RugbyRebels

Posted: **Wed Jun 25, 2025 10:08 pm**

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 10:14 am
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 9:50 am Can they both be the worst bit?
One is simply a terrible idea IMO, the other means that I find a different league (T14) to watch and support
On a serious note, we have both long been proponents of less 'top tier' sides/sort of super clubs, I think we settled on 8? Or have I utterly misremembered?

From memory, you wanted 8, I wanted 10 (if only because I felt that it could actually be achievable).
With the proviso that the European Cup was a proper competition, and there was proper integration between Prem and Champ, including a proper competition including both tiers.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2025 7:35 am**

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 6:26 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 1:10 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 11:06 am

though....if a rugby fan is objecting to it.....then maybe its not such great market research #justsaying. I felt the same, esp on 'gladiatorial'. One man's fish is another man's poisson. My real other objection, as with CHAMP RUGBY, is the amount of cash they are spending on consultants to tell them the bleeding obvious or bleeding crass. I don't mind spending dosh on externals if the value add is substantive....
Prioritising keeping the vested interests comfortable is how the English game ended up in the financial death spiral in the first place.

Puja
I'd say the death spiral is more like absolutely badly managed clubs and paying players more than the game can afford in this country.

Opinions may also differ, and it should be possible to keep the vested interests- do you mean long standing fans- engaged alongside this eager huge volume of young supporters who haven't materialised in decades, surely. One of the reasons the game is in death spiral at grass roots level is volunteers deserting the game in droves. Are these also the shadowy vested interests?

In short, I don't understand what you mean

Rugby made itself harder to watch. It wasn't on terrestrial TV, then it was on multiple different packages, and then the European competition became an utter shambles. The nature of the game has changed, and it just does not feel the same as it did 20 years ago.

But where it really failed was in not positioning itself as an antidote to football, and instead kinda, wishy washy competing with the biggest sport in the world. Yeah, you're not going to win that fight.

And over the years, there has become more and more competition. The rise of MMA, the sudden boost in popularity of golf of all things, and what were a good few years of pretty awful rugby.

Add in to that the fears about children getting injured playing rugby, head injuries, and all the noise around that.

The failure to attract new generations because the game is seen as a "toff's" game still, but hasn't managed to appeal to the new "have's" class (because we live in a 2 class system now, but that's a wider discussion) leaving it in a kind of limbo where the new rich aren't spending their money or their time on the game, the new poor aren't, and so the only interested people are the older fans...

The cynical me says that there is no way back. That it's over for rugby as a mainstream sport, as there is just too much ground to make up and no means to claw it back thanks to the global socio-economic situation.

The romantic in me says that rugby could appeal to minorities extremely well, it's an inclusive sport. But that would go very much against the "gladiator, US-based market, armed forces" angle that I imagine they're going to go toward.

Which isn't the sport I want to be a part of. A shame.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2025 7:41 am**

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 10:08 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 10:14 am
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 9:50 am Can they both be the worst bit?
One is simply a terrible idea IMO, the other means that I find a different league (T14) to watch and support
On a serious note, we have both long been proponents of less 'top tier' sides/sort of super clubs, I think we settled on 8? Or have I utterly misremembered?
From memory, you wanted 8, I wanted 10 (if only because I felt that it could actually be achievable).
With the proviso that the European Cup was a proper competition, and there was proper integration between Prem and Champ, including a proper competition including both tiers.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2025 7:42 am**

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 7:35 am
Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 6:26 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 1:10 pm
Prioritising keeping the vested interests comfortable is how the English game ended up in the financial death spiral in the first place.

Puja
I'd say the death spiral is more like absolutely badly managed clubs and paying players more than the game can afford in this country.

Opinions may also differ, and it should be possible to keep the vested interests- do you mean long standing fans- engaged alongside this eager huge volume of young supporters who haven't materialised in decades, surely. One of the reasons the game is in death spiral at grass roots level is volunteers deserting the game in droves. Are these also the shadowy vested interests?

In short, I don't understand what you mean
Rugby made itself harder to watch. It wasn't on terrestrial TV, then it was on multiple different packages, and then the European competition became an utter shambles. The nature of the game has changed, and it just does not feel the same as it did 20 years ago.

But where it really failed was in not positioning itself as an antidote to football, and instead kinda, wishy washy competing with the biggest sport in the world. Yeah, you're not going to win that fight.

And over the years, there has become more and more competition. The rise of MMA, the sudden boost in popularity of golf of all things, and what were a good few years of pretty awful rugby.

Add in to that the fears about children getting injured playing rugby, head injuries, and all the noise around that.

The failure to attract new generations because the game is seen as a "toff's" game still, but hasn't managed to appeal to the new "have's" class (because we live in a 2 class system now, but that's a wider discussion) leaving it in a kind of limbo where the new rich aren't spending their money or their time on the game, the new poor aren't, and so the only interested people are the older fans...

The cynical me says that there is no way back. That it's over for rugby as a mainstream sport, as there is just too much ground to make up and no means to claw it back thanks to the global socio-economic situation.

The romantic in me says that rugby could appeal to minorities extremely well, it's an inclusive sport. But that would go very much against the "gladiator, US-based market, armed forces" angle that I imagine they're going to go toward.

Which isn't the sport I want to be a part of. A shame.

That’s all very fair. Bit gloomy, but fair.
I think the phrase is- I wouldn’t start from here.
What does need to be is a remake from the bottom up, because the sort of rebranding done recently Champ and Prem … feels like lipstick on a pig. My view is that investing locally in activity would be more desirable, Rugby or otherwise tbh. We do loads of work in primary schools, with excluded young adults, and have been very successful in growing our girls and esp women’s sections. Every club needs to be doing this, somehow; participation grows fans.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2025 7:53 am**

I think one area that could be highlighted in marketing terms is the number of EQPs on the pitch in club XVs. Yes, rugby cannot compete overall with football but it is worth emphasising nationality. Liverpool, for example, following a £200m spending spree, look like fielding zero EQPs in their first choice XI next season.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2025 9:02 am**

I think it was courtney lawes who said that there is a weird disconnect between what rugby actually is and how it presents/markets itself. It obviously has to sell itself to public school parents, who would never in a million years let their little kid do mma or boxing but are convinced that rugby is a wholesome/worthwhile pass time.

On the other hand, lawes quite rightly identifies that you need to attract new people that excel in highly violent/ultra physical situations. How do you marry those two ends of the spectrum?

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2025 9:24 am**

twitchy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 9:02 am I think it was courtney lawes who said that there is a weird disconnect between what rugby actually is and how it presents/markets itself. It obviously has to sell itself to public school parents, who would never in a million years let their little kid do mma or boxing but are convinced that rugby is a wholesome/worthwhile pass time.

On the other hand, lawes quite rightly identifies that you need to attract new people that excel in highly violent/ultra physical situations. How do you marry those two ends of the spectrum?

I assume the traditional main selling point was that rugby is the true essence of team sport. Modern media-linked analysis of the physicality involved is a drawback, as you suggest, but the character-building attributes remain to be emphasised.

Do individual sports offer the same? I always thought the tennis player who never played doubles (e.g. Borg) or the sprinter who refused to run relays (e.g. Christie) had some sort of missing character trait. I've played squash (and then racketball) for 50+ years. By far the most rewarding element has been the team stuff. Within that, the best team players have some sort of team sport background. Within that again, the best of all often have rugby backgrounds.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2025 10:30 am**

twitchy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 9:02 am I think it was courtney lawes who said that there is a weird disconnect between what rugby actually is and how it presents/markets itself. It obviously has to sell itself to public school parents, who would never in a million years let their little kid do mma or boxing but are convinced that rugby is a wholesome/worthwhile pass time.

On the other hand, lawes quite rightly identifies that you need to attract new people that excel in highly violent/ultra physical situations. How do you marry those two ends of the spectrum?

Is that it, though? Because the rise of the "manosphere" has taken all of those young men to MMA. And it's toxic af.

I'd more say that rugby should be inclusive, and go back to the idea that everyone from a 5'4" SH to a 6'10" lock can play, and everyone from a 10st dripping wet winger to a 20st prop...

That, yes, it's a "manly" sport, but it's also open to everyone. There's a huge LGBTQ rugby scene, one that is massive in comparison to football (probably mainly due to the size of the game). We can tap into all of that.

But we're not likely to. Instead we're likely to see rugby tap into the same toxic violence that permeates young male culture, and fail to make any dents in growing a new fanbase.

Accessibility is a big problem for rugby. Unlike football, where two guys can grab a ball and play something resembling football, rugby isn't like that. Or hasn't been seen like that. You can't just find rugby posts everywhere. You can throw or kick a ball around, but where's the scoring in a 1v1 or 2v2, etc.? There's hundreds of variations in football with Wembley and other such games, plus kick tennis, beach football, etc., and in rugby there's?

So we either need to get the new rich playing the game, or we need to recalibrate what we want from rugby expansion.

Oh, and as to Banquo's point about participation, I agree BUT...I think you first need exposure. There's no exposure like there is for football. It's not on TV permanently. It's not all over social media. Rugby needs to bite the bullet and make itself more accessible, more available for more people to actually see some rugby being played. THEN we will see participation numbers go up.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2025 11:14 am**

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 10:30 am
twitchy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 9:02 am I think it was courtney lawes who said that there is a weird disconnect between what rugby actually is and how it presents/markets itself. It obviously has to sell itself to public school parents, who would never in a million years let their little kid do mma or boxing but are convinced that rugby is a wholesome/worthwhile pass time.

On the other hand, lawes quite rightly identifies that you need to attract new people that excel in highly violent/ultra physical situations. How do you marry those two ends of the spectrum?

Oh, and as to Banquo's point about participation, I agree BUT...I think you first need exposure. There's no exposure like there is for football. It's not on TV permanently. It's not all over social media. Rugby needs to bite the bullet and make itself more accessible, more available for more people to actually see some rugby being played. THEN we will see participation numbers go up.

Its not either though, its both, and frankly the marketing we've been doing locally has done more to drive participation than any amount of PREM or CHAMP or RFU work; it has to be vested in the clubs imo, with the overlay of exposure- after all, they have to have somewhere to participate.

Of course, there is a reality that rugby union is a relatively complex, multi skilled sport, tricky for spectators to understand and quite difficult to lay on even at mini level. Initiatives like T1 and the thriving touch leagues are to be encouraged too. All this needs volunteers, and that's getting harder and harder- we are paying people to do things that volunteers did, and it just unsustainable....we are considering what we wont be doing as I write.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2025 12:20 pm**

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 11:14 am
Stom wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 10:30 am
twitchy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 9:02 am I think it was courtney lawes who said that there is a weird disconnect between what rugby actually is and how it presents/markets itself. It obviously has to sell itself to public school parents, who would never in a million years let their little kid do mma or boxing but are convinced that rugby is a wholesome/worthwhile pass time.

On the other hand, lawes quite rightly identifies that you need to attract new people that excel in highly violent/ultra physical situations. How do you marry those two ends of the spectrum?

Oh, and as to Banquo's point about participation, I agree BUT...I think you first need exposure. There's no exposure like there is for football. It's not on TV permanently. It's not all over social media. Rugby needs to bite the bullet and make itself more accessible, more available for more people to actually see some rugby being played. THEN we will see participation numbers go up.
Its not either though, its both, and frankly the marketing we've been doing locally has done more to drive participation than any amount of PREM or CHAMP or RFU work; it has to be vested in the clubs imo, with the overlay of exposure- after all, they have to have somewhere to participate.

Of course, there is a reality that rugby union is a relatively complex, multi skilled sport, tricky for spectators to understand and quite difficult to lay on even at mini level. Initiatives like T1 and the thriving touch leagues are to be encouraged too. All this needs volunteers, and that's getting harder and harder- we are paying people to do things that volunteers did, and it just unsustainable....we are considering what we wont be doing as I write.

I agree.

As an aside, I didn't play rugby at university, I gave up as a teenager due to everyone else growing, me being a forward, and then starting to get neck and back injuries...didn't want anything serious.

So, at uni I played underwater hockey, and we were trying to set up an inter-sport competition. The Union guys were just utter tossers. Truly terrible to deal with. So we ended up partnering with League. Maybe it's just Wales (my least favourite away game was Cardiff for the standard of abuse) but there is something of an...ethos.

Posted: **Thu Jun 26, 2025 12:27 pm**

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 12:20 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 11:14 am
Stom wrote: ↑Thu Jun 26, 2025 10:30 am

Oh, and as to Banquo's point about participation, I agree BUT...I think you first need exposure. There's no exposure like there is for football. It's not on TV permanently. It's not all over social media. Rugby needs to bite the bullet and make itself more accessible, more available for more people to actually see some rugby being played. THEN we will see participation numbers go up.
Its not either though, its both, and frankly the marketing we've been doing locally has done more to drive participation than any amount of PREM or CHAMP or RFU work; it has to be vested in the clubs imo, with the overlay of exposure- after all, they have to have somewhere to participate.

Of course, there is a reality that rugby union is a relatively complex, multi skilled sport, tricky for spectators to understand and quite difficult to lay on even at mini level. Initiatives like T1 and the thriving touch leagues are to be encouraged too. All this needs volunteers, and that's getting harder and harder- we are paying people to do things that volunteers did, and it just unsustainable....we are considering what we wont be doing as I write.
I agree.

As an aside, I didn't play rugby at university, I gave up as a teenager due to everyone else growing, me being a forward, and then starting to get neck and back injuries...didn't want anything serious.

So, at uni I played underwater hockey, and we were trying to set up an inter-sport competition. The Union guys were just utter tossers. Truly terrible to deal with. So we ended up partnering with League. Maybe it's just Wales (my least favourite away game was Cardiff for the standard of abuse) but there is something of an...ethos.

Rugby at Uni was great for me. Obviously varies by who is at the uni at the time....transitory culture by definition.

Posted: **Fri Jun 27, 2025 11:38 am**

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 6:26 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 1:10 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 11:06 am

though....if a rugby fan is objecting to it.....then maybe its not such great market research #justsaying. I felt the same, esp on 'gladiatorial'. One man's fish is another man's poisson. My real other objection, as with CHAMP RUGBY, is the amount of cash they are spending on consultants to tell them the bleeding obvious or bleeding crass. I don't mind spending dosh on externals if the value add is substantive....
Prioritising keeping the vested interests comfortable is how the English game ended up in the financial death spiral in the first place.

Puja
I'd say the death spiral is more like absolutely badly managed clubs and paying players more than the game can afford in this country.

Opinions may also differ, and it should be possible to keep the vested interests- do you mean long standing fans- engaged alongside this eager huge volume of young supporters who haven't materialised in decades, surely. One of the reasons the game is in death spiral at grass roots level is volunteers deserting the game in droves. Are these also the shadowy vested interests?

In short, I don't understand what you mean

Probably doesn't help that I wasn't very clear!

I wasn't positing any shadows to the vested interests - more saying that if the game keeps focussing only on the people who are already turning up, then it's not going to grow fanbases and not going to be able to drive the moneymaking to the point where maybe clubs can afford what they're paying players.

I'm less claiming any skill or knowledge at marketing, but more noting that, "This doesn't appear tailored to appeal to me," isn't a very good argument that the marketing plan is bad, when it's specifically designed to attract new people who aren't you.

Puja

Posted: **Fri Jun 27, 2025 1:04 pm**

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 11:38 am
Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 6:26 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 25, 2025 1:10 pm
Prioritising keeping the vested interests comfortable is how the English game ended up in the financial death spiral in the first place.

Puja
I'd say the death spiral is more like absolutely badly managed clubs and paying players more than the game can afford in this country.

Opinions may also differ, and it should be possible to keep the vested interests- do you mean long standing fans- engaged alongside this eager huge volume of young supporters who haven't materialised in decades, surely. One of the reasons the game is in death spiral at grass roots level is volunteers deserting the game in droves. Are these also the shadowy vested interests?

In short, I don't understand what you mean
"This doesn't appear tailored to appeal to me," isn't a very good argument that the marketing plan is bad, when it's specifically designed to attract new people who aren't you.

Puja

sort of fair, though I didnt actually say that specifically merely agreed that the messaging was rubbish and didn`t see who it would attract....see Stoms note. As also noted, imo a bit of top down marketing won`t get the job done, so like to what goes alongside, plus turning off existing fans with the whole package aint smart. As said though.....wouldnt start from here

Posted: **Fri Jun 27, 2025 2:33 pm**

Decades ago my financial employers engaged a marketing exec who transformed our approach, concentrating everything on new customers. It worked in the short term but failed in the longer picture because so many existing customers were lost or did not choose to increase their holdings.

Rugby needs to take care. Building on sound foundations counts.

Posted: **Fri Jun 27, 2025 3:33 pm**

I think you guys are catastrophizing a bit. What this will probably boil down too is just posting compilations of 'rugbys biggest hits' (or what ever) on tiktok and instagram.

Posted: **Fri Jun 27, 2025 7:33 pm**

twitchy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 3:33 pm I think you guys are catastrophizing a bit. What this will probably boil down too is just posting compilations of 'rugbys biggest hits' (or what ever) on tiktok and instagram.

kinda part of my point- 'the game'll spend money to achieve fck all....not a catastrophe, I grant you, but leveraging properly what little cash there is would imo be better...

mebbe

Posted: **Fri Jun 27, 2025 10:00 pm**

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 2:33 pm Decades ago my financial employers engaged a marketing exec who transformed our approach, concentrating everything on new customers. It worked in the short term but failed in the longer picture because so many existing customers were lost or did not choose to increase their holdings.

Rugby needs to take care. Building on sound foundations counts.

Yeeesh. It's not like they're introducing multiball or something. They're just tilting the advertising and marketing slightly differently.

Not convinced there's a need to worry especially.

Puja

Posted: **Sat Jun 28, 2025 10:31 am**

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 27, 2025 2:33 pm Decades ago my financial employers engaged a marketing exec who transformed our approach, concentrating everything on new customers. It worked in the short term but failed in the longer picture because so many existing customers were lost or did not choose to increase their holdings.

Rugby needs to take care. Building on sound foundations counts.

I don't think the marketing is going to alienate existing customers, though...except that it could alienate a large group within existing customers if they do not get it right.

My bigger feeling is that I don't really trust them to get the message and target audience right to grow. Because, and I've seen it first hand way too many times, marketing consultants can be really bad at extrapolating long-term strategies from short-term data. It's something I'm always preaching: don't target X, even though they're the guys who would buy now, because the sales cycle is 3 years, and they're going to retire next year...so we need to target Y, even though they won't buy, because in a year's time they will become the decision maker...

Or something to that effect.

The same applies to rugby, imo. And I fear that we will see targeting with the kind of marketing that someone like Courtney Lawes would agree with. And, for me, that's definitely not the angle to take.

Posted: **Sat Jun 28, 2025 10:47 am**

Just seen - the Prem is due to open on Thursday 25th September.
Not sure what new viewers they're hoping to find by moving mid-week, but I guess we'll see.

Posted: **Sat Jun 28, 2025 3:51 pm**

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Jun 28, 2025 10:47 am Just seen - the Prem is due to open on Thursday 25th September.
Not sure what new viewers they're hoping to find by moving mid-week, but I guess we'll see.

They are avoiding women's world cup final clash I theenk

RugbyRebels

Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem

Re: Premiership rebrand => The Prem