IMG - Thought's, suggestions and comments to move the game forward

[sweaty craiq]

Issue shares £5m to hold a SL share

Fit for purpose ground with min 7000 seats and 10000 capacity, 12 boxes and corporate facilities for 500

sufficient rest room facilities incl hot water and hand dryers

must run an academy

must run a scholarship programme 

must work closely with local junior clubs providing practical support regarding coaching and diet

 

Just a few ideas

 

[steve oates]

1 hour ago, Mumby Magic said:

Don't change the structure. 2x10 is not the way forward.

I'm not sure we are going forward.

The numbers based on the full 2019 pre-covid season show that the third games were very lucrative. Leeds got Cas at home (12,300)  then Castleford at home again (13,286) and Cas away (8147) Leeds only got 11,229 for the Broncos.

Saints got Wigan at home (16,508) Wigan away (22,050) and Wigan again at home (17,088) and they met again in the play offs (14,508) Saints only got 9090 for the Broncos.

These numbers if analysed in the club accountants office (or even at the IMG offices) will say all day long that 2 X 10 will maximise income, and the repeat fixtures won't be detrimental, the fans in general don't get bored and nor do the TV audience.

They may also say that visits from Toulouse and Catalans are detrimental  (and that would be a terrible shame) and may be why the clubs are re-introducing the phoney "French need a TV deal" thing which is terrible in my book. 

It may put us back to the jibe Rugby League is a Northern game for Northern Folk, but isn't Rugby union a southern/midlands game for southern/midlands folk? The chairmen may not care anyway.....

Finally on Catalans we should remember how Gausch has pretty much fallen out VERY big time with all the other Superleague owners over the Israel Folau affair. Revenge is a dish server cold....

[Tommygilf]

8 hours ago, RP London said:

oooooh look at you with your fancy french... you're obvious Lower Upper working upper middle bourgeois class... 

See this is the Sheffield education system for you...

[Tommygilf]

5 hours ago, steve oates said:

I'm not sure we are going forward.

The numbers based on the full 2019 pre-covid season show that the third games were very lucrative. Leeds got Cas at home (12,300)  then Castleford at home again (13,286) and Cas away (8147) Leeds only got 11,229 for the Broncos.

Saints got Wigan at home (16,508) Wigan away (22,050) and Wigan again at home (17,088) and they met again in the play offs (14,508) Saints only got 9090 for the Broncos.

These numbers if analysed in the club accountants office (or even at the IMG offices) will say all day long that 2 X 10 will maximise income, and the repeat fixtures won't be detrimental, the fans in general don't get bored and nor do the TV audience.

They may also say that visits from Toulouse and Catalans are detrimental  (and that would be a terrible shame) and may be why the clubs are re-introducing the phoney "French need a TV deal" thing which is terrible in my book. 

It may put us back to the jibe Rugby League is a Northern game for Northern Folk, but isn't Rugby union a southern/midlands game for southern/midlands folk? The chairmen may not care anyway.....

Finally on Catalans we should remember how Gausch has pretty much fallen out VERY big time with all the other Superleague owners over the Israel Folau affair. Revenge is a dish server cold....

It would be alright to be a northern game for northern folk if the north was where all the (serious) money was.

[Tommygilf]

7 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Issue shares £5m to hold a SL share

Fit for purpose ground with min 7000 seats and 10000 capacity, 12 boxes and corporate facilities for 500

sufficient rest room facilities incl hot water and hand dryers

must run an academy

must run a scholarship programme 

must work closely with local junior clubs providing practical support regarding coaching and diet

 

Just a few ideas

 

I can certainly see something similar happening. Perhaps with a bit of strategic direction too so that there isn't an overly dense concentration.

[RP London]

44 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

See this is the Sheffield education system for you...

Sadly I cant even blame that as I was boarding in Worcestershire! i'm middle lower middle upper middle upper downer class.. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, steve oates said:

I'm not sure we are going forward.

The numbers based on the full 2019 pre-covid season show that the third games were very lucrative. Leeds got Cas at home (12,300)  then Castleford at home again (13,286) and Cas away (8147) Leeds only got 11,229 for the Broncos.

Saints got Wigan at home (16,508) Wigan away (22,050) and Wigan again at home (17,088) and they met again in the play offs (14,508) Saints only got 9090 for the Broncos.

These numbers if analysed in the club accountants office (or even at the IMG offices) will say all day long that 2 X 10 will maximise income, and the repeat fixtures won't be detrimental, the fans in general don't get bored and nor do the TV audience.

They may also say that visits from Toulouse and Catalans are detrimental  (and that would be a terrible shame) and may be why the clubs are re-introducing the phoney "French need a TV deal" thing which is terrible in my book. 

It may put us back to the jibe Rugby League is a Northern game for Northern Folk, but isn't Rugby union a southern/midlands game for southern/midlands folk? The chairmen may not care anyway.....

Finally on Catalans we should remember how Gausch has pretty much fallen out VERY big time with all the other Superleague owners over the Israel Folau affair. Revenge is a dish server cold....

IMG have already indicated that they want to keep the French clubs in any new structure. I don't where you get these ideas from.

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, RP London said:

Sadly I cant even blame that as I was boarding in Worcestershire! i'm middle lower middle upper middle upper downer class.. 

Oh ffs! At least in Wakefield and Leeds we understand these things

[Big Picture]

20 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No because they have internationals that generate millions of pounds. 

And a national spread which includes the North, however much that might irritate some RL followers.

[glossop saint]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

It would be alright to be a northern game for northern folk if the north was where all the (serious) money was.

Or it was the whole of the north.

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Or it was the whole of the north.

That too!

[Liverpool Rover]

 

On 26/07/2022 at 01:46, Pulga said:

The sanctity by which a lot of English fans hold P&R at is quite scary. It means the product for broadcasters is never certain. Why would anyone pay for that? 

 

The main reason IMO why Catalans were able to grow as they have is because of the stability they had that came with the years they had of no relegation. If the other clubs had the same stability they could do the same knowing that one bad season on the field wouldn’t ruin everything which would lead to more clubs being able to compete for the top places.

Academies being mandatory for all SL clubs.

Centralised marketing and merchandising.

Stadium criteria including minimum capacity corporate, commercial operations etc.

Clubs outside of Super League to be assessed and given feedback on meeting criteria and accepted when ready

 

[Toby Chopra]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

 

The main reason IMO why Catalans were able to grow as they have is because of the stability they had that came with the years they had of no relegation. If the other clubs had the same stability they could do the same.... 

 

Depends which ones as I'm just not sure this is true for the heartland English clubs. I think many of them are pretty topped out, and the only thing that drives their fortunes is sucess on the pitch, which can prompt a little uptick in crowds. 

Remember we had licensing for six years where clubs were protected and none of the emerging heartland clubs came out of that period any stronger than they went in. Some of them even got worse: London, Bradford and eventually Widnes effectively collapsed and had to be rebuilt, and Salford and Wakefield made zero commercial progress during that that period. If anything, protection caused them to stagnate. 

KR built their new stand, and that's probably the only positive for the aspirant clubs from that period. 

Franchising works in new areas where teams need time to build up a fan base and commercials like Catalans did, but people seem dead set against a hybrid approach where some clubs are guaranteed a place, while others face relegation. They do it in euro basketball, but too radical for rugby league. 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Depends which ones as I'm just not sure this is true for the heartland English clubs. I think many of them are pretty topped out, and the only thing that drives their fortunes is sucess on the pitch, which can prompt a little uptick in crowds. 

Remember we had licensing for six years where clubs were protected and none of the emerging heartland clubs came out of that period any stronger than they went in. Some of them even got worse: London, Bradford and eventually Widnes effectively collapsed and had to be rebuilt, and Salford and Wakefield made zero commercial progress during that that period. If anything, protection caused them to stagnate. 

KR built their new stand, and that's probably the only positive for the aspirant clubs from that period. 

Franchising works in new areas where teams need time to build up a fan base and commercials like Catalans did, but people seem dead set against a hybrid approach where some clubs are guaranteed a place, while others face relegation. They do it in euro basketball, but too radical for rugby league. 

 

Protection didn't cause London to collapse. It was poor ownership decisions. Moving stadium and changing your brand doesn't help to retain supporters.

[Harry Stottle]

On 26/07/2022 at 20:00, Dallas Mead said:

Depressing…..but entirely unsurprising.

When Wood and Rimmer were 1 & 2 at the RFL I remember seeing a publicity shot of them both together, I swear they resembled a couple of "wide boys" who had a second hand car buisness in some derelict part of "anytown" with a 6' x 8' shed as an office.

[Harry Stottle]

16 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I can certainly see something similar happening. Perhaps with a bit of strategic direction too so that there isn't an overly dense concentration.

Any area in mind Tommy? I can think of one in particular which contains a club that was not allowed an academy licence perhaps to safeguard other clubs in the vicinity from reducing their 'fishing' pools.

Actually, being denied a licence (if that returns) because of "overly dense concentration" and even a suggestion to bring in the dreaded word 'merger' to the proceedings is a sure fire way to lose those fans to the sport, being those who actually care enough for their club who get along to the ground on matchdays, IMG should have a look at the recent history of the game under the leadership of Chairman Mo, and see the reaction he got under his Merger Strategy, and the reasons why he about turned.

[Harry Stottle]

15 hours ago, NW10LDN said:

IMG have already indicated that they want to keep the French clubs in any new structure. I don't where you get these ideas from.

Then IMG should not leave any stone unturned before coming to rash decisions, all information is relevant information, good or bad.

[Harry Stottle]

15 hours ago, Big Picture said:

And a national spread which includes the North, however much that might irritate some RL followers.

RL has pro/semi pro clubs in the far North 'beyond the wall' in Newcasle, Workington and Whitehaven, obviously the heartlands, South Yorkshire the East Midlands the South West in London and the deep south in Cornwall, is that a big enough spread?

[Toby Chopra]

6 hours ago, NW10LDN said:

Protection didn't cause London to collapse. It was poor ownership decisions. Moving stadium and changing your brand doesn't help to retain supporters.

Sure, I'm just saying that protection won't provide Catalan-style results if the underlying situation is bad. For London that was mismanagement, for the heartland clubs mentioned, I think it's more lack of growth capacity that they can't do much about individually.

In theory, a new London club could benefit from a new period of franchising. But given the amount of money that would need to be invested and all the things its management would need to get right, it's a long shot a best, and I wouldn't give them a guaranteed place just on the basis of promises.       

[Dave T]

10 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Depends which ones as I'm just not sure this is true for the heartland English clubs. I think many of them are pretty topped out, and the only thing that drives their fortunes is sucess on the pitch, which can prompt a little uptick in crowds. 

Remember we had licensing for six years where clubs were protected and none of the emerging heartland clubs came out of that period any stronger than they went in. Some of them even got worse: London, Bradford and eventually Widnes effectively collapsed and had to be rebuilt, and Salford and Wakefield made zero commercial progress during that that period. If anything, protection caused them to stagnate. 

KR built their new stand, and that's probably the only positive for the aspirant clubs from that period. 

Franchising works in new areas where teams need time to build up a fan base and commercials like Catalans did, but people seem dead set against a hybrid approach where some clubs are guaranteed a place, while others face relegation. They do it in euro basketball, but too radical for rugby league. 

 

I think this is part of the problem around licensing. Weak clubs will still be weak, and we went into it with weak clubs. It isn't a guarantee that clubs won't fail. 

In an ideal situation we'd have enough strong clubs to create a strong league to start, and then have enough demand and competition to add to that or replace where necessary. 

Just having the same teams in, but removing P&R will do little. 

Adding London Broncos to SL and protecting them won't make them a strong club. 

I think this is where having minimum requirements (which could involve entry fee, minimum investment etc) is the better solution - but again, we may end up with only 4 teams applying to be in. 

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Franchising works in new areas where teams need time to build up a fan base and commercials like Catalans did, but people seem dead set against a hybrid approach where some clubs are guaranteed a place, while others face relegation. They do it in euro basketball, but too radical for rugby league. 

 

Catalans were a 'heartland' club under their other guise albeit in the French Heartlands, some talk about the Catalan club as a new entity plonked in a virgin area for the game it was nothing of the sort.

What they do in so often quoted other sports n these pages beit Football here, North American sports, the NRL and now euro basketball is totally irrelevant, we are neither the size nor have the financial clout and whether you think it is right or wrong P&R is a part of the British Psyche in multi divisional sports and pastimes professional or amateur.

And to bloody right people are dead set against ringfencing some from relegation whilst others can face jeopardy who play in the same league system to fight for and acheive points to finish higher up the ladder, can you not see from what you are suggesting is open to abuse and would no doubt get some finger pointing and accusations of misdoing maybe it could get even deeper than that, I know if I was Chair of a club and had invested a lot of time and money only to get relegated when finishing higher than a protected club, I would pursue it through any legal system that was open to me

If this system was in this season and Warrington happened to finish 11th to Toulouse's 12th and they were lost to the top flight do you think that would be just let go and people would say 'Ah Well' like hell they would.

[steve oates]

16 hours ago, NW10LDN said:

IMG have already indicated that they want to keep the French clubs in any new structure. I don't where you get these ideas from.

NOT an "Idea" read this  Club chairman backs French Super League teams despite lack of TV deal (loverugbyleague.com)

Let me now ask you what power do you believe IMG have over the Superleague chairmen to impose any recommendations IMG may (in your words) "want"  especially keeping both French clubs in Superleague??? 

The reality is going to 2X10 and keeping both French clubs in Superleague leaves how many English clubs left in their own top tier??  The French are guests, the English clubs are members......

[Tommygilf]

56 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Any area in mind Tommy? I can think of one in particular which contains a club that was not allowed an academy licence perhaps to safeguard other clubs in the vicinity from reducing their 'fishing' pools.

Actually, being denied a licence (if that returns) because of "overly dense concentration" and even a suggestion to bring in the dreaded word 'merger' to the proceedings is a sure fire way to lose those fans to the sport, being those who actually care enough for their club who get along to the ground on matchdays, IMG should have a look at the recent history of the game under the leadership of Chairman Mo, and see the reaction he got under his Merger Strategy, and the reasons why he about turned.

They pick areas based on resources, businesses bid for the right to run a Rugby League club in that area, I believe that is the only addition to what SC was suggesting.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

When Wood and Rimmer were 1 & 2 at the RFL I remember seeing a publicity shot of them both together, I swear they resembled a couple of "wide boys" who had a second hand car buisness in some derelict part of "anytown" with a 6' x 8' shed as an office.

can't believe they gave that impression.... no way would they both fit in a 6'x8' shed!!!

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

can't believe they gave that impression.... no way would they both fit in a 6'x8' shed!!!

I refrained from putting in a 4 x 6 shed!