Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday

gingerjon

By gingerjon
in The General Rugby League Forum

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Damien

Damien

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Aside from the obvious historical ignorance, such a statement is fine. Standards should also be looked at being improved.

However the finer detail is revenues. Unless there is a realistic plan to increase revenue for the supposed "B" clubs, then these plans will mean nothing.

Would for instances, the likes of St Helens be prepared to take a decade long reduced in central/TV funds or a tax on match day revenue that would be transferred to the likes of Castleford to improve their facilities or to develop regional academies?

Why the heck should Saints have to do that? Saints invested and built their own stadium and revenue streams. They deserve whatever income they now get. They certainly shouldn't then be penalised for improving their lot by having to subsidise teams that have failed to invest and grow.

Harry Stottle

Harry Stottle

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Damien said:

Why the heck should Saints have to do that? Saints invested and built their own stadium and revenue streams. They deserve whatever income they now get. They certainly shouldn't then be penalised for improving their lot by having to subsidise teams that have failed to invest and grow.

It happens in everyday life Damien, albeit that is not for this forum.

wiganermike

wiganermike

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

I completely understand that concrete figures cannot be published until a deal has been formalised in the future. But, I would have expected a mention of whether the funding gap between the tiers was likely to stay the same, or a move towards a more balanced approach was the aim, to ensure certain clubs are not disadvantaged.

We do not know what constitutes an A or B grading. However, I think it would be safe to say, it will be much easier to make improvements to things likely to be under the spotlight such as marketing, ground, training facilities, youth development, or anything else for that matter, with £1.6M a season available to throw at the problem, rather than £108k.

I too hope that the gap in funding between SL and Championship can be narrowed, but that is to a certain extent dictated by whatever money the next broadcast deal brings in. Nobody is naive enough to think that cuts will not occur below SL before they do in SL if cuts are needed due to broadcast revenue falling. For the gap to close even partially we will need to see broadcast rights income increase to pay for it. With regards to the money coming in from the broadcast deal most if not all will go to paying the wages of players. SL wage bills are much higher (unless you have an owner like Derek Beaumont paying for it) and require more to pay for them. Once the playing staff are paid from tv revenue I doubt clubs in either division have much left over to accrue further advantage. The money that pays for everything else will come from other income (tickets, merchandise etc.), sponsors and the owner. The ability to raise the funds to pay for all the club infrastructure is essentially what most of the grading assessment should come down too. That is the strength of the club and what each club would rely on should broadcast revenue disappear altogether.

redjonn

redjonn

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Expansion, favouritism, flexible rules for one, but not the other. This has to stop.

The above is an utterly depressing line. I don't think I have ever seen anyone in the game bluntly say expansion has to stop. 

get what you mean I think but the statement also says:

"Expand yes but expand with demand"

Can't see anything wrong with those words. Of course you need to invest to help build demand but surely you don't just place a club somewhere without some demand.

Stuff Smith

Stuff Smith

Posted
Posted

From the link above:
"Rugby League has failed over the last two decades because it has tried to manufacture a celebrity and glamour that is not authentic."

Really? 

Sounds  a bit like, "local game for local people; nothing for you here".

 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, redjonn said:

get what you mean I think but the statement also says:

"Expand yes but expand with demand"

Can't see anything wrong with those words. Of course you need to invest to help build demand but surely you don't just place a club somewhere without some demand.

So it's all contradictory nonsense then. That doesn't make it better. 

What does expand with demand even mean? You have to do things to cultivate interest. 

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Stuff Smith said:

From the link above:
"Rugby League has failed over the last two decades because it has tried to manufacture a celebrity and glamour that is not authentic."

Really? 

Sounds  a bit like, "local game for local people; nothing for you here".

 

I have no idea what manufacture a celebrity and glamour means. 

Henson Park Old Firm

Henson Park Old Firm

Posted
Posted

My idea that IMG could incorporate....

 

1. all super league games televised on free/pay TV (they can start with that!)

2. All rounds have allocated days ( like the NRL) for example 6 games a week. 1 Thursday night game, 2 on Friday night games, 2 on Saturday  games 1 night 1 afternoon, 1 on Sunday Afternoon game

3. Have a 2 match test Series with France (1 being played on Bastille Day in France) and maybe squeeze in a Wales game.

4. Sell the kit rights of all clubs as a collective whole 

5. Have a promotion and relegation system with 12/14 Top comp and say a 8/10 lower comp being professional, but the lower comp works on a reduced salary cap so when they get promoted the transitioned would be a lot smoother.

6.  Secure the World Club challenge for the next 10 years. It wouldn't be agreed on clubs in the NRL, but if a super league club wins the WCC they receive automatically 1 point in the next season as World Champions

 

Derwent Parker

Derwent Parker

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Damien said:

If we have 20 Grade A teams in 3 years then it will be bleeding fantastic!

I would imagine this criteria isn't set in stone either. As the competition grows and clubs get stronger (hopefully!) I'm sure the criteria to become Grade A will increase accordingly.

So, changing the goalpost to protect SL money

Derwent Parker

Derwent Parker

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Jughead said:

John Davidson saying “several Super League clubs are behind the proposal” and Featherstone have publicly backed it. I imagine both London’s are probably behind it and so will the two French sides. 

 

obviously

Derwent Parker

Derwent Parker

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

To an extent yes.

That said I do think these proposals have been deliberately set out in a way that:

A) makes them more attractive and open to most clubs, and

B) the alternative is basically a non-starter.

They have been designed to be attractive to SL clubs who have same Total votes as everyone else combined so its certain fabricated result

GUBRATS

GUBRATS

Posted
Posted

So far we've got licencing ( again ) , but ' transparent ' 😉 this time ( yeah right ) , getting rid of the MW , possibly replacing it with a 9s comp , getting rid of loop fixtures between SL clubs and replacing them with 2 legged cup matches against those same SL clubs 😂

And this is going to make IMG millions ? 🤔 , How ?

Oh and we've restarted the infamous ' stadium race ' 

Derwent Parker

Derwent Parker

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

It works if you have a sugar daddy that creates a completely unsustainable model and makes building success instead of buying it impossible, so no, it doesnt work under the current criteria. 

Well give Leigh the same 1.7 million etc. that the Chosen 12 get and they won't need DB to bea sugar daddy

Derwent Parker

Derwent Parker

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

There are a couple of very large elephants in the room for me. There is no mention of any central funding distribution, or the percentages there of, for each division or category.

How would a Cat B in the Championship have any chance of competing with a Cat B in SL? The Cat B in SL is handed £1.6M a season as things stand. The Cat B in the lower division gets £108k. Without attracting a Sugar Daddy, somehow they have to overcome a £1.5M funding deficit to get to the same level, without the benefit of playing in the Elite league that is more appealing to better players, more attractive to new spectators and to sponsors.

The other, (unless somebody could point to the paragraph, I have missed) Cat B clubs will be re-evaluated annually, but no mention of how frequently Cat A clubs will be re-evaluated from what I have seen. Therefore, can I assume that once Cat A has been achieved, clubs are safe forever? Apologies, if I have missed it.

Correct, and this is what has ruined Rugby League - 12 teams given 1.6,1.7  ish million per season telling everyone else they are not up to their standards when the rest get next to nothing [in comparison]

The sooner sky scraps the cash the sooner we get back to near normal.

Pre SL teams played on their own merits and income, Wigan and Widnes were leaders with wigan winning CC and Widnes winning league etc now it is totally rigged.

Derwent Parker

Derwent Parker

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

I completely understand that concrete figures cannot be published until a deal has been formalised in the future. But, I would have expected a mention of whether the funding gap between the tiers was likely to stay the same, or a move towards a more balanced approach was the aim, to ensure certain clubs are not disadvantaged.

We do not know what constitutes an A or B grading. However, I think it would be safe to say, it will be much easier to make improvements to things likely to be under the spotlight such as marketing, ground, training facilities, youth development, or anything else for that matter, with £1.6M a season available to throw at the problem, rather than £108k.

Well, if we can't share CF equally then let's say: -

"A" teams get £1.5 M etc 

"B" teams get £1.1 M etc 

"C" teams get 750k etc

That won't sell cos all SL teams will want their £1.7 M whatever grade they are

Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Well, if we can't share CF equally then let's say: -

"A" teams get £1.5 M etc 

"B" teams get £1.1 M etc 

"C" teams get 750k etc

That won't sell cos all SL teams will want their £1.7 M whatever grade they are

Why is your suggestion better than 

Top tier gets £1.5m

2nd tier gets £1.1m

3rd tier gets £0.75m

Obviously the numbers can be whatever, I just used yours, but we've always split funding by division, why is your suggestion better? 

JF1

JF1

Posted
Posted

Not much reference to cat C teams.

I get the impression that if they ignore us,we'll just shrug our shoulders and walk away.

DP,if you think we'll receive £750k,I admire your optimism. Be lucky if it's £75k

 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.