IMG Strategic Partnership Announced

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, super major said:

I would hope the deal is based on IMG's results.

If IMG can increase rights deals for instance I have no problem with them being paid for it. Presumably this is their business model

Like lawyers you employ them and you take your chance, they get paid either way win or lose.

[Rockingchair]

Is the rebranded SL 2 to be filled with full time players or is it still going to be a mix of full time and part time?

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Yeah I recall we paid Deloitte to come up with the useless Middle Eights idea last time. Money well spent that was!!

Only because you were relegated, being a SL club with far more resource than a Championship club that should never have happened, look inside other than blaming others.

[Jughead]

2 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

How would that work?

Would you still reward the league winners if they lost a game in the play offs?

I have taken ‘99 as an example. 

Week one of the play-offs was St Helens (2nd) 38-14 Leeds (3rd) and Wigan (4th) 10-14 Cas (5th). 

Wigan were eliminated.

Week two was Bradford (1st) 40-4 Saints (2nd) and Leeds (3rd) 16-23 Cas (5th)

Leeds were eliminated. 

Saints beat Cas 36-6 for a place in the Grand Final. 

[Toby Chopra]

36 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If it has been set up as a joint venture then there will be some opportunities for income for IMG - either through a share of broadcast rights secured or events etc.

If we are in a position where we haven't sold any assets or brand rights but we make money when IMG does then that's a good thing as far as I can see.

Have I misundetstood this? I thought the Joint Venture company that's being touted is between SL and RFL. Do IMG have a share in it too, or are the just advising it? If they have a share in the JV vehicle, we kinda have sold a share of the rights in effect. 

[idrewthehaggis]

14 minutes ago, Rockingchair said:

Is the rebranded SL 2 to be filled with full time players or is it still going to be a mix of full time and part time?

You would imagine not. A three tier separation of the game into professional, semi pro and amatuer. SL 1 and 2, then League 1+ and then BARLA.

But this is RL...........

Edited May 10, 2022 by idrewthehaggis

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Only because you were relegated, being a SL club with far more resource than a Championship club that should never have happened, look inside other than blaming others.

Why are you confused @Jughead, in a fair contest of a mini league of 8 clubs playing each other home and away, should a Championship club have ever been placed higher than a SL club? and if I remember correctly it was 2 SL clubs in the MPG that year, awaits your answer.

[Jughead]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Why are you confused @Jughead, in a fair contest of a mini league of 8 clubs playing each other home and away, should a Championship club have ever been placed higher than a SL club? and if I remember correctly it was 2 SL clubs in the MPG that year, awaits your answer.

It’s one hell of a jump and assumption you’re making. 

[doc]

Hmm, I'm still getting my head around this.

So what happened to the free pizzas?

[The Future is League]

14 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I have taken ‘99 as an example. 

Week one of the play-offs was St Helens (2nd) 38-14 Leeds (3rd) and Wigan (4th) 10-14 Cas (5th). 

Wigan were eliminated.

Week two was Bradford (1st) 40-4 Saints (2nd) and Leeds (3rd) 16-23 Cas (5th)

Leeds were eliminated. 

Saints beat Cas 36-6 for a place in the Grand Final. 

So in this case you are still rewarding Saints who lost a game in the play offs which it what I'm against.

I want a play off system where once you lose you are out. I want knock out Rugby League to be just that and fans then will know exactly where they stand

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Have I misundetstood this? I thought the Joint Venture company that's being touted is between SL and RFL. Do IMG have a share in it too, or are the just advising it? If they have a share in the JV vehicle, we kinda have sold a share of the rights in effect. 

No, you are right... I think I misread the article.  Ah well, I was at work.

 

[The Future is League]

3 minutes ago, doc said:

Hmm, I'm still getting my head around this.

So what happened to the free pizzas?

Ah the days of Robert Elstone. That went well didn't it, not

Took more out of the game than he brought in with his and his staff wages

[Jughead]

19 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

So in this case you are still rewarding Saints who lost a game in the play offs which it what I'm against.

I want a play off system where once you lose you are out. I want knock out Rugby League to be just that and fans then will know exactly where they stand

I’m happy for there to be a reward for finishing in in the top two of the league system beyond getting to host a game, as there is now, which, is not a real reward in my eyes. 

[DI Keith Fowler]

19 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Ah the days of Robert Elstone. That went well didn't it, not

Took more out of the game than he brought in with his and his staff wages

It would be hard to argue that he provided value for money but the things he did get hold of such as the rebrand I actually thought were successful. He had an idea what he wanted to do but ended up the extortionately well paid lackey of the SL chairmen. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by DI Keith Fowler

[Dave T]

Just now, Jughead said:

I’m happy for there to be a reward for finishing in in the top two of the league system beyond getting to host a game, as there is now, which, is not a real reward in my eyes. 

The top 5 system had a really nice balance of rewards through seeding for home advantage, 2nd chances and number of wins required. It has a downside of creating blank weekends for the best team, but it was generally very good and returned some decent crowds at the time too. 

[Dave T]

Just now, DI Keith Fowler said:

It would be hard to argue that he provided value for money but the things he did get hold of such as the rebrand I actually thought were successful. He had an idea what we wanted to do but ended up the extortionately well paid lackey of the SL chairmen. 

Also, his staff wages were mostly just routed away from the RFL cost base - a lot of it was the same costs, just being paid directly. 

Of course there were increases, but there needed to be. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

44 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Only because you were relegated, being a SL club with far more resource than a Championship club that should never have happened, look inside other than blaming others.

Are you always this daft, or are you having a bad day? 
 

Teams get relegated in sport all the time, we came straight back up, it was cool. The competition model was daft. I said so on here when it was first announced, but I’m not sad enough to look it up for you. You, on the other hand, strike me as someone with enough spare time to do so

[The Future is League]

7 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I’m happy for there to be a reward for finishing in in the top two of the league system beyond getting to host a game, as there is now, which, is not a real reward in my eyes. 

I don't like to reward losers, only winners. Knock out Rugby League should be just that

[The Future is League]

9 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

It would be hard to argue that he provided value for money but the things he did get hold of such as the rebrand I actually thought were successful. He had an idea what he wanted to do but ended up the extortionately well paid lackey of the SL chairmen. 

He took money out of the game, which the game could hardly afford to lose, and what ever people think of Gary Hetherington he did see through him and didn't endorse him

[Jughead]

4 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

I don't like to reward losers, only winners. Knock out Rugby League should be just that

I think the team that finishes top over the course of a twenty-seven game season should have some sort of reward going into the play-offs and a shorter route to the final and second chance, if required, is absolutely fine and a better option than the situation we have now where the reward is a home game and not a lot more. 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

I don't like to reward losers, only winners. Knock out Rugby League should be just that

Any play off system rewards losers though. 

[The Future is League]

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

Any play off system rewards losers though. 

 A top 4 play off doesn't as was used many many years ago, but zero chance of that happening, as 3 games wouldn't produce much money for the game or the clubs

 

[The Future is League]

22 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I think the team that finishes top over the course of a twenty-seven game season should have some sort of reward going into the play-offs and a shorter route to the final and second chance, if required, is absolutely fine and a better option than the situation we have now where the reward is a home game and not a lot more. 

It does with a home draw

[PREPOSTEROUS]

24 minutes ago, Damien said:

Any play off system rewards losers though. 

Indeed, it allows clubs who were not good enough throughout the season a chance to win the competition. 

[TBone]

What caught my eye was the statement that IMG "bought into our vision for the Super League competition and the sport of rugby league as a whole" based on the "RFL Strategic Plan 2022-2030"? Or is there another document hiding somewhere?