Can IMG make Rugby League into a more successful sport?

[steve oates]

18 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Have we seriously been chasing growth, or have we been playing at it?

If the only solution IMG can come up with after 12 years on the job is a 14-team Super League, I would be surprised if they are still in business by then.

I'm at least as sceptical as you clearly are about the value of consultants, but now that they are engaged, we have to hope that they are as smart as they are reputed to be.

Their "Smartness" is mostly in their ability to maximise TV revenues. Recently we have seen SKY reducing what they want to pay for Superleague, and not committing too far into the future, so the most urgent requirement is to look for new TV revenue streams and maximise that income.  IMG certainly fit the bill for that service.

Once maximised who actually gets that revenue? Will League one still receive £thousands of pounds? I doubt that, and therefore you may be most likely to see not "growth" at all, but a reduction in the number of clubs, and a remit given to IMG to sell SL and Championship games as far and wide as possible.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Chasing growth", I take it to mean expanding the footprint of the game. I think we have done this by combining with France, and IMG may be perfect for engineering a French TV deal.

So yes we are "Chasing growth" if you mean the growth of TV revenues, and IMG's track record makes their appointment  a very good move. If you mean the growth of the actual professional game's structures and geographical reach you may be well off track here?

[steve oates]

On 25/05/2022 at 23:32, yipyee said:

The blueprint was there in the 90s, Lewis went back to it in the noughties and had success.

There needs to be a ring fenced profesional league with minimum criteria met similar to the NCL. 

IMG could help fund expansion. Newcastle, Sheffield. Donny, Cumbria, Wales, London,

With these areas set up for player production and fan base then a 16 team league is realistic.

IMG could also invest in Manchester to fix the area. Oldham is the obvious starting point.

With respect you appear to be way off course here, along with others, believing that IMG have a remit to invest in and grow the game.  They don't.

And they certainly aren't going to "invest" in Rugby League in the seven places you quote. If you add up the vast amounts of  money the various chairman of these clubs had to pay from their own pockets over the years to just survive as professional RL clubs before throwing in the towel. IMG are certainly not going to do that.

Their remit is to save the game by reversing the devastating move by SKY to heavily reduce what they pay for Rugby League.

This won't involve strengthening once great clubs now on hard times, it is most likely to kill a number of them off.

Do we not recall how angry SL bosses were when the RFL took a large sum off their SKY money and gave it to the Championships???  The RFL is no longer calling the shots......

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

Their remit is to save the game by reversing the devastating move by SKY to heavily reduce what they pay for Rugby League.

I think you're mistaken here steve, if their remit is not to realise the full potential of TGG then it won't matter how many years they've signed on for.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

Their "Smartness" is mostly in their ability to maximise TV revenues. Recently we have seen SKY reducing what they want to pay for Superleague, and not committing too far into the future, so the most urgent requirement is to look for new TV revenue streams and maximise that income.  IMG certainly fit the bill for that service.

Once maximised who actually gets that revenue? Will League one still receive £thousands of pounds? I doubt that, and therefore you may be most likely to see not "growth" at all, but a reduction in the number of clubs, and a remit given to IMG to sell SL and Championship games as far and wide as possible.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Chasing growth", I take it to mean expanding the footprint of the game. I think we have done this by combining with France, and IMG may be perfect for engineering a French TV deal.

So yes we are "Chasing growth" if you mean the growth of TV revenues, and IMG's track record makes their appointment  a very good move. If you mean the growth of the actual professional game's structures and geographical reach you may be well off track here?

You will have seen that I interviewed Matt Dwyer, the IMG man who will take on the initial responsibility for the agreement from their end.

From speaking to him, I didn't get the impression that he would anticipate a reduction in the number of professional clubs. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Ultimately without the game growing its footprint, the potential for growth in TV revenues, regardless of IMG's expertise in that field, is strictly limited in the longer term.

[Oxford]

7 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You will have seen that I interviewed Matt Dwyer, the IMG man who will take on the initial responsibility for the agreement from their end.

From speaking to him, I didn't get the impression that he would anticipate a reduction in the number of professional clubs. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Ultimately without the game growing its footprint, the potential for growth in TV revenues, regardless of IMG's expertise in that field, is strictly limited in the longer term.

First of all I think it's great that you spend time on here answering queries, questions and posts, there's not enough of this interplay between fans and media. If nothing else it may help clear up the number of misunderstandings that can come out of more or less everything mentioned.

From your interview I got a very similar idea to your thoughts.

Because he stated that IMG's outcomes and results are intertwined with the sport's it is a very different proposition from those involved in the past as partners etc.

[Jughead]

On 26/05/2022 at 10:30, del capo said:

IMG have their own  massively successful Academy in various sports , largely at present based on the needs of the American markets. They have had significant success in a number of ' Drafts '.......

Do they? In what sport(s)?

[Oxford]

Although I'm a real sceptic I think it's as well to point out that the autopsy doesn't usually precede the decease of the person involved.

This does show the level of distrust and earned mistrust over the years which is understandable but IMG and the RFL/SL need to be congratulated for seeing this as a long term project and putting faith in the process.

 

[steve oates]

4 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You will have seen that I interviewed Matt Dwyer, the IMG man who will take on the initial responsibility for the agreement from their end. From speaking to him, I didn't get the impression that he would anticipate a reduction in the number of professional clubs. Quite the reverse, in fact. Ultimately without the game growing its footprint, the potential for growth in TV revenues, regardless of IMG's expertise in that field, is strictly limited in the longer term.

“But this is not going to be an overnight thing. This is the long game. We need to grow this sport, first to be able to get it back to the levels it was previously. and then to exceed those levels. That’s not a process that we can make happen in twelve months’ time, so we thought that a twelve-year deal was an appropriate length of time for us to be able to grow the sport to where we want it to be and to give us enough of a horizon to be able to demonstrate that we have earned our return by proving that performance.”

I do get League express and have done for decades, so thanks for continuing to fly this flag Martin.  For me there is of course the need to maximise revenues for the game as it is now. For me the job at hand is to find the best TV revenues we can. Again IMG would appear ideal to undertake this process for us.

Correct me if I am wrong but SKY maximised our TV revenues when the RFL made a whole game deal with SKY at a time BT sport appeared to want to join the biding? Now that deal has come to an end and SKY have no rival bidders, SKY  appear to have been taking advantage of this  and now pay less money for more content.

Surely the way forward therefore is for IMG to look as far and wide as they can to find a TV partner that is prepared to bid against SKY. Surely we need that expertise and results in the here and now?? Instead it appears these consultants have argued that TV revenues can only improve if the game can offer more to TV.

That is obvious and had the game taken off and "grown" in such as London, Sheffield Cardiff and Newcastle to the point of having more big clubs to add to Leeds, Hull, St.Helens, Wire and Wigan  I'd be sure we would have a much bigger SKY contract or a big BT contract. But this has not happened.

The consultants seem to have been smart enough to spot this reality (although nobody needs to be that smart to spot it) and have argued their way into a 12 year contract. I can only hope the fee is "results based" but I can't think for one minute that these consultants really believe they can grow Rugby League against a backdrop of decades of failure to break out of the M62.  This isn't like the American sports scene........... 

[steve oates]

35 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Although I'm a real sceptic I think it's as well to point out that the autopsy doesn't usually precede the decease of the person involved......

 

Rugby League is stuck on the M62, and we have access to a history of 126 years trying to get off it.

The games historians could point to the death of scores of deceased expansion projects...............

[gingerjon]

38 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Rugby League is stuck on the M62, and we have access to a history of 126 years trying to get off it.

The games historians could point to the death of scores of deceased expansion projects...............

What junction of the M62 is Brisbane?

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

Rugby League is stuck on the M62, and we have access to a history of 126 years trying to get off it.

The games historians could point to the death of scores of deceased expansion projects...............

Coventry .... Newcastle ...... Whitehaven ..... London I just mention these because I'm so tired of hearing and engaging in this limiting and illogical end of the debate.

Those are not historians so much as critics and useless for the game, and sadly there's more of them than anyone else.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

Rugby League is stuck on the M62, and we have access to a history of 126 years trying to get off it.

The games historians could point to the death of scores of deceased expansion projects...............

I think many would debate the trying to get off it part. For much of its history RL had no real desire to get off it and in some cases factions within the sport worked against any attempt to.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Damien

[Tommygilf]

13 hours ago, Damien said:

I think many would debate the trying to get off it part. For much of its history RL had no real desire to get off it and in some cases factions within the sport worked against any attempt to.

100%. 

When I'm feeling particularly naïve I think its just figures in the sport being stupid, rather than actively undermining.

[steve oates]

19 hours ago, Damien said:

I think many would debate the trying to get off it part. For much of its history RL had no real desire to get off it and in some cases factions within the sport worked against any attempt to.

Not at all true.

On leaving the RFU Northern clubs became isolated in Yorkshire and Lancashire, as Soccer made great strides. The rest of the country either stuck with Union or went with Soccer.

Trevor Delaney set out all the near 50 welcomed attempts of the League game to expand across the country. What worked against these clubs was isolation, no local players, local fans happy with Union/soccer, lack of investment.

London, Sheffield and Newcastle are recent examples.  which "factions within the sport" are currently working against these clubs?? 

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Not at all true.

On leaving the RFU Northern clubs became isolated in Yorkshire and Lancashire, as Soccer made great strides. The rest of the country either stuck with Union or went with Soccer.

Trevor Delaney set out all the near 50 welcomed attempts of the League game to expand across the country. What worked against these clubs was isolation, no local players, local fans happy with Union/soccer, lack of investment.

London, Sheffield and Newcastle are recent examples.  which "factions within the sport" are currently working against these clubs?? 

Where to even start with that...

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Not at all true.

On leaving the RFU Northern clubs became isolated in Yorkshire and Lancashire, as Soccer made great strides. The rest of the country either stuck with Union or went with Soccer.

Trevor Delaney set out all the near 50 welcomed attempts of the League game to expand across the country. What worked against these clubs was isolation, no local players, local fans happy with Union/soccer, lack of investment.

London, Sheffield and Newcastle are recent examples.  which "factions within the sport" are currently working against these clubs?? 

Thats an awfully slanted view to suit your argument. As plenty of people agreed with me it seems many others disagree with you too.

I'm not particularly interested in going back over 125 years of history and embarking on a circular argument which has been done countless times on these forums. Bigger and better things going on today.

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Where to even start with that...

Yeah it's so wrong that it's just pointless continuing.

[Damien]

Jamie Peacock just came out with a great quote that sums up a lot of things for me:

"there's people involved in the sport that don't want the game to die but they don't want it to grow either"

Edited May 28, 2022 by Damien

[steve oates]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

Jamie Peacock just came out with a great quote that sums up a lot of things for me:

"there's people involved in the sport that don't want the game to die but they don't want it to grow either"

This is from when Peacock was unhappy at the demise of Toronto Wolfpack.

What Peacock missed was that despite the Wolfpack getting on track in style after a poor start in Superleague , with a thumping win at Huddersfield in the cup, it was David Argyle the Wolfpack owner who decided to pull the plug on them and walked away. A fellow director Livolsi was rightly appalled at the decision.

[Damien]

32 minutes ago, steve oates said:

This is from when Peacock was unhappy at the demise of Toronto Wolfpack.

What Peacock missed was that despite the Wolfpack getting on track in style after a poor start in Superleague , with a thumping win at Huddersfield in the cup, it was David Argyle the Wolfpack owner who decided to pull the plug on them and walked away. A fellow director Livolsi was rightly appalled at the decision.

No it wasn't. It was in the build up to today's Challenge Cup final.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

This is from when Peacock was unhappy at the demise of Toronto Wolfpack.

What Peacock missed was that despite the Wolfpack getting on track in style after a poor start in Superleague , with a thumping win at Huddersfield in the cup, it was David Argyle the Wolfpack owner who decided to pull the plug on them and walked away. A fellow director Livolsi was rightly appalled at the decision.

Did he decide to pull the plug after the SL clubs voted to kick them out? 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

No it wasn't. It was in the build up to today's Challenge Cup final.

Almost had to laugh react to this but didn't want to give the wrong impression

[Man of Kent]

Of course growing the game is IMG’s remit but I’m not sure it’s about British expansion in the way discussed ad nauseam in this place.

It could be it’s more about taking stuff that already exists and putting it together in a more lucrative way, eg a serious international game, a world club tournament (mens and womens), monetising the wheelchair game etc.

There’s lots of humans out there in the world who want live sports content that IMG could facilitate and produce.

We have a great product, it just needs better packaging. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Man of Kent
Typos

[Cake Tiger]

If they could arrange for highlights of one of RL's showpiece occasion to be shown on TV in a rugby league watching country like New Zealand, that'll be a start. CC Final not shown anywhere in NZ and no highlights anywhere to be found yet. I subscribe to both sports channels in NZ.

I can, of course, find plenty of highlights of the RU European final, plus their second-tier "Challenge Cup" very easily on YouTube. I can also find reaction and interviews from Tottenham's stadium. 

I could buy a VPN and watch BBC coverage but really? Should I have to?

[Oxford]

15 hours ago, steve oates said:

Not at all true.

On leaving the RFU Northern clubs became isolated in Yorkshire and Lancashire, as Soccer made great strides. The rest of the country either stuck with Union or went with Soccer.

Trevor Delaney set out all the near 50 welcomed attempts of the League game to expand across the country. What worked against these clubs was isolation, no local players, local fans happy with Union/soccer, lack of investment.

London, Sheffield and Newcastle are recent examples.  which "factions within the sport" are currently working against these clubs?? 

Although I tend to agree with your basic premise that RL shows more evidence of anti-expansion than the contrary your historical evidence is pants.

I still think that changing the attitude culture towards RL is key and that means making it more fashionable and go to in England at the very least.

A lot of the reasoning, suggestions and ideas remain simplistic, unrealistic nonsense.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Oxford