IMG Strategic Partnership Announced

[Damien]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I don't think there is anything in that comment. He is talking about market position, he doesn't really suggest that they would achieve that by mirroring Oz.

Neither do I. I think most RL fans would be ecstatic if we could go some way to catching to Australia on various metrics.

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I suppose it does it more than the existing director structure did, though I don't know who the "Super League" representatives will be. 

I assume the RFL will be represented by Ralph Rimmer and Simon Johnson, but Super League? Chairmen on a rolling basis? Ken Davy + A N Other?

I'm not even sure how SL comes to a collective view on any decision either. Leeds, Wigan and Saints aren't even all on the same page on what they think shouldnhappen, let alone Wakefield and Salford. 

So you can see how the process will tend towards the status quo. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

I hope he is doing what you say mate, though I can see how it can be read multiple ways. 

I think the headline, written by TotalRL maybe clouds it a little, but his words do appear to talk about the attention that the Aussies get. 

In any case, even if they are looking at the Aussies, it doesn't mean they would copy them, they surely understand different markets as a worldwide organisation. But there is plenty of infrastructure stuff that can be 'borrowed'. 

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I'm not even sure how SL comes to a collective view on any decision either. Leeds, Wigan and Saints aren't even all on the same page on what they think shouldnhappen, let alone Wakefield and Salford. 

So you can see how the process will tend towards the status quo. 

We've seen though that even where there are differences, they will often put them aside and reach agreement and crack on. 

The worst example I have seen where we didn't was around the S8's - I have never seen such bad examples of stroppy owners who didn't get their way trashing a concept to ensure it failed. 

[Toby Chopra]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think the headline, written by TotalRL maybe clouds it a little, but his words do appear to talk about the attention that the Aussies get. 

In any case, even if they are looking at the Aussies, it doesn't mean they would copy them, they surely understand different markets as a worldwide organisation. But there is plenty of infrastructure stuff that can be 'borrowed'. 

What I'd be interested in whether the NRL has diversified its audience - class, race, sex - as it's become more successful, mirroring the changes in Australia as a whole?

And if so how did it do it without alienating the audience it already had? 

Because I think that's the trick we need to learn if they have any lessons to teach us. 

Obviously there are limits, as even if 35 years ago league was predominately white working class sport in Sydney and Brisbane, it was still number 1 in that demogrpahic. I don't think we've ever really been able to claim that except in isolated pockets. 

[Toby Chopra]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We've seen though that even where there are differences, they will often put them aside and reach agreement and crack on. 

The worst example I have seen where we didn't was around the S8's - I have never seen such bad examples of stroppy owners who didn't get their way trashing a concept to ensure it failed. 

I think some chairmen did their level best to undermine Elstone's authority until it reached a point where even his backers gave up on him. But both those examples show that the ultimate power still lay with the clubs if they really wanted to exercise it.

I can't really think of a major decision the SL clubs have signed up which put their statuses into serious doubt. Thus something like the status quo always prevails in the end, as that's where consensus is found. 

And to be fair, whether you're Gary Heatherington or Michael Carter, why would you do anything else? 

What they may have all accepted is that they're uniformly rubbish at promoting the game and revenues are only going backwards. So if IMG want to come in, take no cash up front, and then split any increased revenues, then it's easy to say yes as long as they ultimately still have  a veto on changes like licensing or whatever. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think some chairmen did their level best to undermine Elstone's authority until it reached a point where even his backers gave up on him. But both those examples show that the ultimate power still lay with the clubs if they really wanted to exercise it.

I can't really think of a major decision the SL clubs have signed up which put their statuses into serious doubt. Thus something like the status quo always prevails in the end, as that's where consensus is found. 

And to be fair, whether you're Gary Heatherington or Michael Carter, why would you do anything else? 

What they may have all accepted is that they're uniformly rubbish at promoting the game and revenues are only going backwards. So if IMG want to come in, take no cash up front, and then split any increased revenues, then it's easy to say yes as long as they ultimately still have  a veto on changes like licensing or whatever. 

We should remember that there have been plenty of votes over the years that harmed part of the game. The initial SL move harmed many clubs, Catalans' admission saw a club relegated who didn't finish bottom, licensing was controversial, the scrapping of it also. 

These were all tough decisions that inflicted harm on some clubs. We have made decisions, but agreeing a clear strategy has been the missing element - enter IMG. 

I know we like to be overly critical of the existing game and clubs, but the biggest issue isn't that they will always protect themselves, we have seen self harm, it's that there has been no clear vision, with clearly articulated benefits and buy in. 

But also, we shouldn't be afraid of vetos and the like. If the ideas and proposals are good enough they will be implemented - it's no different really to F1 and RU etc. 

People do need to be careful what they wish for, it's important that IMG are not given total control - they haven't invested and if they get it wrong, they walk away unharmed. That isn't a healthy balance. 

[Toby Chopra]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We should remember that there have been plenty of votes over the years that harmed part of the game. The initial SL move harmed many clubs, Catalans' admission saw a club relegated who didn't finish bottom, licensing was controversial, the scrapping of it also. 

These were all tough decisions that inflicted harm on some clubs. We have made decisions, but agreeing a clear strategy has been the missing element - enter IMG. 

I know we like to be overly critical of the existing game and clubs, but the biggest issue isn't that they will always protect themselves, we have seen self harm, it's that there has been no clear vision, with clearly articulated benefits and buy in. 

But also, we shouldn't be afraid of vetos and the like. If the ideas and proposals are good enough they will be implemented - it's no different really to F1 and RU etc. 

People do need to be careful what they wish for, it's important that IMG are not given total control - they haven't invested and if they get it wrong, they walk away unharmed. That isn't a healthy balance. 

I think those are fair points Dave, although I think the launching and then scrapping of licensing show how even seemingly radical decisions have a built in rewind button in them, rather than a lock that sees them through to their natural conclusion. I'm sure Catalans would have gone the same way if they hadn't been such an overwhelming success. 

But certainly you're right, if IMG don't have skin in the game they absolutely should not have dictatorial power. 

I also hope you're right that having their expertise and vision on board gives clubs at all levels the confidence to be brave, and see that it's not a zero sum game. We shall see. 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think those are fair points Dave, although I think the launching and then scrapping of licensing show how even seemingly radical decisions have a built in rewind button in them, rather than a lock that sees them through to their natural conclusion. I'm sure Catalans would have gone the same way if they hadn't been such an overwhelming success. 

But certainly you're right, if IMG don't have skin in the game they absolutely should not have dictatorial power. 

I also hope you're right that having their expertise and vision on board gives clubs at all levels the confidence to be brave, and see that it's not a zero sum game. We shall see. 

Yes, the backtracking was clearly an issue, but I think it's possibly fair to say that the governing body bottled that, justifying it as too much admin FFS! 

Even when you hear from some of the progressive club owners we still hear support for some of the ideas that seem archaic. I don't think it's simply a case of big clubs like licensing, small clubs P&R or similar. 

I hope they can present a clear vision and get buy in. I have some hope that they are prepared to make tough decisions, I think the leadership needs to be really strong. Some of the leadership so far has just seen us go up blind alleys! 

But, it'll be interesting to watch mate, we shouldn't have too long to wait. 

[Damien]

14 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

But certainly you're right, if IMG don't have skin in the game they absolutely should not have dictatorial power.

Whilst true and I do somewhat agree the game desperately needs someone with dictatorial power to make real change. Trying to get agreement from everyone is seeing RL go nowhere.

On the Maurice Lindsay thread we see a man that made things happen, smashed through barriers and achieved a great deal for the game both domestically and internationally. Since then we have got a procession of lame ducks who are more interested in protecting their power base. This has seen the game trundle from one season to the next just accepting our lot and getting by with zero vision.

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

Whilst true and I do somewhat agree the game desperately needs someone with dictatorial power to make real change. Trying to get agreement from everyone is seeing RL go nowhere.

On the Maurice Lindsay thread we see a man that made things happen, smashed through barriers and achieved a great deal for the game both domestically and internationally. Since then we have got a procession of lame ducks who are more interested in protecting their power base. This has seen the game trundle from one season to the next just accepting our lot and getting by with zero vision.

Let's not rewrite history and romanticise Lindsay reign. 

Richard Lewis was a far superior leader. 

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Let's not rewrite history and romanticise Lindsay reign. 

Richard Lewis was a far superior leader. 

I certainly didn't do that and didn't romanticise anything. It's a really odd slant to take on my post. If you don't think Lindsay made things happen and didn't achieve a great deal then then that's up to you.

Richard Lewis was 13 years ago. Even then his last couple of years were affected by in-fighting that then saw much of what he did destroyed thereafter. I liked him and have a lot of time for him, he did some great things. As I have often said on here. He was also completely different than someone like Lindsay. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by Damien

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

I certainly didn't do that and didn't romanticise anything. It's a really odd slant to take on my post. If you don't think Lindsay made things happen and didn't achieve a great deal then then that's up to you.

Richard Lewis was 13 years ago. Even then his last couple of years were affected by in-fighting that then saw much of what he did destroyed thereafter. I liked him and have a lot of time for him, he did some great things. As I have often said on here. He was also completely different than someone like Lindsay. 

I liked some of what Lindsay did (I didn't have any issues with him being Wigan through and through like many did at the time), but I think there is a general romanticised view being presented (by a fair few people) - which is natural as somebody passes, so I don't want to be too critical. 

For the claims he was a dictator, he couldn't get through his vision of SL. The clubs overruled him and mergers were kicked into touch. 

People quote the internationals in the 90s as a golden era, yet they were happening before his reign and he then oversaw the decline with the SL Kangaroos tour where Wembley was a flop (he was vocally critical saying we will probably abandon Wembley), and the car crash NZ tour when they sent loads of players home to cut costs. 

We also saw a lower TV deal negotiated after the initial one and some real declines. 

I'm not sure Lindsay's reign was as successful as many make out. 

But I would agree with you that power is needed at the top, but they do need to be accountable for results. 

[Jimmy B]

On 11/05/2022 at 13:03, Martyn Sadler said:

In 12 years' time, if WWR (or their successor club) aren't playing St Helens by then on a level playing field in a major stadium, then the appointment of IMG will probably have been a failure.

The same was probably said about Paris at the birth of Super League.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I liked some of what Lindsay did (I didn't have any issues with him being Wigan through and through like many did at the time), but I think there is a general romanticised view being presented (by a fair few people) - which is natural as somebody passes, so I don't want to be too critical. 

For the claims he was a dictator, he couldn't get through his vision of SL. The clubs overruled him and mergers were kicked into touch. 

People quote the internationals in the 90s as a golden era, yet they were happening before his reign and he then oversaw the decline with the SL Kangaroos tour where Wembley was a flop (he was vocally critical saying we will probably abandon Wembley), and the car crash NZ tour when they sent loads of players home to cut costs. 

We also saw a lower TV deal negotiated after the initial one and some real declines. 

I'm not sure Lindsay's reign was as successful as many make out. 

But I would agree with you that power is needed at the top, but they do need to be accountable for results. 

I didn't do that though or mention internationals, kangaroo tours or Wembley. I didn't like Lindsay much at the time, my father disliked him immensely, so my view is certainly not a romanticised one.

I think its hard not to conflate his time at Wigan with the progression with wider Rugby League (even though he may not have been at the RFL). Things like the World Club Challenge against Manly happened because of Lindsay and even things like Wigan going to the World 7s. He made events happen for the wider sport which arguably the RFL should have been doing. Through Wigan he also raised the profile of the entire sport immensely to the point that even to this day some of that side are the only recognisable household RL names to many.

On things like the TV deal he did negotiate the original one that saw it go from next to nothing to many millions and negotiated way more than what had been originally offered. Indeed it was him that made Super League happen in he first place and had been proposing it since 1992. On things like the salary cap he was quite prophetic 20 years ago and what he said has come to pass. I never supported mergers so I'm not going to defend him on that. As I said I have no romanticised view.

My point was he made things happen and tried to push boundaries. He had standards and elevated the sport. For better or worse we can argue a long list of what he achieved or didn't, whether he was right or wrong. For the likes of Rimmer or Wood we have just had indecision and placating of clubs which has resulted in stagnation or decline. All the good work by Lewis, such as the expansion of SL to 14 clubs and the expansion of grassroots, was systematically destroyed. Its a pretty short list when it comes to debating anything they have done and after 13 odd years I'm still none the wiser what their vision is or was.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Damien

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

I didn't do that though or mention internationals, kangaroo tours or Wembley. I didn't like Lindsay much at the time, my father disliked him immensely, so my view is certainly not a romanticised one.

I think it hard not to conflate his time at Wigan with the progression with wider Rugby League (even though he may not have been at the RFL). Things like the World Club Challenge against Manly happened because of Lindsay and even things like Wigan going to the World 7s. He made events happen for the wider sport which arguably the RFL should have been doing. Through Wigan he also raised the profile of the entire sport immensely to the point that even to this day some of that side are the only recognisable household RL names to many.

On things like the TV deal he did negotiate the original one that saw it go from next to nothing to many millions and got negotiated way more than what had been originally offered. Indeed it him that made Super League happen in he first place and had been proposing it since 1992. On things like the salary cap he was quite prophetic 20 years ago and what he said has come to pass. I never supported mergers so I'm not going to defend him on that. As I said I have no romanticised view.

My point was he made things happen and tried to push boundaries. He had standards and elevated the sport. For better or worse we can argue a long list of what he achieved or didn't, whether he was right or wrong. For the likes of Rimmer or Wood we have just had indecision and placating of clubs which has resulted in stagnation or decline. All the good work by Lewis, such as the expansion of SL to 14 clubs and the expansion of grassroots, was systematically destroyed. Its a pretty short list when it comes to debating anything they have done and after 13 odd years I'm still none the wiser what their vision is or was.

Fair post. 

I believe that he had more failures than successes, but tbh, that doesn't bother me, as you say, we had a level of excitement that came from some of the attempts. 

I would slightly disagree on Wood, he had a bit of a knack of being a wily operator, he could actually get things delivered, unfortunately I think this ended up finishing his reign off as he got too aggressive. 

[Scubby]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Fair post. 

I believe that he had more failures than successes, but tbh, that doesn't bother me, as you say, we had a level of excitement that came from some of the attempts. 

I would slightly disagree on Wood, he had a bit of a knack of being a wily operator, he could actually get things delivered, unfortunately I think this ended up finishing his reign off as he got too aggressive. 

Wood pushed through the 3x8 system which ultimately diluted the emphasis off the elite end of our sport and placed it around the fight for self preservation and part time Championship. Many championship club fans enjoyed getting a few visits from ailing SL clubs but the legacy of that decision is still being felt today - our reach stagnated. Whether we like it or not, 3x8 was the pre curser to a reduced deal by Sky.

[Dave T]

Just now, Scubby said:

Wood pushed through the 3x8 system which ultimately diluted the emphasis off the elite end of our sport and placed it around the fight for self preservation and part time Championship. Many championship club fans enjoyed getting a few visits from ailing SL clubs but the legacy of that decision is still being felt today - our reach stagnated. Whether we like it or not, 3x8 was the pre curser to a reduced deal by Sky.

We can shoehorn any narrative to suit our views.

Ill position a credible alternative. 

Sky paid us a record deal to deliver 3 x 8s. A deal that smashed all previous ones. 

Once we scrapped it, they lowered the deal. 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We can shoehorn any narrative to suit our views.

Ill position a credible alternative. 

Sky paid us a record deal to deliver 3 x 8s. A deal that smashed all previous ones. 

Once we scrapped it, they lowered the deal. 

Sky have always said though they don't dictate the structure and that is up to the RFL. Barney Francis said that at various times when interviewed. Based on the period that included the 3x8s Sky deemed Super league to be worth much less the next time around.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sky have always said though they don't dictate the structure and that is up to the RFL. Barney Francis said that at various times when interviewed. Based on the period that included the 3x8s Sky deemed Super league to be worth much less the next time around.

Oddly, if you create a season which has precious little drama and then a post season whose focus is on making the middle bit (not the top bit) the most interesting then you will be rewarded accordingly.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sky have always said though they don't dictate the structure and that is up to the RFL. Barney Francis said that at various times when interviewed. Based on the period that included the 3x8s Sky deemed Super league to be worth much less the next time around.

 

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Oddly, if you create a season which has precious little drama and then a post season whose focus is on making the middle bit (not the top bit) the most interesting then you will be rewarded accordingly.

The logic doesn't follow here. The current deal doesn't have 3 x 8. The one that did have 3 x 8 was a record deal.

@gingerjon - there were 27ish rounds to battle for the Old Trafford Grand Final just as there has always been. There is no negative for Sky there.

@Damien - I agree with your point, I don't think Sky are interested in structure half as much as some make out, I was challenging the assertion that the drop in TV value is because of that. Sky got some very nice figures during that period (as they have during every other period).

The reason I think it's important to challenge it is because it leads us to look at the wrong things - structure aint gonna make much difference either way here. But if we were going to look at correlation of structure to TV deal, it doesn;t make a great lot of sense. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dave T said:

 

The logic doesn't follow here. The current deal doesn't have 3 x 8. The one that did have 3 x 8 was a record deal.

@gingerjon - there were 27ish rounds to battle for the Old Trafford Grand Final just as there has always been. There is no negative for Sky there.

@Damien - I agree with your point, I don't think Sky are interested in structure half as much as some make out, I was challenging the assertion that the drop in TV value is because of that. Sky got some very nice figures during that period (as they have during every other period).

The reason I think it's important to challenge it is because it leads us to look at the wrong things - structure aint gonna make much difference either way here. But if we were going to look at correlation of structure to TV deal, it doesn;t make a great lot of sense. 

Sky buy a certain number of games. There is a massive negative for Sky if a sizeable number of them aren't that interesting.

Incidentally, I don't actually believe the value is dependent on the structure but a mish mash of what the general rights market is doing (going down/getting tougher for everything but some football), a guarantee of compelling fixtures and being able to deliver an audience.

The problem the 8s have always had for me is that it was the laser eyed focus on relegation/the mediocre clubs that those in charge had that was quite revealing about their priorities and monumental shortcomings.

[Scubby]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sky buy a certain number of games. There is a massive negative for Sky if a sizeable number of them aren't that interesting.

Incidentally, I don't actually believe the value is dependent on the structure but a mish mash of what the general rights market is doing (going down/getting tougher for everything but some football), a guarantee of compelling fixtures and being able to deliver an audience.

The problem the 8s have always had for me is that it was the laser eyed focus on relegation/the mediocre clubs that those in charge had that was quite revealing about their priorities and monumental shortcomings.

This. @Dave T

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sky buy a certain number of games. There is a massive negative for Sky if a sizeable number of them aren't that interesting.

Incidentally, I don't actually believe the value is dependent on the structure but a mish mash of what the general rights market is doing (going down/getting tougher for everything but some football), a guarantee of compelling fixtures and being able to deliver an audience.

The problem the 8s have always had for me is that it was the laser eyed focus on relegation/the mediocre clubs that those in charge had that was quite revealing about their priorities and monumental shortcomings.

That still doesn't make sense I'm afraid. It reduced the number of games between top and bottom teams and forced top teams to play each other more. It created more top games for Sky, and then gave them some extra games around P&R - which they like as is shown by their football coverage. 

I said this at the time, and I'll say it again - the biggest viewing figures and most media attention was given to the battle at the top of the table - the most attention given to the middle 8's was by those who wanted to diss it. In reality, most people just continued to focus on the battle for the title. 

None of this is an endorsement for S8 - it doesn't mean it was best for the actual sport - but there was very little bad for a broadcaster in it.  In fact it was possibly too weighted to benefit the broadcaster and didnt address things like loop games which seem to be an issue for fans.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Scubby said:

This. @Dave T

Saying games are not interesting doesn't mean anything. People still watched on Sky. 

One of the most iconic finishes ever to SL came under S8's (Ryan Hall scoring at Hudds) - a clip still used nowadays on Sky.

But, I don't think we need to discuss structure any more, surely we all have fatigue on that subject!

But if anyone thinks Sky offered £25m down from £40m because we had a certain structure 4 seasons earlier, they want their bumps felt.