McNamara blasts Huddersfield after IMG discussions

[steve oates]

On 27/07/2022 at 08:16, ATLANTISMAN said:

IMG will propose the following without doubt.

* Franchising

* London team

* Toulouse franchise (Dragons nailed on)

* Less matches (Loop ones gone)

* Min of 5 internationals a year (2/3 outside of the heartlands)

* League expansion via franchising based on strict criteria

Franchising? Like McDonalds?  The London team is in place but there is nobody wanting to throw even more money at it.

The Loop games for the big clubs attract good audiences why throw them away? 

5 Internationals? Who against who exactly??   

Finally you may mean "Licensing". If you use strict criteria how will you go with a four club league?? 

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, bar red said:

What happens if the club chairman don't agree with INGs proposals? Genuine question.

 

8 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Well, if enough of them try to stop it, they will succeed, because the clubs have an inordinate amount of control over the governing body compare to any other major sport.

And if that happens, I suppose IMG would just walk away before they'd incurred too much cost. 

A bit of an embarrassment for them, but a huge reputational blow for us.

Imagine the damage if one of the world's major media/marketing organisations said we weren't fit to work with? No-one else will ever risk it. I'm hoping such a damaging scenario is enough to keep us in line.          

In reality, they'll come to agreement. It is right that clubs/the existing game gets a say, we haven't sold the sport to IMG. 

We still see in sports like F1, there is a healthy level of tension between the teams and governing bodies.

The club owners are likely to be investing more into the sport than IMG. 

But the owners are not as stupid or inward looking as people make out, it is them who have driven this, its not in their interests to stubbornly ignore proposals. 

[Oxford]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But the owners are not as stupid or inward looking as people make out, it is them who have driven this, its not in their interests to stubbornly ignore proposals. 

No Dave they're not stupid though inward or not is debatable,

If the proposals are seen as in their interest sport and club they will back the ideas.

If that means certain clubs (not theirs) suffer as a consequence they will back the ideas.

On the other hand I doubt any one of them would back any idea that was for the good of the game but affected their side.

Given all that, it may be they can't avoid, or get away from, being inward looking.

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by Oxford

[Derwent Parker]

22 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not going to disagree Dav, and especially when those borders are other RL towns, tell me where is the dividing line that separates Haven from Workington loyalties Distington perhaps?

No the three "L"s - Lowca Loony Line

[steve oates]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But the owners are not as stupid or inward looking as people make out, it is them who have driven this, its not in their interests to stubbornly ignore proposals. 

The SL club owners apart from the likes of Wakefield & Toulouse put in huge amounts of their own private and personal money to be in Superleague, and to be able to compete in Superleague.  They have every right to ignore proposals if they are expected to support any idea from IMG  that means they have to put in more, or their positions will be affected adversely. It is therefore certainly in their interest to ignore proposals that do not suit them. 

You must remember the owners are not paying any fee to IMG and the deal is merely to let IMG come up with something to move the game forward. If IMG can propose something to suit (say like a 10 club Superleague  giving these owners a bigger part of the smaller TV money pot) they may take that. 

If IMG suggest go to a 14 club league  even though SKY money is falling, they may be out on their ear. IMG will then not be paid a penny. Smells to me like IMG are to take the can for 2x10..... 

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

no **** off!

This isn’t very teamy y’know!

[RP London]

51 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

This isn’t very teamy y’know!

its the "me" in team coming through

Edited July 28, 2022 by RP London

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

But the owners are not as stupid or inward looking as people make out, it is them who have driven this, its not in their interests to stubbornly ignore proposals. 

The problem is I don't think it's uniform. Some think bigger picture, some more individually. And some of them will back change in principle, but will throw in a spanner, or back track, or undermine, if it starts to affect their club in a way they perceive to be negative. We've seen all of that in recent time, even after an initial radical decision, such as licensing, or the SL breakaway.

I don't necessarily condemn them for that. It's perfectly rational to object to a proposal if it affects you personally, even if it's "for the greater good". But the way that decision making power is structured it's the mass of middling clubs that hold sway.

And the incentive to keep plodding along, fighting over pie shares, is strong, and, from a narrow perspective, also perfectly rational. Especially, as you say, if the owners have put their own cash on the line. 

But ten years down the line we'll be no further forward.  

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said:

The problem is I don't think it's uniform. Some think bigger picture, some more individually. And some of them will back change in principle, but will throw in a spanner, or back track, or undermine, if it starts to affect their club in a way they perceive to be negative. We've seen all of that in recent time, even after an initial radical decision, such as licensing, or the SL breakaway.

I don't necessarily condemn them for that. It's perfectly rational to object to a proposal if it affects you personally, even if it's "for the greater good". But the way that decision making power is structured it's the mass of middling clubs that hold sway.

And the incentive to keep plodding along, fighting over pie shares, is strong, and, from a narrow perspective, also perfectly rational. Especially, as you say, if the owners have put their own cash on the line. 

But ten years down the line we'll be no further forward.  

And I think that's fine. Diversity in thinking isn't an issue. As long as the governance is set up so the minority can thwart everything then it can work. 

[Blind side johnny]

On 24/07/2022 at 20:11, sweaty craiq said:

You put a figure on how many pay Sky to watch RL, and compare it with how many in Perpignan do the same

The fact that you can't subscribe to Sky TV in Perpignan is irrelevant to Leithers, I guess.

[Blind side johnny]

5 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Is it safe to come back on this thread and have a rational conversation about the way forward?

 

No. Give it a week.

[Oxford]

6 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Is it safe to come back on this thread and have a rational conversation about the way forward?

 

On those criteria you'll never come back to any of them.

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

The problem is I don't think it's uniform. Some think bigger picture, some more individually. And some of them will back change in principle, but will throw in a spanner, or back track, or undermine, if it starts to affect their club in a way they perceive to be negative. We've seen all of that in recent time, even after an initial radical decision, such as licensing, or the SL breakaway.

I don't necessarily condemn them for that. It's perfectly rational to object to a proposal if it affects you personally, even if it's "for the greater good". But the way that decision making power is structured it's the mass of middling clubs that hold sway.

And the incentive to keep plodding along, fighting over pie shares, is strong, and, from a narrow perspective, also perfectly rational. Especially, as you say, if the owners have put their own cash on the line. 

But ten years down the line we'll be no further forward.  

It is a fair point.

The reverse is one that I do try to acknowledge publicly on here when discussing these sort of issues, that no matter what structure, format, whatever the game goes with, my club is all but guaranteed to be the first name on any list for the "included at the top table". That does insulate one somewhat from the personal aspect of these decisions. Though on the other hand it does liberate one equally to see the "bigger picture" so to speak.

[Harry Stottle]

22 hours ago, Oxford said:

On the other hand I doubt any one of them would back any idea that was for the good of the game but affected their side.

That is it in a nutshell Oxy, it is the proverbial 'Turkeys voting for Christmas' syndrome, but obviously will be backed by the prize 'Cocks' who are spared the roasting tin to sire next year's flock.

But seriously, I would say that upwards of 95% of us that write on these pages has an affiliation and connection with a club, it is only natural to cosset and protect that, just as though it is a family member.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Harry Stottle

[jacobus]

On 26/07/2022 at 22:59, clogdance said:

Second teams 

So you want the two clubs first teams to play summer in superleague and winter in Elite 1 to make it up to a standard you find acceptable

Sure. I will get them on it right away ! 

[Damien]

22 hours ago, bar red said:

What happens if the club chairman don't agree with INGs proposals? Genuine question.

Same as what has happened for decades.

[Harry Stottle]

21 hours ago, steve oates said:

The SL club owners apart from the likes of Wakefield & Toulouse put in huge amounts of their own private and personal money to be in Superleague, and to be able to compete in Superleague.  They have every right to ignore proposals if they are expected to support any idea from IMG  that means they have to put in more, or their positions will be affected adversely. It is therefore certainly in their interest to ignore proposals that do not suit them. 

You must remember the owners are not paying any fee to IMG and the deal is merely to let IMG come up with something to move the game forward. If IMG can propose something to suit (say like a 10 club Superleague  giving these owners a bigger part of the smaller TV money pot) they may take that. 

If IMG suggest go to a 14 club league  even though SKY money is falling, they may be out on their ear. IMG will then not be paid a penny. Smells to me like IMG are to take the can for 2x10..... 

But who is going to get the vote on any IMG proposal(s), will it be just the RFL, or a two way of SL Europe and the RFL - representative of all below SL, maybe it is a 13 way vote comprising the 12 incumbents of SL at the time and the RFL, or will it be thrown open to the floor of all 37 members - Inc the two French club's, or as suggested by some an autonomous body elected to do the governance of the game in this country, if so when does the selection process for the member's of this governance body begin? Whatever happens in the accepting or the dismissing of IMG's proposals there is a lot to sort out beforehand.

And please nobody shoot me for this question, are the French club's member's of the RFL or just SL Europe, just curious. 

[Harry Stottle]

16 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Though on the other hand it does liberate one equally to see the "bigger picture" so to speak.

Only if one is rational Tommy, too many I imagine may take the Marie-Antoinette narrative.

[steve oates]

21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But who is going to get the vote on any IMG proposal(s), will it be just the RFL, or a two way of SL Europe and the RFL - representative of all below SL, maybe it is a 13 way vote comprising the 12 incumbents of SL at the time and the RFL, or will it be thrown open to the floor of all 37 members - Inc the two French club's, or as suggested by some an autonomous body elected to do the governance of the game in this country, if so when does the selection process for the member's of this governance body begin? Whatever happens in the accepting or the dismissing of IMG's proposals there is a lot to sort out beforehand.

And please nobody shoot me for this question, are the French club's member's of the RFL or just SL Europe, just curious. 

I got a very sharp reply*** on the issue of Catalans Dragons, in which it was suggested most strongly they were "Members" of Superleague.

I don't think they are. I can remember them being invited into Superleague as "guests". Later when the SKY deal ran out last time the clubs were very divided on the issue of SKY's offer. The votes taken whether to accept the sky deal or not did not involve Les Catalans, and I do recall that this was because they were guests. So Mr. Gausch didn't vote on the proposals....

To check this further I have looked at the make up of Superleague Europe  on companies house. It lists many of the good, the bad and the ugly including Mr. Garcia of Toulouse. It does not include Mr. Gausch.

*** It's OK I am recovering from the on line shellacing......

[gingerjon]

37 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But who is going to get the vote on any IMG proposal(s) ...

In the first instance: "IMG will be working with the sport's Strategic Working Group, which was specifically tasked with identifying the right partnership. The group is made up of representatives from the RFL and Super League Europe and has been working closely with IMG over recent months." (RFL press release)

So, do a google for "Rugby League Strategic Working Group" and this is the answer on who is working with IMG and who, presumably, acts as first filter:

"The members of the Strategic Working Group are Gary Hetherington (Leeds Rhinos), Paul Lakin (Hull KR), Eamonn McManus (St Helens), Stuart Middleton (Warrington), Karen Moorhouse (RFL) and Ralph Rimmer (RFL)."

 

[Harry Stottle]

20 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

In the first instance: "IMG will be working with the sport's Strategic Working Group, which was specifically tasked with identifying the right partnership. The group is made up of representatives from the RFL and Super League Europe and has been working closely with IMG over recent months." (RFL press release)

So, do a google for "Rugby League Strategic Working Group" and this is the answer on who is working with IMG and who, presumably, acts as first filter:

"The members of the Strategic Working Group are Gary Hetherington (Leeds Rhinos), Paul Lakin (Hull KR), Eamonn McManus (St Helens), Stuart Middleton (Warrington), Karen Moorhouse (RFL) and Ralph Rimmer (RFL)."

 

Thanks Ginger.

Seems weighted towards SL, as my other question who chose this group I wonder, was it just presented or was all the member clubs involved  in the process like when vote for SL to break away was made?

But this is an ongoing group to discuss proceedings with IMG and as you say acts as a filter, I will still be interested when the time comes to who will sanction or reject the final proposals.

[steve oates]

20 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks Ginger.

Seems weighted towards SL, as my other question who chose this group I wonder, was it just presented or was all the member clubs involved  in the process like when vote for SL to break away was made?

But this is an ongoing group to discuss proceedings with IMG and as you say acts as a filter, I will still be interested when the time comes to who will sanction or reject the final proposals.

If it's weighted towards SL Harry, then are you not answering your own question?

[gingerjon]

23 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

my other question who chose this group I wonder, was it just presented or was all the member clubs involved  in the process like when vote for SL to break away was made?

It came about from the (re)merger between SL and RFL so, I would guess, that the RFL decided to go down the route of having delegated responsibility to its CEO and another Board Member, whereas SL went down direct representation.

I can't now remember how previous structural changes were agreed - has there been an all-member vote each time the league structure changes? (Each time a sponsor is agreed, each time a TV deal agreed (etc etc)).

[Moove]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

To check this further I have looked at the make up of Superleague Europe  on companies house. It lists many of the good, the bad and the ugly including Mr. Garcia of Toulouse. It does not include Mr. Gausch.

Niel Wood is the Catalans director of SLE rather than Bernard Guasch.

Catalans (and Toulouse) aren't full members of the RFL though, hence they get 'invited' to enter the Challenge Cup and don't get to vote on things like league restructures, but in terms of SLE they're the same as the others I believe while they're in it.

[Harry Stottle]

44 minutes ago, steve oates said:

If it's weighted towards SL Harry, then are you not answering your own question?

How so?