Can IMG make Rugby League into a more successful sport?

[headtackle]

IMG will look at it from an analytical business point of view.  I would bet that they suggest franchises, an end to P&R, new clubs in strategic areas ie London and a few other major cities, rebranding of some clubs ie Salford to Manchester, on the road games

The only way to stop the dominance of Saints Wigan etc would be to start again with all players going into a pot and holding an IPL style auction.  Can’t imagine that going down too well

Dont want to be pessimistic but if IMG recommend anything new or revolutionary it will quickly be vetoed in some of the Yorkshire boardrooms 

 

 

[Big Picture]

6 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Here is the interview with Matt Dwyer of IMG.

Is he for real?

The SL clubs "realised that they don’t need funds to do what they need to do"???  Clubs which are too hard up to pay their own way to and from Toulouse "don't need funds?????  Yeah right!!!

Then there's the gem of "finding that balance between expansion and the existing strengths".  What existing strengths might those be then???  A "Super League" made up of clubs who made Toulouse pay their expenses to go over to play them doesn't have strengths, it has weaknesses and plenty of them.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Is he for real?

The SL clubs "realised that they don’t need funds to do what they need to do"???  Clubs which are too hard up to pay their own way to and from Toulouse "don't need funds?????  Yeah right!!!

Then there's the gem of "finding that balance between expansion and the existing strengths".  What existing strengths might those be then???  A "Super League" made up of clubs who made Toulouse pay their expenses to go over to play them doesn't have strengths, it has weaknesses and plenty of them.

Having weaknesses doesn't mean you have no strengths. 

I'd rather haters of UK RL went off to an RU board or something tbh.

[Cameron Highlander]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Having weaknesses doesn't mean you have no strengths. 

I'd rather haters of UK RL went off to an RU board or something tbh.

Wait for it Dave.........

[M j M]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Having weaknesses doesn't mean you have no strengths. 

I'd rather haters of UK RL went off to an RU board or something tbh.

He'll be back on in a sec to tell us the simple solution is to relocate Widnes and Wakefield to Tumbridge Wells and Woking because some failed ex-CEO of St Helens said something dumb once.

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Having weaknesses doesn't mean you have no strengths.

By all means provide a list of those strengths then if you can.

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'd rather haters of UK RL went off to an RU board or something tbh.

Recognizing the weakness of UK RL and the reasons for it is a far cry from hating it Dave.  As for going to an RU board, no thanks I'd rather watch paint dry than have anything to do with that sport.

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

By all means provide a list of those strengths then if you can.

Recognizing the weakness of UK RL and the reasons for it is a far cry from hating it Dave.  As for going to an RU board, no thanks I'd rather watch paint dry than have anything to do with that sport.

If you think the game has no strengths, I can't help you. 

[Jughead]

All very secretive still. Will we ever learn anything other than “it’s a blank sheet of paper”?

[Liverpool Rover]

If the clubs get to vote on whether to approve any plans then it will end up being a failure. Clubs won't vote for anything that would lessen their chances of being in Super League.

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

If you think the game has no strengths, I can't help you. 

You can't eh?  I interpret that to mean that you can't provide a list of the UK game's strengths then.

[RayCee]

Good coverage Martyn, so early in proceedings too. 

"But it seems that the partnership will cost the RFL very little because it has been structured to give IMG a percentage return of any increase in commercial and broadcasting income that is generated by the RFL’s new commercial arm"

They clearly see RL in the UK as an under developed product and therefore great opportunity to capitalise on that. It still won't be easy with Football so dominant.

"...they don’t need funds to do what they need to do, but they do need expertise".

I assume this means funds are good until you spend it all and have not improved your revenue stream. The advantage of expertise is you improve the revenue stream which will translate into funds.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, RayCee said:

Good coverage Martyn, so early in proceedings too. 

"But it seems that the partnership will cost the RFL very little because it has been structured to give IMG a percentage return of any increase in commercial and broadcasting income that is generated by the RFL’s new commercial arm"

They clearly see RL in the UK as an under developed product and therefore great opportunity to capitalise on that. It still won't be easy with Football so dominant.

"...they don’t need funds to do what they need to do, but they do need expertise".

I assume this means funds are good until you spend it all and have not improved your revenue stream. The advantage of expertise is you improve the revenue stream which will translate into funds.

Without wanting to take this cross code, but IIRC both the RU Prem and Pro 14 took hundreds of millions in PE - yet I'm not seeing any transformations take place in those comps (maybe Pro14 to be fair). If they have just paid debts, that will help in the short term, until those debts are run up again and they have sold huge parts of their commercial income. 

It really would have been easy for the owners to just take pots of gold now and repay their loans etc. I'm glad they didn't, I prefer us to own our sport. 

I have no idea whether this will work, but I think it was the better option for our sport. 

[M j M]

55 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Without wanting to take this cross code, but IIRC both the RU Prem and Pro 14 took hundreds of millions in PE - yet I'm not seeing any transformations take place in those comps (maybe Pro14 to be fair). If they have just paid debts, that will help in the short term, until those debts are run up again and they have sold huge parts of their commercial income. 

It really would have been easy for the owners to just take pots of gold now and repay their loans etc. I'm glad they didn't, I prefer us to own our sport. 

I have no idea whether this will work, but I think it was the better option for our sport. 

Yes this is the thing. As seen in union oney to the clubs would largely be wasted - on debt pay down or player salaries. And for a ridiculous amount of lost control over the sport's future to people who probably wouldn't have the game's interests at heart in the long run. The sport needs more cash, obviously, but it needs that through income growth not selling itself. I am cynical about any outside experts or consultants who say how great they are going to be but a deal like this on the face of it gives them a lot of skin in the game which is essential. I'm pretty confident it wouldn't have got past the people who saw through the private equity stuff if it wasn't a decent deal.

[Martyn Sadler]

3 hours ago, M j M said:

Yes this is the thing. As seen in union oney to the clubs would largely be wasted - on debt pay down or player salaries. And for a ridiculous amount of lost control over the sport's future to people who probably wouldn't have the game's interests at heart in the long run. The sport needs more cash, obviously, but it needs that through income growth not selling itself. I am cynical about any outside experts or consultants who say how great they are going to be but a deal like this on the face of it gives them a lot of skin in the game which is essential. I'm pretty confident it wouldn't have got past the people who saw through the private equity stuff if it wasn't a decent deal.

The crucial detail is the 12-year commitment.

We can often justifiably complain about short-termism in many Rugby League decisions, but planning on a timescale like that is unheard of, and not just in Rugby League but in sport generally.

[whatmichaelsays]

 

Quote

Reducing the number of clubs in the elite competition merely gives more people the excuse not to buy subscriptions to satellite broadcasting channels.

I'd love to see a proper analysis of this, because I would be amazed if there is any meaningful level of latent demand for satellite subscriptions based on teams being in/out of Super League. 

I agree that 2x10 is a poor idea, but not for this reason. 

Quote

Only four clubs have ever won the Super League Grand Final, and if that remains the case for the next twelve years, then I’m afraid that Rugby League won’t have made much progress, regardless of how effective IMG might be in taking the game to a potentially wider audience.

Again, not sure I agree here - although I understand the premise. If our best teams are winning Super League, that's a good thing. Having the fastest car and best drivers winning the world championship hasn't held back Formula 1, and the likes of Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, Adam Peaty and Team Sky have all been fantastic for their respective sports. Many successful leagues in many sports have competitive imbalances.

Yes, we need more competitive competition and we need higher standards across the board, but we shouldn't see it as a bad thing if our best teams and best-run clubs are still winning the Grand Final.

I'm not sure how you can put "bringing smaller clubs up to the level of the bigger ones" in IMG's remit here. They're not the ones responsible for the clubs making the right investments in recruitment, talent development, coaching and the facilities do develop their talent, or for the developing the revenue streams to pay for it. 

To answer the question of the thread, I think the answer is "yes, but only if we support them and allow them to do what's right". My fear with this sort of deal is that, much like the clamour for Eddie Hearn, people see this agreement as "the saviour" to our problems when many of those problems - including some highlighted in this piece - fall squarely in the clubs' sphere of responsibility. The worse possible thing right now would be for the SL board / clubs to think "that's the marketing taken care of" and sit back, expecting the TV companies to queue up, the fans to come flooding through the gates and the cash to start rolling in. They still have work to do - they're still the primary point of sale for SL and they're still the people who should know their local markets better than anyone, and they need to be willing to listen to and embrace the agency's ideas. 

[Spidey]

51 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The crucial detail is the 12-year commitment.

We can often justifiably complain about short-termism in many Rugby League decisions, but planning on a timescale like that is unheard of, and not just in Rugby League but in sport generally.

That long enough for at least 3 structure changes

[Dallas Mead]

15 hours ago, Dave T said:

If you think the game has no strengths, I can't help you. 

What are these strengths please and thank you?

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dallas Mead said:

What are these strengths please and thank you?

You don't think rugby league in the UK has any strengths?

For a sport played seriously in only a few pockets of the country, it does remarkably well whenever reports like this roll round: https://harris-interactive.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2019/10/Sports-Participation-Viewing-and-Fandom-in-the-UK-A-Harris-Interactive-Report.pdf

Obviously, we could be stronger. Obviously, there are things we've done wrong. But, equally obviously, we're still standing and there are plenty of other sports/clubs that would kill to be in our position.

[Dallas Mead]

16 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You don't think rugby league in the UK has any strengths?

For a sport played seriously in only a few pockets of the country, it does remarkably well whenever reports like this roll round: https://harris-interactive.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2019/10/Sports-Participation-Viewing-and-Fandom-in-the-UK-A-Harris-Interactive-Report.pdf

Obviously, we could be stronger. Obviously, there are things we've done wrong. But, equally obviously, we're still standing and there are plenty of other sports/clubs that would kill to be in our position.

“a sport played seriously in only a few pockets of the country”

No further questions m’lud.

[Stirlin]

York Chairman Clint Goodchild gives his view.

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/sport/20148704.controversial-change-coming-rugby-leagues-img-deal/

[super major]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 

 

 

 

Yes, we need more competitive competition and we need higher standards across the board, but we shouldn't see it as a bad thing if our best teams and best-run clubs are still winning the Grand Final.

I'm not sure how you can put "bringing smaller clubs up to the level of the bigger ones" in IMG's remit here. They're not the ones responsible for the clubs making the right investments in recruitment, talent development, coaching and the facilities do develop their talent, or for the developing the revenue streams to pay for it. 

 

I would hope the focus is on allowing clubs a possible means of levelling up, whether by taking advice or whatever. If some clubs are offered an opportunity and don't take it is a different matter. It is also important that we don't end up levelling down

[idrewthehaggis]

4 hours ago, super major said:

I would hope the focus is on allowing clubs a possible means of levelling up, whether by taking advice or whatever. If some clubs are offered an opportunity and don't take it is a different matter. It is also important that we don't end up levelling down

In thinking about this very point, I feel the fairest way might be to see a number of activities being collectively and cooperatively organized.

The obvious being Academies. Either every club has one or none. The latter being Regional academies in which initially talent is equally distributed. 

Another would be some form of central contracting, ticketing or marketing. 

A cooperative approach would contribute to support the likes of Wigan, but hopefully bring their high standards to the likes of Wakey et al.  I mean for example would a player like Dan Norman be best as a reservist at Saints or full timer at say Toulouse? 

Whether or not you agree, I would encourage forumistas to advocate sensible ideas that we might wish IMG to consider. 

I believe there is a real well of articulate and innovative minds on here who I would hope will use the forum to advance a plethora of suggestion that as Martyn says, will make the Game even more successful.

[Jughead]

Just sorting out Sky’s production would be a massive step right now. 

[gingerjon]

6 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

“a sport played seriously in only a few pockets of the country”

No further questions m’lud.

So your belief is that the game in the UK has no strengths.

None at all.

Not that it's weaknesses outbalance the strengths but that it has no strengths.

Not even the fact that it's about the most exciting sport there is.

You don't even believe that.

[Dallas Mead]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

So your belief is that the game in the UK has no strengths.

None at all.

Not that it's weaknesses outbalance the strengths but that it has no strengths.

Not even the fact that it's about the most exciting sport there is.

You don't even believe that.

I believe that Rugby League is “a sport played seriously in only a few pockets of the country”