[PopTart]

Re: Kate Middleton : Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:12 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

This is where I am.

Harry should have been a good patron as there was always the prospect of him actually liking the game and he wasn't interested. Happy to draw balls out of a bag at the Palace but beyond that, hopeless. We get to a World Cup Final and he goes to Twickers instead. Had it been a Union final in Australia and a GB game in England, he would have been on the first flight to Sydney. I doubt Kate will be any different.

In reality, it means nothing. No one will decide to nip down to Belle Vue because Kate is the patron. It makes us feel that we're being taken seriously, but when it comes to it, we won't be.

You are correct. But the patron of the rugby league is nothing to do with getting footfall at Belle Vue
It's all about publicity across media and especially the media who don't gives us the time of day normally.
It doesn't matter whether she likes the game. It's all about having a name and a face to link to the sport..... So that someone notices we have a world cup or we get better tv rights because a company may get some benefit of being linked to her etc etc.
Bigger picture.

Re: Kate Middleton : Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:32 pm  

PopTart wrote:

You are correct. But the patron of the rugby league is nothing to do with getting footfall at Belle Vue
It's all about publicity across media and especially the media who don't gives us the time of day normally.
It doesn't matter whether she likes the game. It's all about having a name and a face to link to the sport..... So that someone notices we have a world cup or we get better tv rights because a company may get some benefit of being linked to her etc etc.
Bigger picture.

Genuine question PT, in the 8 years Rugby League had the highest profile royal as our patron, what good do you think it has done Rugby League?

What your saying sounds good, but realistically instead of looking into the future and guessing what good it might do can we not just look back on the last 8 years? You talk about a bigger picture but I just wonder what it actually means for the sport in terms of making a difference?

I can`t see it having any influence what so ever on TV rights, I look down the list of the 2013 world cup sponsorships, very similar to the sponsorship for this years and I can`t imagine any of them have sponsored the game due to Harry being involved, sure it could be a small bonus but it`s not the reason they sponsor.

In the last 8 years, our TV deal has drastically reduced, attendances have drastically reduced, viewing figures have reduced, is that anything to do with Harry? No, but that's the point. For me, they have zero influence on anything at all, if Kate bothers to show up to a final every once in a while we might get a 3 second snippet of her on the BBC whilst we are signing the national anthem, that's about it.

Realistically it means nothing.

Re: Kate Middleton : Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:55 pm  

homme vaste wrote:

Genuine question PT, in the 8 years Rugby League had the highest profile royal as our patron, what good do you think it has done Rugby League?

What your saying sounds good, but realistically instead of looking into the future and guessing what good it might do can we not just look back on the last 8 years? You talk about a bigger picture but I just wonder what it actually means for the sport in terms of making a difference?

I can`t see it having any influence what so ever on TV rights, I look down the list of the 2013 world cup sponsorships, very similar to the sponsorship for this years and I can`t imagine any of them have sponsored the game due to Harry being involved, sure it could be a small bonus but it`s not the reason they sponsor.

In the last 8 years, our TV deal has drastically reduced, attendances have drastically reduced, viewing figures have reduced, is that anything to do with Harry? No, but that's the point. For me, they have zero influence on anything at all, if Kate bothers to show up to a final every once in a while we might get a 3 second snippet of her on the BBC whilst we are signing the national anthem, that's about it.

Realistically it means nothing.

And more importantly, if she is now patron of RL AND Union, which of these two sports is she most likely to lean towards, a sport played in all public schools or on that is primarily played in the state schools in the North of England.
Will anyone in the Royal Establishment know the difference ?

Re: Kate Middleton : Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:57 pm  

Poptart...I couldn't care less about royalty one way or tuther,my comment was a bit of fun.But I do think you're wrong if you think Kate whatshername will make much difference to how we are perceived as a sport or whether we will benefit much.People aren't stupid, they know KM has absolutely nothing in common with RL,nor will she have.

[PopTart]

Re: Kate Middleton : Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:21 pm  

homme vaste wrote:

Genuine question PT, in the 8 years Rugby League had the highest profile royal as our patron, what good do you think it has done Rugby League?

What your saying sounds good, but realistically instead of looking into the future and guessing what good it might do can we not just look back on the last 8 years? You talk about a bigger picture but I just wonder what it actually means for the sport in terms of making a difference?

I can`t see it having any influence what so ever on TV rights, I look down the list of the 2013 world cup sponsorships, very similar to the sponsorship for this years and I can`t imagine any of them have sponsored the game due to Harry being involved, sure it could be a small bonus but it`s not the reason they sponsor.

In the last 8 years, our TV deal has drastically reduced, attendances have drastically reduced, viewing figures have reduced, is that anything to do with Harry? No, but that's the point. For me, they have zero influence on anything at all, if Kate bothers to show up to a final every once in a while we might get a 3 second snippet of her on the BBC whilst we are signing the national anthem, that's about it.

Realistically it means nothing.

I think it means a lot.
Whether we are capable as a sport of using it is a far bigger question.

[PopTart]

Re: Kate Middleton : Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:25 pm  

madkeentrin wrote:

Poptart...I couldn't care less about royalty one way or tuther,my comment was a bit of fun.But I do think you're wrong if you think Kate whatshername will make much difference to how we are perceived as a sport or whether we will benefit much.People aren't stupid, they know KM has absolutely nothing in common with RL,nor will she have.

That's not the point.
It wouldn't make a difference if she loved the sport either.

What it does do is make a good image for a good marketer to make something.
Without her we are a northern sport who can't see out of our heartlands who no one cares about.
With her we are much the same with potential to bring in someone who doesn't see it that way.

Re: Kate Middleton : Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:25 pm  

Who wold you prefer Snowie, Jeremy or Piers Corbin?

[PopTart]

Re: Kate Middleton : Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:27 pm  

Manuel wrote:

Who wold you prefer Snowie, Jeremy or Piers Corbin?

Hmm that's a really tough question.
Can any of them play Hooker??

Re: Kate Middleton : Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:43 pm  

snowie wrote:

Don't give a toss for the royalty one bit for me they can do one

I swore an oath to serve the Queen for 32 years prepared to give everything for the honour, I totally and utterly disagree with your view point. The Royals bring more in than they receive the Queen is revered all over the world.

Re: Kate Middleton : Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:27 pm  

homme vaste wrote:

Genuine question PT, in the 8 years Rugby League had the highest profile royal as our patron, what good do you think it has done Rugby League?

What your saying sounds good, but realistically instead of looking into the future and guessing what good it might do can we not just look back on the last 8 years? You talk about a bigger picture but I just wonder what it actually means for the sport in terms of making a difference?

I can`t see it having any influence what so ever on TV rights, I look down the list of the 2013 world cup sponsorships, very similar to the sponsorship for this years and I can`t imagine any of them have sponsored the game due to Harry being involved, sure it could be a small bonus but it`s not the reason they sponsor.

In the last 8 years, our TV deal has drastically reduced, attendances have drastically reduced, viewing figures have reduced, is that anything to do with Harry? No, but that's the point. For me, they have zero influence on anything at all, if Kate bothers to show up to a final every once in a while we might get a 3 second snippet of her on the BBC whilst we are signing the national anthem, that's about it.

Realistically it means nothing.

I think you’re not getting this at all.

It’s a Royal patronage so it has to be a Royal

Being a woman is no disadvantage as there has never been any connection between being a Royal patron and the organisation you are patron of.

Do you seriously think the Princess Anne is actively involved on a regular basis with the hundreds of organisation she is patron too?

I’d have thought her being a high profile woman would be a positive for a sport chasing female participation and support.

How do you know she doesn’t like Rugby?

It’s a decent coup for the sport especially when we don’t pay for it.

Good choice imo.

As for the need for such a role, well that’s a different issue.