IMG Strategic Partnership Announced

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think expanding European international rugby is possible, and desirable, but we shouldn't make claims in its favour without context either: that Eng v Scot game was part of a 4 Nations tournament anchored by Aus and NZ, and was probably the peak heritage team Scotland have put out in recent years. Nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean that a European 5 nations is suddenly an attractive and sustainable product for broadcasters. It'll need building up and investing in, and buy in from Aus for heritage players. If IMG have that on their list, great. But it wasn't a viable option before.

I also dont believe were obsessed with the southern hemisphere - why wouldn't we want to play them regularly? - they're the best, and I include Tonga and Samoa in that, and the World Cup will be a wonderful showcase of that. We need to add European international rugby to that, not replace. 

A single good Tongan team caused the NRL to rethink its entire internationals strategy, implement a new competition and even adapt its own eligibility rules for Origin.

We played Scotland once, got a very healthy crowd, were losing at half time, then continued to complain that no one in the Northern Hemisphere is worth us playing.

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Yep. I assume Davidson is right and IMG is essentially selling its services in return a slice of future profits. 

That was my assumption, and maybe Mascord has made some assumptions based on other sports. 

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

More than the World Cup did last year when Australia decided it didn't want to turn up... 

You could just say, "I don't know."

We obviously need internationals to raise the profile of the game. It's the shortcut to the general public that works for every sport.

If IMG can work out how we can find enough players for enough European teams for a regular, decent tournament then good luck to them. It appears to have defeated everyone else - although that's mostly because no one can be bothered. I'm not sure they will either, TBH.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

That's not entirely true Dave.

We've played Scotland in Coventry and France in Avignon to good 5 figure crowds. We played Ireland in front of a full house at Huddersfield in a World Cup. The Knights, with minimal promotion, played to an over 7k crowd against Jamaica in Leeds. All within the last 10 years. 

Only a total lack of commercial belief and vision has seen those feats not repeated or built upon. And that is almost entirely down to an obsession with not just the Southern Hemisphere, but Australia and New Zealand specifically.

We have had commercial potential and chosen not to do anything with it to instead go for "safe" options...

 

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

I am confident the RFL have never once suggested such a product to anyone or broadcaster who would be interested in such a product or sponsoring it as a proof of concept. 

So it needs money but hasnt been prevented by it. 

We have played a lot of games over the last decade or so against the lower teams and every one of them has been a tough sell commercially, crowd-wise and to broadcasters. 

We did a tri-nations with Wales and France 10 years ago and people weren't interested - despite it being on the BBC. No sponsors and low crowds. 

European nations have played regular Euro Cup games, with little commercial value and no broadcasters interested (despite some great battles). 

We also have the challenge that to step these games up a level Southern Hemisphere heritage players are needed, increasing costs significantly. 

People often quote the England v Scotland game as evidence that we can do well, but that ignores the fact that it was played in the context of a major tournament with Eng, Aus, NZ. We are still doing this now with World Cups and England play Greece live on the BBC this year. Unfortunately the Aussies scrapped the successful 4N.

Wales, Scotland and Ireland are as weak as ever, I see little evidence of real commercial value in a Euro Nations - in reality it would be a series of low key games with 5 to 7k in and giving TV rights away to anyone who would show them, maybe even Our League. 

I say all the above as someone who supports Scotland as well as England and have followed Wales in the past - I'd love it to be a goer, but in reality I expect it would be a money pit. 

The 9s thing is a cost. 

[Tommygilf]

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You could just say, "I don't know."

We obviously need internationals to raise the profile of the game. It's the shortcut to the general public that works for every sport.

If IMG can work out how we can find enough players for enough European teams for a regular, decent tournament then good luck to them. It appears to have defeated everyone else - although that's mostly because no one can be bothered. I'm not sure they will either, TBH.

Well done

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

We have played a lot of games over the last decade or so against the lower teams and every one of them has been a tough sell commercially, crowd-wise and to broadcasters. 

We did a tri-nations with Wales and France 10 years ago and people weren't interested - despite it being on the BBC. No sponsors and low crowds. 

European nations have played regular Euro Cup games, with little commercial value and no broadcasters interested (despite some great battles). 

We also have the challenge that to step these games up a level Southern Hemisphere heritage players are needed, increasing costs significantly. 

People often quote the England v Scotland game as evidence that we can do well, but that ignores the fact that it was played in the context of a major tournament with Eng, Aus, NZ. We are still doing this now with World Cups and England play Greece live on the BBC this year. Unfortunately the Aussies scrapped the successful 4N.

Wales, Scotland and Ireland are as weak as ever, I see little evidence of real commercial value in a Euro Nations - in reality it would be a series of low key games with 5 to 7k in and giving TV rights away to anyone who would show them, maybe even Our League. 

I say all the above as someone who supports Scotland as well as England and have followed Wales in the past - I'd love it to be a goer, but in reality I expect it would be a money pit. 

The 9s thing is a cost. 

Its perfectly reasonable to use major tournaments to build up what on paper are non marquee fixtures. 

The point is were these built upon? No.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Well done

I could also have pointed out that it's not the RFL, Super League, the new venture, or IMG's responsibility in any way shape or form to develop the game in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France or anywhere else so expecting or wanting them to do things at their own expense in that regard is a delightful fantasy.

Scotland featured one Scottish national in that 2016 tournament. That's the biggest barrier to playing them in Coventry, or anywhere else, regularly.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

I could also have pointed out that it's not the RFL, Super League, the new venture, or IMG's responsibility in any way shape or form to develop the game in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France or anywhere else so expecting or wanting them to do things at their own expense in that regard is a delightful fantasy.

Scotland featured one Scottish national in that 2016 tournament. That's the biggest barrier to playing them in Coventry, or anywhere else, regularly.

Well done.

"Its not our responsibility" has been the RFL response for basically everything bar collapsing heartland clubs they have a vested interest in.

New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa, PNG etc aren't the Australians responsibility either but even the most one eyed internal looking organisation sees the bigger picture.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The 9s thing is a cost. 

And interest.

Just as I don't see a 9s match being the answer when it comes to the Challenge Cup final at Wembley then I certainly don't see a 9s European tournament as the answer to any failings with SL or RL in this country.

There are so many important,  fundamental things the sport needs to get right that 9s shouldn't even be on the list.

[Dave T]

35 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

More than the World Cup did last year when Australia decided it didn't want to turn up... 

They were foundations to build on. The 3 senior games were all broadcast on the BBC, and for the first time in 60 years showed where the future of competitive games for England could come from outside of the Southern Hemisphere. Scotland in particular saw very good TV viewership and of course was highly competitive as a match too. All achieved 5 figure crowds. Vs Scotland achieving that in Coventry is almost "in spite of". 

Our failure to build on opportunities as exemplified has resulted in ourselves being left behind by the Southern Hemisphere and those opportunities themselves being diminished. That is entirely unsurprising.

You are being very selective there. Aus v NZ at Anfield got 40k that year, the first version of that game had to be thrown in to get 21k at Coventry. 

The two other Scotland games got absolutely rubbish crowds. 

England v Aus/NZ always draws strong crowds and will attract sponsors, we can't say the same for the lower games. 

I'm all for supporting these nations more, we don't need to overstate it. 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its perfectly reasonable to use major tournaments to build up what on paper are non marquee fixtures. 

The point is were these built upon? No.

We are still in the stage of building these up. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

And interest.

Just as I don't see a 9s match being the answer when it comes to the Challenge Cup final at Wembley then I certainly don't see a 9s European tournament as the answer to any failings with SL or RL in this country.

There are so many important,  fundamental things the sport needs to get right that 9s shouldn't even be on the list.

Yep, I do find it odd when people come up with their ideas like this on how to grow the game. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

You are being very selective there. Aus v NZ at Anfield got 40k that year, the first version of that game had to be thrown in to get 21k at Coventry. 

The two other Scotland games got absolutely rubbish crowds. 

England v Aus/NZ always draws strong crowds and will attract sponsors, we can't say the same for the lower games. 

I'm all for supporting these nations more, we don't need to overstate it. 

The basic fundamental principle is that without England it is basically impossible for these nations to grow to another level. England bring media and public attention. 

Of course Scotland's other games weren't great. First and foremost they were in England, on Premier Sports and at Hull KR and Workington. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well done.

"Its not our responsibility" has been the RFL response for basically everything bar collapsing heartland clubs they have a vested interest in.

New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa, PNG etc aren't the Australians responsibility either but even the most one eyed internal looking organisation sees the bigger picture.

You're very angry this morning.

This is a partnership entirely by and for two bodies (and a joint third) that are completely and totally controlled by the clubs. Either IMG somehow break that and create something that none of us expect - and, as I said, it would be a failure if it looked like anything that had been mooted by any of us on here - or, as seems far more likely, it looks a lot like everything that has gone before. Not least because they've been involved multiple times before.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

We are still in the stage of building these up. 

The IRL might be, England don't seem interested.

Which is odd, because we are asking fans to buy 120,000 group stage tickets against opposition who are equal to or worse this year. A failure to build before might come to haunt that one.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You're very angry this morning.

This is a partnership entirely by and for two bodies (and a joint third) that are completely and totally controlled by the clubs. Either IMG somehow break that and create something that none of us expect - and, as I said, it would be a failure if it looked like anything that had been mooted by any of us on here - or, as seems far more likely, it looks a lot like everything that has gone before. Not least because they've been involved multiple times before.

Gotcha!

At least it is reasonable to assume that we can look to the past for indicators. And that fills one with whatever emotion one draws from that.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Gotcha!

Git

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Gotcha!

At least it is reasonable to assume that we can look to the past for indicators. And that fills one with whatever emotion one draws from that.

The short version of my feelings about this: we've been here before. Many times.

[RL Sonja]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Gotcha!

At least it is reasonable to assume that we can look to the past for indicators. And that fills one with whatever emotion one draws from that.

Nah we can't. The rule is anything before the 1980s didn't exist. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

The short version of my feelings about this: we've been here before. Many times.

One I totally share.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, RL Sonja said:

Nah we can't. The rule is anything before the 1980s didn't exist. 

Tbf I don't think IMG were involved then

[RL Sonja]

It's a new rule employed here on TRL. 

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

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

You pointed out that the 8's system was useless, I merely suggested that no SL club should have ever been relegated that competed in it. 

If that is being daft then I don't agree, it seems to me that you are sad even though you disagree, and yes I have loads of spare time, I was daft enough to make more than enough to retire on quite a while ago.

[RL Sonja]

So what is IMG going to do except suck profits out of the sport it previously disdained? A handful of motherhood statements don't mean much. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by RL Sonja

[PREPOSTEROUS]

11 hours ago, The Future is League said:

 

 

 

I found this interesting and so might fans of Wakefield and Toulouse,

https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/super-league-relegation-scrapped-rugby-league-signs-deal-with-img-1622677

I read this as once the restructure to 10 teams has been implemented then there will be no relegation. No idea whether there will be chances to be apply to join top flight.