IMG Strategic Partnership Announced

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

In fact Australia still dominates the Kiwis.  They've played 21 times since 2010 with Australia winning 16 of those matches and New Zealand just 5.

You completely missed the point there I think.

The England soccer team doesn't play one or two minnows every year, unless I'm mistaken they only play one or two of them every decade or so.

just to correct the last bit you are much mistaken.... In every qualifying tournament there is always at least one minnow in each group (this time around it was San Marino and Andorra). As qualifying tournaments last for about 18 months it means that we play at least one minnow every year. Of course that is 1 match, maybe 2 of about 20 during a year so a bit different. 

[The Rocket]

14 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

So England football team playing one or two minnows - who are lucky to have a shot on target - each year is acceptable to you.

But England RL playing in a tournament, say every 2 years against teams such as Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France or even Jamaica is not!

No wonder international RL is derided.

The biggest concern I see for this is going to be the ability to pay for it, there`s no point sticking our head in the sand about this but the RFL are skint and even though it may be a sound long term investment, can they afford it now. 

On the other hand, English soccer I have no doubt can absorb the cost of the occasional unprofitable international.

Players from both sides are going expected to be paid, probably the English than anyone, and there will be all the associated costs with running the game. It is very likely also that the crowd won`t be large and it may have limited value as a TV product. The RFL can`t afford to be running loss making tournaments at the moment no matter what the long-term benefits.

Now, by how much and for how long IMG may be willing to subsidise this, that`s speculating that they are and it is a twelve year agreement after all, remains to be seen.

No on consideration maybe apart from something against France which may be break even, I think like the press release said their plan will be to reengage with the NRL  and through them the Pacific National teams.

 

 

 

 

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

 

I dont think people have suggested a tri nations with Eng Wales France

 

Actually I did but hey ho... 

if you need to have a SH team in it then we are, again, looking at the end of the season for matches which IMHO is where we should be ok and all teams can bring together their to players from around the world for games, which is great. Where I am looking at it (and I'm happy to just have games against France) is the mid season internationals. GJ talks about how you profit from this sort of thing and its the mid season where I can see this having the potential to bring people to the game and sell other parts of it. The end of season is great but where's the next sell, and the next. If you can hook someone mid season it is the best time to catch them.

But again it is 1 part of what would have to be a much larger strategy that ties a few things together, including the next fta match which should be the weekend after followed by an fta challenge cup round. That then starts to build the interest of newer fans... use data from year one to see where most are tuning in from and look to then position games to capitalise on it in year 2 (be that internationals or a super league game).. you are starting then to open up new avenues of merch sales, ticket sales, eyes on screens for adverts and so on.. 

Its not perfect because I dont do this as a job but its that type of larger plan I would look at and Internationals, because of their wider appeal and larger chance of giving people skin in the game, has got to be a part of it.

[Adelaide Tiger]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

That wasn't the debate. We were talking about growing the game on a strategic level and you started to compare apples and pears. Almost every comparison you can make with football, and it happens often on here, is worthless as the sports operate in such different spheres 

I have already said what the northern hemisphere needs to do to grow the game in Wales and France. That is a heck of a lot more than just playing Wales and France once a year and thinking that is going to make a difference. Everything remaining as it is now then England walloping Wales once a year does nothing for Wales, it does not grow the game there and does not grow the international. Same to a lesser degree with France. Pushing these things when countries are way off what's needed can certainly do more harm than good to the development in those countries and/or the concept too.

I have long advocated mid season matches against Wales and France, maybe more often France because they are much more advanced at the moment. My posts have always been clear on this. However to me it's incredibly simplistic to think that just by playing these teams more often that these teams will just get hugely better. They won't as they have few elite level players to pick from. It's not a lack of games that really holds them back its a lack of players and clubs.

As I said previously on a strategic level you need to work to increase the pool and clubs that these countries have to pick from. Without that you are flogging a dead horse when it comes to internationals. Discussions whether we should have standalone games tri nations or European championships is all fluff unless as a game we take that strategic decision to build these countries up. Then we can make real progress with internationals.

Whoa, hold on there Damien.  Where have I said that playing Wales and France once a year will solve all the RL issues in those countries.  My comments on this topic are purely in response to DaveT’s comment about the futility of playing Wales and France.  However I believe that internationals against equal and better quality of opposition might provide a boost to the game in those countries.

I agree with your comment on strategic planning as I too have always strongly advocated for strategic growth - as you have commented on - across any region or country that wants to take up the game to lead to an increase in the quality and number of players.

But I am a bit confused by your comments.  You advocate for mid season internationals against Wales and France but then you state it can ‘do more harm than good’. And then you state that ‘games’ are ‘all fluff’ unless a strategic decision to build these countries up.

So for clarification do you believe that (A) Wales and France should not play against England unless their pool of quality players increases through a strategic plan of growth. Or, (B) that mid season internationals should take place now as you advocated in line with a strategic plan of growth for each country?

If it is (A) then you have to accept that it may take many years before Wales or France are deemed worthy to play England, if at all.

Or (B) as you say those countries in the short term will be ‘walloped’.  But a strategic plan may in turn increase the quality and quantity of players in years to come.

Apologies if I have misunderstood your comments.

 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

GJ talks about how you profit from this sort of thing...

Basically, I'm just drawing it back to why we've got IMG on board and that is to maximise profit. That may overlap with lots of lovely ideas about new international tournaments - mid season or otherwise - but not necessarily.

IMG may find the safest way to hit the required profit is to sell tv rights to a home Ashes tour, hire three mid-sized northern venues, guarantee the NRL/ARL a risk-free fixed sum, and then sell 20,000 tickets three times over to see Great Britain narrowly lose three test matches. And repeat. (*)

(* = please note I don't believe this will be the answer but I can see how it might be. The risk free part being the thing that will widen eyes both here and with the lazy NRL)

[RP London]

13 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

The biggest concern I see for this is going to be the ability to pay for it, there`s no point sticking our head in the sand about this but the RFL are skint and even though it may be a sound long term investment, can they afford it now. 

On the other hand, English soccer I have no doubt can absorb the cost of the occasional unprofitable international.

Players from both sides are going expected to be paid, probably the English than anyone, and there will be all the associated costs with running the game. It is very likely also that the crowd won`t be large and it may have limited value as a TV product. The RFL can`t afford to be running loss making tournaments at the moment no matter what the long-term benefits.

Now, by how much and for how long IMG may be willing to subsidise this, that`s speculating that they are and it is a twelve year agreement after all, remains to be seen.

No on consideration maybe apart from something against France which may be break even, I think like the press release said their plan will be to reengage with the NRL  and through them the Pacific National teams.

 

 

 

 

All fair points. The 12 years makes me optimistic as I hope it shows IMG see this as not even close to a short term fix. Also the re-engage with the NRL would hopefully mean they do get some good profitability out of those and that along with the 12 years may see reinvestment of that profitability to grow something properly (whatever that may be).. 

The RFL has always struck me as an organisation that looks at the profit purely as profit rather than investment capital (and of course it has to be a bit of both). IMG as a business with huge experience I hope will have a good mix of this which can see different things grow for the good of the game (and therefore profit) in the long term.

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Basically, I'm just drawing it back to why we've got IMG on board and that is to maximise profit. That may overlap with lots of lovely ideas about new international tournaments - mid season or otherwise - but not necessarily.

IMG may find the safest way to hit the required profit is to sell tv rights to a home Ashes tour, hire three mid-sized northern venues, guarantee the NRL/ARL a risk-free fixed sum, and then sell 20,000 tickets three times over to see Great Britain narrowly lose three test matches. And repeat. (*)

(* = please note I don't believe this will be the answer but I can see how it might be. The risk free part being the thing that will widen eyes both here and with the lazy NRL)

oh i agree.. i highlighted your comment because you were absolutely right we were wandering off the whole reason IMG were there and going into our own little "wouldnt it be great if"s (me included) which may not see IMG able to turn profit on this whole venture in 12 years. I thought I would use it to pull myself back into why I think it would be a good idea on that area rather than waffle again with how nice it would be for those countries etc.

[The Rocket]

10 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

In fact Australia still dominates the Kiwis.  They've played 21 times since 2010 with Australia winning 16 of those matches and New Zealand just 5.  That's a slightly better ratio for Australia than in the previous 10 year when they won 18 out of 24 matches against New Zealand.

It`s a funny thing that and I`ve seen it said many times by our English compatriots that the Kiwis are competitive with the Australians when the figures and the general consensus over here plainly contradicts it.

I do wonder, and no offence to the English posters, that when you have a situation like theirs where the English team is literally light years ahead of most of its` NH rivals, the occasional victory by the Kiwi`s, and now the Tongans, over the Australians should be viewed as compulsory competitive International Rugby League.

As I said in my last post it is going to take a lot, lot more than that before the vast majority of League and non-League fans over here view it otherwise. It was thirty years of Origin being neck and neck that allowed it to accommodate the 9 years of Queensland dominance.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Whoa, hold on there Damien.  Where have I said that playing Wales and France once a year will solve all the RL issues in those countries.  My comments on this topic are purely in response to DaveT’s comment about the futility of playing Wales and France.  However I believe that internationals against equal and better quality of opposition might provide a boost to the game in those countries.

I agree with your comment on strategic planning as I too have always strongly advocated for strategic growth - as you have commented on - across any region or country that wants to take up the game to lead to an increase in the quality and number of players.

But I am a bit confused by your comments.  You advocate for mid season internationals against Wales and France but then you state it can ‘do more harm than good’. And then you state that ‘games’ are ‘all fluff’ unless a strategic decision to build these countries up.

So for clarification do you believe that (A) Wales and France should not play against England unless their pool of quality players increases through a strategic plan of growth. Or, (B) that mid season internationals should take place now as you advocated in line with a strategic plan of growth for each country?

If it is (A) then you have to accept that it may take many years before Wales or France are deemed worthy to play England, if at all.

Or (B) as you say those countries in the short term will be ‘walloped’.  But a strategic plan may in turn increase the quality and quantity of players in years to come.

Apologies if I have misunderstood your comments.

To be honest its better to let the thread move on because this just becomes a case of people having to repeat themselves from pages ago because you didn't read the thread. Before your initial post on this there had been pages of discussion and you took Dave's post out of context and have argued against points that no one has made. Since then for some bizarre reason this is being equated to England playing Andorra and arguing it is the same as what happens in RL.

[Adelaide Tiger]

26 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

In fact Australia still dominates the Kiwis.  They've played 21 times since 2010 with Australia winning 16 of those matches and New Zealand just 5.  That's a slightly better ratio for Australia than in the previous 10 year when they won 18 out of 24 matches against New Zealand.

You completely missed the point there I think.

The England soccer team doesn't play one or two minnows every year, unless I'm mistaken they only play one or two of them every decade or so.

Hi, you are indeed mistaken.

For the World Cup 2022 qualifiers England played against minnows San Marino, Albania and Andorra on the following dates.

San Marino - 25 March 2021

Albania - 28 March 2021

Andorra - 9 October 2021

Albania - 12 November 2021

San Marino - 25 November 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Basically, I'm just drawing it back to why we've got IMG on board and that is to maximise profit. That may overlap with lots of lovely ideas about new international tournaments - mid season or otherwise - but not necessarily.

IMG may find the safest way to hit the required profit is to sell tv rights to a home Ashes tour, hire three mid-sized northern venues, guarantee the NRL/ARL a risk-free fixed sum, and then sell 20,000 tickets three times over to see Great Britain narrowly lose three test matches. And repeat. (*)

(* = please note I don't believe this will be the answer but I can see how it might be. The risk free part being the thing that will widen eyes both here and with the lazy NRL)

I think there is a lot in this. If you were an outside company with a free reign and you want to maximise profit you would absolutely be looking at an Ashes tour, ironically along the lines of the one that was scuppered by Covid. Big stadiums and huge appeal with far more commercial opportunities than can be offered anywhere else.

I don't see the same opportunities, or indeed quick easy wins, anywhere else really. The rest is more long haul stuff.

[Adelaide Tiger]

36 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Even when the England football team plays San Marino or Andorra at Wembley, the match is commercially viable. Even if tickets are discounted (by football standards), people attend it. 

When the England RL team plays Wales or France, we play it in Leigh, try and charge £15, everyone complains about how it should be a fiver at best and included in their season ticket, and it proves to be a waste of everybody's time.  

Totally agree.  That is because the games are; sometimes put on at short notice; stand alone games with nothing at stake; poorly promoted; sometimes played on a weekday evening.  So it’s no wonder fans can’t be bothered attending.

But if England RL games are part of a tournament that the Governing Bodies seriously buy into and commit to over a number of years then just perhaps this attitude might change.  

[Adelaide Tiger]

36 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

The biggest concern I see for this is going to be the ability to pay for it, there`s no point sticking our head in the sand about this but the RFL are skint and even though it may be a sound long term investment, can they afford it now. 

On the other hand, English soccer I have no doubt can absorb the cost of the occasional unprofitable international.

Players from both sides are going expected to be paid, probably the English than anyone, and there will be all the associated costs with running the game. It is very likely also that the crowd won`t be large and it may have limited value as a TV product. The RFL can`t afford to be running loss making tournaments at the moment no matter what the long-term benefits.

Now, by how much and for how long IMG may be willing to subsidise this, that`s speculating that they are and it is a twelve year agreement after all, remains to be seen.

No on consideration maybe apart from something against France which may be break even, I think like the press release said their plan will be to reengage with the NRL  and through them the Pacific National teams.

 

 

 

 

Hi Rocket.  The cost of something is always mentioned when an idea is put forward.

Quite simply if you have a product to offer you have to get out there and find sponsors.

[Adelaide Tiger]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

To be honest its better to let the thread move on because this just becomes a case of people having to repeat themselves from pages ago because you didn't read the thread. Before your initial post on this there had been pages of discussion and you took Dave's post out of context and have argued against points that no one has made. Since then for some bizarre reason this is being equated to England playing Andorra and arguing it is the same as what happens in RL.

Yes you are probably right.  I commented on one post and didn’t read all the other relevant posts that led up to that point.  Need to spend more time on here and less time watching Only Connect!

[Tommygilf]

There is a peculiarity where familiarity with RL decreases success chances for certain international fixtures.

Most regular RL fans will know what games are foregone conclusions. Some will still go to those games but many won't. Hence poor crowds in Leigh for example.

That logic doesn't seem to stick as strongly elsewhere.

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think there is a lot in this. If you were an outside company with a free reign and you want to maximise profit you would absolutely be looking at an Ashes tour, ironically along the lines of the one that was scuppered by Covid. Big stadiums and huge appeal with far more commercial opportunities than can be offered anywhere else.

I don't see the same opportunities, or indeed quick easy wins, anywhere else really. The rest is more long haul stuff.

I'm hoping that with a commercially savvy partner on board there is a nice balance between the quick easy win and the harder longer haul stuff that could (and it is always could as nothing is guaranteed) see a bigger reward than the quick easy wins in the end.. and that is across the RL board not just about internationals.

I would love to see the World Club Challenge be taken seriously as well, personally I think that could be a big win relatively quickly, it needs aus to take it seriously but I think that would come with a good prize pot and its the sort of thing that could really grow (I always think of the Super Bowl.. but its a long way off something like that I understand).. end of the season would be nice too as its the actual same teams rather than the clubs. How realistic that is though is tough as its travelling fans on short notice etc.

[Balmainboy]

Two World Cups three years apart in England then France give the game a great opportunity to get some new eyeballs on it. Hopefully England and France organise some matches each year between WCs, feel like a lot is riding on how well France can be competitive at this year's world cup as they're quite obviously the only country that could feasibly have a competitive series with England within 5 - 10 years. 

[Balmainboy]

Just now, Balmainboy said:

Two World Cups three years apart in England then France give the game a great opportunity to get some new eyeballs on it. Hopefully England and France organise some matches each year between WCs, feel like a lot is riding on how well France can be competitive at this year's world cup as they're quite obviously the only country that could feasibly have a competitive series with England within 5 - 10 years. 

*northern hemisphere team have a competitive series with England

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

There is a peculiarity where familiarity with RL decreases success chances for certain international fixtures.

Most regular RL fans will know what games are foregone conclusions. Some will still go to those games but many won't. Hence poor crowds in Leigh for example.

That logic doesn't seem to stick as strongly elsewhere.

To be honest that why something like England v France, if played in England, should be played at somewhere like Brentford. A good sized, new stadium in London, a place that consistently gets our best international crowds, selling to a different audience. I could see us selling out a venue like that with a bit of a push.

No baggage, no France are ****, just appeal to London folk who want to watch international sport and think that England v France sounds like a good match and a cheap, affordable family day out. Even if England win by 30 they come away happy after seeing some great tries and are delighted with their national team winning convincingly, as happens in other sports (strange I know!).

Edited May 12, 2022 by Damien

[Jughead]

9 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Last point.  Keep hearing that two 10's is part of this but decided on field.  That seems to be one of the dumbest decisions possible.  

We arent going to lock London out if they dont finish in required position for say Swinton. 

I can only assume the RFL is not being honest with clubs to try and get any vote they need through and going to financially damage clubs who take part in the arms race.

And We are still calling it SL 2 or B when everyone who would pay for it be that sky or fans know its just a reduced championship? 

 

Yes, that’s a strange one. I found the proposal of “let’s go to 14, relegate 4 and place them with the top 6 of the championship” as a dumb plan because of the “risk”, for want of a better word, of including unsuitable clubs and/or excluding more suitable clubs in the Championship and League One and any proposal that is a 2x10’s one should not be based wholly upon onfield results but other metrics away from a patch of grass. 

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

To be honest that why something like England v France, if played in England, should be played at somewhere like Brentford. A good sized, new stadium in London, a place that consistently gets our best international crowds, selling to a different audience. I could see us selling out a venue like that with a bit of a push.

No baggage, no France are ****, just appeal to London folk who want to watch international sport and think that England v France sounds like a good match and a cheap, affordable family day out. Even if England win by 30 they come away happy after seeing some great tries and are delighted with their national team winning convincingly, as happens in other sports (strange I know!).

My thoughts exactly.

Same logic applies with England vs Wales or any other non-SH nation imo. London, even Bristol or the midlands should be the sort of places these games could be pitched at (if England are to play at home rather than away that is). Only Leeds in the Heartlands should be considered imo given its good record for international crowds.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Even when the England football team plays San Marino or Andorra at Wembley, the match is commercially viable. Even if tickets are discounted (by football standards), people attend it. 

When the England RL team plays Wales or France, we play it in Leigh, try and charge £15, everyone complains about how it should be a fiver at best and included in their season ticket, and it proves to be a waste of everybody's time.  

You don't believe hard enough. 

[The Rocket]

58 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Hi Rocket.  The cost of something is always mentioned when an idea is put forward.

Quite simply if you have a product to offer you have to get out there and find sponsors.

Yep and I suppose the hope is, that`s what IMG can bring to the table.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

We're looking at tv figures though surely as what makes something commercially viable though in the long run surely?

Maybe stop holding internationals that you are trying to promote by holding them in Leigh? For a World cup with two non english nations fine but location is important. 

I think one comes before the other on this one. Recent years have shown that there isn't a huge appetite from TV companies to go too deep into their pockets for international RL rights. It wasn't that long ago that we were hosting an England international on PPV via Our League and, whilst I'm sure the BBC would have an interest, their willingness to pay is another matter. 

I agree, location is important. But let's not ignore the fundamental flaws with the product on sale....

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Totally agree.  That is because the games are; sometimes put on at short notice; stand alone games with nothing at stake; poorly promoted; sometimes played on a weekday evening.  So it’s no wonder fans can’t be bothered attending.

But if England RL games are part of a tournament that the Governing Bodies seriously buy into and commit to over a number of years then just perhaps this attitude might change.  

Improving all of that stuff doesn't really change unless you can get very good at selling to different audiences. RL supporters aren't daft - you can't fool them that and England, France and Wales triangular tournament is something that it isn't, and you can't fool them that it's worth a price that it clearly isn't. 

[Oxford]

18 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

RL supporters aren't daft - you can't fool them that and England, France and Wales triangular tournament is something that it isn't, and you can't fool them that it's worth a price that it clearly isn't. 

Some things are very different about RL supporters, other sports' fans will turn up to the opening of envelope whereas RL fans won't bother in numbers fo a major final. It's not so much they can't be fooled as they can't be bothered.