RLIF Launches new Strategic Plan

[Last Week]

In the 'tests' years. Euros/Pacific Cup would serve as qualifying tournaments for the FC.

I'd imagine these test series would only be 3 matches and only involve the main 3, with a token test to another nation occasionally as a warm up.

My concerns are what the third nation would do, the one who isn't participating in a series.

E.g, hypothetically;
2018 - Australia vs NZ x1, France vs England, followed by England vs Australia x3. France, or who ever is the warm up game for England is.

France could go back and play in the Euros. But what would NZ do? I can't see them playing three tier 2 matches and for it to be profitable (which is the point of these tests). I would hate for the countries to use it as a rest year and only playing the one test match.

And as the cycle further goes on, it would take 6 years before a return series, assuming all 3 nations would rotate the series' against each other. I.e, it could take 6 years for an Ashes, Baskerville or ANZAC/Bill Kelly trophy to be contested again.

 

[Burns]

I guess we just need a credible fourth nation. :sarcasm:

Seriousness though, I hope we get the actual document released publicly soon.

 

[siv]

Still no mention of a Pacific Cup or Pacific Shield

Important that we also plan for Tier 2 internationals also

 

[roughyedspud]

I think thats gonna be down to the APRLC

 

[Last Week]

The document of the presentation should hopefully be released in the next few days by the RLIF.

 

[siv]

I think thats gonna be down to the APRLC

Does the APRLF even exist ??

Anyway Europe & Pacific need their product included by the RLIF to get a better International RL TV package and exposure

 

[Last Week]

Does the APRLF even exist ??

Anyway Europe & Pacific need their product included by the RLIF to get a better International RL TV package and exposure

Yeah. Well, their Facebook page is pretty active.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

at least they have a strategic plan - that's already light years ahead of previous efforts.

I worry about Collier - I fear he may have a good plan on paper of how things should be but may struggle to deal with and become quickly frustrated with the specifics of league and how it struggles as a sport because of the influence of union and other external forces.

 

[roughyedspud]

Its not really colliers plan..this as been brewing for a good 18months

 

[Last Week]

at least they have a strategic plan - that's already light years ahead of previous efforts.

I worry about Collier - I fear he may have a good plan on paper of how things should be but may struggle to deal with and become quickly frustrated with the specifics of league and how it struggles as a sport because of the influence of union and other external forces.

I'm struggling to see what effect he's had on the RLIF.

I agree that it's great we have a plan. I worry that it might not be the right plan for us.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

ok, it's not collier's plan, but he has a major input and it is his job to get the key people working together to make it happen, which is the hard part.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

 

[miguel de cervantes]

doesn't really belong in here, but there it is

 

[morningstar]

Link to download the strategic plan...

http://rlif.com/rugby-league-international-news/article/1600/rlif-strategic-plan-available-to

 

[roughyedspud]

So its the intercontinental cup...and the nines is there


Like i told you all months ago

 

[adamkungl]

Very promising. Can they pull it off? The key is to have everyone working towards the same goal. If the Arl and RFL play ball the sky's the limit.

 

[langpark]

What the hell is a 'bi-lateral Test match'?

I think it means cross-continental, so ENG vs AUS, for example. Which is hardly anything new.

Am reading the full document now.

 

[Bovrick]

What the hell is a 'bi-lateral Test match'?

If they mean the standard usage of the term, bilateral matches will presumably be set up/administered by the two organisations that engage in the match. Ie no overarching structure to the contest administered by the continental/world body.

I'll have a proper read later, but they seem to have their eyes set upon 8 national teams (to be financially secure, be competitive in the World Cup). Have they said who these are to be, because I wouldn't say there's a standout 8 right now that would be obvious picks.

Also interesting to see the specific targeting of G20 countries - does this mean more focus on France/Italy/Russia/South Africa/Canada/USA; or looking at even less developed nations from this group?

 

[Last Week]

Things that stood out for me;

*Looking at having the top 8 nations capable of making the WC final by 2025. - This is ambitious and I doubt it's possible purely because of the fact we only have 2 professional domestic competitions and that doesn't look like changing any time soon.

*A 16 team world cup by 2025. - Ok, good. So long as it works.

*Continental qualifiers for the WC, Intercontinental and World Nines, every 2 years. - As there should be. And with minimal automatic qualifying.

*Doubling global TV audience. - Ambitious again. Good luck.

"Developing referees for an international standard to maintain neutrality. - Excellent. This could be done immediately with near immediate results.

*An international federation to turn over $10 million per year, distributing $8million.

*Providing player rest periods. - I was afraid of this. This will almost ensure that Australian players will have a year off ever 4 years.

*Removing one size fits all grants. Rewarding participation growth aswell as coaching and management development. - Smart. I can see this really benefiting certain nations.

*Supporting development in target markets. - Use it wisely. France, the UK and North America seem obvious to me.

*One set of rules and protecting them through copyright. - That's interesting. Why copyright the? Union?

*Doubling income and having $10 million in reserves by 2025. - Hard to predict but you'd think so with double the tournaments owned by the RLIF.

All sounds good. I look forward to 2025.

 

[langpark]

I was impressed by the idea of performance/incentive-based grants. So nations that are growing and increasing development will get increased funding, while those that are being less proactive will be at risk of losing some funding.

This needs careful monitoring though, not sure if it's even possible, to make sure some are not inflating their numbers just to get the increased funds. Also, I would hope that measures will be in place to reward the stand-alone rugby league clubs in emerging nations, as opposed to those that are established union teams and just play league as an after-thought (like in Italy for example).