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

[Cowardly Fan]

15 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

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

No idea on that, don't know when they're due to give results or when changes may be implemented. Would take 1-2 months to run the project I would do, though that could be strung out in some cases. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Cowardly Fan said:

No idea on that, don't know when they're due to give results or when changes may be implemented. Would take 1-2 months to run the project I would do, though that could be strung out in some cases. 

No worries.

I guess, if this survey, with all its flaws, had come round a few months ago (none of these discussion points are newer than that), then I'd have significantly fewer concerns.

[Archie Gordon]

31 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. 

You can't reliably remove 'similars' - I live in a house with 4 people and we may all have similar views and share an IP address. Another reason for doing this properly.

[amm]

9 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Being serious, it’s a dud survey. 

 

9 hours ago, gingerjon said:

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

I think you know exactly why

[Cowardly Fan]

2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

You can't reliably remove 'similars' - I live in a house with 4 people and we may all have similar views and share an IP address. Another reason for doing this properly.

Presumably not similar age & gender though. It's your choice ultimately. Generally I've seen very few issues with this, maybe 1% of surveys have significant issues with multiple completes. Make an initial review & judge from there.

 

[Cowardly Fan]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

No worries.

I guess, if this survey, with all its flaws, had come round a few months ago (none of these discussion points are newer than that), then I'd have significantly fewer concerns.

Think that's fair. Can imagine it getting stuck in bureaucracy - someone wrote it months ago to get quick results & then waiting for everyone in RFL to give their opinion. 

[Toby Chopra]

46 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

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.

 

The phrasing of many of the questions is in heartland rugby-league-speak, so my guess is it was put together by the RFL, which would also explain its inadequacies. 

But IMG must have at least agreed to have their name put on it and - surely? - must have at least read through it. 

So it's somewhat concerning if it's gone out unamended. 

Too soon to panic, lots of big moments and decisions to come yet,  and I just don't believe IMG would have signed up just to implement a preconceived RFL plan. They will have a big say. 

But I hope IMG learn quick that the RFL don't have the skills for this project - that's why they themselves were brought in - and they need to take the lead in any future communications about the plan. 

[Toby Chopra]

Flippin' heck though. 9s? Really? 

[Archie Gordon]

7 minutes ago, Cowardly Fan said:

Presumably not similar age & gender though. It's your choice ultimately. Generally I've seen very few issues with this, maybe 1% of surveys have significant issues with multiple completes. Make an initial review & judge from there.

 

The multiple responses issue is indicative of a wider failing. A much bigger issue remains that this a self-selected sample and therefore not a serious effort by a serious organisation. Worrying.

[Cowardly Fan]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

The multiple responses issue is indicative of a wider failing. A much bigger issue remains that this a self-selected sample and therefore not a serious effort by a serious organisation. Worrying.

I've already said I would be surprised if this is a significant amount of their total research. Most likely quick effort to plan wider project. 

If it does have much influence then I'd be more worried

[Archie Gordon]

6 minutes ago, Cowardly Fan said:

I've already said I would be surprised if this is a significant amount of their total research. Most likely quick effort to plan wider project. 

If it does have much influence then I'd be more worried

So, here's a garbage survey with garbage results but this garbage didn't cost much and will help us plan the next stage of our research. It still doesn't cheer me up much.

[tim2]

8 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

That survey is absolutely shambolic. If that's an indication of IMG's professional input, we're in trouble.

It looked like something lashed together that will probably be ignored. I reckon I could have come up with a better survey and I'm not a professional.

It allowed people to say they wanted to simultaneously scrap the loop fixtures, play everyone home and away and have 10 teams in SL. That would be 18 games and financial ruin. Maybe they were trick questions to throw out anyone who put unworkable options.  

[tim2]

8 hours ago, Colin James said:

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.

I gave them multiple barrels on that in the comments.

[dkw]

8 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

l. 

3. Change governance structure - independent commission.

 

But we have 3 levels of governance now, thats a strong structure...

Ok, granted, its basically the same people in each structure, or they work for the same people, but hey....its levels, right?

[steve oates]

19 hours ago, glossop saint said:

Toronto  probably felt pressurised to make those claims to validate their place in a rush to be seen to be contributing to the player pool. I wish they had more confidence and were honest in saying it would be a long term project. Unfortunately long term isn't something recognised in RL.

Sorry mate but did you actually follow the story??

David Argyle is a NRL fanatic with a massive business in Brazil. His main desire always was and remains owning an NRL club. The closest he has got is a possible directorship at Melbourne Storm. So to console himself he tried and succeeded to get a club of his own in Superleague.

Superleague bosses, unlike you knew the score and they said no. But the RFL's Nigel Wood, no great friend of Superleague let them into the third tier on the idea that if they could actually develop Canadian pro players and get a TV deal in Canada to share here, then Superleague could hardly say no to them at least joining the championship leagues on this basis. 

This was never ever a "Long term project" it was a plaything to amuse Argyle. Be 100% sure of that.

Perez knew developing  Canadian players was an impossibility, never mind your "long term" idea. Most Canadian kids played several much bigger sports, the the few kids who liked Rugby, all played Rugby Union. Perez also knew Canadian Sports TV was not going to pay a penny for some small league in the north of England.

Perez had boasted about what great players grid iron Canadians would be, but in trials they were useless so that should have been that but Nigel Wood kept them in and allowed their owner to spend the sum of $30 Million Dollars. This easily got them knocking on the door of SL.  Big Nigel was laughing at the SL bosses - they could hardly say no to TWP going up. But SL got the last laugh as TWP were unable to attract better players, lost all their league games and were unable to bring  their alleged army of Canadian fans here (don't be fooled on the alleged paying TWP attendances either)......

Then came the biggest lie of the lot that still does the rounds on here.  Argyle supposedly ran out of money 

[JF1]

I'm prepared to give IMG the benefit of the doubt for now.They're just trying to get a broad impression of what fans want or don't want(10+10).

I now hope they follow it up with surveys targeted not at us,the "converted", but to outsiders who could give a more detached opinion of the game. We should be prepared for some very uncomfortable replies,I would suggest.

Above all,I do not feel that the problems are to do with structures.I think the actual game has gone backwards in terms of entertainment value. Sure,we get some belters,we also get too many duds,sadly.

We have an opportunity,possibly our last,to really take the game forward.

[Damien]

I did the survey and found it terrible and quite worrying. Its obviously heavily weighted towards what the RFL want to push and it is actually very narrow in scope. Yes there are comment boxes but these are often overlooked in the wash. Not a good start if this is the path they are going down.

[Live after death]

Absolutely no to 10x10 I seriously would just consider walking away from the game if this happened.

I want 14 team home away. Franchise’s for 4 years. 

I also want and end to constantly tinkering with the rules gimmicks type rules, any changes should be considered and agreed across the board and trialled in reserve grade games. 

No one that i know  wants 10x10 or loop fixtures. I suspect IMG know this and want to hammer home to Super league RFL that your audience doesn’t want this.

[phiggins]

The questions read to me as if they are leaning towards 2 10s and restructuring the Challenge Cup to include a group stage to top up the fixtures. 

[Live after death]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

The questions read to me as if they are leaning towards 2 10s and restructuring the Challenge Cup to include a group stage to top up the fixtures. 

This survey could really be quite critical for the future of the game, I can see the survey rejecting round robin CC  and 2 x 10 but the RFL plowing ahead with it anyway. 

[Man of Kent]

36 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Then came the biggest lie of the lot that still does the rounds on here.  Argyle supposedly ran out of money 

Just to refresh your memory about Toronto running out of money, chief https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/29/toronto-wolfpack-rise-and-demise-unpaid-players-and-a-cautionary-tale

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

The phrasing of many of the questions is in heartland rugby-league-speak, so my guess is it was put together by the RFL, which would also explain its inadequacies. 

But IMG must have at least agreed to have their name put on it and - surely? - must have at least read through it. 

So it's somewhat concerning if it's gone out unamended. 

Too soon to panic, lots of big moments and decisions to come yet,  and I just don't believe IMG would have signed up just to implement a preconceived RFL plan. They will have a big say. 

But I hope IMG learn quick that the RFL don't have the skills for this project - that's why they themselves were brought in - and they need to take the lead in any future communications about the plan. 

It really is very similar to previous RFL surveys. That is no coincidence. The bias in the survey leaves a lot to be desired and would stand up to no academic scrutiny.

I certainly hope the results are published and are done so in a transparent way.

[Fevrover]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

It really is very similar to previous RFL surveys. That is no coincidence. The bias in the survey leaves a lot to be desired and would stand up to no academic scrutiny.

I certainly hope the results are published and are done so in a transparent way.

Don't hold yer breath.

[Man of Kent]

The survey is like a 'Now That's What I Call A Rugby League Restructure' TRL thread greatest hits compilation.

We now know for certain they are least considering:

• The Hundred style regional short-form comp
• 2x10s with P&R
• Champions League-style Challenge Cup
• Ditching loop fixtures
• The value of French clubs
• More internationals
• Some sort of UK Origin

No mention of licensing, unless you count The Hundred style city/regional teams as licences. 

[steve oates]

10 hours ago, Big Picture said:

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.

I do agree wholeheartedly on your last sentence 100% bang on.

You say "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"

My real world view is that No possible structure involving towns and city's outside the unfashionable, economicaly disadvantaged M62 will be able to generate the revenues (or produce the players needed) either. 

Why do you consistently push for RL clubs in big towns and cities where Rugby Union and soccer are king?

We can only get investment from people who want to invest and they are all from our smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged towns, to which they have a connection.  Even the London owner is from Oldham.....