Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


Recommended Posts

The future anyway in a few years is an in house produced APP my prediction is ALL matches streamed on an APP with one match per round FTA.

Do the maths it only needs 100000 subscribers at £ 250.00 a year to reach £ 25 Million and so on.

Production costs  nowadays are far less than 10 years ago.

 

This is one of the reasons why i see SL ripe for an American sports investment takeover.

Paul

 

Edited by ATLANTISMAN
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


23 minutes ago, redjonn said:

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.

 

You have rather missed my point. I am not calling anyone greedy. I am saying the opposite. 

There are people who are calling SL clubs greedy, and then demanding more money lower down (which just so happens to be where their clubs are sitting).

There is a suggestion that they are thinking for the good for the game whereas SL clubs and fans are just being greedy - when in fact some people believe funding the top tier to be the best it can be is best for the sport. Similarly, there is a valid argument that we should ensure proper levels of funding at lower levels of the pyramid.

But too many people seem to think that you can only believe something if it is to the benefit of your own team. Despite them demonstrating those exact behaviours they complain about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

The future anyway in a few years is an in house produced APP my prediction is ALL matches streamed on an APP with one match per round FTA.

Do the maths it only needs 100000 subscribers at £ 250.00 a year to reach £ 25 Million and so on.

Production costs  nowadays are far less than 10 years ago.

 

This is one of the reasons why i see SL ripe for an American sports investment takeover.

Paul

 

Fantasy stuff that Paul.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You have rather missed my point. I am not calling anyone greedy. I am saying the opposite. 

There are people who are calling SL clubs greedy, and then demanding more money lower down (which just so happens to be where their clubs are sitting).

There is a suggestion that they are thinking for the good for the game whereas SL clubs and fans are just being greedy - when in fact some people believe funding the top tier to be the best it can be is best for the sport. Similarly, there is a valid argument that we should ensure proper levels of funding at lower levels of the pyramid.

But too many people seem to think that you can only believe something if it is to the benefit of your own team. Despite them demonstrating those exact behaviours they complain about.

I didn't think you were calling anyone greedy or by implication. I just thought the way you put your comment seemed to ignore the underlying points being made, which of course may have benefitted other clubs more given a fixed pot of gold.

Your second part of your second paragraph is/was the point I thought people where making.  Despite poor use of terms such as super greed which I would agree is annoying and rather deflects from sometimes a good point/argument.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, redjonn said:

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.

 

I think we do have a reasonable Championship below? Bit boring this year as it was achingly predictable, bar a single semi final result, but nothing that couldn't be fixed by equal distribution within the division, quotas on overseas players etc.

The cuts to League 1 were too severe and wouldn't cost too much to reverse.

Edited by gingerjon
clarity
  • Like 5

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

34 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

The future anyway in a few years is an in house produced APP my prediction is ALL matches streamed on an APP with one match per round FTA.

Do the maths it only needs 100000 subscribers at £ 250.00 a year to reach £ 25 Million and so on.

Production costs  nowadays are far less than 10 years ago.

 

This is one of the reasons why i see SL ripe for an American sports investment takeover.

Paul

 

Do you know anyone who is going to pay £250 a year for rugby league streaming?

  • 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

3 minutes ago, redjonn said:

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.

 

The source of division of opinion comes with what people would consider constitutes a reasonable championship type league. This comes down to the level of funds they believe clubs should be given to function with. Whatever level of funding that is personally I think the most important factor is that it should be the same figure for all clubs within a division. During the period of licensing and before the Championship was a very competitive competition with a fairly low salary cap level (c.£300k IIRC) where clubs were part time operations.

Whether you support(ed) them or not the introduction of the 3x8s structure was the start of the current inequality in the Championship. The need for Championship top 4 to have at least near parity in the middle 8 phase led to the vastly uneven funding distribution we now see at Championship level and the raising of the cap at that level to a point where very few have the funds to spend it. This was exacerbated when first Toulouse returned and then Toronto joined League 1 as the cap was raised further to allow them to use their spending power to reach SL.

Toronto are no more and Toulouse are likely to return to SL for 2024 (and are considered likely to stay there under the proposed system of grading). However the Championship will still be left with the legacy of the changes made due to the 3x8s and those two expansion clubs. That is a model of inequality in funding distribution that is no longer necessary and an inflated cap level that will no longer be necessary as success on the pitch will no longer be the sole arbiter for reaching the top division.

The unequal distribution model for whatever funds are available should definitely be the first thing to go from 2024. The salary cap level should also be lowered so that the Championship can return to being a more competitive league for (at least predominantly) part time clubs. This will allow clubs to use some of whatever funding does eventuate on the establishing and improving of the club infrastructure that will go towards improving their club grade rather than trying to keep up with one or two clubs that are splashing the cash.

The bone of contention will always be the level of funding that is given to the individual clubs at Championship (and League 1) level. Some clubs (and their supporters) that have been at the top end of the Championship for a few years will have become accustomed to operating with the higher levels of funding and may want a continued level of funding that allows them to run (if they choose to) a full time team. Some people will think that enough funding to run a part time club and team will be sufficient. IMO though the level of funding is important to the clubs the level of the permitted salary cap within the competition is more important, as lowering it will make it more likely that some portion of funding at least will go towards the building of infrastructure which the proposed system appears to want to encourage.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I didn't think you were calling anyone greedy or by implication. I just thought the way you put your comment seemed to ignore the underlying points being made, which of course may have benefitted other clubs more given a fixed pot of gold.

Your second part of your second paragraph is/was the point I thought people where making.  Despite poor use of terms such as super greed which I would agree is annoying and rather deflects from sometimes a good point/argument.

 

The problem is that the point is lost when it is framed as Super Greed etc. So I'm afraid I can't give the benefit of the doubt to people who rant, call clubs greedy, seem surprised that all comps around the world are structured like this and just ask for more money without offering any rationale other than 'because SL are greedy'.

What are the actual benefits to upping L1 funding by £100k for example? People just throw numbers about left right and centre without them meaning anything. We also heard the stories about how all the clubs would go bust after the last round of funding was cut, and L1 and Championship clubs were being thrown to the wolves. We even heard the same would happen here, we would be going to 20 and the other 17 clubs (or whatever the number is) could rot.

There are no reasonable arguments being presented here, it is basically just an 'us v them' debate with a lot of melodrama.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

The source of division of opinion comes with what people would consider constitutes a reasonable championship type league. This comes down to the level of funds they believe clubs should be given to function with. Whatever level of funding that is personally I think the most important factor is that it should be the same figure for all clubs within a division. During the period of licensing and before the Championship was a very competitive competition with a fairly low salary cap level (c.£300k IIRC) where clubs were part time operations.

Whether you support(ed) them or not the introduction of the 3x8s structure was the start of the current inequality in the Championship. The need for Championship top 4 to have at least near parity in the middle 8 phase led to the vastly uneven funding distribution we now see at Championship level and the raising of the cap at that level to a point where very few have the funds to spend it. This was exacerbated when first Toulouse returned and then Toronto joined League 1 as the cap was raised further to allow them to use their spending power to reach SL.

Toronto are no more and Toulouse are likely to return to SL for 2024 (and are considered likely to stay there under the proposed system of grading). However the Championship will still be left with the legacy of the changes made due to the 3x8s and those two expansion clubs. That is a model of inequality in funding distribution that is no longer necessary and an inflated cap level that will no longer be necessary as success on the pitch will no longer be the sole arbiter for reaching the top division.

The unequal distribution model for whatever funds are available should definitely be the first thing to go from 2024. The salary cap level should also be lowered so that the Championship can return to being a more competitive league for (at least predominantly) part time clubs. This will allow clubs to use some of whatever funding does eventuate on the establishing and improving of the club infrastructure that will go towards improving their club grade rather than trying to keep up with one or two clubs that are splashing the cash.

The bone of contention will always be the level of funding that is given to the individual clubs at Championship (and League 1) level. Some clubs (and their supporters) that have been at the top end of the Championship for a few years will have become accustomed to operating with the higher levels of funding and may want a continued level of funding that allows them to run (if they choose to) a full time team. Some people will think that enough funding to run a part time club and team will be sufficient. IMO though the level of funding is important to the clubs the level of the permitted salary cap within the competition is more important, as lowering it will make it more likely that some portion of funding at least will go towards the building of infrastructure which the proposed system appears to want to encourage.

I agree with this. 
 

And it is important to remember, that the inequality here is driven by the RFL and the Championship in how they structure their funding distribution. Super League don't have the same model, they distribute their share equally (broadly speaking).

We can all debate the % given to each division and the governing body, I do think that's one for them - but the biggest flaw with funding imho is that Newcastle and Featherstone are expected to compete in the same division with hugely different central funding.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The problem is that the point is lost when it is framed as Super Greed etc. So I'm afraid I can't give the benefit of the doubt to people who rant, call clubs greedy, seem surprised that all comps around the world are structured like this and just ask for more money without offering any rationale other than 'because SL are greedy'.

What are the actual benefits to upping L1 funding by £100k for example? People just throw numbers about left right and centre without them meaning anything. We also heard the stories about how all the clubs would go bust after the last round of funding was cut, and L1 and Championship clubs were being thrown to the wolves. We even heard the same would happen here, we would be going to 20 and the other 17 clubs (or whatever the number is) could rot.

There are no reasonable arguments being presented here, it is basically just an 'us v them' debate with a lot of melodrama.

If your first paragraph is aimed at me the say so, I will not be offended, nor will I change my mode of expression to suit you or anyone else. We hold diametrically opposed views on this subject which we are both entitled to Hopefully on others we may share more common ground. But to be clear, my rationale for my standpoint is not simply that "SL are greedy" it is a belief that top down growth, or the trickle down effect does not necessarily produce the best results. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hemi4561 said:

If your first paragraph is aimed at me the say so, I will not be offended, nor will I change my mode of expression to suit you or anyone else. We hold diametrically opposed views on this subject which we are both entitled to Hopefully on others we may share more common ground. But to be clear, my rationale for my standpoint is not simply that "SL are greedy" it is a belief that top down growth, or the trickle down effect does not necessarily produce the best results. 

It isn't just aimed at you, that position is quite a common one in these discussions. 

I don't think our views are completely at odds here, I believe we should fund the whole pyramid, I'm certainly not in the camp that believes all money should be retained by SL clubs. 

But I have yet to hear a compelling argument that our % splits are fundamentally wrong. What do we think we will get from substantially higher funding of 2nd and 3rd tier RL?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It isn't just aimed at you, that position is quite a common one in these discussions. 

I don't think our views are completely at odds here, I believe we should fund the whole pyramid, I'm certainly not in the camp that believes all money should be retained by SL clubs. 

But I have yet to hear a compelling argument that our % splits are fundamentally wrong. What do we think we will get from substantially higher funding of 2nd and 3rd tier RL?

I will get back to you on that, more the subject of a dissertation than a precis knocked up on an ancient mobile phone. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

It isn't just aimed at you, that position is quite a common one in these discussions. 

I don't think our views are completely at odds here, I believe we should fund the whole pyramid, I'm certainly not in the camp that believes all money should be retained by SL clubs. 

But I have yet to hear a compelling argument that our % splits are fundamentally wrong. What do we think we will get from substantially higher funding of 2nd and 3rd tier RL?

No, it's aimed at me too!

I too agree with you on many things and agree with you that we should fund the whole pyramid. and I dont think you are in the camp that believes all money should be retained by SL clubs. 

but we do disagree about the share of fundings.

because of the way the CF is distributed [social media, crowds, finances] etc. on top of a basic amount. We dont really know an exact figure for each league - But as a guide: - [for arguments sake only]

1.8M/2M per SL team

180K/200K per Ch team 

18K/25k per L1 team

That is not fair?  

A True figure looking after the game as a whole, it should be aimed nearer £1.5M, £1M, .5M - that's virtually impossible now and should have been that way from start. But could be reversed slowly and over a longer period.

Unfortunately, at the last Sky reduction, the hit could have been absorbed by the SL teams protecting the small amounts the other 2 leagues get, but instead {Greed] did get in the way and the biggest hit was to the poorest teams. Hence when the Super Greed name appeared.

you do realize the wage that your poorest [cheapest player] is probably more than what some L1 teams get to run a full side?

Would you rather lose that one player or potentially a full L1 team.

P.S - saying Super Greed is "Banter" and too be honest if that, upsets anyone, they probably should not be on here and as regards ranting - there are quite a few SL supporter's that rant on here

 

 

Edited by Derwent Parker
spelling
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

No, it's aimed at me too!

I too agree with you on many things and agree with you that we should fund the whole pyramid. and I dont think you are in the camp that believes all money should be retained by SL clubs. 

but we do disagree about the share of fundings.

because of the way the CF is distributed [social media, crowds, finances] etc. on top of a basic amount. We dont really know an exact figure for each league - But as a guide: - [for arguments sake only]

1.8M/2M per SL team

180K/200K per Ch team 

18K/25k per L1 team

That is not fair?  

A True figure looking after the game as a whole, it should be aimed nearer £1.5M, £1M, .5M - that's virtually impossible now and should have been that way from start. But could be reversed slowly and over a longer period.

Unfortunately, at the last Sky reduction, the hit could have been absorbed by the SL teams protecting the small amounts the other 2 leagues get, but instead {Greed] did get in the way and the biggest hit was to the poorest teams. Hence when the Super Greed name appeared.

you do realize the wage that your poorest [cheapest player] is probably more than what some L1 teams get to run a full side?

Would you rather lose that one player or potentially a full L1 team.

P.S - saying Super Greed is "Banter" and too be honest if that, upsets anyone, they probably should not be on here and as regards ranting - there are quite a few SL supporter's that rant on here

 

 

I think this is a good illustration of my point earlier in the thread. 

Why on earth would SL clubs absorb the losses from a reduction? That isn't reasonable on any level as a proposal. What is so special about tiers 2 and 3 that they are protected from any commercial reduction? 

And then onto your proposed numbers, ignoring the fantasy numbers (the game doesn't get £37m per annum, and you forget the central costs too), but your proposal sees over half of all SLE's TV money given away to non-SL clubs. Again, on what level is that a sensible, rationale, or logical suggestion? 

Your proposal is no more than "you lot are greedy, give us the wonga instead, but we definitely aren't greedy". 

You are proposing spending £19m per year on tier 2 and 3, from a £37m TV deal (as I say the numbers are not accurate anyway, but let's play along). £5.5m on a 3rd tier comp. For what exactly, what benefits will that bring? 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add to that a feeling that some clubs will make better use of any central funding than others. Is the RFL to dictate how any money is used to ensure that each team pays it's players more and spends less on ground maintenance for example? 

"Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution."

Albert Einstein   (Fat chance on THIS forum)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Add to that a feeling that some clubs will make better use of any central funding than others. Is the RFL to dictate how any money is used to ensure that each team pays it's players more and spends less on ground maintenance for example? 

This is an example of things not being ' fair ' as I've just put in the other thread , lets us Wigan , they rent , why would they need to spend on maintenance ? 

Unfairness is something we have to accept no matter what structures we have , because our clubs are so diverse 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not up to date on how much Sky give to the RFL but do all SL clubs get the Same amount of money or does the side finishing first get more than the side in twelfth.
Do clubs who win the Challenge Cup and the GF get any prize money ?. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

This is an example of things not being ' fair ' as I've just put in the other thread , lets us Wigan , they rent , why would they need to spend on maintenance ? 

Unfairness is something we have to accept no matter what structures we have , because our clubs are so diverse 

I wasn't talking about well-run and successful clubs. I was talking about lower ranking clubs who might possibly complain that other clubs are spending more on players rather then spending it on building ..oh...let's see now....ah, I know....a train station.

"Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution."

Albert Einstein   (Fat chance on THIS forum)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think this is a good illustration of my point earlier in the thread. 

Why on earth would SL clubs absorb the losses from a reduction? That isn't reasonable on any level as a proposal. What is so special about tiers 2 and 3 that they are protected from any commercial reduction? 

And then onto your proposed numbers, ignoring the fantasy numbers (the game doesn't get £37m per annum, and you forget the central costs too), but your proposal sees over half of all SLE's TV money given away to non-SL clubs. Again, on what level is that a sensible, rationale, or logical suggestion? 

Your proposal is no more than "you lot are greedy, give us the wonga instead, but we definitely aren't greedy". 

You are proposing spending £19m per year on tier 2 and 3, from a £37m TV deal (as I say the numbers are not accurate anyway, but let's play along). £5.5m on a 3rd tier comp. For what exactly, what benefits will that bring? 

You've completely convinced me Dave T. The money should go to the SL clubs that have earned it.

To survive outside SL, I'm sure you'd agree that moving back to winter rugby is a good option. This will then free up RL fans to watch a SL club of their choice in the summer; opening up the SL clubs to a potential new customer base. Similarly, winter rugby may well give clubs outside of SL the potential to attract RL fans from SL clubs who fancy a bit of RL in the winter; as well as potentially opening up TV deals for the winter game. 

I'm pretty sure the TV companies will still have an appetite for a 12 team summer sport.  

Edited by Roughyed Rats
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some fascinating futile arguments on here.

Back to the topic, however, the major point being that IMG have been brought in to significantly increase the commercial value of RL. If anyone takes time to read the documents they will see that they identify numerous ways in which that might be brought about.

To my way of looking at these things IMG succeeding in these objectives will be good for the sport and, hence, for all of the individual clubs.

  • Like 4

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting proposal from them... 

A calendar aligned with the global game to facilitate an international window in October and incorporate a mid-season international

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Some fascinating futile arguments on here.

Back to the topic, however, the major point being that IMG have been brought in to significantly increase the commercial value of RL. If anyone takes time to read the documents they will see that they identify numerous ways in which that might be brought about.

To my way of looking at these things IMG succeeding in these objectives will be good for the sport and, hence, for all of the individual clubs.

Agree with this.

(All arguments on here are futile: always have been; always will be. Frequently make me laugh though...)

 

Edited by Stuff Smith
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

This is an interesting proposal from them... 

A calendar aligned with the global game to facilitate an international window in October and incorporate a mid-season international

How novel.

  • Haha 1
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...