IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Tubby said:

I think you’ve misunderstood. But that’s ok. 

No I haven't. If you can't understand how you are contradicting yourself that's okay too.

[Tubby]

Just now, Damien said:

No I haven't. If you can't understand how you are contradicting yourself that's okay too.

We agree that you don’t think that’s what happens in RL. it’s an easy misunderstanding to make. 

[Damien]

26 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Do your kids have the ability to go make money and sell their product themselves? 

If we are going with this stupid analogy then I make sure the mortgage is paid as well as a myriad of bills. I make sure that I can get to work and pay for all the things that allow me to gain an income, car, petrol, training etc. That has to be paid for to even get food on the table for the kids, which is paid for with what is left. 

That is all analogous to SL providing a minimum standard of competition to sell to Sky. That is before we even get to improving itself to have a quality product worth selling. The game as a whole gets more income if SL is as attractive to broadcasters as it can be. Make SL a worse product and the whole game suffers, as well have seen with the latest TV deal.

[Tubby]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

If we are going with this stupid analogy then I make sure the mortgage is paid as well as a myriad of bills. I make sure that I can get to work and pay for all the things that allow me to gain an income, car, petrol, training etc. That has to be paid for to even get food on the table for the kids, which is paid for with what is left. 

That is all analogous to SL providing a minimum standard of competition to sell to Sky. That is before we even get to improving itself to have a quality product worth selling. The game as a whole gets more income if SL is as attractive to broadcasters as it can be. Make SL a worse product and the whole game suffers, as well have seen with the latest TV deal.

You have a great deal of priorities which come before feeding your family. I think this is where we will disagree. Looking after the less well off members of our family/sport/society is very important to me and I absolutely understand others’ point of view that they don’t want to help those the consider ‘spongers’. I think we have to accept that we look after those (the tiny minority)who are perhaps more profligate with their money, so we can be sure we help those that need it. 
 

And no analogy is without faults. 

[ShropshireBull]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Do they earn it or does the game as a product earn it? If a whole host of clubs go to the wall and you are left with a handful; is that a viable product for the TV companies? Clearly not and without that revenue, none of those clubs are solvent. As stated earlier, if the RFL / IMG are serious about the growing the game as a product a more equitable distribution of central funds is a must. Otherwise, IMG’s legacy will be anything but seeing the game grow.

We gave championship clubs ridiculous amounts of money and based it on finishing position so you had the matthews effect plus millions spaffed away with no infrastructure to show for it. 

Does giving Oldham Rochdale Swinton Hunslet Bradford more money create long term infrastructure that will allow them to generate rev indeoendently? No then its a waste of cash.

Sky pay for SL . so the majority of the cash needs to go to make that product the best. When we had 50million a year we wasted it on second tier wages instead of infrastructure and now dont have money to spread. 

 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Tubby said:

You have a great deal of priorities which come before feeding your family. I think this is where we will disagree. Looking after the less well off members of our family/sport/society is very important to me and I absolutely understand others’ point of view that they don’t want to help those the consider ‘spongers’. I think we have to accept that we look after those (the tiny minority)who are perhaps more profligate with their money, so we can be sure we help those that need it. 
 

And no analogy is without faults. 

He doesn't, if he doesn't do those things his family don't eat.

Super League earn the money. Every club in Super League contributes to that, some more than others admittedly, but in the interest of a good competition every club should get the same out of it. 

The Championship and League 1 are free to tender their broadcast rights. I believe they have this year. They still get more from the Super League money than their own broadcast deal(s), which says it all really.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Tubby said:

You have a great deal of priorities which come before feeding your family. I think this is where we will disagree. Looking after the less well off members of our family/sport/society is very important to me and I absolutely understand others’ point of view that they don’t want to help those the consider ‘spongers’. I think we have to accept that we look after those (the tiny minority)who are perhaps more profligate with their money, so we can be sure we help those that need it. 
 

And no analogy is without faults. 

A house over your head and heating and electric are priorities for most people. They are the basics we need. I can easily feed my family sustainably. What I don't need to do is give them steak every night when they aren't contributing anything to the pot and when I can't afford to. Maybe when they are paying keep and contributing to the household then they can pay for the steak themselves. 

[Tubby]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

We gave championship clubs ridiculous amounts of money and based it on finishing position so you had the matthews effect plus millions spaffed away with no infrastructure to show for it. 

Does giving Oldham Rochdale Swinton Hunslet Bradford more money create long term infrastructure that will allow them to generate rev indeoendently? No then its a waste of cash.

Sky pay for SL . so the majority of the cash needs to go to make that product the best. When we had 50million a year we wasted it on second tier wages instead of infrastructure and now dont have money to spread. 

 

I agree the unequal distribution did no one any good, other than those players who were commanding higher wages, but that is an unavoidable consequence of increased funding in any scenario. The vast majority of the income from Sky was used to increase wages throughout the sport. 

I believe sufficient funding needs to be provided to allow teams a chance at maintaining their existence, but god alone knows where that funding will come from.

But I do believe that if we let the lower leagues fall by the wayside, we are doomed. 

[Tubby]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

He doesn't, if he doesn't do those things his family don't eat.

Super League earn the money. Every club in Super League contributes to that, some more than others admittedly, but in the interest of a good competition every club should get the same out of it. 

The Championship and League 1 are free to tender their broadcast rights. I believe they have this year. They still get more from the Super League money than their own broadcast deal(s), which says it all really.

It’s a pointless argument, but we need to do enough to keep working whilst at the same time providing for our ‘family’.

But this always becomes ‘us and them’, when we used to be (and need to be) all ‘us’. 

RL is it one sport and whilst we need to make sure we provide a saleable product, we also need to keep a viable structure alive to provide the materials for that product. 
 

[Tubby]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

A house over your head and heating and electric are priorities for most people. They are the basics we need. I can easily feed my family sustainably. What I don't need to do is give them steak every night when they aren't contributing anything to the pot and when I can't afford to. Maybe when they are paying keep and contributing to the household then they can pay for the steak themselves. 

I’m not suggesting steak, merely sufficiency. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Tubby said:

I agree the unequal distribution did no one any good, other than those players who were commanding higher wages, but that is an unavoidable consequence of increased funding in any scenario. The vast majority of the income from Sky was used to increase wages throughout the sport. 

I believe sufficient funding needs to be provided to allow teams a chance at maintaining their existence, but god alone knows where that funding will come from.

But I do believe that if we let the lower leagues fall by the wayside, we are doomed. 

You could run most Championship and League 1 clubs as part timers on £25k to £100k of Central funding plus whatever else they bring in.

It appears some have grown accustomed to far more than that however.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Tubby said:

It’s a pointless argument, but we need to do enough to keep working whilst at the same time providing for our ‘family’.

But this always becomes ‘us and them’, when we used to be (and need to be) all ‘us’. 

RL is it one sport and whilst we need to make sure we provide a saleable product, we also need to keep a viable structure alive to provide the materials for that product. 

That might well depend on some clubs reassessing their circumstances and ambitions.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Tubby said:

I’m not suggesting steak, merely sufficiency. 

Which is what clubs have got. That is why well run clubs like Batley have done well.

[Tubby]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

You could run most Championship and League 1 clubs as part timers on £25k to £100k of Central funding plus whatever else they bring in.

It appears some have grown accustomed to far more than that however.

I’d be interested to see your breakdown of running a semi professional club on £25k

[Tubby]

Just now, Damien said:

Which is what clubs have got. That is why well run clubs like Batley have done well.

But not L1 clubs. Which I appreciate may not figure in the new plan. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Tubby said:

I’d be interested to see your breakdown of running a semi professional club on £25k

That isn't to run it, that is the central funding allocation. My examples are all 11 League 1 clubs this year. 

[Tubby]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

That isn't to run it, that is the central funding allocation. My examples are all 11 League 1 clubs this year. 

And would you describe them as thriving?

[Tubby]

Either way, what we think is irrelevant. We’ll see what IMG suggest and whether the clubs agree to it. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Tubby said:

And would you describe them as thriving?

For 3rd division clubs, yeah pretty good actually. Some very promising signs. 

They could have much more if some Championship clubs didn't insist on £300k plus so they can play at being Full timers.

[Tubby]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

For 3rd division clubs, yeah pretty good actually. Some very promising signs. 

They could have much more if some Championship clubs didn't insist on £300k plus so they can play at being Full timers.

Wonderfully disparaging. 

I think the fact is, fans of SL clubs generally believe they should keep 95% of any income and fans of clubs outside SL don’t. With one or two possible exceptions. This is unlikely to change. 
 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Tubby said:

Wonderfully disparaging. 

I think the fact is, fans of SL clubs generally believe they should keep 95% of any income and fans of clubs outside SL don’t. With one or two possible exceptions. This is unlikely to change. 
 

I think its interesting that some part time clubs can operate as part timers, yet others need more central funding (more than 10x) to play at being full timers.

And the Championship clubs believe they should keep 95% of the funding they're getting, for no apparent reason really. Completely under the auspices of the RFL.

We've had NRL recruits coming into Championship teams already on significant 6 figure central funding levels. Is that really necessary? Is it the best use of funds to "look after the whole game"?

Whilstsoever millions are still being diverted into the Championship and League 1 centrally, you won't get much sympathy from Super League whilst they are dealing with their lowest TV deal in a while.

[Tubby]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I think its interesting that some part time clubs can operate as part timers, yet others need more central funding (more than 10x) to play at being full timers.

And the Championship clubs believe they should keep 95% of the funding they're getting, for no apparent reason really. Completely under the auspices of the RFL.

We've had NRL recruits coming into Championship teams already on significant 6 figure central funding levels. Is that really necessary? Is it the best use of funds to "look after the whole game"?

Whilstsoever millions are still being diverted into the Championship and League 1 centrally, you won't get much sympathy from Super League whilst they are dealing with their lowest TV deal in a while.

Clubs will and should be ambitious and will try to achieve the best they can with the income they have. Much the same across the leagues, some clubs generate more income and achieve more. 

I’m always interested to hear how people are privy to the wages of individual players, but I assume you’re alluding to Leigh, where their owner has made no secret of his personal investment. 

Your also stating that the championship clubs have no right to central funding. Them and us again. 

 

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Roughyed Rats said:

They should keep it all then and good luck to them

Perhaps the remaining clubs should set up their own competition, possibly even go back to winter rugby to try and make ends meet?

[sigh]

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Tubby said:

Clubs will and should be ambitious and will try to achieve the best they can with the income they have. Much the same across the leagues, some clubs generate more income and achieve more. 

I’m always interested to hear how people are privy to the wages of individual players, but I assume you’re alluding to Leigh, where their owner has made no secret of his personal investment. 

Your also stating that the championship clubs have no right to central funding. Them and us again. 

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't have central funding. I'm saying that whilst they seem to be concentrating the quite large allocation of funding they are getting, which again is almost entirely drawn from the Super League TV Deal, in barely a handful of top clubs pockets, then its not a great place to start complaining about "unfairness". 

If every Championship (and League 1) club was given the same amount of money of the allocation now, and there was still a crisis at several clubs, then it could be fair to start thinking Super League might need to be more generous. As it stands that is neither the case currently, nor looks likely.

Super League are supporting the lower divisions. The Championship and RFL are happy to say League 1 clubs warrant £25k per annum. Super League should not be funding the championship to be full time or anything like, especially if the Super League TV deal is down as it has been.

[Tubby]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm not saying they shouldn't have central funding. I'm saying that whilst they seem to be concentrating the quite large allocation of funding they are getting, which again is almost entirely drawn from the Super League TV Deal, in barely a handful of top clubs pockets, then its not a great place to start complaining about "unfairness". 

If every Championship (and League 1) club was given the same amount of money of the allocation now, and there was still a crisis at several clubs, then it could be fair to start thinking Super League might need to be more generous. As it stands that is neither the case currently, nor looks likely.

Super League are supporting the lower divisions. The Championship and RFL are happy to say League 1 clubs warrant £25k per annum. Super League should not be funding the championship to be full time or anything like, especially if the Super League TV deal is down as it has been.

I personally don’t see CF as charity, it is RFL income and should be distributed accordingly. 

I’m aware that Championship funding used to be based on league position, but I will admit that I thought this was no longer the case, and I agree entirely that it should be distributed equitably. All Championship clubs should receive the same allocation. A cash prize for the finalists maybe makes sense, but I’m open to either option. 

Perhaps we’re not so far apart in our thinking, but I also think that the lower leagues support SL by being a part of the sport, increasing interest, nurturing and producing players.