Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


gingerjon
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

  • Like 4

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 "

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

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 

Competition and demand drives prices for TV rights. We've never had the former, we have a solid if unspectacular form of the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

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 

If that's the case then why can't the sky money be distributed far more equitably across all the teams? Give the SL teams, 750k,champship 500k, and L1 300k? The lower league teams would all thrive, be far more competitive within their own divisions, and should be able to better cope with promotionand and relegation. The quality of SL would dip, but should become more equal, but this would not have a negative effect on revenue from Sky if as you say they don't care about the quality. Many others on here seem to be Insistent that SL must be better to get a better deal but you are saying that it doesn't matter from Sky's point of view? 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hemi4561 said:

If that's the case then why can't the sky money be distributed far more equitably across all the teams? Give the SL teams, 750k,champship 500k, and L1 300k? The lower league teams would all thrive, be far more competitive within their own divisions, and should be able to better cope with promotionand and relegation. The quality of SL would dip, but should become more equal, but this would not have a negative effect on revenue from Sky if as you say they don't care about the quality. Many others on here seem to be Insistent that SL must be better to get a better deal but you are saying that it doesn't matter from Sky's point of view? 

Sky pay for a full time top flight, not a glorified part time one. I'm not sure why Sky would pay £25 million for SL when only £9 million is being spent on it. I think under your plan Sky would quickly drop their funding accordingly then you will find there is sweet fa left for the Championship and League 1.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Sky pay for a full time top flight, not a glorified part time one. I'm not sure why Sky would pay £25 million for SL when only £9 million is being spent on it. I think under your plan Sky would quickly drop their funding accordingly then you will find there is sweet fa left for the Championship and League 1.

Exactly right.

On the topic of investment in Super League, it isn't just about giving cash to clubs to pay existing players more and 'maintain the status quo'. It's about keeping the best players in the comp, stopping the talented juniors leaving, giving the competition more ability to attract good players, evening out the playing field, not to mention how the clubs and sport overall presents itself on and off the pitch. This all costs money and it is what people expect from top level sport. Either the game commits to a plan for doing that, or it commits to continuing the slow decline we've seen.

If Super League is allowed to descend (any further) below the standards people expect from a professional competition, people will slowly turn away and the sport will continue its evolution back into a semi-professional village sport. This would probably still result in current lower league clubs dying, as overall interest dwindles.

The IMG plan shows a logical, common sense and professional approach that the game in England hasn't had from the top in a decade. Unlike the Super 8s and the various other schemes the RFL has come up with, there is no sense of panic or finger crossing at all. They presented a very simple plan for growth and to me, it's a massive relief.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Damien said:

Sky pay for a full time top flight, not a glorified part time one. I'm not sure why Sky would pay £25 million for SL when only £9 million is being spent on it. I think under your plan Sky would quickly drop their funding accordingly then you will find there is sweet fa left for the Championship and League 1.

I was responding to the post that the value sky put on the game is determined by their judgements about subscriptions, not quality. If that is the case then they may pay more than is distributed to the clubs just so as to not lose subscribers. His view seems to be that the quality of what they show does not determine its value, only how subscribers might react. 

Edited by Hemi4561
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hemi4561 said:

I was responding to the post that the value sky put on the game is determined by their judgements about subscriptions, not quality. If that is the case then they may pay more than is distributed to the clubs just so as to not lose subscribers. His view seems to be that the quality of what they show does not determine its value, only how subscribers might react. 

There is a relationship- if super league is really rubbish then people stop watching and unsubscribe from Sky 

Ultimately Sky payment is not actually based on viewing figures, it's on subscriptions. Hence why RL gets much more money than darts- darts rates better but doesn't bring in unique subscribers 

Take NRL- much higher quality but Sky will pay under £1m a year. Why? Because very few people would cancel if they dropped it 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always an interesting debate this one. 

SL clubs get branded greedy for wanting more money, yet all we have here is fans of lower clubs asking for more money for their clubs. 

Maybe some self awareness would help here. Whenever you are suggesting more money for your club, you are literally doing what you are moaning about. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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.

Taken in isolation yes -  "So what every rugby league fan should therefore want is a better top level league that gets more money for its TV contract."

To take an extreme just to make a point - The monies and hence investment may well be needed but surely not by no investments into other leagues and helping to destroy the other clubs below.   

The point is either one thinks we can just have a top division or alternatively we need both a top division and reasonable championship type leagues below.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's always an interesting debate this one. 

SL clubs get branded greedy for wanting more money, yet all we have here is fans of lower clubs asking for more money for their clubs. 

Maybe some self awareness would help here. Whenever you are suggesting more money for your club, you are literally doing what you are moaning about. 

I don't think that's the debate above that I'm reading.  It seems more about the distribution of any monies and whether it should be allocated differently.

Now of course if a fixed pot then any argument about that will mean less for some and more for others. 

I think its too simplistic and unfair to say that anyone whom questions the distribution across the sport of any TV monies is solely interested in feathering the nest of his chosen club.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...