Eddie Hearn : Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:43 am  

One again Hearn was interviewed and covered the topic of RL. Found his point of view and comments interesting, he's an outsider to the game, not caught up mill, yet has a success rate at publicising sport, more recently creating an impressive Matchroom stable.

He mentioned Wembley, spoke of low attendances for a marquee event, and the lack of, and need for stars in the game citing the salary cap as a main issue for the lack of stars.

What do people think of Hearn's comments and the notion of scrapping the cap? Was RL in better position pre-cap?

Re: Eddie Hearn : Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:49 am  

I think the only answer to any of it is physical funds coming into the game. At this present moment Wigan are a prime example that scrapping the salary cap wouldn't make an iota of difference. Lenegan is being mindful of his spending and would be whether the cap was there or not as more fans need to come through the door. Regardless of the cap clubs can spend anything they want on two players, yet not one has yet plucked a true international superstar from the NRL so why would they if the cap was scrapped when they already can now? The answer is down to how much revenue clubs get which scrapping the cap will not change.

Now where he talks about the marquee events is where he is bang right. They need to be promoted and put on in a more excitable way. At the moment (especially the challenge cup final) you turn up watch the game and go. I saw a thread about the difference between our big events and how the NFL is put on at Wembley. Everyone says the difference is massive, a party atmosphere with masses of things going on around the ground for entertainment. This could definitlely be improved and where the Hearns expertise lie in my opinion

Re: Eddie Hearn : Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:03 am  

thepimp007 wrote:

I think the only answer to any of it is physical funds coming into the game. At this present moment Wigan are a prime example that scrapping the salary cap wouldn't make an iota of difference. Lenegan is being mindful of his spending and would be whether the cap was there or not as more fans need to come through the door. Regardless of the cap clubs can spend anything they want on two players, yet not one has yet plucked a true international superstar from the NRL so why would they if the cap was scrapped when they already can now? The answer is down to how much revenue clubs get which scrapping the cap will not change.

Now where he talks about the marquee events is where he is bang right. They need to be promoted and put on in a more excitable way. At the moment (especially the challenge cup final) you turn up watch the game and go. I saw a thread about the difference between our big events and how the NFL is put on at Wembley. Everyone says the difference is massive, a party atmosphere with masses of things going on around the ground for entertainment. This could definitlely be improved and where the Hearns expertise lie in my opinion

Good post. I would like Hearn involved. His track record at promotion speaks for himself. Shall we abolish the cap? I admit I would like to see what clubs can/will change if anyone could be signed with salary a discussion between the club and player not the league itself.

Hearn also said the divide between the clubs and SL was also very evident, and counterproductive.

Re: Eddie Hearn : Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:18 am  

I'd agree that the days of megastars are sorely missed. But I'm not sure that buying big was ever the whole story. If you look at the likes of Edwards, Lydon, Hanley, Gregory - they were all homegrown, while Offiah, Tait, Davies etc came from RU (and of those three, only Davies arrived as a really big name). We did get some top-drawer Kiwis, but thanks to the Aus selectors' policies, few big name Aussies came over until they were veterans. (Gene Miles was 32).

What's different now, and where some kind of relaxation of the cap might help us, is the loss of our homegrown talent. Granted, there are no Hanleys knocking about at present, but as we speak, the Burgess brothers and James Graham are in the NRL, unlikely to return until they're looking for their pensions, while Owen Farrell never even got to play the game at 1st grade. The loss of players to Union is particularly galling (not least because it seems to be a total destroyer of talent - Karl Pryce, Lee Smith, Iestyn Harris, Joel Tomkins!), but even losing personnel to the NRL is a bind. Yes, they can still play for their country, but it's no help to us domestically.

I wouldn't just dismiss Hearn's views because our current crop of chairmen are less cavalier with signings than Maurice was. I'm sure some of them would be glad of some extra room in which to manouevre when RU scouts come along and dangle contracts containing nonsensical clauses about guaranteed England shirts, etc. It certainly can't hurt.

Re: Eddie Hearn : Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:38 am  

Cruncher wrote:

I'd agree that the days of megastars are sorely missed. But I'm not sure that buying big was ever the whole story. If you look at the likes of Edwards, Lydon, Hanley, Gregory - they were all homegrown, while Offiah, Tait, Davies etc came from RU (and of those three, only Davies arrived as a really big name). We did get some top-drawer Kiwis, but thanks to the Aus selectors' policies, few big name Aussies came over until they were veterans. (Gene Miles was 32).

What's different now, and where some kind of relaxation of the cap might help us, is the loss of our homegrown talent. Granted, there are no Hanleys knocking about at present, but as we speak, the Burgess brothers and James Graham are in the NRL, unlikely to return until they're looking for their pensions, while Owen Farrell never even got to play the game at 1st grade. The loss of players to Union is particularly galling (not least because it seems to be a total destroyer of talent - Karl Pryce, Lee Smith, Iestyn Harris, Joel Tomkins!), but even losing personnel to the NRL is a bind. Yes, they can still play for their country, but it's no help to us domestically.

I wouldn't just dismiss Hearn's views because our current crop of chairmen are less cavalier with signings than Maurice was. I'm sure some of them would be glad of some extra room in which to manouevre when RU scouts come along and dangle contracts containing nonsensical clauses about guaranteed England shirts, etc. It certainly can't hurt.

-Issue is making stars of our players. Marketing them to the general public making people want to watch them. Getting them out into the media and developing household names.
-Secondly keeping talent. Often we've seen top SL talent leave for RU or more commonly the NRL. Make the SL so players never dream of leaving
-Finally making the SL a desirable destination, so the likes of Owen Farrell etc want to play SL.

Money, salary, has to be a factor in these.

Re: Eddie Hearn : Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:40 pm  

While I agree with Hearn regarding the cap, simply there isn't at the moment at least the money in the game to allow it, clearly Wigan are a prime example of a club being brought into line rather than allow rampant spending, yes it doesn't sit well when you see other clubs with seemingly endless budgets I think we all know what happens if things get out of hand,so maybe Lenegan is right,ndeed I'm sure he is.

Hearnt,and ill say this agin only excels in sports where they have utter controller have become such a big player it allows them room to get what they want, can you see there SL chairman letting go of control?

No nor can I.

Re: Eddie Hearn : Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:58 pm  

Hearn rattles on about how RL should change in one sentence, then the next freely states he knows next to nowt about the game. Jog on for FFS will ya. I do think the cap needs raising, but it should be done gradually in line with properly expanding and marketing the product. Something the RFL are continually woefully inept at. Expansion for the sake of it is pointless, just as is spending what you don't have in the hopes of some miracle happening is suicide (Bradford, Keighley, Swinton anyone?). Cats have apparently stumped up a wedge to cover attendance losses should they get to Brent municipal stadium again next year, for the same reason Toronto & Tolouse refused to take part. And now we hear that the WC in 2025 is back out to tender because the Yanks are interested after all - who'd 've thought.
Don't know what the solution is at the end of all this, but I don't think Hearn is the Messiah, he's just a very wealthy boy.

Re: Eddie Hearn : Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:06 pm  

hengirl wrote:

While I agree with Hearn regarding the cap, simply there isn't at the moment at least the money in the game to allow it, clearly Wigan are a prime example of a club being brought into line rather than allow rampant spending, yes it doesn't sit well when you see other clubs with seemingly endless budgets I think we all know what happens if things get out of hand,so maybe Lenegan is right,ndeed I'm sure he is.

Hearnt,and ill say this agin only excels in sports where they have utter controller have become such a big player it allows them room to get what they want, can you see there SL chairman letting go of control?

No nor can I.

Hearn doesn't have utter control in boxing. He has to answer to a number of boxing commissions.

Re: Eddie Hearn : Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:52 pm  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

Hearn doesn't have utter control in boxing. He has to answer to a number of boxing commissions.

That's more about belts, rules and mandatory challenges they may have to fight etc. He and his dad have control over purses, venues, PPV, opponents etc of the fighters under his management. The vast majority they control completely and for them, it's the most important bits they dictate.

Personally, I don't think the Hearns are the answer, he simply doesn't understand the game and also the number of owners he'd have to deal with, which they'd hate imo. He makes some points that we all know about but I bet it's nothing more than what he's picked up on twitter tbh.

If he's genuine about this, maybe he can put a proposal in for say the 2020 CC and how he'd change things to get more people through the gates and more people watching on TV and take it from there.
ATEOTD I think we all know it comes down to money and how much we get from TV rights, maybe he can negotiate our next contract with Sky and if we got a big increase it would all sort itself out to a certain extent.

Re: Eddie Hearn : Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 pm  

Shifty Cat wrote:

That's more about belts, rules and mandatory challenges they may have to fight etc. He and his dad have control over purses, venues, PPV, opponents etc of the fighters under his management. The vast majority they control completely and for them, it's the most important bits they dictate.

Personally, I don't think the Hearns are the answer, he simply doesn't understand the game and also the number of owners he'd have to deal with, which they'd hate imo. He makes some points that we all know about but I bet it's nothing more than what he's picked up on twitter tbh.

If he's genuine about this, maybe he can put a proposal in for say the 2020 CC and how he'd change things to get more people through the gates and more people watching on TV and take it from there.
ATEOTD I think we all know it comes down to money and how much we get from TV rights, maybe he can negotiate our next contract with Sky and if we got a big increase it would all sort itself out to a certain extent.

Or on DAZN