Big Bunny said:
It's statements like that make me wonder why I'm bothering to reply to you. Your idea of success is entirely subjective, based only on personal whim and perception rather than financial reality.
Judging by the amount of time that had passed, I must admit I thought you hadn't bothered. Glad you did though, as I think we might be getting somewhere close to some common ground.
It is based on my perception, but so are your assertions. At least my perceptions have a basis in learnings from the 2003 RUWC and 2000 RLWC, whereas yours are based solely on the overly simplistic premise that better teams = more competitive world cup = more success = more money. Classic better mousetrap fallacy.
Obviously you didn't learn anything from either tournament. The 2003 RUWC was a failure in regards to international development in the context that whilst it generated a profit it would not have done nearly as well if the same plane was implimented in earlier RUWC tournaments. The media perception generated by the union tournament is one that rugby league won't duplicate.
Yes an
additional 10 million
pounds a year poured into international development. If that is your idea or failure in regards to international development then you must have impossibly high standards.
I agree that we won't be able to generate a media perception on the same scale as the the RUWC. But we can go part of the way there.
The union tournament was one staged by a body that has a history of profitability, they could afford to throw any two teams together regardless of their real world values and then market a carnival rather than a football tournament.
We had a history of profitability as well until the 2000 RLWC abortion.
For the RLWC to be successful, it will have to be marketed as much more than a football tournament. If people were interested in seeing a couple of alright but in the scheme of things fairly ordinary sides play in a rugby league tournament, then Norths vs Newtown would be packed every week. It is not. So it has to be a carnival and offer people something different.
50 games, two competitive and propaganda by the bucket load to soften the blow. Regardless of the media being onside the tournament's one-sided matches were still looked upon as a joke. It's true that people came away with a belief that rugby union has a rich international scene, but then they also recognise that most teams are minnows with little structure in place.
Exactly my point - despite the matches being a joke the tournament was still an overwhelming success. This is because the tournament is much more than what the quality of the matches of footy would tell us.
Whilst you're so quick to look at two union minnows from supposedly "exotic" locations, playing to a poor scoreline and value it was important, I'm not as forgiving and nor am I as blind to the opportunity lost because of it. Given an opportunity to choose between USA v Japan, or Wales v Tonga do you really believe that the latter is less marketable?
Forgive what? 25,000 packing a stadium to see two crappy yet international teams? What opportunity was lost?
I don't think there has to be a choice between USA and Japan or Wales and Tonga. Given a choice between Wales and the Cook Islands or between Wales and USA or Japan then USA and Japan would be vastly more marketable.
Of course I don't, but I'm not so naive as to believe what you do either. It wouldn't have mattered what teams were playing, USA, Japan, or two teams from this region like Tonga and Samoa. The ARU and the IRB did a bang up marketing job and let past results in marketing and the production of a legitimate qualification process speak for themselves.
That's exactly right, it wouldn't have mattered what teams were playing. Because the tournament was perceived to be such an international event and carnival that the quality of the two teams on the pitch did not matter. Why was the tournament perceived to be such an international event? Because of the wide international variety of the teams in the tournament and the feel good media stories that this generated. Would it have been seen to be such an international event if it was just full of Western European and Pacific teams? No.
Legitimate qualification process? Japan's wins over Chinese Taipei was impressive, I'll give you that. What percentage of attendees or viewers do you think had any clue whatsoever about the legitimacy or otherwise of the qualification process?
I agree the ARU and IRB did a bang up job of marketing the World Cup. Correct me if I'm wrong but the key difference between us is that you hold the view that marketing is something that happens at the end of the process: you are handed a product and then promote that. I think that marketing should be part of the process of shaping the best possible product to then go and promote. In the case of this world cup, the key thing we need to do is convince people it is a fair dinkum international event.
We can try and convince people of that with a marketing campaign for a less than fully international product or we can convince people by marketing a more international product.
No, the majority of people at the 2003 RUWC and 2000 RLWC were there because they believed in teams giving their best after having earned their stripes. Russia losing by 100 will always be acceptable to the public provided they have earned their place in the tournament. Nobody wants second rate football if they know it's a sham opoeration like the one you're in favour of.
No sham operation here. A Scottish team winning through to the RLWC by beating Russia with hardly a Scot to be found in the team? A Samoan team full of kids from South Auckland beating USA? They are the real sham operations. Thing is, as the 2003 RUWC told us and at least you are starting to acknowledge, people will accept second or third rate football and Russia losing by 100 if they know the Russian team is fair dinkum.
People did not go the 2003 RUWC and 2000 RLWC because they believed terms had earned their stripes. It is absolutely laughable to suggest that most people who went to the 2003 RUWC had any clue about how the teams had qualified to get to the tournament. At the 2000 RLWC were Lebanon immune to critcism because they won through the qualifiers and beat the USA in front of 38 people at Disneyworld while teams that were given directly entry instead of qualifying? Of course not. 99% people have no idea or frankly any interest in the WC qualifiers. All they know is that these are the teams in the world cup. If there is any criticism about how the teams made it through, we can point to the fact that there was a formal qualification process.
I really do wonder about how you see the world, finance and positives and negatives of your preferred concepts. Some of the notions that you come up with are nothing short of being a utopian fantasy. The USA would gain some exposure, but then do you really believe that it would be exposure that would provide long term benefits? Your idea that rugby league playing numbers in the US would have any significant increase due to world cup exposure is nothing short of ridiculous.
I wonder how you get "significant increase" out of "possibly convince a small proportion of the tens of thousands of RU players to give RL a go".
Look, I'll spell it out for you really simply. There are 10 teams in the US. Should any players from the 1000 current union clubs see the game and want to play the majority of them won't be able to, for living in cities where the game doesn't exist is a tad problematic.
Do you think, possibly, a couple of union clubs might decide to have a game under RL rules and go from there? It is very lucky you didn't decide a couple of years ago to "spell it out really simply" for Serbia or Georgia or Holland that they really shouldn't bother with rugby league because the game didn't exist in those countries and therefore it would be a "tad problematic" for them to be able to play it.
The existing clubs might gain a small increase in numbers, but that's provided there is coverage that makes an impact, and by impact I mean mainstream media. Do you expect national mainstream media coverage for a future Tomahawks team in the World Cup?
I would hope there may be a quick mention on World Sport type shows but national mainstream media coverage is not required. All it takes is coverage in the specialist rugby press in the USA, which I think would be exceedingly easy to get, IF the USA happened to make it to the RLWC.
How many players do you think that the AMNRL picked up following the USA v Australia game? Do you believe that had ANY significant flow on effects? Now let's say we're really optimistic and naive and really do believe there will be a jump in numbers; do you believe that 100 new players in the AMNRL attributed directly to World Cup coverage is worth damaging the tournaments future viability and credability? What's more important to you, a minor boost to one or two countries, or a tournament that with each passing 4 years is able to generate more and more significant levels of income for international development? Is $20 million 6 years from now as a profit from a well run and respected 2012 RLWC worth the maybe 50-100k worth of promotion you'd get by including a team that racks up 130 points against them?
You pull a $20 million profit figure for a 2012 WC from absolutely nowhere and you are calling what I have to say "utopian fantasies" and wondering about how I see the world, finance and positives and negatives? please.
By way of answering your question, having a more international world cup would in no way damage the tournament's future viability and credibility. On the contrary, it would strengthen the brand of the RLWC considerably by strengthening its international credentials and therefore lead to more profit in future. I am not saying lets have the USA or Russia or Lebanon there purely on the basis of the benefits this will bring to the USA or Russia or Lebanon. It will bring benefits to that country sure, but it will bring greater benefits to the tournament as a wholes viability and credibility. To be clear, I'm not saying lets have USA AND Russia AND Lebanon all there, in a 10 team world cup there just isn't room for that.
A repeat of what you've said many times already, only now you're also fudging the truth by suggesting that the Pacific nations are only marginally better than the US or Russia. Now you're just being blatantly dishonest.
Marginally more competitive against the major nations absolutely. Samoa got flogged at the 2000 RLWC by Australia, Russia got flogged at the RLWC by Australia. In the scheme of things, what evidence is there that the scale of the flogging really matters?
You just keep believing and repeating that, over and over again. It won't make it true, but at least you've got yourself convinced.
I guess I keep repeating it because you haven't really addressed why you think people are so much more interested in a team being flogged by 60 than watching a team being flogged by 100.
The fact is if the team being flogged by 100 adds more to the WC, then people will be more interested in seeing that team. As you concede yourself, Russia losing by 100 will be acceptable to the public if they are convinced of their legitimacy. This legitimacy comes much more from the team itself than the intricacies of how the qualifying is structured, which really only has any interest to people like us. Of all the criticisms of the 2000 RLWC, I don't really recall any criticism of how the teams actually qualified to get there. The criticism was much more about the make up of the teams themselves and therefore the legitimacy of the entire tournament.
As savvy as some people within the AMNRL are, and as well connected as the RRL appears at times, you're failing to recognise that sponsorship means very little if it doesn't go into grassroots development. Paying for the US or Russia to take part in the WC and to tour and build up with a good preparation don't mean much when the big picture is the game looking to secure an international future over 4 year periods.
I meant it would secure more interest and sponsorship for the RLWC itself through the event being perceived to be more truly international, rather than attract much more sponsorship to the individual nations, although it would do this to a lesser extent as well.
You're right, but paying for nations like Scotland or Maori to take part means even less for the big picture and securing the international future. The international future also depends, to a real extent, on the perceptions of people in Australia about international RL. For international RL to be successful, the perceptions of people in Australia need to be changed to make them more aware of the variety of international RL and more positive about international RL.
What is it with you and saying the same damn thing over and over? I don't care how you want to present it, scorelines do matter. Maybe not on match day so much, but to the sponsors and people who did pay for their tickets they are going to be a lot happier and infuse a feel good factor when they know they got their moneys worth.
Well, where is your evidence that scorelines do matter? The 2003 RUWC or 2003 CWC or 2006 Commonwealth Games were all recent prime cases in point that scorelines don't matter when it comes to successful international sporting events.
2003 RUWC: in no way competitive, but a great success.
2006 Commonwealth Games: in no way competitive, but a great success. etc.
The feel good factor is much more likely to come from something like a gallant last minute effort from Russia despite losing by 90 than it is from Samoa losing by 30. Who got more crowd support at the World Sevens a couple of years ago, the Russians or the French? The Russians. And this was in spite of not being anywhere near as competitive.
You're damn right its counter intuitive and for every reason already given. The RLWC is a development tool, but not one to be used in such a over simplistic and poorly thought out manner. By all means you use those products, tools or resources available but never ever abuse them, or you'll soon find that with each ensuing sale you'll have a market that is weaker.
It is not damaging the RLWC by having less competitive but more international teams there. By making it more international it will make the brand stronger, not weaker.
You've got a short memory, or perhaps a very selective one.
Geography counts when it's based on a realistic and grounded base, as is the case with the AFL. Whilst Brisbane and Sydney are still transplanted Victorians the fact is that the teams are competitive.
Tell me, honestly, does your argument still stand up when taking into account how the AFL was viewed when those two teams were at the bottom of the ladder? The AFL was seen as a joke, as I've already stated. Geography didn't mean a damn thing until it was back by results.
It was hardly seen as a joke, as it was still seen as a more national competition than the NSWRL.
Forgive me if I don't care for the opinions of people sold rugby union propaganda. The irony of the "East Australia, North England, Auckland, South France" rubbish is that it's a piece of fiction that is only repeated in the strongest of rugby union circles.
Not true, maybe it is RU propaganda but that is definitely the view of most people on the street and even most RL fans. The success of the world cup will depends on us changing the perceptions of the Australian public.
If you don't care for the perceptions of potential customers then I hardly see how you can talk about how best to position the World Cup to be successful. You may not like what their perceptions are, but perceptions count and we have to deal with them.
Do you think that people in the USA, Russia or Asia even have a perception that needs to be reversed? The media will trot out that line no matter what progress is shown, and that will continue for at least the next 50 years.
No, the perception that matters when it comes to making the 2008 RLWC successful is the perception of people in Australia.
To be successful, we need to change the very real perception out there amongst Australians that international rugby league is a contradiction in terms. Having a more international world cup is really the only way to do that. If we try and convince people out there that rugby league really isinternational, but at the same time have a less than international makeup of the participating nations, then we are making our marketing less effective and sending mixed messages.
Again you're being selective. WC results aside, why not be honest and acknowledge the fact that the US and Canada have both had international successes in Test matches against some of the better teams in the world?
Maybe, I haven't really followed USA and Canada's results in rugby union outside world cups that closely. They have never been competitive at any of the RUWCs that I have seen (which is all 5 of them).
Hardly a token effort considering that Japan as well have a record on the international scene that gave weight to Asia deserving a direct qualification route in a very large field. Like I've already said, I don't believe the 10 or 12 best rugby league teams will be at the RLWC in 2008, but it will probably go close. Each team has to show that they can compete and if a region can't offer one competitive nation then they simply do not deserve a direct qualification route.
Their track record is terrible, beaten 150-0 by NZ at the 95 WC for example. This wasn't that deserving of being given a direct qualification route on results alone.
I actually laughed out loud to that. I've never suggested otherwise but it's amusing that you acknowledge union's gradual growth and use of the media. They developed their WC tournament in ways that wouldn't create as much excuse for ridicule as rugby league has. They have also always been able to manage their media affairs through partnerships and oldboy networking and ignoring that fact is folly.
I agree, they have developed their WC tournament as a real international tournament, held it every 4 years, didn't ever have teams like the Maori there, didn't have teams entirely made up of grandparent rule players, didn't have Bob Campbell playing for Russia, etc.
To say they are successful because of the old boy network is, again, overly simplistic and denies their very progressive and clever media strategies and event management, such as their use of video news releases etc. It also conveniently ignores the fact that they were nowhere 15 years ago despite having just as much of an old boy network.
Who said that? I certainly didn't, so there's no need to argue that point. Of course rugby league has to better media perceptions, but it's no point in making the task harder by bringing scorn upon the game through rash ideas.
A more international tournament would bring
less scorn upon the game. As floggings at the RUWC should have told us scorn comes less from results on the pitch than it does from the perceived international legitimacy of the tournament.
You dodged the question. How would you have Japan, South Africa and Japan qualify?
I wouldn't have them all qualify. I would just ditch Pacific and European teams from the expensive and pointless repechage round, have one less European qualifier and have a qualifer directly from the Atlantic (sic) group and a qualifier directly from Eastern Europe. That's the only change, which would result in minimal difference to the overall quality of the teams at the world cup yet yield a much more international variety of teams at the world cup.
Oh that's just super. First you say it's not rigged but then talk about an any which way but loose qualification tournament and passing it off under the nose of the playing public because they won't bother to figure out you've screwed them over. That's bloody ordinary to say the least.
As I've said, if we must have a 10 team world cup the only real differences I would have would be separate Eastern and Western European qualifying groups, and having the Atlantic qualifying winner qualify directly instead of the expensive pretence of getting smashed by a European or Pacific team. So it isn't rigged, it is just structured (slightly) differently.
But I stand by the statement that it doesn't matter exactly how the qualifying is structured as long as there is some form of publically defensible system in place. There is no point trying to be as pure as the driven snow and structure it so we make sure that only the better teams tend to get through. This won't protect us from scorn because no-one out there in the real world actually cares about how the world cup qualifiers are structured.
Wishful thinking is not a good basis for claiming knowledge or sound perception. Forgive me if I don't buy into your beliefs as they for greater part are just too watery to give credability.
Well in general terms would you agree that people's choice to purchase products or services is based to some extent on their perceptions about the product as distinct from the actual objective quality of the product?
I think that is obvious. Therefore this also holds for Rugby League World Cup 2008.
Would you agree that people in Australia tend to have a negative perception about how international Rugby League really is?
Would you agree that rugby league is actually a lot more international than most people think?
Do you think that the negative perception about how international the sport of rugby league really is will have a negative impact on the success of the RLWC?
Then it must also be true that if we can reduce the negative perceptions or produce a positive perception by demonstrating/educating the public about how international rugby league actually is, then it will lead to a more successful RLWC.
John O'Neill you are not. The primary difference between you and O'Neill is that if he were to propose your same ideas he would still be supporting a faulty system, only that he has the resources and track record to see that all of the negatives are overshadowed to a certain extent but only during the tournament. He would ensure a profit, but one not nearly as progressive when seen in the context of the World Cup as a series rather than one-offs. Sadly what we have is a reality where Colin Love and Geoff Carr are in charge and not only would they screw up a piss-up in a brewery but probably both of our preferred systems, only that with yours I would fear for the international growth of the game in the 4 years following each tournament.
As I've said, I don't accept that this damages the WC in the long term - just the opposite.
I also don't think I understand your argument that a more international World Cup would impede the growth of the game in the years following the WC. For the major nations, they are there anyway. For the minor nations, the experience of a World Cup appearance and pocketing the appearance fee could only lead to more growth.
