IMG Strategic Partnership Announced

[DI Keith Fowler]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Unfortunately I have always really been of the opinion that there has always been a large element of us getting whatever Sky are prepared to pay us and we have to accept it because there has been no alternative. When we have tried to play hardball it has backfired and we have had to go back to Sky with our tails between our legs because there was no other interest. I do think it's in Sky's interest for SL to be of a minimum standard so they'll never go to low but without competition and/or the game getting much stronger they'll never go too high either.

I think there's an acceptance from Sky that RL is worth X number of subscriptions and they'll probably always want it for that as it represents good value for money.

On occasion their interest has been piqued by the potential to grow the game but it's been short lived for various reasons usually from our side. IMG's challenge will be to show Sky (or indeed BT) something different to invest a bit more and get some sort of virtuous circle going. 

I think this is what the bloke from IMG was speaking to when he talked about the game not needing direct investment in the way Union has with CVC.

[marklaspalmas]

I prefer this IMG thread to the other. Let's keep em both going......

[Damien]

2 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

I prefer this IMG thread to the other. Let's keep em both going......

Yes it seems daft having two discussing the same thing. They should just be merged.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yes it seems daft having two discussing the same thing. They should just be merged.

We're very much against mergers.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

We're very much against mergers.

This thread would be the Leeds side of the merger, the other one would be Hunslet.

[marklaspalmas]

Mergers don't really exist. It's always a takeover.

This thread, original and best.

[rlno1]

On 17/05/2022 at 17:59, Toby Chopra said:

We already attempt to copy the NRL coaching blueprint in many ways (although we dont really have the players for it) so I don't really think that's the bit to be concerned about. 

What's far more important is that if IMG propose even half of what Richardson does, then there's huge ramifications for the structure of the game. 

We can be for or against such changes - I'm sure we'll debate them in earnest when the proposals are revealed. 

I'm just not sure how something so radical gets signed off by the clubs who - indirectly - would appear to have a final veto on things. 

I was referring more to the structure of the sport, the things that make the game English and different from the Australian structure of competitions.

As for the game I agree with you it is played the same everywhere with just different colours on the players.

Edited May 20, 2022 by rlno1

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

This thread would be the Leeds side of the merger, the other one would be Hunslet.

One has overwhelmed the other in interest and relevance... oh no!