IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Derwent Parker said:

Firstly, you state in your profile Wakefield /Leeds - If you had put West Wales - I would have assumed different.

Secondly - That is where we differ, I would like everyone treat equally

When you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

Treating all teams equally would be very silly. The strongest teams would annihilate the opposition on equal footing. 

Equity maybe has a place, but that is a lot of money heading to the two London clubs and I'm not sure how some fans would take that.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Derwent Parker said:

So, some SG clubs lost 300k out of 1.8Million - leaving £1.77Million

Some L1 teams lost 50K out of 75K - leaving £25k

Get a grip man 

It is unfair admit it - FFS

Check your maths mate. I'm humouring this because I've got a long night ahead, but I won't waste my time debating stupidity.

[Derwent Parker]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Check your maths mate. I'm humouring this because I've got a long night ahead, but I won't waste my time debating stupidity.

Go on then humour me where is the error.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Go on then humour me where is the error.

£1.8 million minus £300k is £1.5 million.

[Hemi4561]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Check your maths mate. I'm humouring this because I've got a long night ahead, but I won't waste my time debating stupidity.

His maths is incorrect. 

However, let me put it in simple terms for you, and all the other super greed apologists, club owners, mouthpieces thereof. 

Super League is the problem, not L1 or championship clubs stealing "their" money. The Sky deal, negotiated by the RFL, or whoever is, or was, for rugby-league as a whole. Sky choose to screen Super League almost, or completely, to the exclusion of the other leagues.

They have now chosen to pay less, so that reduction in value is unquestionably because they think Super League is not as good as before. That reduction in value is absolutely nothing to do with the lower league teams, not in the quality of their games, nor in the distribution of the monies they receive.

In short Sky pay less for Super League because they believe it is worth less. 

Super League as a whole attempt to ameliorate this monetary loss by pressuring the distribution to the non super league teams, rather than admitting their failure. 

[redjonn]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Ahh the classic conflate professional teams outside of super league with amateur and junior rugby move...

To tell the truth, Super League would, like the NRL, probably run strong reserve/farm teams in the absence of the Championship and League 1, many of whom would take the form of clubs currently in those two leagues anyway.

Your last paragraph is maybe what they could do, but it would be a cost. That is no one watches or would pay to watch those games. Of course they could charge more for the normal games to subsidise as they do now for the youth and academy teams plus coaching and officials but still an extra cost.   For NRL that cost is relatively minor for many SL it wouldn't be.

[Hemi4561]

20 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Go on then humour me where is the error.

Stop digging fella. 

[bobbruce]

2 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

His maths is incorrect. 

However, let me put it in simple terms for you, and all the other super greed apologists, club owners, mouthpieces thereof. 

Super League is the problem, not L1 or championship clubs stealing "their" money. The Sky deal, negotiated by the RFL, or whoever is, or was, for rugby-league as a whole. Sky choose to screen Super League almost, or completely, to the exclusion of the other leagues.

They have now chosen to pay less, so that reduction in value is unquestionably because they think Super League is not as good as before. That reduction in value is absolutely nothing to do with the lower league teams, not in the quality of their games, nor in the distribution of the monies they receive.

In short Sky pay less for Super League because they believe it is worth less. 

Super League as a whole attempt to ameliorate this monetary loss by pressuring the distribution to the non super league teams, rather than admitting their failure. 

That’s all over the place. 

[Derwent Parker]

16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

£1.8 million minus £300k is £1.5 million.

Yes, you got me - Numbers and Carlsberg dont work well together although the latter makes me happier than numbers.

I apologize

[Derwent Parker]

6 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

His maths is incorrect. 

However, let me put it in simple terms for you, and all the other super greed apologists, club owners, mouthpieces thereof. 

Super League is the problem, not L1 or championship clubs stealing "their" money. The Sky deal, negotiated by the RFL, or whoever is, or was, for rugby-league as a whole. Sky choose to screen Super League almost, or completely, to the exclusion of the other leagues.

They have now chosen to pay less, so that reduction in value is unquestionably because they think Super League is not as good as before. That reduction in value is absolutely nothing to do with the lower league teams, not in the quality of their games, nor in the distribution of the monies they receive.

In short Sky pay less for Super League because they believe it is worth less. 

Super League as a whole attempt to ameliorate this monetary loss by pressuring the distribution to the non super league teams, rather than admitting their failure. 

Well said

[Hemi4561]

6 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

That’s all over the place. 

It's very simple, sky pay less because super league is worse product than before, and people like you don't understand that. 

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

It's very simple, sky pay less because super league is worse product than before, and people like you don't understand that. 

Right.

And, even if it were that simple, the upshot is less money for the game as a whole.

So what every rugby league fan should therefore want is a better top level league that gets more money for its TV contract.

And that requires money and investment.

But some people on here are arguing against that.

[bobbruce]

10 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

It's very simple, sky pay less because super league is worse product than before, and people like you don't understand that. 

No I do understand that that’s why SL should be as good as possible. 

[Stuff Smith]

26 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

His maths is incorrect. 

However, let me put it in simple terms for you, and all the other super greed apologists, club owners, mouthpieces thereof. 

Super League is the problem...

 

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Right.

And, even if it were that simple, the upshot is less money for the game as a whole.

I've got sympathies with both Hemi's and Ginger's opinions.

But ignore Hemi's use of the term "super greed", he's genuinely got a point.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Stuff Smith said:

 

I've got sympathies with both Hemi's and Ginger's opinions.

But ignore Hemi's use of the term "super greed", he's genuinely got a point.

If Super League is the problem then it won't be fixed by taking money away from it and expecting it to improve.

And, TBH, anyone who uses any variation of Super Greed/$tupid Greed has already lost any argument.

[Hemi4561]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Right.

And, even if it were that simple, the upshot is less money for the game as a whole.

So what every rugby league fan should therefore want is a better top level league that gets more money for its TV contract.

And that requires money and investment.

But some people on here are arguing against that.

I don't disagree that the game needs more investment, but your assertion that every fan should want the existing group of top level teams to get even more money just to maintain the status quo is absurd, especially if it means the numerous lower league teams that I have followed over the last 30 years should cease to exist, or be consigned to the outer darkness forever no matter how much they improve is at odds with basic human desires.

If you, or TG or BB, would care to explain why my assertion is too simple, or wrong please do. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Hemi4561 said:

or be consigned to the outer darkness forever no matter how much they improve is at odds with basic human desires.

Ah, okay.

You haven't read any of the statements put out by IMG.

That does explain a lot, actually.

[Hemi4561]

21 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

No I do understand that that’s why SL should be as good as possible. 

But that’s the point, the arbiters of how good Super League is Sky, and they have expressed their opinion by paying less. They are buying the product, improving the product is the responsibility of the sellers, not for the buyers to overpay to fund product development. IMHO most people would say that many of the improvements that Super League was to supposed to bring haven't materialised to extent that was envisioned. The more money that is thrown at the existing top level clubs does not seem to bring the game wide improvements that would be of benefit of all. 

[Hemi4561]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Ah, okay.

You haven't read any of the statements put out by IMG.

That does explain a lot, actually.

Re read my previous posts as regards IMG. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

Re read my previous posts as regards IMG. 

You're writing as if the IMG proposals are a drawbridge - which is what licensing was last time -  rather than the idea of an ongoing process with an open door.

[Tubby]

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You're writing as if the IMG proposals are a drawbridge - which is what licensing was last time -  rather than the idea of an ongoing process with an open door.

And I hope that proves to be the case, if indeed it is ratified. But licensing last time was supposed to be transparent and judged objectively, with future opportunities for all. I’m not sure that’s how it transpired. 

[Hemi4561]

The only people who are taking any appreciably amount of money from Super League are Sky, not the lower league clubs, and by extension, super league itself because of its inability to provide the product. 

You can't go to Sky, or anyone else and say" give us 50 million and we will do better. "They will say  we gave you nearly 90 million 30 years ago and you were supposed to give us different winners every year, neat and tidy stadia that look good on TV, etc.

You did not deliver to the standard we wanted so this time we'll give 25, and you say give us more and we promise we will get it right this time.Fat chance, improve and maybe next time we'll give you more "

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Tubby said:

And I hope that proves to be the case, if indeed it is ratified. But licensing last time was supposed to be transparent and judged objectively, with future opportunities for all. I’m not sure that’s how it transpired. 

It was a three-year closed shop each time. They were clear and open about that. And whilst the scoring and criteria were poor, that is exactly what happened.

This is not a closed shop and, whilst you may have reservations, it doesn't help to rewrite what actually happened last time.

[Tubby]

Just now, gingerjon said:

It was a three-year closed shop each time. They were clear and open about that. And whilst the scoring and criteria were poor, that is exactly what happened.

This is not a closed shop and, whilst you may have reservations, it doesn't help to rewrite what actually happened last time.

I don’t believe I rewrote anything, I didn’t say that opportunities were annual. But are you suggesting anything I wrote is incorrect?

Once bitten, twice shy and all that, but I do hold some hope that it could be done properly with the right checks in place. 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

Sky do not pay less because super league is worse quality. 

Sky pay less because they think less people will unsubscribe if they don't show super league than they thought/ much less competition in market from BT. 

The quality on pitch isn't that relevant. Sky paid the most for the Premier league in recent years when it was probably at its lowest quality (2015). Quality has risen since but Sky in real terms pay a third less now but for better quality games