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

[Archie Gordon]

28 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

My concern - not one I had before - is that there really better be properly structured and coordinated focus groups going on or else it really is just something the RFL could have done themselves as it's all guesswork and doing what they want to do anyway.

The thing I mind most about this is the sloppiness. It smacks of a 'will this do' level approach that has dragged the game down for a long time and is getting worse.

I had thought/assumed that the RFL had some sort of research department. Now I doubt it. But how on Earth could IMG lend their name to this? Surely they must have a research department? I'm still a bit astonished. As others have said, this is at the level of 'I am a sports business student doing my first ever assignment. Can you guys take my survey? And pass it on to your mates too. Cheers.'

[Archie Gordon]

53 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

A 9s Summer Series, Leeds, Hull, Newcastle, Manchester, London, even Sheffield, Coventry/Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff and of course somewhere in the south of France.

If anything the Hundred has shown that younger audiences are willing to swap your traditional Yorkshire or Lancashire for a franchise team for a brief stint at least. 

I do think that idea could be developed and all 17 of the surveys I completed suggested as much.

[GUBRATS]

So if we're ' aping ' the hundred , we need to extend our games to about 4 hours 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Niels said:

I thought your second paragraph really interesting Tommy.

I saw the Northern Team play Manchester at the weekend. I was not sure if it was still supposed to be Yorkshire v Lancashire. I usually like Lancashire in the Roses games so I thought I'd better support Manchester just in case

It is odd as officially it is the first time we have had such "franchises" in a major sport in the UK.

Me and my mates wanted to pick teams by our favourite crisps; massively disappointed our super chargers got popchips! 

It also has allowed the ECB to break out of the restrictions of the county game. Not something that should be ignored.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

So if we're ' aping ' the hundred , we need to extend our games to about 4 hours 

Nah, we just need to repackage something we already have and divert funding into key strategic areas, good try though!

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Accidentally at first (opened on phone, didn’t finish; did on laptop without thinking; opened phone a moment later and went “Hang on”)

So, yes, the results are as meaningful as a Twitter poll.

Tbh,  adding security or limiting participation is unnecessary on stuff like this.  In reality,  people are not going to go to that much effort to sabotage or influence results with multiple entries -  allowing completion as easy as possible is better than restricting.  

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Tbh,  adding security or limiting participation is unnecessary on stuff like this.  In reality,  people are not going to go to that much effort to sabotage or influence results with multiple entries -  allowing completion as easy as possible is better than restricting.  

I think you underestimate my level of pettiness here 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think you underestimate my level of pettiness here 

As I was typing,  I did think about the fact I was suggesting RL fans may be like normal people. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

As I was typing,  I did think about the fact I was suggesting RL fans may be like normal people. 

Being serious, it’s a dud survey. It’s sloppy, the questions leading and not well defined, and, lastly, the fact it’s self selecting and with no restrictions does mean it’s invalid.

I’m not sure I get why it exists or what it’s meant to do

[M j M]

As long as everyone uses their multiple votes to strongly disagree with 2 x 10 then that's the best message we can hope to get through. The rest is pretty dull and or irrelevant. 

[Chris22]

Good to see we still somehow think if we change structures all of our problems will be solved.

My particular favourite is when we use a structure we have already scrapped and declared a failure again.

Maybe one day we will learn the issues go way beyond structure. Or then again maybe not.

[Big Picture]

47 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

Good to see we still somehow think if we change structures all of our problems will be solved.

My particular favourite is when we use a structure we have already scrapped and declared a failure again.

Maybe one day we will learn the issues go way beyond structure. Or then again maybe not.

Their problem is that no solution to the issues exists within the current setup the game has in Britain, no possible structure involving teams in smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged towns will ever be able to generate the revenues needed and that's just the way it is.  I seriously don't know why anyone here ever expected IMG to come up with anything the game's administrators haven't already thought of and/or tried.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Big Picture

[Tattersfieldtreiziste]

Filled in my form. 

I would award the questionnaire a pass at A level or first year undergraduate but no higher.

And the methodology??????

There should be some qualitative research to accompany this.

I would also want to know who else is being asked questions????

If we want more people to be interested and attend, then the opinions of those not engaged or attending need to be sought. Also lapsed supporters.

On a personal level, I prefer 'proper' versions of a sport, with local rivalries, a few interesting exotic away games, a reason to play ( higher position than last year, promotion/relegation), rules and competitions that are understood, and not continually tinkered with.

As an expansionist, I am very much a traditionalist, which sounds a contradiction but we have  something good here, and it would be nice to share it.

 

 

[Niels]

20 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Their problem is that no solution to issues exists within the current setup the game has in Britain, no possible structure involving teams in smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged towns will ever be able to generate the revenues needed and that's just the way it is.  I seriously don't know why anyone here ever expected IMG to come up with anything the game's administrators haven't already thought of and/or tried.

Is the problem through that the large cities are all covered by football? 

We can never compete with this. So the best option is to develop teams as St Helens, Warrington etc, where we have the foundations and where we are important. 

We could still expand in towns where there is a sporting gap. 

Re-reading your post again that might be what you are concluding?

[Cowardly Fan]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

My concern - not one I had before - is that there really better be properly structured and coordinated focus groups going on or else it really is just something the RFL could have done themselves as it's all guesswork and doing what they want to do anyway.

The thing I mind most about this is the sloppiness. It smacks of a 'will this do' level approach that has dragged the game down for a long time and is getting worse.

I'm expecting / hoping this is just the first stage. It's some quick & free research to give you some guidance to make a proper research plan, likely with focus groups & then a broader survey. At least that's the way I'd do it. 

Wouldn't worry about multiple complete either. They are using the same system we use at work & it's easy to remove the duplicates, better as some have said to make responding simple. 

 

[GeordieSaint]

My answers:

1. Changing structure isn’t going to solve any problems or drive up interest.

2. Game rife with self interest and a lack of accountability at the governance level. 

3. Change governance structure - independent commission.

4. Focus on internationals and developing France; exemption for any international club side from P&R (if retained).

5. Must look at redevelopment of scholarship system to reduce the impact on community rugby. 

6. Interested in more women’s rugby and the possibility of 9s.

7. Scrap loop fixtures, no to Origin and no to 10x2s. 

[Gerrumonside ref]

Done the survey earlier.

Some dreadful ideas in it.

Suspect they haven’t a clue what to do with this brief and are instead going to:

a) Copy the prevailing wisdom that the leadership could have acted upon itself;

b) Nick recent ideas from other sports but fail to understand the context or mechanics of them;

c) Produce these loaded surveys that kind of funnel people to a position and then later say, “it’s what the people wanted” if it doesn’t work

[Colin James]

Fairly apparent they have no interest in clubs outside SL or the two tens. Not one question about those clubs who are unlikely to be part of that top level and what structure people want to see at that level.

[Liverpool Rover]

Done the survey and based on that it looks to me like the RFL have told them they want the 2x10s and P7R is non negotiable or I would imagine that there would have been a question about which league structure is preferred or whether licensing should be brought back.

[Cowardly Fan]

25 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

Done the survey and based on that it looks to me like the RFL have told them they want the 2x10s and P7R is non negotiable or I would imagine that there would have been a question about which league structure is preferred or whether licensing should be brought back.

Disagree with this. 

To start I doubt the RFL have one unified view of what they want.

Based on the responses I get to my surveys it's difficult for people to judge the aims of those who wrote it. 

I'd be surprised if this is even 10% of their total research tol. 

My guess of aims would be to make some broad conclusions which may shape next phase of research, e.g. 

- x concept most popular with...origin & promotion & relegation generally liked or disliked by same people

- there's room for 9s to attract casual fans who don't go to magic, worth exploring if it can link to city idea 

So you start to get hypotheses you can test out, see what you should flesh out & perhaps discard an idea if it did terribly at this stage. 

 

 

[Man of Kent]

It should be welcomed that our great sport consults fans like this but, unless the results of the survey are published, they could totally ignore the responses for all we know. 

Has the RFL ever published survey results before?

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Cowardly Fan said:

I'm expecting / hoping this is just the first stage. It's some quick & free research to give you some guidance to make a proper research plan, likely with focus groups & then a broader survey. At least that's the way I'd do it. 

Wouldn't worry about multiple complete either. They are using the same system we use at work & it's easy to remove the duplicates, better as some have said to make responding simple. 

 

How do you remove duplicates when, to give an entirely hypothetical example obviously, I accessed it once via a Twitter link on a laptop, once on a Facebook link on a different PC, and once on my phone via the email link?

[Archie Gordon]

Looks as if they've made a change so that you can't do the survey twice on the same device now. To me that indicates that they released this thing without much thought in the first place.

To respond to a point made by others: You really don't want to make this survey as easy as possible to complete. You're going to get thousands of responses from a set of folks that are completely unrepresentative of anything. Or worse, a set of responses from TotalRL forum members.

It really is a dire effort - and quite dangerous if the results are used to shape any decisions.

 

[Cowardly Fan]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

How do you remove duplicates when, to give an entirely hypothetical example obviously, I accessed it once via a Twitter link on a laptop, once on a Facebook link on a different PC, and once on my phone via the email link?

First step is just based on IP address. Then based on multitude of factors - location similar, answers similar, above average speed, etc you might see someone like yourself. 

There are still ways people could get around it, but difficult if the aim is to influence results. Plus as I've said my expectation is the is just first phase to give some guidance to wider research. 

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Cowardly Fan said:

First step is just based on IP address. Then based on multitude of factors - location similar, answers similar, above average speed, etc you might see someone like yourself. 

There are still ways people could get around it, but difficult if the aim is to influence results. Plus as I've said my expectation is the is just first phase to give some guidance to wider research. 

Then my second issue (of many) becomes: isn't this a bit late for a first phase?