The tv deal was always going to be less with covid.

Time for the RFL and ESL to sell some big name sponsorship deals rather than keep giving them away.

Problem 1 - Most people in the UK do not know Rugby League exists

Combination of:
1 - Good quality rugby league clubs not spread across the UK. (People in certain areas don't have a team to support).
2 - Rugby League not consistently taught throughout the UK in primary and secondary schools
3 - Rugby League does not have a strong amateur game throughout the UK
4 - Weak International game. (There are problably more supporters of England Rugby Union than of the individual omestic clubs fanbase combined)
5 - Poorly marketed, but pointless without points 1-4 addressed

regarding point 1 I don't agree. I think most people who like sport know of RL.

This is my point. Its a great product. People know of it but just don't seem to want to watch it, even on a Friday night in the house with a beer.

Don't forget the ongoing efforts (although they persist in denying it) of Twickenham to suppress League & their influence with the "established" broadcasters & governments.
Perhaps if Sly don't want the lower leagues, the terrestrial broadcasters might step in - it'd be crumbs, but better than nowt maybe. Then at least there might be some exposure (unless they stick it on at stupid o'clock on a Monday morning).

Although Sky money had without doubt helped the game I’m not sure their coverage has, they seem intent on portraying it as a northern stereotype and creating controversy rather than focusing on the positive.

The national press are clearly not interested which IMO filters down to the general public. Whether that’s the fault of RL or a prejudice from the southern based press I don’t know.

Born a Wiganer I live on the south coast now, I know a lot of people who follow RU, all of which are aware of league but none of which have the slightest interest in watching it, maybe they are worried they would like it?

Our biggest issue IMO is the international game, or rather lack of it. The interest in RU grew exponentially after their WC win, they have a regular international calendar which creates the interest which then filters down, both in support and finances to the domestic game.

I’ve said for years we need a RL equivalent of the 6 nations, England would walk it initially but over time, with the promise of regular fixtures it would become more competitive.

It would help create interest and momentum if a league game was shown by the BBC once a week on a Sunday afternoon.

We have the structure of the game wrong.

We should be selling a 14 team league with simple home and away fixtures on full time franchised teams with proper structure and proper governance

12 is the right amount for me. Standards are pretty poor across the board and I can't see how introducing 2 extra teams would improve, or help. I really don't think there's enough good to quality players knocking around.

Agree with the franchise & governance points tho. We need stability and the franchise is the best way to get it. It should come with min criteria tho - one of which is running an academy side.

12 teams > 3 or 4 years franchise & stability for trams to plan > 12 academy sides. You'd hope that would, not only would that increase standards, but we'd have a bigger player pool at the end of the franchise period - you could then look at extra sides.

Disagree that 14 teams is too many on the basis of not enough quality players. I’d suggest it’s a combination of a lack of ambition by the usual plodder clubs to develop the professionalism & depth of their setups, and a major lack of quality coaches.

12 gives an unbalanced fixture programme leading to loop fixtures and a lack of interest.

14 teams with 27 league games is the only way. everyone home and away plus a magic fixture

Agreed. People focus on balancing up the fixture list and ignore all other factors. When we had 14 teams it felt like we were dishing out hidings nearly every week. We need a reserves league to have been running successfully for a bit before we have enough quality players to share between 14 SL teams.

I’d consider dropping down to 10 in all honesty. We need quality over quantity and each club in SL actually striving to further themselves and not stay stagnant like some clubs have who are now stinking out the league with no interest or intentions of growing.

We need licensing back ASAP IMHO. The current system gives rise to mediocrity. One club goes down, the next comes up signing the players just relegated. That club goes down, the next comes up signs the players just relegated and so on and so forth. 10 clubs, 5yr licence and make the clubs meet all the standards or they’re gone. We need to be ruthless, for too long we’ve been soft as a sport on clubs. No more.

Quote ="100% Warrior"I’d consider dropping down to 10 in all honesty. We need quality over quantity and each club in SL actually striving to further themselves and not stay stagnant like some clubs have who are now stinking out the league with no interest or intentions of growing. We need licensing back ASAP IMHO. The current system gives rise to mediocrity. One club goes down, the next comes up signing the players just relegated. That club goes down, the next comes up signs the players just relegated and so on and so forth. 10 clubs, 5yr licence and make the clubs meet all the standards or they’re gone. We need to be ruthless, for too long we’ve been soft as a sport on clubs. No more.'" Exactly. There's an article online from July 2010 in which Cas discuss their new ground. Fast forward a decade and it's still nowhere near being built. Similar with Wakey. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ca ... ium-plans/ For me the key points in licensing should be stadia, marketing value (community work etc) and whether or not you run an academy. For too long the sport has been held back by a handful of clubs happy to take the sky money, do nothing to increase their bank balance, profile, attendance or contribute to the game with the production of players. Wigan, Saints and Leeds will always release a few because they can't keep them all and Wire will release a few why they sign their next 30+ Aussie that's going to win them the league. The sport needs to be ruthless now.

Quote ="100% Warrior"I’d consider dropping down to 10 in all honesty. We need quality over quantity and each club in SL actually striving to further themselves and not stay stagnant like some clubs have who are now stinking out the league with no interest or intentions of growing. We need licensing back ASAP IMHO. The current system gives rise to mediocrity. One club goes down, the next comes up signing the players just relegated. That club goes down, the next comes up signs the players just relegated and so on and so forth. 10 clubs, 5yr licence and make the clubs meet all the standards or they’re gone. We need to be ruthless, for too long we’ve been soft as a sport on clubs. No more.'" Exactly. There's an article online from July 2010 in which Cas discuss their new ground. Fast forward a decade and it's still nowhere near being built. Similar with Wakey. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ca ... ium-plans/ For me the key points in licensing should be stadia, marketing value (community work etc) and whether or not you run an academy. For too long the sport has been held back by a handful of clubs happy to take the sky money, do nothing to increase their bank balance, profile, attendance or contribute to the game with the production of players. Wigan, Saints and Leeds will always release a few because they can't keep them all and Wire will release a few why they sign their next 30+ Aussie that's going to win them the league. The sport needs to be ruthless now.

Quote ="Egg Chasing"Exactly. There's an article online from July 2010 in which Cas discuss their new ground. Fast forward a decade and it's still nowhere near being built. Similar with Wakey. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ca ... ium-plans/ For me the key points in licensing should be stadia, marketing value (community work etc) and whether or not you run an academy. For too long the sport has been held back by a handful of clubs happy to take the sky money, do nothing to increase their bank balance, profile, attendance or contribute to the game with the production of players. Wigan, Saints and Leeds will always release a few because they can't keep them all and Wire will release a few why they sign their next 30+ Aussie that's going to win them the league. The sport needs to be ruthless now.'" your right, all lancashire based clubs did their stadiums and yorkshire didnt and was ignored, will probably be brought back in now Leeds have finally done theirs up

Quote ="Egg Chasing"Exactly. There's an article online from July 2010 in which Cas discuss their new ground. Fast forward a decade and it's still nowhere near being built. Similar with Wakey. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ca ... ium-plans/ For me the key points in licensing should be stadia, marketing value (community work etc) and whether or not you run an academy. For too long the sport has been held back by a handful of clubs happy to take the sky money, do nothing to increase their bank balance, profile, attendance or contribute to the game with the production of players. Wigan, Saints and Leeds will always release a few because they can't keep them all and Wire will release a few why they sign their next 30+ Aussie that's going to win them the league. The sport needs to be ruthless now.'" your right, all lancashire based clubs did their stadiums and yorkshire didnt and was ignored, will probably be brought back in now Leeds have finally done theirs up

Spot on.

I'd rather see a competitive loop fixture than playing a side made up of cast offs and champ level players.

Especially as we always manage to find a way to lose against the cast offs teams

I think the number of teams is unlikely to change, certainly in the short term.

The sole reason behind my comment is that the TV money is equally shared between the teams, so to add in 2 more teams, means less money for the remaining 12. It would equate to approx 250k per team per year, on the current deal that they would need to drop. Can you realistically see many (if any) of the existing club chairmen voting to increase the number of teams, whilst accepting reduced share of the TV money. I certainly cant see some clubs who rely solely on this money to keep them afloat from voting that one in.

Another factor would also be what Sky want to see and when. I am assuming that for their money, the SL clubs are contracted to have televised a number of games per season, with a probable caveat for Magic and play off series.

I am assuming Sky viewing figures are greater when Wigan, Saints, Leeds & Wire are on the box as opposed to say HKR,Wakey, London etc. I know that the 1st 4 teams mentioned will also appear more on Sky than the other teams, which has 2 impacts on clubs and fans; 1.reduction in no of spectators in the ground for televised games (match day revenue (ticket sales, programmes, food & drink etc and atmosphere) and 2. messing around with Thursday and Monday night fixtures, again match day revenues and atmosphere impacted.
So I suppose for the clubs, they need to work out the nett effect of playing in a TV game. Does the loss of match day income get covered by playing a TV match. If you are involved in 10-12 games on TV in a season, is there an impact to revenues or is it covered by the TV money. if that is the case, then surely a pro-rata allocation of the TV money would better suit the teams that are on the TV more