IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[Adelaide Tiger]

10 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

So I´m in SL as a Cat B club and I go to sponsors , they tell me well we´d love to but we dont know whether you´ll be in the league in 2 years time so no. Likewise players and coaches. It´s a self fulfilling prophecy. 

OR ….. you go to sponsors and say ‘Our club is currently a Category B club but we have a strategy to attain Category A status.  Your investment will help us towards achieving Category A status and in turn that will make the club a more appealing prospect to future investors as Category A clubs are exempt from being removed from the league’.

Two sides to the argument.

[Londonbornirishbred]

For the life of me, I can't fathom how anyone would want to entertain the current London Club as being "invited" to Superleague? 
If IMG are so sure that a club is needed in the Capital, then they can certainly afford to Bankroll it, but it should be 100% 'THEIR' project and should abide by all the same rules as the rest of the clubs.
I for one wouldn't support another experiment. Watching the Broncos has been depressing enough over the years, but the idea of watching another entity, in all probability do it correctly, would be too much to take. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

Got up to page 19 when a thought struck me.

Putting football to one side, all other major team sports in the UK such as RL, RU and Cricket are either at or approaching a watershed moment.

Cricket is only surviving because of its international presence.  But One-Day internationals and Test Cricket are under threat by the growth of 20/20 leagues around the world that can pay players exorbitant amounts for a few weeks work.  The ECCB’s response is the Hundred.  Can this plug the gap if there is a reduction in the number of One-Day internationals and Test Matches and TV income falls?

Rugby Union survives on the international game and deep pockets of wealthy backers.  If some of those backers decide to leave the club game then the income from international games will not cover existing costs at club level.  So RU will have to cut its cloth to survive or look at a more innovative structures for financial growth. 

Rugby League - IMHO the partnership with IMG is a reflection that the game finally realised that continuing ploughing the same old furrow is no longer practicable.  Fundamental change is needed, not just for today, but to be able to compete in tomorrows sporting landscape.

So this may be the point where RL leads the way in showing other sports that radical changes is the only way forward.

[Archie Gordon]

I'm not understanding the logic of re-branding, re-naming Super League. If there are too many Super Leagues, surely there are also too many Premierships, Premier Leagues, Championships, Elite Leagues. 

Judging by what seems to me a thoroughly lazy effort by IMG so far - they have one model that has worked elsewhere (has it?) and they are going to apply it to us without much thought about our idiosyncrasies - we are going to end up with something called EuroLeague Rugby.

[Adelaide Tiger]

6 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

I'd like to know why they think this will bring in more money ? , And how much they expect to make out of it ?

I am sure that everyone on this Forum would like to know the answer.  I hope that IMG make an absolute shedload of money from this as that will mean the game has tapped into untold wealth and Chairmen of clubs will once again be able to buy the finest sheepskin jackets from Man at C&A to wear on inclement days!

[Adelaide Tiger]

So apart from me there is just Elbowseye and Archie Gordon browsing this topic at the moment.

It is 5.30am in the UK so are all the other usual members laid wide awake in bed with their partners dabbing their sweated brow with a damp cloth, saying ‘Now, now, it’s time for you to go to sleep’.

[gingerjon]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not massively fussed about what structure we have, I think the other things are probably more important

As a very wise poster suggested, they will announce: So this is the structure, some bits of that will look a bit different, and here's a long paragraph about everything else that could easily wind up being more important.

And all the discussion would be about whether Leeds should be a Category A club because their terrace doesn't have a roof or do you remember how Wakefield sketched a pic of a ground and that's the sole reason they got in.

(I forgot that we would also have some stuff about academies.)

Anyway, here's the paragraph I was suggesting would exist and no one would really mention: This work will sit alongside other workstreams being led by IMG and other parts of the Endeavor network to maximise the commercial potential of the sport and build deeper relationships with fans and new audiences. These include content production and innovation, domestic and international distribution of media rights, digital transformation powered by IMG’s digital sports arm Seven League, brand strategy delivered by Endeavor’s cultural marketing agency 160over90, streaming through Endeavor’s OTT platform Endeavor Streaming and data collection, betting product development and streaming rights via its sports data and betting technology business IMG Arena.

[Gomersall]

10 hours ago, David Shepherd said:

Hudds, Wigan, Hull, London and TOXIII aren't owners or primary tenants. That should preclude them from having an A in my opinion.  Can't have top flight clubs being subservient to another sport's fixture scheduling and not generating maximum matchday and non-rugby income.

What about clubs who are too reliant on one person for financial input? They don’t deserve a Cat. A as that person could walk away at the drop of a hat. Wigan, Saints, Hull, Warrington, Hull KR, Catalans, Wakey, Huddersfield, Leigh. Anyone I’ve missed?

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

What about clubs who are too reliant on one person for financial input? They don’t deserve a Cat. A as that person could walk away at the drop of a hat. Wigan, Saints, Hull, Warrington, Hull KR, Catalans, Wakey, Huddersfield, Leigh. Anyone I’ve missed?

Financial assessment, including sustainability, should also form part of the criteria.

You'd assume the scores would be weighted too with some criteria counting for more than others.

[Gomersall]

8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

And will achieve nothing , because they will be denied a SL place due to ' grading ' 

Batley would still go up next season if they win at the weekend. The new assessment system doesn’t kick in until the end of 2023 if I read it right.

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

As a very wise poster suggested, they will announce: So this is the structure, some bits of that will look a bit different, and here's a long paragraph about everything else that could easily wind up being more important.

And all the discussion would be about whether Leeds should be a Category A club because their terrace doesn't have a roof or do you remember how Wakefield sketched a pic of a ground and that's the sole reason they got in.

(I forgot that we would also have some stuff about academies.)

Anyway, here's the paragraph I was suggesting would exist and no one would really mention: This work will sit alongside other workstreams being led by IMG and other parts of the Endeavor network to maximise the commercial potential of the sport and build deeper relationships with fans and new audiences. These include content production and innovation, domestic and international distribution of media rights, digital transformation powered by IMG’s digital sports arm Seven League, brand strategy delivered by Endeavor’s cultural marketing agency 160over90, streaming through Endeavor’s OTT platform Endeavor Streaming and data collection, betting product development and streaming rights via its sports data and betting technology business IMG Arena.

Agreed. 

My long term position has been that doing the basics right is more important than anything structurally, although I understand why structure is included. 

But from reading more, they are talking about things that are mentioned here a lot. 

Scrapping games (including magic) to create scarcity and avoid cannibalisation. I'm interested to see how this goes, even though I'm nervous about us reducing our season too much. 

Matchday event, branding, internationals, digital, broadcasting, expansion strategy, focus on challenge cup - all mentioned and all great stuff. 

[Gomersall]

7 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

I don’t think there are enough letters in the Alphabet to reflect the grading the Broncos would get currently.

I assumed the reference to London was in terms of targeting an increase in the fan base here, and not about having a competitive team present in SL, which as we know would cost many millions over many many years to achieve.

Maybe Magic weekend could head to London as part of that strategy?

personally im not keen on a complete name change. I think the challenge is to take what we have and make it the most recognisable. Though I’d be happy with a return to “Rugby Super League”.

What Magic Weekend?

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Batley would still go up next season if they win at the weekend. The new assessment system doesn’t kick in until the end of 2023 if I read it right.

Indeed.

And on-field performance is a part of it. We don't yet know how big a part but it's in there.

So Batley would score higher on that, wherever they finished in SL 22, than any side in the Championship.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

Reduction in games should boost quality. 

You'd hope that a 22 games instead of 27 reduces injuries by 20% or so less at a stroke, but given cumulative effect that might be more like 25%-30%. 

I think a challenge cup group stage or a new competition is likely, maybe 4x5 with other championship and league 1 in an 1895 style cup. 

2 H, 2A then SF and Final- with a nod that this is secondary competition- so bring through youngsters 

Edited September 29, 2022 by Rugbyleaguesupporter
Clarify

[Damien]

7 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

It could be to make room for another competition to sell to TV. As Super League is going to remain at 12 for now there could be a Super League Cup with three groups of four playing home and away, with the group winners and best runners up in the semi finals. Home group games counting on season tickets so there is still around the same number of home games as now. After the final there could then be a two or three week gap before Super League starts.

I don't see the point, not that you may be wrong. If the goal is to move to 14 teams in 4 years then I don't see the point of faffing about with a structure that will then change again after 2 years. 

[Pulga]

It all sounds extremely reasonable and not very controversial at all despite the response from the usuals. 

P&R is a quaint framework that, to me, isn't much different to the old Rah Rah view of amateurism. 

"If you're good enough on the field you deserve to be in the top flight" is such a strange view from a bygone era. The results are really the tip of the iceberg. The business is the main part of the club. It's 2022. It is an entertainment business, the same as WWE wrestling, soccer, darts and Netflix. We're in direct competition with anything else that people spend time and money on. 

EuroLeague Basketball has just re-signed with IMG after their initial partnership of 10 years. What does that tell you? Look at the stats they're quoting.

https://sbcnews.co.uk/sportsbook/2022/03/30/img-arena-and-euroleague-basketball-extend-long-standing-collaboration/

 

 

[Damien]

4 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Got up to page 19 when a thought struck me.

Putting football to one side, all other major team sports in the UK such as RL, RU and Cricket are either at or approaching a watershed moment.

Cricket is only surviving because of its international presence.  But One-Day internationals and Test Cricket are under threat by the growth of 20/20 leagues around the world that can pay players exorbitant amounts for a few weeks work.  The ECCB’s response is the Hundred.  Can this plug the gap if there is a reduction in the number of One-Day internationals and Test Matches and TV income falls?

Rugby Union survives on the international game and deep pockets of wealthy backers.  If some of those backers decide to leave the club game then the income from international games will not cover existing costs at club level.  So RU will have to cut its cloth to survive or look at a more innovative structures for financial growth. 

Rugby League - IMHO the partnership with IMG is a reflection that the game finally realised that continuing ploughing the same old furrow is no longer practicable.  Fundamental change is needed, not just for today, but to be able to compete in tomorrows sporting landscape.

So this may be the point where RL leads the way in showing other sports that radical changes is the only way forward.

I agree with your general point but to pick up on that last paragraph, Cricket and RU have both had radical changes, I dont see RL as leading the way in this. 

It's early days but the detail so far isn't really that radical in my opinion. There's a fair bit of common sense and pragmatism in what we have seen and some things that should have been done ages ago. It's all quite sensible so far.

Edited September 29, 2022 by Damien

[cookey]

Certainly created an enormous reaction in the comments section of the rl pages on the BBC site. Far more contributions, both positive and negative, than usual.

[Dave T]

Whilst I think there should have been a touch more detail on some of the structure stuff, I think some of the outrage over the announcements lack of 100% detail is OTT. 

What they have done is outlined where their head is, and it's killed 2 x 10 stone dead, and confirmed that traditional P&R will be going. They are very important points and stops a lot of the speculation on that (although it just moves speculation onto other things). 

One of the things that I'm interested in is how this fits in with broadcasting deals. Our current one ends at the end of 2023, and the proposal sees changes for 2024, with the new calendar in place and no standard relegation at the end of that season as the league is graded for 2025. So if I'm reading correctly, the lineup of 2024 will be based on traditional P&R and 2025 from grading. 

To get us through that period we need a new broadcasting deal, and ideally this would have been done at the start of a deal instead of 2024 being seen as a season of 'treading water' and prep for 2025.

I wonder whether 2024 will see the new branding, new calendar, internationals etc. 

[Dave T]

36 minutes ago, Damien said:

I agree with your general point but to pick up on that last paragraph, Cricket and RU have both had radical changes, I dont see RL as leading the way in this. 

It's early days but the detail so far isn't really that radical in my opinion. There's a fair bit of common sense and pragmatism in what we have seen and some things that should have been done ages ago. It's all quite sensible so far.

I often make this point, but imho RL did a lot of the essential radical stuff over 25 years ago. 

We scrapped three key trophies from the season, got rid of midweek games, rebranded the game, moved to summer, became professional, introduced a Grand Final, innovated with VR, culled some teams, launched new teams (Paris etc) launched extended multi-team World Cups etc. 

The challenge is that many things haven't been delivered very well. Hopefully this is where IMG come in. 

I do think the game needs some finessing and refinement rather than a huge revolution. 

[Harry Stottle]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

They lacked bottle last time and gave too much benefit of the doubt to the existing clubs imho. But I think a large part of that was that they didn't rate the clubs pushing for their spots. 

They or Richard Lewis?

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I often make this point, but imho RL did a lot of the essential radical stuff over 25 years ago. 

We scrapped three key trophies from the season, got rid of midweek games, rebranded the game, moved to summer, became professional, introduced a Grand Final, innovated with VR, culled some teams, launched new teams (Paris etc) launched extended multi-team World Cups etc. 

The challenge is that many things haven't been delivered very well. Hopefully this is where IMG come in. 

I do think the game needs some finessing and refinement rather than a huge revolution. 

Indeed. And now the excitement of the announcement has subsided, I'm left feeling that IMG's aim, with full agreement from the RFL, is to make the best of what we've got rather than reinvent the wheel. 

Obviously the non-structure stuff is all about that, but for me all the categorisation stuff fits in with that too.

If you stop looking at the the clubs through a sporting rivalry lens, and instead see them as different parts of a business, it kinda makes sense.

Make your most successful outlets market leading, and outline a structure for the next group of existing outlets to step up. 

They're explicit about not going into new countries, and even France is capped at what we have. This is the end of pins-in-map expansion in my view. It's about looking at where the game is strongest - defined in ways we're not quite sure yet - and making the most of that. 

Five years from now I wouldn't be surprised if the top tier was M62 plus France, and IMG being fine with that. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

They or Richard Lewis?

I have no idea, so it has to stay at 'they'. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

To be honest GUBRATS, you are making up your own points that don't relate to mine. Your arguments are dishonest here as you are stating things I haven't said, or believe. 

Happy to discuss it again when you aren't just being awkward because you are angry. 

Hi Dave, I am not angry and not quoting anything you have or haven't said, but on @GUBRATSgeographical concern, I think he is very correct in doing so, the same as Fev should be concerned, Leigh would be in an area under a large blanket so to speak with another 3 SL club's, Fev would be one of 3, can you really see 7 club's from such small areas making up 58.3% of the league structure, not a chance.

I will also say that if we need a pointer that geography will come into play, just reflect on how the academy licence's were awarded, if Leigh had been anywhere else other than next door to 3 club's with academies with the application and commitment, structure and £400K they offered they would have not been refused.

[iffleyox]

49 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Every sport has been eaten by football. Difference between us and rest is we are nowhere near when it comes to exploiting internationals whilst Cricket and Union in uk have reached their limit of value from internationals.

Exactly, cricket and RU probably pretty much know (though they might not like the answer) how much money they've either got or could have in their sports. RL is the usual bin fire of squabbling, missed opportunities and unfulfilled potential. We could all have a go at saying what RL 'could' be worth in the UK, but everyone's flying blind because no one really knows... As usual, it's a much harder place to start from, because all cricket and RU have got to do is let go of some delusions, whereas RL sometimes feels like it struggles to even dream.