of any debate and is anything but "remoaning" .

wonder if sky sports will change their intro for the games this year from the 'men of steel' robots they have that come on every time, been on for years that! surely its time for something new?!

Randomly picked weekend on BARB September 11-17 2017

121k Friday- 119K and 54k Saturday and 149 Sunday Aviva Premiership on BT sports 1&2

46k Thursday, Friday 42k Saturday 24k Superleague on SKY Arena

Union now gets comparable viewing figures if not greater......so we actually do pretty well fiscally for what we deliver.

I agree about using the "positive" words though.......

I found them mundane the first season. Bring back two tribes!!

Around 15 years ago (when Fax were in SL), we went on holiday down to Devon. Fax were playing Widnes and the game was on Sky. I spent part of the day before the game visiting a few pubs to see if any were going to have the game on their TV. None were planning to, but I found one that agreed to put the match on for us. Me and my lad turned up, and after a bit of faffing about with the remote, we watched the game (which wasn't the best and Fax lost). No-one else in the pub was remotely interested, other than a passing glance at the lunatic in the corner wearing a strange blue and white shirt.

The thing about RU is that it's played at lots of schools across the breadth of the UK, and kids get exposed to the sport (quite often whether they like it or not) en masse. RL is played at far fewer schools (with the vast majority probably being close to the M62 corridor?), and hence has far less exposure as a sport to our youngsters. Even in the "heartlands" I suspect that RU playing schools far outnumber those with RL teams.

I agree that most clubs could do better from a marketing perspective, but if the game is truly going to expand and attract better sponsorship and TV deals, then surely it's at the grass roots level that this needs to be addressed. The problem with this is that it's a long-term strategy that would only reap dividends many years down the line.

What I've noticed is that it's getting far harder (especially for lower league clubs like Fax) to attract younger supporters to come along to games, despite all the visits from players to local schools etc. Fax have an active community programme ([urlhttps://www.halifaxrlfc.co.uk/community[/url) and our latest recruit (Dan Fleming) has been taken on with part of his job to be active in this.

We need a shake up, and we need to make the game more exciting. In my view this needs to include P&R, but equally we need some changes that reward skillful play that wows spectators and makes them want to come and watch games. I've watched the game for nigh on 40 years, and am happy to embrace a titanic struggle between two teams culminating in a 4-3 win (Halifax vs Hull, Challenge Cup semi replay in 1988 after a 0-0 draw 4 days earlier), but sadly the general populace need more excitement than that!

Btw, in the 4-3 win, it was so foggy at Elland Road that I didn't even have the pleasure of seeing the winning try being at the far end of the ground.

:389oobzc

1. If Fax v Bath is a bad comparison, then let's go with Leeds v Leicester. Leeds has [url:389oobzctwice the population and is up against a Championship football side whilst Leicester has a premiership winning soccer team in town. Both clubs are seen as successful and over the 22 years we've been discussing, they've won a similar number of trophies. Both are arguably the biggest clubs in their respective codes.

Leeds had 15 home games across SL and the 8's last season and were seen by 224,250 fans. Leicester was 251,894 over 11 games. Since 1997 Leeds have increased their average by 47%, Leicester by 78%........as a game we need to discover how they are achieving this and then copy it!

2. As for internationals each year. They have 5 games on FTA split between ITV and the BBC and their domestic competition continues throughout this international window. Then there are maybe 3 off season tor matches and 4 end of year matches all shown on SKY TV......
Feb 26th 2017 saw 82,000 at Twickenham to watch England v Italy whilst 2 hours earlier Bristol hosted Bath (16,25icon_cool.gif and Gloucester were away to Wasps (15,691)....there International presence is important but their clubs still manage to attract crowds regardless of being in competition. Imagine if England RL were Playing NZ this year and we had a full itinerary of SL games on the same weekend........it would be a fiasco.

3. As for soccer.....it will always be #1, but for every person who attends or tunes in, there are 20 who don't and THEY ARE OUR TARGET MARKET.

Failed sales people or marketeers (and Adam Pearson) are brilliant at making excuses for falure or blaming someone else. What we need to do is to identify what it is that is stopping us from being more popular and stop doing it.

Maurice posted on here about the use of positive phrases....and he is spot on. Spectacular, amazing, genius, brilliant, superb, outstanding, excellent.....all these phrases should be used and we should ditch the "dour northern accented" commentary and add some glitz to our presentations.....

Randomly picked







Convenient you picked out the weakest week and not the ones either side that had SL games at over 100k. Or look back to earlier weeks and on the Sky Sports Main Event channel where again had quite a few 100k+ figures including a few for the much maligned Thursday night games and also Saturday games with Catalans or the 190k on the opening night.

Some of the low numbers on Sky Sports Arena speaks more about Sky's rubbish new set up than it does SL.

Yes...it was.....pick any week you like



Feel free to post any week you like.....the point is that BT and their Aviva coverage now get comparable viewers to SL and in some instances greater. December 31st 2017 BT sports got 338,000 for what I can only assume was Exeter v Leicester in a round 14 tie....our grand final got 20k more across 2 channels.
.Sept 25th to October 29th.....2017

WEEK 1: 115k Friday, 157 & 55k Saturday and 157k Sunday ALL ON BT SPORTS ALL DOMESTIC
WEEK 2: 89k Friday 178k Saturday 118 Sunday ALL ON BT SPORTS ALL DOMESTIC
WEEK 3: 139k Friday, 171k and 124k Saturday, 146k Sunday on BT and 44k & 28k on Saturday and 42k and 82k on Sunday on SKY EUROPEAN GAMES
WEEK 4: 144K Friday, 136k Saturday 171k Sunday on BT and 27k Thursday, 35k&22k&58k&41k on Saturday and 76k and 76k on Sunday on SKY EUROPEAN GAMES
WEEK 5: 115k Friday, 151k Saturday, 138k Sunday ALL ON BT SPORTS ALL DOMESTIC

127k average for Domestic on BT 147k average for European on BT.......those SKY figures are shocking 50k average.....why would they bother?



It is always SOMEBODY ELSE'S fault isn't it?

If it's not the RFL, then it's the BBC, or SKY. Adam Pearson seems to think that Perez and his north american experiment is the magic bullet and is "seething" at the way he sees RL as a downtrodden poorer relation to Union, but he offers nothing other than spite and some pipe dream about a NA TV deal making League able to compete.
Remove the cap.......it won't suddenly create a more talented player pool, but you can be sure that the ones we have will happily take the raises.
Welcome Toronto to SL.........do you really think that Toronto v Wigan is going to have NA TV execs salivating?

Instead of blaming someone else for the games failings, why not address them.

In 22 years we have been totally and utterly overtaken by Union and whilst they've gone about their business we've chopped and changed the game from top to bottom, seen one of our biggest clubs go bust, seen millionaire backers come and then leave, had the same 3 teams winning the last 12 Grand Finals and in had the relegated team bounce back thus relegating the team that replaced them 12 months earlier.

Nice boring rant defending RU again......if you look back I never criticised or doubted their numbers.....never mentioned them at all.

Simply pointed out how convenient your selected week of SL figures doesn't tell a true story.

I agree the sport takes a lot of the blame for its failings.....does that mean we can't talk about a broadcasters failings? You don't have to get so defensive every time because you only want RL to take a kicking. When you were defending the BBC in a previous argument with me you criticised Sky.....yet I do it and it's your usual response "oh blame everyone but yourselves".

1/ Fair point. The only thing I would say is what someone posted above. That RU is more of a county thing and RL a city thing. But other than that you make a valid point.

2/ The point I was trying to make about internationals is nothing to do with attendances.
But how having a solid international calander with 11 games a year for 1 country. Avaliable on normal tv, raise the profile of the sport. Puts it in people's conscious. Having a higher profile international game than filters down to club ru. People now who there stars are and want to see them etc, which can lead them to go more often. Plus there internationals are more of an event, sold and produced as one, to the media and fans as a must see event (even if it's Italy at Twickenham). Ours pass you by unless your into the sport, do nothing to raise the sports profile.
Look at the last WC'S, most games were on TV. There was a highlights show every night. Constant analysis, paper coverage, radio shows, phone ins etc for the RU one. For the RL one, only the England games were live, the odd highlights show. And very little about it in the other forms I mentioned. All this raise the idea that ru is more important. And of course this raises the profile of the clubs.

3/ in theory your right. And we have the benefit of 2 months when other than tournaments, there is no football or RU. But the way football has taken over, pushes most other sports aside. And as mentioned until we have a proper every year international calander, it is out of mind and seen as a small club game. Personally think that we should offer cheaper tickets to people who have football season tickets. And clubs who share a stadium could offer stadium season ticket for both sports.
The way football dominates even out of season can't be underestimated.
Plus it's changed the way people view sports, with its tv deals. Now people see so much they don't have to go out. Which has unfortunately changed people wanting to go to games.

4/ Totally agree, we don't get enough people into main stream media, and when they do its more about the negatives. Even when watching on sky the commentary is more negative. Weather you like him or not John Kear is brilliant at putting the game, player skills over. We need more people like him promoting the game. Stop coaches talking about completing sets. Get them talking about individual brilliance and skills. Push the sport into people's lives by outlining the good. It dosn't help when one of the most reported/general intrest games the mpg, and immediately after all every one talks about is it shouldn't be played etc,etc. Highlight the game, why you won it. Individual performances (Derek Beaumont, was fantastic after this year's one).

5/ stop changing the system every couple of years. Pick 1 (I personally favour 14 team SL, 14th relegated. 13th in the championship play offs against 2, 3 v 4 the other game). But stick with it more than 3 years.

I genuinely randomly picked that week on BARB.....same way I randomly picked the month. I didn't even know SKY had any European Rugby and was shocked at how small their viewing figures were.....I can see why the RFU et al woud be happy now BT have the lot with C5 giving them FTA coverage....and I am not defending RU, simply highlighting the task ahead of Adam Pearson in achieving parity with it.



I don't want any sport to "get a kicking". SKY have moved away from SP1 SP2 etc to dedicated channels, but AFAIK, if you pay for Sky Sports then you can acces the lot, so regardless of which sky sports channel it is on, it can be viewed.
Without SKY we wouldn't have a professional league and the fact that they now literally own the game is 100% down to the idleness and laziness of both the clubs and those charged with managing their affairs......but we made our bed....as for the BBC debate, I will 100% always return to that most damning of stats regarding the 2013 Semi-final getting fewer viewers than the Ireland v AB's game the following day...there was less demand for it and it is not the BBC's job to create the demand.

I see from comments in various media that the new SL board is "looking into the legalities" of the current TV deal......there are comments alluding to some parties being paid more than others and that the full details of the current deal aren't known to everyone.
[urlhttps://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/super-league-clubs-keen-to-have-greater-say-in-key-decisions-1-8953441[/url

The problem is that regardless of what the future of sports broadcasting will look like, we don't have any say until this deal runs out, by which time the 12 or 14 SL chairmen will have already decided that THEIR CLUBS are the ones making the money so they should keep it, cutting the rest of the game loose.......and good luck trying to sell Halifax v Dewsbury to any reputable broadcaster......sky own the rights to both SL and the Championship and as Derek B@Leigh has just found out.....they can do with them as they please......but still, at least the clubs all got their 300k signing fee so that's OK.

Interesting to note that the legal aspects of contracts between the RFL/Clubs and Sky are being looked into. In what capacity,I'm not sure.

Probably looking for a loophole so they can renegotiate or go back out to tender.

I don't get that impression at all. There won't be a loophole anyway. This is sky sports remember. They know what they are doing.

From the article it just sounds like the club's want more say in where all the money actually goes.

Well i hope more money goes to junior development/grass roots

Spot on pal

There needs to be a decent pathway into the sport, especially down south.

We looked into playing the game and found that league gets lip service as a summer fitness exercise for union players.

It was only getting involved with England Touch highlighting the similarities in the way the games are played that put us on a path towards playing the sport.

We are mostly over 40's men who are happy to stay away from full contact, but even if we had a good player come and join who is say 18, we would have nowhere to send them if they wanted to progress.

So, 4 months after he claimed it would take maybe 3 months to see the seeds of change and 6 months to see major changes, the only thing I can see is fewer fans at games (10%) and fewer viewers tuning in (8%).