Quote ="Donnyman"THANK YOU. I know how keen you are for this to work.'"
I'm keen for the game to succeed. I want to be able to watch the most talented players, in top-flight facilities, playing in a vibrant competition. I've never said that North America is the only answer, but it is a potential answer. I've heard lots of people shouting "focus on the heartlands", yet not one of those people shouting that seems to have an idea on how that gets the sport out of it's current rut.
Quote ="Donnyman"1. The only "proof" of the success of TWP's media marketing is a TV contract. Mr. Perez said they cannot get one without at least 5 NA clubs in Superleague. As I have said our next SKY deal is set to be lower and will be for a 10 club English game. How can you fit 5 NA clubs into that - could you deal fully and directly with this point?'"
The latest Super League resolution says that there can't be five overseas teams in a ten team league, so that's that concern directly addressed. (2.7 of the October resolution doc [url=https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03238540/filing-historyhere[/url). Nobody I have seen on the pro-expansion side of the debate is suggesting that could or should be the case (ignoring Jean)
I think it's right to acknowledge that TW have increased media profile. As I said earlier, I think that's its right to acknowledge that they have increased the reach of RL - it is being televised to audiences that it wasn't being televised to before. You have to chalk that up as a success to some degree.
Of course, the challenge is getting a paid TV deal. I don't necessarily agree with Perez that it needs "five or six clubs" due to the more fragmented nature of North American TV markets, but acknowledge he probably knows more about that than I do. Nobody has said that it is an easy challenge to overcome. But I'll maintain again that having a presence in North America opens doors that simply being along the M62 doesn't.
As for the Sky deal, that is going to reduce because, more than likely, we're going to let it. I've not seen any sign of what extra value we're offering Sky to justify a higher TV deal, given that it is well known how both the media and advertising landscapes are changing. If the whole justification for a bigger Sky deal is "we just want more", then we deserve everything we get (or not, in this case).
Quote 2. It took London about 20 years before the likes of Clubb and LMS appeared but even 40 years on they only offer a handful of SL players with Clubb and LMS heading for the end of their careers, but that's not the point. They were playing Rugby League in London long before Fulham came along (SARL), but they aren't playing RL at all in Canada and TWP have abandoned any player development - please aknowledge this??'"
To say that they have "abandoned" player development is also a little sensationalist. They have "abandoned" an idea to convert gridiron players to RL, but ideas get abandoned across business and sport all the time. Some work, some don't - this one didn't, but does that mean that club should forever be tainted by it?
But I do see the club engaging with local clubs, both RL and RU (remember that the class divide across the sports isn't a thing in Canada like it is here). There is a hell of a lot of content being put out by TW about the community work they are doing. Is some of that window-dressing and PR? Possibly. But it's still a lot more than many heartlands clubs seem to be doing. The proof will be in the pudding but as I said earlier, that pudding still needs 15-20 years in the oven.
As for London, it's important to recognise the challenges that they and other non-heartland clubs have. RL is not as ingrained in the culture of those areas so it's harder to pull them from other sports to RL, and the cost of living in the SE makes RL a less lucrative career option. That doesn't mean we should give up. The cutting of development officers in the South East was absolutely criminal.
Quote 3. No we are not basing eligibility on profitability mate - we are just NOT doing that - eligibility is based on being an English club, capable of developing players, and attracting subscribers to SKY sports, with enough financial backing that when combined with a share of the TV deal they can manage to put out a team of a decent enough standard to compete in Superleague. Could you acknowledge this?'"
Why does it need to revolve purely on a Sky deal? Why can't we have a central pool where funding from different broadcasters all feeds into it? Why can't the competition try to structure itself in a way that can open doors in other markets?
Why does eligibility have to be based on being an English club? For starters, this is (and always has been) the European Super League. We now have a North American club involved and so far, there has been more said about that club than all of the 10 English clubs put together. That North American club is also reaching audiences and demographics that our other 10 clubs are finding much harder to reach.
If we're basing eligibility on ability to produce players, then we can make a case that an awful lot of heartland clubs aren't pulling their weight. If we're holding TW to that standard, we have to hold everyone to it. We have clubs that have produced barely a handful of England internationals in the last two decades - should we be casting them aside as well?
Quote Could you deal with my points and not offer totally different points that aren't relevant? Mr. Perez himself said success was TV deals and player development??? Let's stick to Mr. Perez's rules as regards "success"?'"
Firstly, Mr Perez is no longer involved with TW so to hold them to metrics that a former employee suggested is nonsense. I don't expect my former employers to be still using my ideas, and I wouldn't work in a job where I was expected to follow the ideas of my predecessor.
I don't think I am coming back with different points. I've addressed each one, acknowledging the pros and cons. I'm not entirely sure what more you're looking for. Do I think TW are a success? In some areas yes and in some areas no. Do I think NA comes with risks? Yes. Do I think those risks are worth considering given the potential reward? Yes - at least they offer a reward that's greater than persisting with the approach that has got the game into this mess. Do I think that NA is the only possible answer? No, but it's currently the best answer we have.
