Jump to content

IMG Strategic Partnership Announced


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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 by Damien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Lets not forget, Featherstone Rovers is a RUGBY club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by Damien
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 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.

 

To just address this one, important point - the S8 games came in the form of additional games, not replacements. At times we were seeing 4 games a weekend. We were still seeing Leeds every week, even then! 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To just address this one, important point - the S8 games came in the form of additional games, not replacements. At times we were seeing 4 games a weekend. We were still seeing Leeds every week, even then! 😆

I can't remember the details but weren't they included in the number of Championship games that Sky committed to showing?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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.

It is not just the structure but the legacy the structure created. It's no more apparent than on this board. The hangover is still being felt about a race for the scraps - look at the content on here week in week out. That is Wood's and Rimmer's legacy (I put Rimmer in the past tense because I am not sure he exists).

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I can't remember the details but weren't they included in the number of Championship games that Sky committed to showing?

I'm not sure, because when S8's was scrapped, we didn't see Championship games shown IIRC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

It is not just the structure but the legacy the structure created. It's no more apparent than on this board. The hangover is still being felt about a race for the scraps - look at the content on here week in week out. That is Wood's and Rimmer's legacy (I put Rimmer in the past tense because I am not sure he exists).

We need to not give this board of RL tragics who focus heavily on the business side too much credit. 

I can genuinely, hand on heart say that I have never heard any criticism of the RL structure (any of them) from an RL fan in person. And definitely not from a non-RL sports fan.

I don;t know if you follow football, but I am fascinated by the City v Liverpool battle, my enjoyment is not being ruined by the fact that Leeds and Everton are having a high profile battle to avoid relegation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

We need to not give this board of RL tragics who focus heavily on the business side too much credit. 

I can genuinely, hand on heart say that I have never heard any criticism of the RL structure (any of them) from an RL fan in person. And definitely not from a non-RL sports fan.

I don;t know if you follow football, but I am fascinated by the City v Liverpool battle, my enjoyment is not being ruined by the fact that Leeds and Everton are having a high profile battle to avoid relegation.

 

I am talking about the overload in comments and contributions from posters. The imbalance about promotion and relegation is clear and is a legacy of the game constantly focusing on it for the past x years. This is a natural hangover, as is the 1895 Cup solution to marquee events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scubby said:

I am talking about the overload in comments and contributions from posters. The imbalance about promotion and relegation is clear and is a legacy of the game constantly focusing on it for the past x years. This is a natural hangover, as is the 1895 Cup solution to marquee events.

I'm surprised you put that down to S8's - the obsession with P&R has been around way before that. The biggest shockwave around that subject was licensing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

We need to not give this board of RL tragics who focus heavily on the business side too much credit. 

I can genuinely, hand on heart say that I have never heard any criticism of the RL structure (any of them) from an RL fan in person. And definitely not from a non-RL sports fan.

I don;t know if you follow football, but I am fascinated by the City v Liverpool battle, my enjoyment is not being ruined by the fact that Leeds and Everton are having a high profile battle to avoid relegation.

I do agree that people on this board look at the bigger RL picture. However I do know plenty of RL fans that criticise the structure and the repetition the game sees as a result. I don't know anyone that liked the middle 8s for example or who likes loop fixtures. I also know more and more who are beginning to dislike the play off format due to it making the season a procession. For me many of the complaints on this board tally with people I speak to in real life. I also know fans of the sports who find the play off structure bizarre and to them it is unfathomable that the team that finishes top isn't champions. They find that a real oddity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

I do agree that people on this board look at the bigger RL picture. However I do know plenty of RL fans that criticise the structure and the repetition the game sees as a result. I don't know anyone that liked the middle 8s for example or who likes loop fixtures. I also know more and more who are beginning to dislike the play off format due to it making the season a procession. For me many of the complaints on this board tally with people I speak to in real life. I also know fans of the sports who find the play off structure bizarre and to them it is unfathomable that the team that finishes top isn't champions. They find that a real oddity.

The Playoffs/Grand Final is probably one that I have heard questioned - but I must admit that was a while ago and people see playoffs as a standard part of the game nowadays. 

I do find people are relatively disinterested in this kind of thing. For example, I may have a view on the Scottish Premier League structure if pushed on it, but not a strong one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

I also know fans of the sports who find the play off structure bizarre and to them it is unfathomable that the team that finishes top isn't champions. They find that a real oddity.

"The Grand Final is like the Super Bowl" tends to sort that quite quickly.

And there is nothing more complicated in sport than the Cymru Premier splitting into two groups of six and then having the bottom three teams from the top six and the top team from the bottom six play off so they can decided who is going to play in the Scottish Challenge Cup next year.

  • Haha 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

"The Grand Final is like the Super Bowl" tends to sort that quite quickly.

And there is nothing more complicated in sport than the Cymru Premier splitting into two groups of six and then having the bottom three teams from the top six and the top team from the bottom six play off so they can decided who is going to play in the Scottish Challenge Cup next year.

The thing is those that no anything about American sports and conferences can see the need for some type of Grand Final. In RL when its a straight forward league not so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...