IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[Damien]

24 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Would you really want folk who watch RL getting the final say? We would bring back community singing, the four tackle set and hanging.

I never said the final say. However it wouldn't be wise to implement something like 2 × 10s if 90% of people were against it. That is the whole point of market research.

[Jughead]

Would be good to see the results of the fan survey, even if I didn’t like the questions that much. 

Ultimately though, they’re not going to come out of Wednesday with a resolution that suits all thirty-seven clubs. Some will be happier than others and there will be a fallout from it that goes on for months. 

Please no tens and please no trying to claim we’re doing something new when it’s just one or two things we’ve done before with a fancy new tagline. 

[Gav Wilson]

5 hours ago, gingerjon said:

From the news section: https://www.totalrl.com/crunch-vote-ahead-on-img-proposals-as-reimagining-rugby-league-begins/

Well. Mick got one right!

 

[yipyee]

I don't get the whole 2 x10, we currently have 3 leagues why shrink to 2?

We currently have a top league with 12 and loop fixtures, why decrease the number and increase loop games, it doesn't make sense.

Can anyone shed some light onto this?

[Blind side johnny]

55 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

Well. Mick got one right!

 

Stopped clocks?

[Just Browny]

12 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

YES - I would bring back the old rugby league, contested scrums and being able to give and take a bit of biff, back when all the teams competed on their own merit - unlike now when the chosen 12 get almost 2million more than the others some of whom get slightly better than nothing.

And yes, bring back hanging, mass murders and terrorists etc should not be sitting in prison watching sky when some of us out here doing no harm can't afford it!

I, er, rest my case.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I, er, rest my case.

"When I asked if anyone had anything to say, I meant about rugby league ..."

[Tommygilf]

I don't believe the vote necessarily will be tomorrow, but it will be very soon after if not.

[DOGFATHER]

Does anyone know if the SL clubs get 2 votes for the proposals, like previous votes, or do all 37 clubs get an equal say in proceedings?

Edited September 27, 2022 by DOGFATHER

[DI Keith Fowler]

22 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

Does anyone know if the SL clubs get 2 votes for the proposals, like previous votes, or do all 37 clubs get an equal say in proceedings?

Ralph Rimmer holds all the votes. Welcome to the Rimmersphere.

[Dave T]

15 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

I assume there are a number of points to be presented so it may not be a single vote.

Possibly also not final ones, there could be initial proposals to be taken forward into an open public consultation phase.

I expect this will be the case. 

There may be votes on principles etc. And whether to progress with certain initiatives. 

[Harry Stottle]

18 hours ago, LeeF said:

Probably no leaks as the clubs don’t know yet

 

18 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Correct

 

18 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

This is effectively dictatorship, benign yes, but dictatorship nonetheless. 

 

40 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't believe the vote necessarily will be tomorrow, but it will be very soon after if not.

I have asked before, you sure you don't have access to inside information Tommy?

[Harry Stottle]

41 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

Does anyone know if the SL clubs get 2 votes for the proposals, like previous votes, or do all 37 clubs get an equal say in proceedings?

I think this should apply :-

Changes to the Articles of Association of the RFL can only be made upon a Special Resolution approved by 75% of voting Members.

The Articles contain provisions such that, irrespective of the number of Clubs in the Super League, the Championship and League 1, the votes of the Super League Clubs (on the one hand) and the votes of the Championship and League 1 Clubs (on the other hand) carry equal weight. In addition, any resolution must be passed by at least 4 Super League Members and at least 4 Championship or League 1 Members.

There are also other votes to be taken into consideration but I don't know if they will apply to the IMG proposals or taken or held back for the full council.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Harry Stottle

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I have asked before, you sure you don't have access to inside information Tommy?

Sources will remain secret Harry, but I can confirm the clubs (at least the one(s) I know) don't know anything at this time.

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Ralph Rimmer holds all the votes. Welcome to the Rimmersphere.

Rimmer is gone! Certainly feels like he's been removed.

[Griff]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think this should apply :-

Changes to the Articles of Association of the RFL can only be made upon a Special Resolution approved by 75% of voting Members.

The Articles contain provisions such that, irrespective of the number of Clubs in the Super League, the Championship and League 1, the votes of the Super League Clubs (on the one hand) and the votes of the Championship and League 1 Clubs (on the other hand) carry equal weight. In addition, any resolution must be passed by at least 4 Super League Members and at least 4 Championship or League 1 Members.

There are also other votes to be taken into consideration but I don't know if they will apply to the IMG proposals or taken or held back for the full council.

 

 

Changing the competition structure isn't changing the Articles of Association of the RFL.

[Griff]

14 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

And yes, bring back hanging, mass murders and terrorists etc should not be sitting in prison watching sky when some of us out here doing no harm can't afford it!

Bringing back mass murders is surely a step too far.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

Changing the competition structure isn't changing the Articles of Association of the RFL.

I know that hence the last paragraph Griff, but considering there is a system in place for the member club's shouldn't that be used, any alteration would seem something underhand has been done, especially if it favoured SL club's if the topic is licencing.

[Alffi 7]

13 hours ago, yipyee said:

I don't get the whole 2 x10, we currently have 3 leagues why shrink to 2?

We currently have a top league with 12 and loop fixtures, why decrease the number and increase loop games, it doesn't make sense.

Can anyone shed some light onto this?

The only way it works for me is if you can get an additional TV deal off the back of it with maybe 2 package deals available  (Package 1 as 2 x SL1 games, and Package 2 as 1 x SL1 and 1 SL2 games), otherwise we would never be able to fund 20 professional clubs. Would a SL2 with 2 current SL teams be more attractive to broadcasters? I'm sure IMG will have sounded them out.

It could also make a French TV deal more of a possibility? The difficulty now is from one season to the next broadcasters don't know if there will be 1 or 2 teams available to screen. Guaranteeing 'Super League Rugby' (even if it is SL2) would be more appealing to broadcasters? Also opens the possibility of adding more teams to the 2x10 structure in the future, from both the UK & Fra.

I don't think its a case of 3 leagues shrinking to 2, its unlikely league 3 in this concept will be disbanded and forgotten about, but I would think the top 20 would be franchised with the remaining clubs looking to hit certain criteria to gain a licence to operate in SL2.

 

I'm not as anti 2x10's as most seem to be, I'd rather see my team play a Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Catalan than a Toulouse in terms of the intensity of the game, so the loop fixtures have never bothered me as such.  But it needs additional TV revenue and it needs to be seen as a base to grow from, rather than a new normal, so teams outside the 20, say London / Newcastle / potential Fra teams would need to know what they needed to do and a timeline for when a new club could be admitted.

 

[Harry Stottle]

23 minutes ago, Alffi 7 said:

The only way it works for me is if you can get an additional TV deal off the back of it with maybe 2 package deals available  (Package 1 as 2 x SL1 games, and Package 2 as 1 x SL1 and 1 SL2 games), otherwise we would never be able to fund 20 professional clubs. Would a SL2 with 2 current SL teams be more attractive to broadcasters? I'm sure IMG will have sounded them out.

It could also make a French TV deal more of a possibility? The difficulty now is from one season to the next broadcasters don't know if there will be 1 or 2 teams available to screen. Guaranteeing 'Super League Rugby' (even if it is SL2) would be more appealing to broadcasters? Also opens the possibility of adding more teams to the 2x10 structure in the future, from both the UK & Fra.

I don't think its a case of 3 leagues shrinking to 2, its unlikely league 3 in this concept will be disbanded and forgotten about, but I would think the top 20 would be franchised with the remaining clubs looking to hit certain criteria to gain a licence to operate in SL2.

 

I'm not as anti 2x10's as most seem to be, I'd rather see my team play a Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Catalan than a Toulouse in terms of the intensity of the game, so the loop fixtures have never bothered me as such.  But it needs additional TV revenue and it needs to be seen as a base to grow from, rather than a new normal, so teams outside the 20, say London / Newcastle / potential Fra teams would need to know what they needed to do and a timeline for when a new club could be admitted.

 

My parents always advised me if you can't afford something don't buy it, save up till you can!

I totally agree with you that funding would not be available and sufficient enough to cater for 20 clubs and so you suggest a solution is to have 2 TV deals running concurrently and a supplementary one in France.

So why my opening paragraph? I don't honestly see how a vote can be taken on a structure as in the 2 x10's that cannot be financed with anywhere near the present level of income, and as for the TV money there is a new contract to negotiate next year for '24 and it is not beyond possibility that the present level could be reduced Sky seems to be reforming since the American Comcast have taken the helm and will it be good for RL? As for the French gaining a TV deal whether FTA or Subscription I have asked the question before is there the appetite or desire of the French public at large to support it even if there was a guarantee of two French teams?

So in conclusion, at this present time in my opinion 2 x 10's should not even be on the radar, not at least till we know that it can and will be affordable to operate.

[yipyee]

47 minutes ago, Alffi 7 said:

The only way it works for me is if you can get an additional TV deal off the back of it with maybe 2 package deals available  (Package 1 as 2 x SL1 games, and Package 2 as 1 x SL1 and 1 SL2 games), otherwise we would never be able to fund 20 professional clubs. Would a SL2 with 2 current SL teams be more attractive to broadcasters? I'm sure IMG will have sounded them out.

It could also make a French TV deal more of a possibility? The difficulty now is from one season to the next broadcasters don't know if there will be 1 or 2 teams available to screen. Guaranteeing 'Super League Rugby' (even if it is SL2) would be more appealing to broadcasters? Also opens the possibility of adding more teams to the 2x10 structure in the future, from both the UK & Fra.

I don't think its a case of 3 leagues shrinking to 2, its unlikely league 3 in this concept will be disbanded and forgotten about, but I would think the top 20 would be franchised with the remaining clubs looking to hit certain criteria to gain a licence to operate in SL2.

 

I'm not as anti 2x10's as most seem to be, I'd rather see my team play a Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Catalan than a Toulouse in terms of the intensity of the game, so the loop fixtures have never bothered me as such.  But it needs additional TV revenue and it needs to be seen as a base to grow from, rather than a new normal, so teams outside the 20, say London / Newcastle / potential Fra teams would need to know what they needed to do and a timeline for when a new club could be admitted.

 

So its a closed shop of 2 divisions incorporating some of the clubs that are either too small or already failed at SL level?

I don't see the merit of a 2 league closed shop unless its conference style, and then I would make it 4 leagues with cross league games similar to US sports. Other than that it should be a closed shop of 1 league OR tiered like it is now.

The problem that seems to be the elephant in the room is that we have a collection of teams that are at 5 different levels of operation and as such 3 leagues is too small to seperate the disparity.

We ideally need 5 leagues and more clubs.

[Harry Stottle]

23 minutes ago, yipyee said:

So its a closed shop of 2 divisions incorporating some of the clubs that are either too small or already failed at SL level?

I don't see the merit of a 2 league closed shop unless its conference style, and then I would make it 4 leagues with cross league games similar to US sports. Other than that it should be a closed shop of 1 league OR tiered like it is now.

The problem that seems to be the elephant in the room is that we have a collection of teams that are at 5 different levels of operation and as such 3 leagues is too small to seperate the disparity.

We ideally need 5 leagues and more clubs.

So we are advised that the optimum number of games that a club needs to play is 27, hence the loop fixtures in SL, the Championship has 27 including the Bash, and L1 is trailing behind with not enough fixtures.

In my opinion a League should not consist of any less than 12 teams and even then we are looking at the dreaded additional Loopies, I agree with you that there are effectively 5 levels of operation and 3 leagues is an insufficient number, so how many more clubs are you suggesting we need and just as importantly at what level will these new clubs ideally operate at, geograpically where will/should they be sited, and where would the player's come from to furnish each level of operation?

Edited September 27, 2022 by Harry Stottle

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I know that hence the last paragraph Griff, but considering there is a system in place for the member club's shouldn't that be used, any alteration would seem something underhand has been done, especially if it favoured SL club's if the topic is licencing.

No. There are rules for running the company and there are rules for running the competitions.

[yipyee]

20 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So we are advised that the optimum number of games that a club needs to play is 27, hence the loop fixtures in SL, the Championship has 27 including the Bash, and L1 is trailing behind with not enough fixtures.

In my opinion a League should not consist of any less than 12 teams and even then we are looking at the dreaded additional Loopies, I agree with you that there are effectively 5 levels of operation and 3 leagues is an insufficient number, so how many more clubs are you suggesting we need and just as importantly at what level will these new clubs ideally operate at, geograpically where will/should they be sited, and where would the player's come from to furnish each level of operation?

Good questions and they are the ones that the leadership of the sport need to answer instead of constantly re-arranging things and expecting a different outcome.

The best way is to do this organically or with an impetus into new areas.

A study of soccer expansion 100 years ago is also worth a study.

[Kayakman]

34 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Good questions and they are the ones that the leadership of the sport need to answer instead of constantly re-arranging things and expecting a different outcome.

The best way is to do this organically or with an impetus into new areas.

A study of soccer expansion 100 years ago is also worth a study.

We were well on the way with Toronto...rich, virgin soil.....a nice, beautiful crop full of beauty.....the colony was then abandoned.