Super League and Stobart - some maths

We all saw the announcements about the new title sponsor of Super League. Eddie Stobart haulage branded up 100 wagons with Super League related imagery for no exchange of money. It's a bold move and I come not to crticise. With belt-tightening ongoing and the UK economy only not in recession by dint of semantics, it's an interesting, innovative solution.

Times RL journalist Chris Irvine asked on his Twitter today whether anyone had seen one of the branded trucks yet on the back of him having done a fair few miles up and down the RL Motorway (formerly the M62) and not having done so. Out came a calculator and a web browser with some pertinent Google searches...

Stobart have a fleet of - at last approximation - 838. It sounds reasonable, so let's go with that. 100 of these, as mentioned, have been painted up in Super League livery. Stobart's big marketing claim is that you'll see one of their trucks every four and a half minutes spent on Britain's major roads. Based on that, you will encounter 320 Stobart trucks for every 24 hours spent on major roads or 38% of the fleet (I'm discounting repeat sightings of the same truck, just because it's unquantifiable and therefore difficult).

100 of the 838 represents 11% of the fleet and 11% of the 38% gives us 3.5 sightings of SL branded trucks for every 24 hours. In turn, that tells us that for every sighting of a Super League branded Stobart wagon, you can expect to be on the road for 6.85 hours, or 6 hours and 51 minutes.

I have no idea what this tells us. I have no idea how that translates to the estimate that the sponsorship being worth £2.5m per year. I draw no conclusions as to whether this means the sponsorship is good or bad. It was just a fun* exercise which diverted me for a few moments.


* - fun for me, not necessarily for you

EDIT: It was brought to my attention in the comments below that the Stobart fleet is 2250, not 838. Which means that you can expect to be driving for 18 hours and 22 minutes for each sighting of a Super League branded truck.

Rugby League and Twitter

A new season and, two days in advance, a launch. The flagship no-money-down sponsorship with Stobart saw a convoy head up to Salford where those people in the media who aren't either in the UAE for the cricket, exhausted from transfer deadline day or covering the build up to a minor European international rugby union tournament could see what's on offer. Artificial pitches, rule tinkering, granting independence to the state of Exilia and Monday Night Football were all on the agenda.

Super League also tried to get to grips with Twitter. Chances are that if you're reading this, you're already au fait with it's charms. Super League aren't. They seek to instruct people on the use of hashtags, seemingly oblivious to many aspects. For a start, Bradford and Wigan chat will get lost among conversations between wearers of hairpieces and discourses on women's underwear. Good luck Dragons fans as you get lost among cats playing pianos. These things arise because people use them, not because people are instructed to use them. For example, Dragons fans have happily been using #lescatalans to discuss their team under and it's worked very well. It's unlikely that a well-paid marketing executive's word is going to change that.

We're also being instructed on tags for individual matches. All this is likely to achieve is the fragmentation of conversation. Super League have grossly over-estimated the popularity of the sport. There simply isn't that number to warrant dividing chat down into a number of several brackets per weekend and especially since the #rugbyleague - note the use of 'rugby' rather than 'super' as well there - has been around for some time and works well. It's inclusive and it's clear. #SLCasSal may look great in a marketing PowerPoint presentation, but to the casual observer, it is gobbledegook. It makes the game look cliquey in the extreme and won't help attract new fans to the game.

The best way to get onto Twitter is to observe what's happening and worm your way into that, not do away with established practice and impose arbitrary rules and standards onto people who have embraced and been using it for a lot longer than Super League seems to have done. So rise up, people! Eschew this frippery! Stick to #rugbyleague and let's all stick together rather than go our separate ways.

Now, what hashtag should I use to promote this article? Any ideas, Super League?


ADDENDUM:
When manipulation of social media goes wrong.

McDonalds and Wendy's are just two major corporations to have fallen foul of manufactured hashtag promotions, as detailed in the Independent here.
Tottenham Hotspur's whizzy new website automatically included comments from their Facebook page with hilarious consequences as noted by Football 365 (second item).
Point is, Twitter doesn't obey your rules. It does it's own thing and one of it's things that it does well is subverting obvious marketing bullshittery.

Stop Cheerleaders

Midway through last season, I came to a conclusion: cheerleaders in rugby league should go.

I posited this theory on twitter and got back roughly 3-to-1 against including a number of suggestions that I'm homosexual. Whether I am or not is, of course, irrelevant. What I'm railing against is twofold - the sheer pointlessness of it all and the fact it demeans us all.

The first point is entirely subjective. I've never been inspired to cheer by the on-field shenanigans of a group of no doubt lovely young ladies. Indeed, they always seem entirely reactive rather than proactive, as if encouraging my cheers after the event which has already elicited as much excitement as I'll allow myself to feel. There is nothing added in their presence. Moreover, we're in Britain. It's cold and wet. As such, prancing about in shorts looks damned uncomfortable. Far from cheering, I'm more likely to be torn between gratitude for the warm coat I'm wearing and offering said coat to one of the girls. I accept that this is possibly a factor of advancing years and the associated increased curmudgeonly status that goes alongside that.

Invariably, you also get a junior cheerleading squad where a group of very young children wave pom-poms in a barely co-ordinated fashion, often in ludicrously high numbers, instructed by a senior person on the sidelines, invariably someone with the word 'coach' written across the back of their shorts, who might as well be doing the routine themselves and cut out the middleman. This is just cringe-inducingly embarrassing for all who are watching on.

The second point is less subjective. Are we that shallow as a society that we men will only go to the rugby if there are dancing girls? Are we as a sport saying to women that the only way you can participate is with pom-poms? These lasses are put on display for us to judge, to objectify, to jump up and shake a tail-feather whenever the men do something that warrants it. The most common point made in support of cheerleaders to me during my completely unscientific twitter-based fact-finding mission was that 'it gives us something to look at'. If that's the best argument in support, then it's a wonder they were adopted by rugby league clubs at all, let alone that they've lasted so long. The same is true of women holding up boards denoting the round at boxing, of walking blokes to the oche at the darts, of holding up grid markers at grands prix and umbrellas at the speedway. It's window-dressing and sends out a message to any young girls watching that this is something - perhaps the best thing - that they'll ever achieve, that looking right is all that matters. There are better ways to involve women in the sport and money spent on cheer squads might be better spent on the women's game where players are having to fork out their own money to go on tour, for kit, for tackle bags.

Leeds announced today that they're completely revamping their cheer squad. Instead, they'll be having a group of street dancers. Now, I've seen this before when Crusaders did likewise. This involves a group of people who move about a bit, almost at the same time, to a tired mash-up of contemporary pop hits, their very existence the responsibility of the myriad TV talent and amateur dance contests that so occupy the minds of the nation and give the glimmer of fame to the deserving back-story. If that's the alternative, then I retract all of the above, but is the better option to just not bother?

We come for the rugby, men and women alike. Give us the rugby. A pie and a pint and some mini-league at half-time is all the enhancement it requires.

Five questions for 1eague3

There is power in a union and rugby league players are no exception to any other group of workers that they can further their rights collectively much better than if they stood alone. The trouble is, that theory falls apart when people don't stand alongside each other; multiple bodies allow those that would exploit the chance to divide and rule. With this in mind, there are some legitimate concerns over the motives and rationale underpinning the new union - as chronicled in less serious tones here previously - called 1eague3. We come not to criticise, but in an attempt to explore why the founders of this new organisation have done what they've done and where they intend going with it. Indeed, were there not already a union existing, we'd be all for this new one. However there is - the Rugby League Players Association run under the auspices of the GMB - hence the concerns.
Here are the five things we'd like 1eague3 to answer, the better to understand.

1. What is wrong with the current arrangement with the GMB's Rugby League Players Association to prompt this move?
The only possible reason for setting up your own union would be dissatisfaction with existing arrangements. What was the source of this dissatisfaction? Was it raised with the existing union officials and, if so, what were the outcomes of those discussions? What is it that you can do that the GMB currently cannot or will not? How are the aims of 1eague3 different and where are the GMB currently failing to support those same ideals?

2. Was there an approach to the Rugby League Players Association to get players overseeing the existing union?
The major point raised by the originators of this union is that by having players representing themselves, they come into line with other sports. This could have been raised within the existing framework, perhaps along the same lines as the PFA by having a shop steward at each club reporting directly to the executive or by any number of mechanisms. Was this explored? If so, what were the outcomes of those discussions and why were they unpalatable?

3. Why only Super League players?
Other unions for sports players, let's stick with the PFA as the logical and high-profile example, cover all professionals within that sport. Why is 1eague3 restricted to only the top flight? What rights do Super League players think are theirs which do not extend down rugby league's pyramid? Why do the voices of professionals lower down the tree count for less than those at the top? What happens to a member of the union should he drop down the divisions? Was any of this discussed when the idea for 1eague3 came about?

4. By what criteria were the chairman and management committee selected?
There's no doubt that chairman Jon Wilkin and committee members Jamie Peacock and Lee Briers know rugby league, but what else qualifies them to represent their fellow professionals? Was there an election, or perhaps a thorough search for candidates and an interview-based selection process? How was the chief executive selected, which companies were employed to conduct the search and what fees were paid by the organisation? What is the chief executive's salary? Who are the non-executive directors and, again, how were they recruited?

5. The Rugby League Players Association has publicly stated it's concerns over one-eague-three. How do the committee respond?
There are legitimate - on the face of it - concerns expressed by the GMB over the ability of one-eague-three to achieve it's aims. What is the financial state of 1eague3, the back-up and structures that the GMB claim aren't there? How confident can potential members be before leaving the RLPA and joining the new organisation?

We maintain that one-eague-three is a silly name (League13 my backside), but that's a minor point. The above points are the important ones. It's not an exhaustive list, there are probably other questions we'd want answering before coughing up our subs, but the above would be a good starting point.

Wilkin, Peacock and unionisation

Not every mention of the term union is bad. There is power in a union after all and rugby league players can, like workers in any sphere, benefit from collective bargaining and standing together in support of each other and their rights. This is something previously organised by the GMB, but some Super League players don't seem to want to stand alongside their brothers in other leagues and strike out (pun partially intended) with their own union. Jamie Peacock and Jon Wilkin are among the agitators attempting to set up a Super League players association and claim 75% of players in the top league are interested in joining. The GMB doubts their abilities to represent players interests properly and a war of words is beginning.

It's unclear what the agitators beef with the GMB is, but that will play out over the next few days, weeks and months. What the GMB and none of the news outlets reporting on this have seen fit to comment on the new organisation's name. 1eague3. One-eague-three. What the hell does that mean? Fine players Peacock and Wilkin may be, but brand consultants they are clearly not. It's something that might work on a Hungarian car registration plate, but not something that might trip off the tongue too easily. It's up there with maths and crime TV show Numb-three-rs, Brad Pitt/Kevin Spacey flick Se-seven-en and not-much-lamented boy band Five-ive in it's moronicity.

Unions are traditionally named after the sphere of employ of their employees until the point at which they all started merging to form things like Unison, Amicus and Unite. If you're trying to set up an association for Super League players, something along the lines of the Super League Players Association might seem appropriate. 1eague3 is stupid from it's nonsensical deployment of numbers, through the middle bit that isn't even a word to the whole that describes nothing. To judge their aims, we'll have to wait and see their constitution and dissect it, but it's not off to a great start.

The biggest issue in the game

It's a familiar programme of events. New fixtures follow the international autumn, quickly to be followed by a raft of new rules. At some point, we may even find out what the national teams might be doing in 11 months time or whether there's a title sponsor the RFL's premier competition, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Every year, there are tweaks to the rules. Sometimes, there are new ones altogether or the withdrawal of others. That's fine. The game has constantly been nipping and tucking throughout it's history. Big things like the reduction in numbers on the field and limited tackle rules forged the identity of the game - minor things like the one-on-one ball steal and not allowing players to play the ball to themselves less so. We could pick holes in the current code. For instance, it is our contention that there are too many grey areas - like the one-on-one ball steal, obstruction, what constitutes a dominant tackle and offside rules - which make the interpretation of a given referee on a given day too much influence over the outcome. But that's by the by compared to the major issue which reared it's head in the Four Nations and will do again when the World Club Challenge comes around and that is the issue of consistency.

Who is in charge of the rules? In football, the responsibility lies with IFAB, the international game boars, the MCC in cricket, the IRB in the fifteen-a-side game. It is clear. In terms of international authority, we have the RLIF, possibly the most toothless and useless organisation in world sport. This is comprised of the heads of the domestic game around the world, but who leads it is unimportant seeing as it does nothing. The RFL make changes to the rules their competitions are played to. So do the NRL. (So do BARLA and the FFRXIII, but they do tend to reflect the RFL position as their member clubs also play in RFL competitions). There is never an attempt to align the two and this leads to a discord when clubs and nations come together under what are always termed 'international rules', but in reality are an ever-changing, flexible compromise between the two codes dependent on the whim of the man in the middle. This year, the NRL are wanting to scrap the differential penalty (sacrilege) having already done away with corner flags and added a second ref. The RFL are retaining corner flags, but they won't be deemed to form part of the perimeter of the field, which kind of makes them redundant anyway. And you'll be able to convert a try with a drop-kick, which we thought you could do if you wanted to anyway. The upshot is there'll be more diversion between the way the game is policed depending which hemisphere you play in.

Somebody, or indeed some body, has to have overall control of the laws of the game. Only then can we make progress on developing the rules to make the job of a referee easier and, consequently, take focus off them and onto the supreme athletes who play the game and whose endeavours take the heat off the administrators time and time again.

Arthur Beetson

News arrived today that the legend of the Australian game, Arthur Beetson, had suffered a heart attack and died at the age of 66. It is very sad news, of course, not least because the big feller managed to transcend the sport in Australia and as the first indigenous captain of the Kangaroos became a significant figure in changing social attitudes. It helped that he was a fabulous player.
This writer had the pleasure of meeting Beetson in 2003. It was the Princess Royal in Brentford where England were to play victim to Australia as they warmed up for an Ashes series. It looked like a glass pint pot - it really did - but it turned out to be plastic and as I lifted it from the bar with the requisite force for a glass pot, it very nearly went flying into the face of the person behind me. That person was Artie Beetson, an imposing figure then even though he was in his late 50s. "You nearly facking spilled that on me", he said with a smile as wide as christmas day on his face. I was 28 and reduced to the status of errant schoolboy.

Here's a clip made up from the Roosters back-to-back titles of 1974 and '75. Boy, the lad could play and boy, he'll be missed