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

[Gordon Street]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Am I telling you they should have P and R in Australia ? , No 

So don't tell me we shouldn't have it in the UK , simple really 

You haven't a clue 

pulga has as much right to his/her point of view as you have, and who are you to tell somebody whether they have a clue or not? Talk about arrogant.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I think this is very true and now you mention it is a reason why it seems hard to see the RFL and clubs going against IMG.

If what IMG recommend is not implemented then I think it's fair to assume IMG will think they are banging their heads against a wall and there is no point them being involved. I have no idea where the sport goes from that point, considering the reasons why we have got to this stage in the first place. Consequently I do think the sport is probably more bought in to IMG's recommendations then is being let on.

I do think it's also important to remember that this is a 12y partnership.  I'd be stunned if IMG are making this one presentation and it is job done and we go into delivery mode. 

In 5 years the world will look different from now.  This will be an ongoing piece of work. In reality I expect it'll be some initial recommendations around structure etc. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

There is nothing that supports that view.

This partnership has been months and months in the making, plenty will have been ironed out on governance. 

There are likely to be some break clauses etc,  but the game can't be in a position where the recommendation is terrible,  the existing sport says as much and IMG just walk away and give up. 

It won't happen imho. 

IMG aren't going to waste time flogging a dead horse Dave. They won't stick their reputation on something they fundamentally don't believe in, it isn't worth it to them.

[Gordon Street]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Indeed.  Everton is famous because of the football team.  In the same way that people have heard of Castleford because of their RL team. 

Just as everyone knows Saracens is an area of London because of the RU team called that. 

BP's argument is all over the place 

I never knew there was an area of London called saracens. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

IMG aren't going to waste time flogging a dead horse Dave. They won't stick their reputation on something they fundamentally don't believe in, it isn't worth it to them.

But that doesn't mean anything. You are putting your own negative slant on this. 

There will absolutely be disagreements,  and various iterations throughout the 12 years. 

They will not be presenting a silver bullet in September. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Gordon Street said:

I never knew there was an area of London called saracens. 

There isn't,  was a little joke mate. 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think this is very true and now you mention it is a reason why it seems hard to see the RFL and clubs going against IMG.

If what IMG recommend is not implemented then I think it's fair to assume IMG will think they are banging their heads against a wall and there is no point them being involved. I have no idea where the sport goes from that point, considering the reasons why we have got to this stage in the first place. Consequently I do think the sport is probably more bought in to IMG's recommendations then is being let on.

I agree. I suspect a lot of it is already known to key figures, they are now just making it acceptable and passable for the sport (2x10 for example being a handy way to guarantee over half the current clubs vote in favour, even with dissenters).

There is no way IMG will persist with the sport if even relatively minor recommendations aren't accepted initially.

[Gordon Street]

18 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Worcester pop 102 K 

Gloucester pop 166 K 

Cities yes because they've got a big church , but not massive population centres 

big enough, and no rival clubs or sports nearby, although Worcester have major financial issues at the moment. 

 

 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But that doesn't mean anything. You are putting your own negative slant on this. 

There will absolutely be disagreements,  and various iterations throughout the 12 years. 

They will not be presenting a silver bullet in September. 

Of course, but ultimately they will present a vision for the sport and if it is not passed in the first stage they're not going to bang their head against a brick wall for the fun of it.

[Gordon Street]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

As it has been for the last 4/5 years , don't recall anybody complaining when it was Toronto or Toulouse outspending everybody ? 

I wasn't complaining. I was pointing out that it was the case, since it puts into context your 'vibrant competition' comment. I think Toronto and Toulouse attracted their fair share of opprobrium. 

 

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

As it has been for the last 4/5 years , don't recall anybody complaining when it was Toronto or Toulouse outspending everybody ? 

 

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't disagree with too much of the above,  but let's challenge some of them to play devil's advocate. 

1. Scrap P&R -  the risk is you turn off much of the game below the closed shop,  lose some of your grassroots and take a real short term hit.  The benefits are not necessarily realised when you still ultimately have some weak teams bumblibg along at the bottom. 

2. Minimum reqts.  I agree,  but in reality,  facilities are very good across the majority of SL,  the level of player development is good -  not many sports sustain themselves from such a modest pool. Populations aren't an issue really,  we are in densely populated areas and have tiny % of that. 

3. Market. Sure,  agreed. But its a bit basic really. 

4. All games televised -  meh.  UK sports fans don't seem to interested in this.  It's not gonna grow the game.  But I would push for it in some form. Its an Aussie/American thing tho. 

5.  Personalities.  Its a nice soundbite,  but we have a very unhelpful media.  The way to grow these players is to play major games on terrestrial,  put players in front of people-  which we do. 

So,  nothing controversial in your views,  decent enough stuff,  but nothing game changing imho.  The game would still look similar with the above in place. But thanks for adding context to your posts. 

My biggest issue is that it shows zero awareness of where the game is in the UK.

Things like marketing and media personalities are nice but how much do the NRL spend on marketing and media? How much contra advertising does the NRL get? How much does all this coverage comes from a compliant media and wall to wall coverage? In the UK we are lucky to get a column inch in some newspapers and its big news if Tommy Makinson is on Soccer AM.

Ditto with things like all games being televised when SL has been shown to essentially get offered like it or lump it TV deals. Now I'm not saying the game couldn't do better, we all know it can, but the whole compare it to the NRL and Australia argument is a little pointless. It's like comparing Football in Australia and saying why does it not do these things as good as the Premier League.

[Big Picture]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

The biggest issue I have with your posts on this is you never come close to explaining how it can happen without unicorn billionaires paying a fortune for franchises.

I think we would all like teams called Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, London etc in Super League. However unless you have a serious post on how it can happen its just a needless diversion.

Unicorn billionaires?  Those billionaires do exist, as their presence in other sports indicates.  I wouldn't expect them to pay a fortune for franchises though, I'm well aware that a brand new league couldn't charge as much as the 325 million US$ and up which established major pro leagues charge.  Though it would need to be a fee suited to the sort of league I have in mind, it would have to be less than that amount.  And in a world where the value of some major pro franchises exceeds 1 billion US$, even 325 million US$ isn't a fortune.

It could happen if I can get a partner whose name and reputation are known to men like them, then I'd have a way in to present my plan which is very detailed now.  As it happens there is a suitable person who would fill that bill and I happen to know his uncle slightly, so just possibly I might be able to do something about making things happen.  Toronto would be the logical place to seek the first franchise owner and it's only a short drive from where I live, it's the one place where the concept's had a trial run albeit on a much smaller scale than I envision.

And I when I say my plan is very detailed, one of the details which I've worked out is how much ad revenue per minute the broadcast partners I have in mind would need to break even if they all came in at the price points I envision for them and it's a surprisingly modest amount.  Those price point amounts added together would supply enough TV revenue to put the League on a solid foundation from day one, and the broadcaster partners could all make money on the deal too.  The latter would be a necessity if we want them to renew, which of course is definitely desired.

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yes, and we fundamentally cripple the lower teams too by not allowing investors to spend to overcome the disparities, and by constantly threatening them with relegation in a 12 team league (too small for it imo). 

This is one of the biggest bug bears of mine and why a salary cap, anything like what we have now at least, is not compatible with P&R or fair.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Of course, but ultimately they will present a vision for the sport and if it is not passed in the first stage they're not going to bang their head against a brick wall for the fun of it.

They aren't stupid,  they will have discussed terms,  scope,  outcomes etc ass part of the pre-contractual stuff. 

[Gordon Street]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There isn't,  was a little joke mate. 

I know Dave. I was playing along 

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Unicorn billionaires?  Those billionaires do exist, as their presence in other sports indicates.  I wouldn't expect them to pay a fortune for franchises though, I'm well aware that a brand new league couldn't charge as much as the 325 million US$ and up which established major pro leagues charge.  Though it would need to be a fee suited to the sort of league I have in mind, it would have to be less than that amount.  And in a world where the value of some major pro franchises exceeds 1 billion US$, even 325 million US$ isn't a fortune.

It could happen if I can get a partner whose name and reputation are known to men like them, then I'd have a way in to present my plan which is very detailed now.  As it happens there is a suitable person who would fill that bill and I happen to know his uncle slightly, so just possibly I might be able to do something about making things happen.  Toronto would be the logical place to seek the first franchise owner and it's only a short drive from where I live, it's the one place where the concept's had a trial run albeit on a much smaller scale than I envision.

And I when I say my plan is very detailed, one of the details which I've worked out is how much ad revenue per minute the broadcast partners I have in mind would need to break even if they all came in at the price points I envision for them and it's a surprisingly modest amount.  Those price point amounts added together would supply enough TV revenue to put the League on a solid foundation from day one, and the broadcaster partners could all make money on the deal too.  The latter would be a necessity if we want them to renew, which of course is definitely desired.

Thanks for perfectly proving my point. I could do a lot of things if I could get a billionaire partner too.

If it was so easily possible you shouldn't have wasted the last few years talking about it, you should just do it now. I wish you every luck and nothing would make me happier than for you to make it a reality.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Damien

[Big Picture]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Thanks for perfectly proving my point. I could do a lot of things if I could get a billionaire partner too.

If it was so easily possible you shouldn't have wasted the last few years talking about it, you should just do it now. I wish you every luck and nothing would make ne happier than for you to make it a reality.

To do it, I first had to work out how it could all be done, and then I had to work out how I could conceivably get any of the right sort of persons to give my idea a hearing considering that they wouldn't know me from Adam.  All that took a long time, I only thought of the person whose uncle I know fairly recently and I'm still not entirely sure just how to approach his uncle.  I'd only have once chance to pitch the idea of him giving me his nephew's contact information so naturally I want to do that in the best way possible.  I'm still mulling that part over, I'd have to get it right.

[Tommygilf]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

They aren't stupid,  they will have discussed terms,  scope,  outcomes etc ass part of the pre-contractual stuff. 

Which presumably means they have a lot of power.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Which presumably means they have a lot of power.

Well no, it means they have the scope they believe they need. It would be stupid to give too much power to any side. 

[David Shepherd]

1 hour ago, Pulga said:

Scrap P&R.

Make STRICT minimum requirements for grounds/player pathways/population size/geographical spread.

Actually market your product. Look at the difference between the NRL and SL in this regard.

If you have to start at 10 teams then do so but leave the door open for applications from new franchises that make a compelling business argument.

Make sure it's accessible to everyone if they want to find it. All games MUST be televised. Don't schedule games to be on at the same time. 

Focus certain media on personalities within the game. 

 

There's so much more but it's not rocket science.

 

 

We’re talking about solutions for the British market. Get it into your head that P&R is an essential component of that solution, you’ll save yourself a pile of effort.

Fully agree on minimum standards, as long as they are transparent and also enforced on incumbent members of the top division.

Agree on marketing, we’re terrible at it.

Loop fixtures are dull enough, without introducing more by slipping down to 10 teams.

I personally would be happy for all games to be televised, however it would be extremely unusual for it to happen in this market. Maybe extended highlights of the non-televised games (not tucked away on late night BBC) would be more appropriate.

Hiding behind a paywall for 25 years was a mistake and has made our athletes anonymous. This is being rectified.

[Gordon Street]

4 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

We’re talking about solutions for the British market. Get it into your head that P&R is an essential component of that solution, you’ll save yourself a pile of effort.

Fully agree on minimum standards, as long as they are transparent and also enforced on incumbent members of the top division.

Agree on marketing, we’re terrible at it.

Loop fixtures are dull enough, without introducing more by slipping down to 10 teams.

I personally would be happy for all games to be televised, however it would be extremely unusual for it to happen in this market. Maybe extended highlights of the non-televised games (not tucked away on late night BBC) would be more appropriate.

Hiding behind a paywall for 25 years was a mistake and has made our athletes anonymous. This is being rectified.

it's part of the solution if your sport has the wealth, the demographic spread, and the geographical spread to support it. Soccer's promotion is conditional; it's just that the clubs have the wherewithal to achieve the conditions. Promotion to rugby union's premiership is conditional; just ask Ealing Trailfinders. Cricket's answer is to have so many different versions of the game that something, somewhere is going to suit somebody; and still the sport struggles. Rugby League has its own individual issues from outside; we know what they are and people like to blame them; and within; narrow self interest, small mindedness, a strong and vociferous reactionary culture, a lack of wealth, a narrow demography and a small geographical spread. Trying to address them is like trying to roll a boulder up a hill. 

[Dave T]

59 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

We’re talking about solutions for the British market. Get it into your head that P&R is an essential component of that solution, you’ll save yourself a pile of effort.

Fully agree on minimum standards, as long as they are transparent and also enforced on incumbent members of the top division.

Agree on marketing, we’re terrible at it.

Loop fixtures are dull enough, without introducing more by slipping down to 10 teams.

I personally would be happy for all games to be televised, however it would be extremely unusual for it to happen in this market. Maybe extended highlights of the non-televised games (not tucked away on late night BBC) would be more appropriate.

Hiding behind a paywall for 25 years was a mistake and has made our athletes anonymous. This is being rectified.

RL was never ever fully behind a pay wall. 

The Challenge Cup has always remained on the BBC and return the highest viewing figures for British RL every year. 

SL highlights have been on the BBC for years now,  including national highlights of the playoffs and Grand Final. 

Internationals have been on the BBC for the last 12 years or so. 

Our FTA coverage has been decent. 

[Barley Mow]

On 04/09/2022 at 13:21, Pulga said:

What other sports does P&R work in?

I know the union Premiership is having similar problems with yo-yoing teams and were considering scrapping it.

 

I don't have a definitive list, but it is used in the following sports (and probably others) in the UK. I'm not sure how to interpret 'works' but it certainly operates:

All of the sports with full-time professional competitions (three codes of football and cricket) - although as you mention, RU have suspended it at the moment because of post-covid/financial concerns in their game.

Those sports also use it at semi-pro and recreational levels. Also - Field Hockey, Shinty, the American Football system in GB and some Basketball. I know that tennis clubs, snooker clubs, etc also use P&R in their (local) competitions.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Barley Mow

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Gordon Street said:

pulga has as much right to his/her point of view as you have, and who are you to tell somebody whether they have a clue or not? Talk about arrogant.

Is he not being arrogant in thinking he can just apply OZ or US sporting philosophy to a UK sporting culture , something he is clearly not familiar with 

Some of his idea's are great yes , but require massive amounts of investment over many years ( much like Big Pictures ) , but no suggestion where that investment will come from , you are talking literally hundreds of millions of pounds 

Do you think that is available to RL ?

[Barley Mow]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

You mistake my view, I'd never suggest a new franchised league in the UK alone, I know that would never work.  My concept is a lot bigger than that.

Re solving the game's problems in other ways, just what "realistic objectives" do you have in mind considering that the traditional clubs have no access to the sort of money needed to turn the game's decline around because that sort of money simply doesn't exist in the smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged towns where they are based?  Bear in mind too that the financial growth of soccer and RU during the last 25-30 years means that a lot more money is needed to compete with them now than back then.

My apologies, international/northern hemisphere rather than just British - certainly more ambitious than I had suggested, I'm not sure if it's more or less achievable.

Regarding the realistic objectives, I have had lots of different ideas over the years (some more realistic than others) and have favoured different things at different times - I don't have a silver bullet of a structure, indeed I doubt one exists.

As I've said before, our position in the heartland areas of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumberland, (southern France) should be taken as a positive. First of all we need to consolidate that position primarily through focused marketing of the game and grow our existing clubs. This gives us a strong foundation on which to build.

Outside of those areas, I like the idea of regional clubs in the (semi-)professional structure, each supporting (with the RFL) development of the game in their area. Hopefully this is what we are seeing with Newcastle (for the North East), Midlands, the London clubs, Cornwall as a potential SW hub and North and West Wales (although the last two of course are outside of the RFL's purview.

If each of these clubs could be used as a focus for regional development outside of the heartlands, with a community/junior competition built around them and their 'area', we could aim to grow interest in playing the game and watching the regional club at the same time. Hopefully one would feed off the other symbiotically and a positive feedback loop would be created improving the clubs' fortunes and the local community game.

This wouldn't produce 'big' clubs (at least short term), but would hopefully be sustainable - as you say, trying to compete with association football really would require a lot of money and that just isn't coming our way.

I have a feeling RU might have tried to overplay its hand with the club game in England (which has never been its forte). I think they are going to have to cut their cloth according to their (decreasing) means in the coming years.