Jump to content

IMG Strategic Partnership Announced


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

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.

I've not come across anyone finding the concept particularly challenging TBH.

This could be because, being entirely southern based these days, people tend to come across the play offs and the Grand Final and just assume that's how things are.

  • Like 3

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


33 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.

Which sports fans do you find who see the play off structure bizarre and unfathomable?

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

Which sports fans do you find who see the play off structure bizarre and unfathomable?

Football mainly but for some reason you are twisting words. It is the team not finishing top not being champions that they find unfathomable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

Football mainly but for some reason you are twisting words. It is the team not finishing top not being champions that they find unfathomable.

Forget it.  I am not trying to twist words, just have a conversation.  Stop being so defensive. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TV rights point has been done to death I feel. As others have said there are a myriad of factors at play.

With regards to how the offering from the game itself affects the TV deal, the central debate seems to be whether a deal is offered primarily on what is being proposed or what has gone before. It is a bit of both imo.

New systems and structures are obviously important for a broadcaster when deciding whether to back something. The original Super League and arguably the Super 8s concept were proposals backed financially by Sky. These aren't then necessarily "normal" TV deals, in that the broadcaster is backing a change from what has been there before. 

Logic would suggest then that if a new concept succeeds they will continue to back it. If not they will either drop back to previous levels or walk away. Obviously all of this is relative to the general TV rights market too. We have been told repeatedly that the current 2 year TV deal is the game being "put on notice" after stagnation and the 8s (and their demise) not delivering enough to warrant the previous TV deal.

I'm of the view that the work on the next TV deal starts as soon as the ink is dry on the one just signed. From £40 million there should have been massive impetus to develop a product that would at worst retain that relative value. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another major factor in the 2015 onwards TV deal was that it was the first to theoretically guarantee a payment to all SL clubs of what was then the full Salary Cap of £1.8million. That bought a lot of support from some Super League clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The TV rights point has been done to death I feel. As others have said there are a myriad of factors at play.

With regards to how the offering from the game itself affects the TV deal, the central debate seems to be whether a deal is offered primarily on what is being proposed or what has gone before. It is a bit of both imo.

New systems and structures are obviously important for a broadcaster when deciding whether to back something. The original Super League and arguably the Super 8s concept were proposals backed financially by Sky. These aren't then necessarily "normal" TV deals, in that the broadcaster is backing a change from what has been there before. 

Logic would suggest then that if a new concept succeeds they will continue to back it. If not they will either drop back to previous levels or walk away. Obviously all of this is relative to the general TV rights market too. We have been told repeatedly that the current 2 year TV deal is the game being "put on notice" after stagnation and the 8s (and their demise) not delivering enough to warrant the previous TV deal.

I'm of the view that the work on the next TV deal starts as soon as the ink is dry on the one just signed. From £40 million there should have been massive impetus to develop a product that would at worst retain that relative value. 

Yes, its sort of my point, irrespective of what the concept was and whether we were a fan, they backed the innovation, we backed out and the money went back to original levels. There is a clear case that the broadcaster saw real value in it, but we failed to make it work. 

It would be interesting to understand more about the 2 year reason, because it could be that was all we were prepared to accept at £25m. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Yes, its sort of my point, irrespective of what the concept was and whether we were a fan, they backed the innovation, we backed out and the money went back to original levels. There is a clear case that the broadcaster saw real value in it, but we failed to make it work. 

It would be interesting to understand more about the 2 year reason, because it could be that was all we were prepared to accept at £25m. 

Do you know how much the deal prior to 2015 was worth?

I think one thing Nigel Wood (and perhaps Blake Solly too) was good at building coalitions to support ideas. A good number of Super League clubs were brought on side by the a new deal "covering" the salary cap and on the other side Sky must have seen that as a way to increase competitiveness. Several SL relegation threatened clubs and the Championship will have also been massively in favour of the massive sums that would be pouring into the Championship as a result too and Sky bought that to make the 8s competitive they needed to up funding to the Championship. League 1 having over a million a season seems almost like a frivolity now! 

Those coalitions however were fragile, indeed brittle, and fell apart very quickly. As too it seems did Sky's belief in the concept they had been sold by Mr Wood (gone are the red button games etc.), as apparently no pressure came from Sky to keep the 8s either. Sky took a punt, RL "benefited" for several years, it didn't pay off for them and they've now reduced the offer on the table.

I agree the logic behind 2 years would be interesting to see. Given the previous 2 deals were based on "big ideas" (Licensing and 8s), I find the argument that RL is being given 2 years to sort something out quite compelling. £25 million in and of itself is fairly in line for a regional league with a solid if not spectacular level of interest (Scottish Premiership being the obvious comparison), but 2 years seems rather short.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Do you know how much the deal prior to 2015 was worth?

I think one thing Nigel Wood (and perhaps Blake Solly too) was good at building coalitions to support ideas. A good number of Super League clubs were brought on side by the a new deal "covering" the salary cap and on the other side Sky must have seen that as a way to increase competitiveness. Several SL relegation threatened clubs and the Championship will have also been massively in favour of the massive sums that would be pouring into the Championship as a result too and Sky bought that to make the 8s competitive they needed to up funding to the Championship. League 1 having over a million a season seems almost like a frivolity now! 

Those coalitions however were fragile, indeed brittle, and fell apart very quickly. As too it seems did Sky's belief in the concept they had been sold by Mr Wood (gone are the red button games etc.), as apparently no pressure came from Sky to keep the 8s either. Sky took a punt, RL "benefited" for several years, it didn't pay off for them and they've now reduced the offer on the table.

I agree the logic behind 2 years would be interesting to see. Given the previous 2 deals were based on "big ideas" (Licensing and 8s), I find the argument that RL is being given 2 years to sort something out quite compelling. £25 million in and of itself is fairly in line for a regional league with a solid if not spectacular level of interest (Scottish Premiership being the obvious comparison), but 2 years seems rather short.

An article in the I states

2004 - £63m for 5 years (£12.5m pa) 

2009 - £50m for 3 years (£16.5m pa) 

2012 - £90m for 5 years (£18m pa) 

2017 - £200m for 5 years (£40m pa - although length is always ambiguous as it was an extension). 

2022 - £50m for 2 years (£25m pa) 

 

It does look like a normalisation really. 

Edited by Dave T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

An article in the I states

2004 - £63m for 5 years (£12.5m pa) 

2009 - £50m for 3 years (£16.5m pa) 

2012 - £90m for 5 years (£18m pa) 

2017 - £200m for 5 years (£40m pa - although length is always ambiguous as it was an extension). 

2022 - £100m for 2 years (£25m pa) 

 

It does look like a normalisation really. 

I wish 2022 was correct!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Woops. 🤣

Sorry I couldn't resist.

There are a lot of weird things about some of those deals and what is included and not. I do think there are a lot of question marks around the last TV deal and the £200m over 5 years figure and I think we've discussed that before. If accurate the game should have been swimming in money. Yes I know clubs were better off but I really can't see how they were £22 million a year better off compared to the deal before. We know for example that SL teams only got £500k a year more.

As you say strip that and the current deal compares very favourably, especially with FTA coverage too which we have never had before. It certainly didn't justify the end of the world opinions that some had.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sorry I couldn't resist.

There are a lot of weird things about some of those deals and what is included and not. I do think there are a lot of question marks around the last TV deal and the £200m over 5 years figure and I think we've discussed that before. If accurate the game should have been swimming in money. Yes I know clubs were better off but I really can't see how they were £22 million a year better off compared to the deal before. We know for example that SL teams only got £500k a year more.

As you say strip that and the current deal compares very favourably, especially with FTA coverage too which we have never had before. It certainly didn't justify the end of the world opinions that some had.

I think there was a hefty premium around signing an extension with Sky quickly as part of a package of sports rights Sky were signing up, partly due to a challenge from BT. 

I do also think there was an element of our previous rights being cheap, Sky could easily justify a premium, and they could just as easily reduce it again as there is just no competition. 

Whilst it is clearly not a great position to be in, I still maintain that this under-performance in commercial and media income surely means there is huge potential for growth - hopefully IMG are up to the challenge. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think there was a hefty premium around signing an extension with Sky quickly as part of a package of sports rights Sky were signing up, partly due to a challenge from BT. 

I do also think there was an element of our previous rights being cheap, Sky could easily justify a premium, and they could just as easily reduce it again as there is just no competition. 

Whilst it is clearly not a great position to be in, I still maintain that this under-performance in commercial and media income surely means there is huge potential for growth - hopefully IMG are up to the challenge. 

Yes you are quite correct. I do suspect there was some element of parts of that deal spreading over 7 years and we know clubs got a one off payment for signing it. I just can't see how it was £40m a year.

I would just like the game to be in control of its own destiny regarding these things. Being stronger commercially with more revenue streams would certainly do that and would also make us more attractive to other broadcasters. The whole digital side and marketing needs a complete overhaul too. That is really what IMG need to bring to the table.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 7

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)
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 by rlno1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

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...