IMG President Podcast

[David Shepherd]

2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

In fairness, that's true. The old licencing system measured the wrong things and encouraged the wrong behaviours (eg, mass discounting of tickets to hit an "average attendance" KPI). 

People argue "we tried licencing and it didn't work", ignoring that just because the one version of licencing we had didn't work, it doesn't mean that any version of licencing can't work. 

If you can guarantee the criteria would be transparent and applied equally to incumbents and candidates, how will you address the final 1/3 of the season being a procession of dead rubbers for the majority of clubs? 

[David Shepherd]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Even with the criteria they had, it could work, and criteria can always be developed over time. The real challenge was the way they hamstrung themselves with a commitment that they would definitely promote a club - that completely undermined the process - how can you make that commitment if nobody meets the standards?

For me, that was the single decision on licensing that undermined the whole thing.

Not applying the criteria to incumbents was what really undermined it, that and the fact that most of the games shown on TV were pretty pointless. 

[David Shepherd]

10 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

Wasps just filed for Administration with £35 Million debt

Worcester on the brink too.  

[whatmichaelsays]

2 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

If you can guarantee the criteria would be transparent and applied equally to incumbents and candidates, how will you address the final 1/3 of the season being a procession of dead rubbers for the majority of clubs? 

I think a good starting point would be a shorter season. The fewer games there are, the more valuable each point potentially becomes. 

You can then also have various levers to pull in terms of linking prize money or central funding to performance, potentially re-igniting the WCC and offering places to that based on on-field performance. 

But there also needs to be an acknowledgement that no system is going to be perfect - and we shouldn't let "perfect" be the enemy of "better". 

[OMEGA]

From what I’ve read here it is quite possible that IMG could source big money, huge investors who are interested in buying into the/a sport then buy out an existing club owner with the goal of relocating that franchise to a bigger city.

For example, Mr Billionaire from Birmingham pays over the odds to Carter at Wakefield to buy the club/franchise then moves it to a stadium in the midlands while committing to investing into the Academy, school & community links etc in both Wakefield and Birmingham

[David Shepherd]

5 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think a good starting point would be a shorter season. The fewer games there are, the more valuable each point potentially becomes. 

You can then also have various levers to pull in terms of linking prize money or central funding to performance, potentially re-igniting the WCC and offering places to that based on on-field performance. 

But there also needs to be an acknowledgement that no system is going to be perfect - and we shouldn't let "perfect" be the enemy of "better". 

P&R with strict entry criteria (that the incumbents also meet) would be my preferred option. 

[Dave T]

58 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

 

I do think the KPIs and criteria were poorly thought out and without banging on this one particular one, I think the game is still suffering from that period of encouraging mass-discounts to this day. 

I don't disagree - but ultimately, I think crowd numbers is a decent measure - ultimately it is up to you as a club to set your sales and ticket pricing policy. If you get a tick in the box for crowds, but give everything away, then it is likely to hurt you in the P&L section.

For example, I have often thought about whether there is a model that is different to selling tickets for admission. Maybe that is too extreme  but if a club can deliver benefits through sponsorship and ancillary sales using discounted/free pricing then good on them and it's a valid strategy. The problem is - as the likes of Hudds demonstrate, it isn't easy to deliver and needs huge investment to drive a cultural change.

[Big Picture]

14 hours ago, Londonbornirishbred said:

The current set up is 12 sides with their hands out each year for a share of money, which they believe they contribute equally to the generation of. 

I suspect that if you put all 12 current SL sides (i'll include Leigh in this) up for sale, you'd get interest in maybe half of them and a fair price for maybe 4 or 5, with the rest seen as unviable. 

I see IMG's goal as to ensuring that as quickly as possible, they have a broad range of suitors looking to buy into this new era and investors offering over the odds to buy clubs and get involved.

Whether this will feature clubs such as Wakefield or Leigh, or if it requires clubs like London or Newcastle remains to be seen, but the "American" model that IMG use in Euro-Basketball points to some form of licencing and a licence costing money.

I see 2 things in the near future. 1 will be local government authorities being asked to "bid" or "back bids" to have a team on the basis that having a team will bring in "tourist revenue" and I also see clubs that own their own stadiums as being a large part of this, because it is very difficult to make money when 1/3rd of your ticket revenue is going on rent and you don't make coin from beer and pie sales. in both cases, I see fan engagement as the key to any IMG proposals, because with increased fans, you increase immediate revenues. increase public interest, increase sponsorship opportunities and increase the desire for people to watch the sport.

I just hope that the SL clubs are ready to roll up their sleeves and work hard to attract new fans rather than fleece the existing ones which has been the procedure for the last 2 decades.

Realistically that's the only way IMG can make any money from their involvement.

Whether it's remotely workable with small time traditional clubs involved is a whole other question though.  Who would buy a franchise in such a structure if its current members didn't also have to buy theirs?  Their small-mindedness and their clinging to old ways will prove a huge obstacle.