This is all very well for playing standards in the short term. But fewer teams will drag the competition down over time becuase it cannot continue to attarct the revenue it does now. Lets say Wigan's crowds go up to a 20,000 average, and the other teams maximise their crowds. Thats still less people overall than with a larger competition and crucially a far smaller geopraphical spread.
If there are too few players to go around, why advocate shirnking to fit that pool of players - why not advocate increasing that pool of qulaity players? Investing in high quality junior programmes and attracting players from non-tradional areas is surely the solution, rather than retreating, pulling up the drawbridge and waiting for extinction.
Its the same in the international game. If we were to regularly beat aus and NZ, the media would give us some credit - for about 2 years. After that the stories would be about the lack of meaningfull competition. We need more countries competing, not fewer at a higher quality level, only then will the international game be a credible asset to RL.
Saints Chairman Speaks Sense
Re: Saints Chairman Speaks Sense
On the contrary Mike IMO. Sport largely sells to commercial companies / sponsors and the rest of Britain / world on televised sport.
Rugby Union has very limited professional presence in the North West / Yorkshire YET in both counties awareness / profile on Union remains greater than League. Cricket functions similarly.
I would hazard a guess Chris Ashton is far better know DITTO Owen Farrell et al than any League player and far beyond what League ever offered them. Sadly, the most decorated RL player, one of our greats was a nobody relative to when he started coaching union.
Look at sports like darts / snooker. Their fortunes are dictated by media coverage.
Olympians will be made for life on the basis of media exposure.
We need to maximise the quality of our media product to then get parents wanting their children AND children wanting to play League. Even if we get youngsters playing League we are increasingly often coaching future union players.
A reduced SL would mean BETTER British players having to play League at an elite level for London and selling the game to a much bigger population than Castleford or Wakefield.
A bigger selling game makes grassroots development far easier and in time you can then expand the size of the league. The RFL and every member club never looked at the bigger picture re player production and frequently ammended rules rather than admit the reality that we cannot produce enough players to sustain a 14 club SL. Not even 12 IMO. Instead as we both agree, greed ruled and all they wanted was a bigger slice of the money cake to waste with little or no long term benefits.
Rugby Union has very limited professional presence in the North West / Yorkshire YET in both counties awareness / profile on Union remains greater than League. Cricket functions similarly.
I would hazard a guess Chris Ashton is far better know DITTO Owen Farrell et al than any League player and far beyond what League ever offered them. Sadly, the most decorated RL player, one of our greats was a nobody relative to when he started coaching union.
Look at sports like darts / snooker. Their fortunes are dictated by media coverage.
Olympians will be made for life on the basis of media exposure.
We need to maximise the quality of our media product to then get parents wanting their children AND children wanting to play League. Even if we get youngsters playing League we are increasingly often coaching future union players.
A reduced SL would mean BETTER British players having to play League at an elite level for London and selling the game to a much bigger population than Castleford or Wakefield.
A bigger selling game makes grassroots development far easier and in time you can then expand the size of the league. The RFL and every member club never looked at the bigger picture re player production and frequently ammended rules rather than admit the reality that we cannot produce enough players to sustain a 14 club SL. Not even 12 IMO. Instead as we both agree, greed ruled and all they wanted was a bigger slice of the money cake to waste with little or no long term benefits.
Re: Saints Chairman Speaks Sense
No Lancs/Yorks for RU - Big deal. The have everywhere else in Europe compared to RL. Thats why they have a greater exposure and earn more media attention.cpwigan wrote:On the contrary Mike IMO. Sport largely sells to commercial companies / sponsors and the rest of Britain / world on televised sport.
Rugby Union has very limited professional presence in the North West / Yorkshire YET in both counties awareness / profile on Union remains greater than League. Cricket functions similarly.
Yes they do - because of the wider spread of the game, therefore the wide awareness - and therefore the media attention and greater revenues.I would hazard a guess Chris Ashton is far better know DITTO Owen Farrell et al than any League player and far beyond what League ever offered them. Sadly, the most decorated RL player, one of our greats was a nobody relative to when he started coaching union.
Are you really suggesting that an 8 team SL competition restricted to the M62 corridor would gain more media attention and revenue than the current situation. I almost buy your strengthening the overall playing standard buy cutting loose the dead wood argument - but i can't see how you think that increases revenues and media attention.
Yep, I agree - and what has Hearn done to darts and snooker - he's taken it to places it never was before. He didn't say "we've only got 8 really top players, so lets only have matches between them and less of them" - the opposite, he took the games to Europe, China and beyond and invited the local players to take part.Look at sports like darts / snooker. Their fortunes are dictated by media coverage.
Its not about quality accross the board, its just about having some outstanding teams/individuals in your game. Darts has Phil Talyor, footabll has ManU, we have SamT etc. You need a flagship, but not everybody need to be at that quality. You attract new supporters on the basis of that flagship, then you retain them by giving them a local presence to care about. Those expansion teams don't start at a high quality level, but they should be encouraged to improve until they do offer meaningful competition - something that we are very bad at in RL (with the expection of London).Olympians will be made for life on the basis of media exposure.
We need to maximise the quality of our media product to then get parents wanting their children AND children wanting to play League. Even if we get youngsters playing League we are increasingly often coaching future union players.
But surely London is one of the clubs that is full of poor players right now, and poor crowds.A reduced SL would mean BETTER British players having to play League at an elite level for London and selling the game to a much bigger population than Castleford or Wakefield.
I've still no idea how you think reducing the teams to 8 will result in a bigger selling game. Your going to drive the media coverage into even more of a niche than it is already and reduce coverage and revenue with that approach.A bigger selling game makes grassroots development far easier and in time you can then expand the size of the league. The RFL and every member club never looked at the bigger picture re player production and frequently ammended rules rather than admit the reality that we cannot produce enough players to sustain a 14 club SL. Not even 12 IMO. Instead as we both agree, greed ruled and all they wanted was a bigger slice of the money cake to waste with little or no long term benefits.
Re: Saints Chairman Speaks Sense
Mike, I am against retreating to the M62 Corridor albeit I think we need to do far more on our own doorstep IN THE MAIN because we are not selling the game via the media etc.
London would have to be 1 of the SL teams IMO. Likwise Catalans. Eventually, long after we are dead, Wigan would not be a SL club UNLESS the game expanded and grew to such an extent a larger SL became viable. Perhaps Wigan will always be the GM SL presence unless Salford emerged as THE VIABLE and in truth more sensible GM option.
If we fund 8 or 10 elite clubs the best current talent from Castleford / Wakefield etc would sign for the new SL clubs incl London albeit youth development in London is far better than many heartland areas.
The other alternative is from an article I read late 60's / 70's cannot recall the date. No division one single league as it was for many many decades.
London would have to be 1 of the SL teams IMO. Likwise Catalans. Eventually, long after we are dead, Wigan would not be a SL club UNLESS the game expanded and grew to such an extent a larger SL became viable. Perhaps Wigan will always be the GM SL presence unless Salford emerged as THE VIABLE and in truth more sensible GM option.
If we fund 8 or 10 elite clubs the best current talent from Castleford / Wakefield etc would sign for the new SL clubs incl London albeit youth development in London is far better than many heartland areas.
The other alternative is from an article I read late 60's / 70's cannot recall the date. No division one single league as it was for many many decades.