IMG proposals to be presented to clubs next week?

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, barnyia said:

I've not read the 7 pages but could this announcement be the reason Rimmer and the other person have left? 

Mr Rimmer was on Radio Manchester yesterday and said about his resignation "it was time to move on" that could be construed in a lot of different ways.

[Harry Stottle]

58 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Not quite right - Toulouse don't get a vote at all, I believe, and Catalans may or may not get one (this is quite difficult to clarify - they are members of SLE but not full members of the RFL). It could actually mean that the 10 British SL clubs have voting power equivalent to all of the others combined.
Clear as mud, isn't it?

May I please just insert what you said to me.

"You don't know then, as usual"

Pot, Kettle, Black comes to mind.

[Harry Stottle]

32 minutes ago, Gordon Street said:

that is what I'm saying; the weasel words 'charity begins at home' is just a way of sugar coating and justifying small minded narrow self interest. It doesn't matter what I consider responsible progressive governance. What matters is who is doing the responsible progressive governing and what their motives, aims, and capabilities are. 

 

OK thanks for agreeing that no matter who or how big the club 'small minded narrow self interest" is the way the vote will be considered by all.

[JohnM]

It's "next week" now. So what proposals were put?

[Harry Stottle]

24 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I still have a feeling that it's going to boil down to: big clubs playing each other in more visible circumstances more often *and* more internationals, especially involving Australia.

Whether Cornwall get to still be part of the professional league structure isn't really in their original remit but likely to be a knock on (either way) of their "make us money" objective.

So you reckon that IMG Australia branch have been in touch with the Peter V'Landys, the Australian Rugby League Commision and the IRLF to verify that we will have more internationals with Australia?

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So you reckon that IMG Australia branch have been in touch with the Peter V'Landys, the Australian Rugby League Commision and the IRLF to verify that we will have more internationals with Australia?

It's you and Gubby who seem to be spending your morning creating imaginary situations that exist only in your head and then expecting people to either join you in getting angry or debate you about them.

I'll leave you to get on with it.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, JohnM said:

It's "next week" now. So what proposals were put?

Charlie had a think, and he thought we ought to take off all the handles
And the things wot held the candles
But it did no good, well I never thought it would

[Gordon Street]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

OK thanks for agreeing that no matter who or how big the club 'small minded narrow self interest" is the way the vote will be considered by all.

I didn't understand a word of that. I believe that decisions should be taken by people with a professional interest in taking the sport forward in a progressive manner, rather than by club chairs/owners/egomaniac Den Perry types who act in their own parochail self interest. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Gordon Street said:

I didn't understand a word of that. I believe that decisions should be taken by people with a professional interest in taking the sport forward in a progressive manner, rather than by club chairs/owners/egomaniac Den Perry types who act in their own parochail self interest. 

Are there decent examples of major sport leagues that do not give its clubs/members a vote on change?

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's you and Gubby who seem to be spending your morning creating imaginary situations that exist only in your head and then expecting people to either join you in getting angry or debate you about them.

I'll leave you to get on with it.

Excuse me, I have just asked you about your idea of more internationals involving Australia, that amnesia of yours is getting worse it is only 30 mins or so ago you mentioned it.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Are there decent examples of major sport leagues that do not give its clubs/members a vote on change?

And who would do?

If you are investing your money in a RL club isn't it natural to want a say in how it is spent, unless of course you have that much money that it doesn't matter, and we are obviously are filled to the brim in RL with these mega rich people.

[Derwent Parker]

32 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Charlie had a think, and he thought we ought to take off all the handles
And the things wot held the candles
But it did no good, well I never thought it would

And again was getting nowhere

So they had a cup of tea

[Derwent Parker]

1 hour ago, Davo5 said:

I simply think IMG,given their standing in sports management will make proposals that will benefit the professional game free of clubs self interest.

Just for Fun - and debate

Dont for now think of Money because that ruins every discussion!

Dont for now think of Blow out scores - because we have had them this year in all 3 divisions as this also ruins every discussion!

Just read and try to think of positives

I hope IMG propose changing to the NFL set up {American Football] to avoid any confusion. We are not in USA so distance ,size, population etc have nothing to do with it just the league designs.

This will be licensing [which some people want]

No P & R [which some people want]

it is easily expandable

The NFL:-

Back in 1970 They had 26 teams - 2 Conferences of 5 and 4 Conferences of 4

Back in 1970 They had 28 teams - 4 Conferences of 5 and 2 Conferences of 4

Back in 1990 They had 30 teams - 6 Conferences of 5

Back in 2000 They had 31 teams - 5 Conferences of 5 and 1 Conferences of 6

Today they have 32 teams in 8 Conferences of 4

This works because you dont just play the teams in you Conferences.

Martyn Sadler suggested a Plan similar to this earlier this year which all the SL supporters destroyed by using the Money and Blowout excused to shoot it down.

Well we dont have that plan and Money and Blow out scores [mismatched teams]are currently the biggest problems, which is why we are in the process or restructuring the leagues again.

In Martyn's Plan we would have had 36 teams split as 6 x 6 as this was before Cornwall entered. now using the NFL method 5 x 6 and 1 x 7, 

If for example in future another 2 more French teams joined you would have a French Conference and equally if things had gone to plan before covid happened you could end up with a North America conference with Toronto, Ottawa and NY etc

Basically you can add to and deduct teams from conferences without all the after effects that happen with league restructuring and P & R 

It Would be arranged in area Conferences and therefore there would be 6 Conference titles to play for before the play offs for the Grand Final {Super bowl equivalent]

Fixtures would be sorted so that the top teams on each Conferences played the top teams in the other Conferences.

and the middle placed teams of each Conference played the middle teams in the other conferences and therefore  the lower placed teams of each league Conferences the lower teams in the other conferences

That should limit the Blowout scores.

Martyn suggested 2 SL teams and 2 CH teams and 2 L1 teams in each conf.

Martyn also suggested having Conference round robins at the season start, this would cause blow outs initially if SL teams played their Full strength teams. That is the negative but the positive is it would provide great revenue at the start of the season for the lower teams and the opportunity they dont have to visit the SL grounds.

But going just with the conference setup [without the round robins] is still better

So looking at the positives only

Not losing any teams

Expandable system

No P & R 

No leagues restructures [just add a team to a conference] You can jiggle the conferences about without causing any damage as per the NFL

More matches for L1 teams [20 is not enough]

No loop fixtures for anyone

The end of SL, Champ and L1 

6 Conference titles

Still have Grand Final Playoffs

More potential sponsorship for conferences etc

However it will be shot down by the top teams because they want to go to 10 because Sky money divided by 10 is much more than any other plan apart from dividing it by 8 etc

Sorry for long message - a bit bored

[Big Picture]

12 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Just for Fun - and debate

Dont for now think of Money because that ruins every discussion!

Dont for now think of Blow out scores - because we have had them this year in all 3 divisions as this also ruins every discussion!

Just read and try to think of positives

I hope IMG propose changing to the NFL set up {American Football] to avoid any confusion. We are not in USA so distance ,size, population etc have nothing to do with it just the league designs.

This will be licensing [which some people want]

No P & R [which some people want]

it is easily expandable

The NFL:-

Back in 1970 They had 26 teams - 2 Conferences of 5 and 4 Conferences of 4

Back in 1970 They had 28 teams - 4 Conferences of 5 and 2 Conferences of 4

Back in 1990 They had 30 teams - 6 Conferences of 5

Back in 2000 They had 31 teams - 5 Conferences of 5 and 1 Conferences of 6

Today they have 32 teams in 8 Conferences of 4

This works because you dont just play the teams in you Conferences.

Martyn Sadler suggested a Plan similar to this earlier this year which all the SL supporters destroyed by using the Money and Blowout excused to shoot it down.

Well we dont have that plan and Money and Blow out scores [mismatched teams]are currently the biggest problems, which is why we are in the process or restructuring the leagues again.

In Martyn's Plan we would have had 36 teams split as 6 x 6 as this was before Cornwall entered. now using the NFL method 5 x 6 and 1 x 7, 

If for example in future another 2 more French teams joined you would have a French Conference and equally if things had gone to plan before covid happened you could end up with a North America conference with Toronto, Ottawa and NY etc

Basically you can add to and deduct teams from conferences without all the after effects that happen with league restructuring and P & R 

It Would be arranged in area Conferences and therefore there would be 6 Conference titles to play for before the play offs for the Grand Final {Super bowl equivalent]

Fixtures would be sorted so that the top teams on each Conferences played the top teams in the other Conferences.

and the middle placed teams of each Conference played the middle teams in the other conferences and therefore  the lower placed teams of each league Conferences the lower teams in the other conferences

That should limit the Blowout scores.

Martyn suggested 2 SL teams and 2 CH teams and 2 L1 teams in each conf.

Martyn also suggested having Conference round robins at the season start, this would cause blow outs initially if SL teams played their Full strength teams. That is the negative but the positive is it would provide great revenue at the start of the season for the lower teams and the opportunity they dont have to visit the SL grounds.

But going just with the conference setup [without the round robins] is still better

So looking at the positives only

Not losing any teams

Expandable system

No P & R 

No leagues restructures [just add a team to a conference] You can jiggle the conferences about without causing any damage as per the NFL

More matches for L1 teams [20 is not enough]

No loop fixtures for anyone

The end of SL, Champ and L1 

6 Conference titles

Still have Grand Final Playoffs

More potential sponsorship for conferences etc

However it will be shot down by the top teams because they want to go to 10 because Sky money divided by 10 is much more than any other plan apart from dividing it by 8 etc

Sorry for long message - a bit bored

Your terminology is wrong re the NFL's structure.  The NFL has 2 Conferences, the National Football Conference and the American Football Conference and has had since 1970 when the NFL and AFL merged.  The Conferences are each subdivided into 4 Divisions: North Division, East Division, South Division and West Division.

That type of structure unfortunately isn't workable in RL because it's so chronically short of money.  What money there is would have to be divided equally among the teams to create a level playing field and then no one would be able to spend the full salary cap amount on players so the game would pay less than now and more players would leave for RU and the NRL.

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, Derwent Parker said:

Just for Fun - and debate

Dont for now think of Money because that ruins every discussion!

Dont for now think of Blow out scores - because we have had them this year in all 3 divisions as this also ruins every discussion!

Just read and try to think of positives

I hope IMG propose changing to the NFL set up {American Football] to avoid any confusion. We are not in USA so distance ,size, population etc have nothing to do with it just the league designs.

This will be licensing [which some people want]

No P & R [which some people want]

it is easily expandable

The NFL:-

Back in 1970 They had 26 teams - 2 Conferences of 5 and 4 Conferences of 4

Back in 1970 They had 28 teams - 4 Conferences of 5 and 2 Conferences of 4

Back in 1990 They had 30 teams - 6 Conferences of 5

Back in 2000 They had 31 teams - 5 Conferences of 5 and 1 Conferences of 6

Today they have 32 teams in 8 Conferences of 4

This works because you dont just play the teams in you Conferences.

Martyn Sadler suggested a Plan similar to this earlier this year which all the SL supporters destroyed by using the Money and Blowout excused to shoot it down.

Well we dont have that plan and Money and Blow out scores [mismatched teams]are currently the biggest problems, which is why we are in the process or restructuring the leagues again.

In Martyn's Plan we would have had 36 teams split as 6 x 6 as this was before Cornwall entered. now using the NFL method 5 x 6 and 1 x 7, 

If for example in future another 2 more French teams joined you would have a French Conference and equally if things had gone to plan before covid happened you could end up with a North America conference with Toronto, Ottawa and NY etc

Basically you can add to and deduct teams from conferences without all the after effects that happen with league restructuring and P & R 

It Would be arranged in area Conferences and therefore there would be 6 Conference titles to play for before the play offs for the Grand Final {Super bowl equivalent]

Fixtures would be sorted so that the top teams on each Conferences played the top teams in the other Conferences.

and the middle placed teams of each Conference played the middle teams in the other conferences and therefore  the lower placed teams of each league Conferences the lower teams in the other conferences

That should limit the Blowout scores.

Martyn suggested 2 SL teams and 2 CH teams and 2 L1 teams in each conf.

Martyn also suggested having Conference round robins at the season start, this would cause blow outs initially if SL teams played their Full strength teams. That is the negative but the positive is it would provide great revenue at the start of the season for the lower teams and the opportunity they dont have to visit the SL grounds.

But going just with the conference setup [without the round robins] is still better

So looking at the positives only

Not losing any teams

Expandable system

No P & R 

No leagues restructures [just add a team to a conference] You can jiggle the conferences about without causing any damage as per the NFL

More matches for L1 teams [20 is not enough]

No loop fixtures for anyone

The end of SL, Champ and L1 

6 Conference titles

Still have Grand Final Playoffs

More potential sponsorship for conferences etc

However it will be shot down by the top teams because they want to go to 10 because Sky money divided by 10 is much more than any other plan apart from dividing it by 8 etc

Sorry for long message - a bit bored

You posted that on the Town forum,thought it was rubbish then,haven’t changed my mind.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Davo5

[Man of Kent]

Not the St Helens & West Wales in the same conference-based comp thing again. Let's try to keep it serious  

[bobbruce]

4 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

Not quite right - Toulouse don't get a vote at all, I believe, and Catalans may or may not get one (this is quite difficult to clarify - they are members of SLE but not full members of the RFL). It could actually mean that the 10 British SL clubs have voting power equivalent to all of the others combined.
Clear as mud, isn't it?

Toulouse didn’t get a vote as a championship club but do we know for certain that they don’t get one as a SL club. Which I think they technically still are untill them and the promoted side have been accepted into their new divisions. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

Not the St Helens & West Wales in the same conference-based comp thing again. Let's try to keep it serious  

I'm not sure how many times the ridiculousness of it needs to be pointed out.

[Blind side johnny]

5 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I would only expect formal press releases to accentuate the positive BSJ.

I am only speaking from the experience of delivering business change at large organisations as to how I think this feels to me.

I don’t believe the whole use of IMG is to deliver bad news from the powerful to the less powerful, but believe me when I say this that using a third party in this way is a standard mechanic for bringing about painful change.

I understand your cynicism but this has been announced as a partnership, with IMG benefitting from the outcomes of their proposals, as distinct from simply being consultants paid to deliver a report. I don't think that IMG, given their background and expertise, would have bothered to be involved with the latter.

I may be wrong. of course.

[Blind side johnny]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Toulouse didn’t get a vote as a championship club but do we know for certain that they don’t get one as a SL club. Which I think they technically still are untill them and the promoted side have been accepted into their new divisions. 

I believe, but don't know for certain, that the critical criterion is being a member club of the RFL, which they aren't. Their membership of SLE should be secondary to that.

[Whippet13]

31 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

I understand your cynicism but this has been announced as a partnership, with IMG benefitting from the outcomes of their proposals, as distinct from simply being consultants paid to deliver a report. I don't think that IMG, given their background and expertise, would have bothered to be involved with the latter.

I may be wrong. of course.

It is also a 12 year partnership, that would be one hell of a lot of bad news to be delivering if it were the case.

[Gerrumonside ref]

53 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

I understand your cynicism but this has been announced as a partnership, with IMG benefitting from the outcomes of their proposals, as distinct from simply being consultants paid to deliver a report. I don't think that IMG, given their background and expertise, would have bothered to be involved with the latter.

I may be wrong. of course.

Who involved IMG and what are their motives would be the question I would be asking myself?

If it is representatives of the bigger SL clubs then I fully expect it to play out as I’ve outlined. 

There’s no reason why IMG can’t benefit and act as a third party helping to reduce resistance to big change.

This is fairly standard within business change in the outside world.

 

[Gordon Street]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

Are there decent examples of major sport leagues that do not give its clubs/members a vote on change?

I have no idea. There is a difference between having a say and having absolute power. Rugby League is not a major sport. Rugby League faces different challenges, and has disadvantages that other sports don't face. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Gordon Street said:

I have no idea. There is a difference between having a say and having absolute power. Rugby League is not a major sport. Rugby League faces different challenges, and has disadvantages that other sports don't face. 

That's all fine, however  I'm not sure it's rationale for a dictatorship. 

I'm not saying RL has great governance,  but nor should it have governance where clubs are just told what's happening and they have to suck it up. 

[Gordon Street]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

That's all fine, however  I'm not sure it's rationale for a dictatorship. 

I'm not saying RL has great governance,  but nor should it have governance where clubs are just told what's happening and they have to suck it up. 

 

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

That's all fine, however  I'm not sure it's rationale for a dictatorship. 

I'm not saying RL has great governance,  but nor should it have governance where clubs are just told what's happening and they have to suck it up. 

I don't recall an instance of a dictator being appointed. They tend to either seize power or are elected. Being placed in a position with a mandate is hardly a dictatorship. Also maybe putting egos and parochial self interest aside and 'sucking up' as you call it, some home truths might not be that bad an idea.