37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

[Gerrumonside ref]

On 15/10/2022 at 17:39, Colin James said:

https://swintonlionsrlfc.co.uk/news/swinton-lions-img-and-the-rfl-re-imagining-rugby-league/

Very different tone to this reaction piece than from Keighley.

I think Steve Wild there has outlined a very sensible position there from Swinton Lions on the proposals.

Highlighting the positives like PR and marketing working together across the sport for mutual benefit is a good start (and this theme of actually pulling together for the greater good will be a re-occurring stance by IMG I feel).

To be honest if the Lions can claw their way back from genuine uncertainty a few years ago and take a balanced view on what might be coming next then this makes me sit up and pay attention.

 

 

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, DOGFATHER said:

The last time we had licencing, what was stopping those clubs from concentrating on being "elite" and attracting the much needed revenue you discribe?

I fail to see how this time will be any different than the last time we had licencing. It wasn't the silver bullet last time, please can you explain why it will be now?

I cannot even imagine a scenario where the only thing stopping a multi millionaire from throwing several £M 's at a Rugby League club is because they might one day get relegated because they weren't good enough to stay up on merit. I also fail to see how, proposing to give the assurance that if they invest, the club is as good as guaranteed to stay up regardless of how bad they are on the field is the answer to suddenly bring in outside investment.

That just sounds like corruption to me.

Imagine trying to sell the concept to a potential investor of a Cat B or C club outside of SL? "If you invest £X millions, we might win the league, but because there is a club in the division above that an administrator thinks is a better bet than us, we won't be going up regardless of how good we are on the field".

I bet once the wealthy elite of society stop laughing their heads off at such a ridiculous idea... "A sport that is not decided by the game itself or a league table, but rather a committee meeting afterwards, that sounds like a jolly good wheeze!" They will be queuing around the block to throw money at a traditional past time for the working classes of small Northern towns.

I won't be holding my breath on that one! 

 

 

You could flip the argument the other way, has the current situation brought all the things you mention?

I'd say we are closer to a semi pro top league than we are an increase in exposure, income, investment etc. 

You cannot please everyone, but failure to anything won't improve the situation, we are on a slippy slope to mediocrity and a semi pro game. 

This I feel actually helps those lower league clubs as it stops them throwing money at a squad that's unsustainable without the correct infastruture behind it. If they improve they can climb the ladder.

Genuine question, is there a decision or direction that RL can go in where every fan will believe in it? I strongly suspect not, so someone has to be the bad guy and make the difficult decisions for the good of the game. On the surface this seems a sensible way forward, but none of us have seen the details yet so I may reverse my mind if I'm confronted with new info or a strong counter argument.

We have covered why in numerous shows.

I'm listening to Dockhouse Rugby Pod | Structure and Psychobabble with Rod Studd on Podbean, check it out! https://www.podbean.com/ea/pb-i654f-12cbbe5

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by David Dockhouse Host

[GUBRATS]

18 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

You could flip the argument the other way, has the current situation brought all the things you mention?

I'd say we are closer to a semi pro top league than we are an increase in exposure, income, investment etc. 

You cannot please everyone, but failure to anything won't improve the situation, we are on a slippy slope to mediocrity and a semi pro game. 

This I feel actually helps those lower league clubs as it stops them throwing money at a squad that's unsustainable without the correct infastruture behind it. If they improve they can climb the ladder.

Genuine question, is there a decision or direction that RL can go in where every fan will believe in it? I strongly suspect not, so someone has to be the bad guy and make the difficult decisions for the good of the game. On the surface this seems a sensible way forward, but none of us have seen the details yet so I may reverse my mind if I'm confronted with new info or a strong counter argument.

We have covered why in numerous shows.

I'm listening to Dockhouse Rugby Pod | Structure and Psychobabble with Rod Studd on Podbean, check it out! https://www.podbean.com/ea/pb-i654f-12cbbe5

 

 

 

Do all the SL clubs have the ' correct infrastructure ' ? 

Will they remain in SL in 2024 ? 

[Wakefield Ram]

9 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

You could flip the argument the other way, has the current situation brought all the things you mention?

I'd say we are closer to a semi pro top league than we are an increase in exposure, income, investment etc. 

You cannot please everyone, but failure to anything won't improve the situation, we are on a slippy slope to mediocrity and a semi pro game. 

This I feel actually helps those lower league clubs as it stops them throwing money at a squad that's unsustainable without the correct infastruture behind it. If they improve they can climb the ladder.

Genuine question, is there a decision or direction that RL can go in where every fan will believe in it? I strongly suspect not, so someone has to be the bad guy and make the difficult decisions for the good of the game. On the surface this seems a sensible way forward, but none of us have seen the details yet so I may reverse my mind if I'm confronted with new info or a strong counter argument.

We have covered why in numerous shows.

I'm listening to Dockhouse Rugby Pod | Structure and Psychobabble with Rod Studd on Podbean, check it out! https://www.podbean.com/ea/pb-i654f-12cbbe5

 

 

 

The only effect of these proposals is an attempt to give some SL clubs a guarantee of staying on SL. That's it. If a club can be downgraded from B to A, then what's actually been achieved?

[Saint Toppy]

18 hours ago, Damien said:

For balance it is important to note that licensing saw the league expand from 12 to 14 teams so you are comparing apples and pears.

With the introduction of Salford and Crusaders, 2 poorly supported teams well below the average, then that average was bound to fall. With that in mind I would say attendances are comparable, and even favourable, during licensing. 

It also doesn't take into account that fact that one of the best supported teams, Saints, played an entire season away from home at Widnes during this period so saw a hefty drop in attendances that year.

[DOGFATHER]

10 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

You could flip the argument the other way, has the current situation brought all the things you mention?

I'd say we are closer to a semi pro top league than we are an increase in exposure, income, investment etc. 

You cannot please everyone, but failure to anything won't improve the situation, we are on a slippy slope to mediocrity and a semi pro game. 

This I feel actually helps those lower league clubs as it stops them throwing money at a squad that's unsustainable without the correct infastruture behind it. If they improve they can climb the ladder.

Genuine question, is there a decision or direction that RL can go in where every fan will believe in it? I strongly suspect not, so someone has to be the bad guy and make the difficult decisions for the good of the game. On the surface this seems a sensible way forward, but none of us have seen the details yet so I may reverse my mind if I'm confronted with new info or a strong counter argument.

We have covered why in numerous shows.

I'm listening to Dockhouse Rugby Pod | Structure and Psychobabble with Rod Studd on Podbean, check it out! https://www.podbean.com/ea/pb-i654f-12cbbe5

 

 

 

Thank you for your responses.

Very true, you could flip the argument, I wholeheartedly agree with you, that something needs to change. However, going back to a system that has already been tried and failed, an idea that when it is explained to none RL sports fans, is met with a look of confusion followed by laughter, is not the answer.

You feel this approach will help the lower leagues to not overspend, I was under the impression the salary cap was designed to do that? How many of the current SL are sustainable businesses? Especially if you take the owner/BOD's piling money in, out of the equation?

Again, I agree, there isn't an option that would universally be agreed upon, but doing the same thing and expecting a different result just seems like a waste of time. This just appears to be a knee jerk reaction, to be seen to be doing something, rather than a carefully thought out strategy.

Many will point to the recent survey, as showing they have done the research. But, this was aimed at existing fans, not the people we need to attract to the game, the people that are not currently fans.

I genuinely love the game, and would like nothing more than seeing it flourish, and I sincerely hope IMG prove me wrong. However, this short-termist, trickle down economics approach to the game has been in place since the inception of SL. It has resulted in what we have now, a failure. Unless they fix that, the structure and everything else will just be an exercise in prolonging the inevitable.

At what point does the game wake up, and realise that the long term growth and expansion it desperately craves, can only be achieved by strengthening the roots of the game and increasing participation levels. If we are going to do something different, let's do something different, not just the same thing packaged slightly differently.

Edited October 17, 2022 by DOGFATHER

[Damien]

32 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

It also doesn't take into account that fact that one of the best supported teams, Saints, played an entire season away from home at Widnes during this period so saw a hefty drop in attendances that year.

Excellent point, forgot about that. All that in mind the attendances in licensing seem rather good.

[Damien]

@Roughyed Rats Whats so funny? Is that really all you've got?

You chose to make a direct comparison but bizarrely choose to completely ignore facts like the league expanding from 12 to 14 and Saints playing at Widnes. Based on your own figures then average attendance difference is 65, these two things alone more than explain that difference. 

[Wakefield Ram]

1 hour ago, DOGFATHER said:

Thank you for your responses.

Very true, you could flip the argument, I wholeheartedly agree with you, that something needs to change. However, going back to a system that has already been tried and failed, an idea that when it is explained to none RL sports fans, is met with a look of confusion followed by laughter, is not the answer.

You feel this approach will help the lower leagues to not overspend, I was under the impression the salary cap was designed to do that? How many of the current SL are sustainable businesses? Especially if you take the owner/BOD's piling money in, out of the equation?

Again, I agree, there isn't an option that would universally be agreed upon, but doing the same thing and expecting a different result just seems like a waste of time. This just appears to be a knee jerk reaction, to be seen to be doing something, rather than a carefully thought out strategy.

Many will point to the recent survey, as showing they have done the research. But, this was aimed at existing fans, not the people we need to attract to the game, the people that are not currently fans.

I genuinely love the game, and would like nothing more than seeing it flourish, and I sincerely hope IMG prove me wrong. However, this short-termist, trickle down economics approach to the game has been in place since the inception of SL. It has resulted in what we have now, a failure. Unless they fix that, the structure and everything else will just be an exercise in prolonging the inevitable.

At what point does the game wake up, and realise that the long term growth and expansion it desperately craves, can only be achieved by strengthening the roots of the game and increasing participation levels. If we are going to do something different, let's do something different, not just the same thing packaged slightly differently.

I think one of the problems is the actual game itself. The remorseless arm wrestle grind of 5 one man drives and a kick is to many outsiders boring. The 10m rule hasn't opened up most games, it rewards unambitious, low risk play.

To counter 10m rule, we now get the "wrestle" where 3 players will take the player to the ground as slowly as possible and then lie on as long as possible. Players clearly flop on top of the tacklers and it's rarely penalised. Yes, the only game which actively looks to slow play down.

When teams are defending their line, there seems to be a new idea that if your back foot is on the line you're onside. So defenders are pretty much all offside giving attackers less time.

Kick chasers are routinely obstructed by offside players escorting (in front of the ball). So contested kicks are limited.

Scrums are a joke. And the idea you can't see a forward pass if it's on a screen is another joke. But forward passes are mostly ignored now.

If kick chasers had to be behind the kicker, it would give the receiving team more time and space to attack.  

In RU if you kick the ball dead, it's a scrum back, a greater penalty than RL.

Players knock down scoring passes - a deliberate knock on is a penalty. But it's never given, so defenders negative play which is a professional foul is rewarded. And usually they'll kick the ball away to slow the game down further.

RL needs more jeopardy, more passing, more open play, less rewarding negative tactics. 

We used to mock RU as kick and clap. Well RL has become one man drive and kick. Watching Australia v Fiji, Australia collected a kick on halfway and the commentator said the set would end on the Fiji line and it did. 

IMG are going to have their work cut out changing a perception that the games is mostly just big northern blokes  running into each other. Because that's what much of the game now is.

 

[DOGFATHER]

4 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I think one of the problems is the actual game itself. The remorseless arm wrestle grind of 5 one man drives and a kick is to many outsiders boring. The 10m rule hasn't opened up most games, it rewards unambitious, low risk play.

To counter 10m rule, we now get the "wrestle" where 3 players will take the player to the ground as slowly as possible and then lie on as long as possible. Players clearly flop on top of the tacklers and it's rarely penalised. Yes, the only game which actively looks to slow play down.

When teams are defending their line, there seems to be a new idea that if your back foot is on the line you're onside. So defenders are pretty much all offside giving attackers less time.

Kick chasers are routinely obstructed by offside players escorting (in front of the ball). So contested kicks are limited.

Scrums are a joke. And the idea you can't see a forward pass if it's on a screen is another joke. But forward passes are mostly ignored now.

If kick chasers had to be behind the kicker, it would give the receiving team more time and space to attack.  

In RU if you kick the ball dead, it's a scrum back, a greater penalty than RL.

Players knock down scoring passes - a deliberate knock on is a penalty. But it's never given, so defenders negative play which is a professional foul is rewarded. And usually they'll kick the ball away to slow the game down further.

RL needs more jeopardy, more passing, more open play, less rewarding negative tactics. 

We used to mock RU as kick and clap. Well RL has become one man drive and kick. Watching Australia v Fiji, Australia collected a kick on halfway and the commentator said the set would end on the Fiji line and it did. 

IMG are going to have their work cut out changing a perception that the games is mostly just big northern blokes running into each other. Because that's what much of the game now is.

 

I do not disagree with your sentiments, but I think we have started to see some progress from a few teams moving towards a more entertaining brand of rugby.

Saints are traditionally a decent side to watch as a neutral. I've been really impressed with the likes of Huddersfield, Leeds and particularly Salford's brand of football this season. It has not been the stereotyped 5 drives and a kick game that you describe. Even Wigan have moved towards playing a better brand of football than they did under either Wain or Lam.

I completely agree with you on speeding the game up, get rid of wrestling all together and go back to refs calling "held" once momentum has stopped. I would also like to see the VR removed, and maybe done on a captains call basis. I have lost count of the number of VR referrals that were obvious on the first viewing and were not necessary. Even the scoring player had not claimed them, so why review it? 

[Wakefield Ram]

16 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

I do not disagree with your sentiments, but I think we have started to see some progress from a few teams moving towards a more entertaining brand of rugby.

Saints are traditionally a decent side to watch as a neutral. I've been really impressed with the likes of Huddersfield, Leeds and particularly Salford's brand of football this season. It has not been the stereotyped 5 drives and a kick game that you describe. Even Wigan have moved towards playing a better brand of football than they did under either Wain or Lam.

I completely agree with you on speeding the game up, get rid of wrestling all together and go back to refs calling "held" once momentum has stopped. I would also like to see the VR removed, and maybe done on a captains call basis. I have lost count of the number of VR referrals that were obvious on the first viewing and were not necessary. Even the scoring player had not claimed them, so why review it? 

Firstly, you haven't been watching Dewsbury last few seasons...

As far as VR is concerned, refs are onto a hiding to nothing. Better to use VR 100 times and avoid 1 wrong call, than make even obvious decisions and risk getting one wrong. In the NFL, all touchdowns are automatically reviewed.

[idrewthehaggis]

18 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I think Steve Wild there has outlined a very sensible position there from Swinton Lions on the proposals.

Highlighting the positives like PR and marketing working together across the sport for mutual benefit is a good start (and this theme of actually pulling together for the greater good will be a re-occurring stance by IMG I feel).

To be honest if the Lions can claw their way back from genuine uncertainty a few years ago and take a balanced view on what might be coming next then this makes me sit up and pay attention.

 

 

I think Swinton's respond may reflect a broad sweep of what most clubs are thinking.

In they generally agree on the "route of travel," that a "plan" is needed.

As forumistas here have illuminated some obvious weaknesses - I feel a more robust conversation will occur once the finer details are revealed. 

[DimmestStar]

It now seems clear that teams who would never get relegated anyway like St Helens and Wigan will be exempt.

Others who under the current system possibly could get relegated will not be exempt. Effectively not much has changed.

Under the previous version of licensing no one was ever relegated so we never had the contentious situation of men in suits sat round a table deciding who should be in Super League. It seems that everyone was determined that could not happen now either. Hence a B club finishing top of the championship WILL replace a B club at the bottom of Super League no matter what the gradings are. The league placing overrides all other factors.

Fair enough but clearly IMG have been consulting with clubs at all stages and we were only ever going to get something that the clubs would want anyway. It's really a lot of fuss about minimal change.

The big surprise for me is the reduction in fixtures to 22, I'm surprised that people are so willing to go along with that.. For me that is a very short season. If I am a Hull KR or Hull FC season ticket holder I will only get 11 games for my money or alternatively I could watch Hull City and get 23 home games. I'll also be deprived of a favourite of mine the Magic Weekend.

We await more detail but I really feel we should have gone to 14 clubs with 26 fixtures. That in itself would offer a reasonable protection against relegation, it would eliminate the need for loop fixtures and the 14th club would have a decent chance of coming back up. The only reason IMO that we haven't gone down that route is that the top clubs don't want to share TV money with an extra 2 clubs.

[Spidey]

On 13/10/2022 at 17:17, Spidey said:

I’m not sure Andrew Henderson will last long at Keighley - his views on the game seem wildly different to his boss

 

[David Dockhouse Host]

20 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Do all the SL clubs have the ' correct infrastructure ' ? 

Will they remain in SL in 2024 ? 

As we've continually said, we don't know the requirements of the catagories. So I've no idea

[David Dockhouse Host]

11 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The only effect of these proposals is an attempt to give some SL clubs a guarantee of staying on SL. That's it. If a club can be downgraded from B to A, then what's actually been achieved?

Why would IMG want to do that? 

 

[Anita Bath]

9 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I think one of the problems is the actual game itself. The remorseless arm wrestle grind of 5 one man drives and a kick is to many outsiders boring. The 10m rule hasn't opened up most games, it rewards unambitious, low risk play.

To counter 10m rule, we now get the "wrestle" where 3 players will take the player to the ground as slowly as possible and then lie on as long as possible. Players clearly flop on top of the tacklers and it's rarely penalised. Yes, the only game which actively looks to slow play down.

When teams are defending their line, there seems to be a new idea that if your back foot is on the line you're onside. So defenders are pretty much all offside giving attackers less time.

Kick chasers are routinely obstructed by offside players escorting (in front of the ball). So contested kicks are limited.

Scrums are a joke. And the idea you can't see a forward pass if it's on a screen is another joke. But forward passes are mostly ignored now.

If kick chasers had to be behind the kicker, it would give the receiving team more time and space to attack.  

In RU if you kick the ball dead, it's a scrum back, a greater penalty than RL.

Players knock down scoring passes - a deliberate knock on is a penalty. But it's never given, so defenders negative play which is a professional foul is rewarded. And usually they'll kick the ball away to slow the game down further.

RL needs more jeopardy, more passing, more open play, less rewarding negative tactics. 

We used to mock RU as kick and clap. Well RL has become one man drive and kick. Watching Australia v Fiji, Australia collected a kick on halfway and the commentator said the set would end on the Fiji line and it did. 

IMG are going to have their work cut out changing a perception that the games is mostly just big northern blokes  running into each other. Because that's what much of the game now is.

 

Agree. It seems like teams wont take risks of passing the ball out along the line until the fourth tackle. So we are left with the ball up the jumper lets try and break the line mentality for 2/3 of all tackles. 

 

Watching some aussie games from 10-15 years ago this wasnt the case (and I suspect it wasnt in SL then either). We definitely need to play more ‘open rugby’ to change the balance between tedium and excitement

[N2022]

50 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

Agree. It seems like teams wont take risks of passing the ball out along the line until the fourth tackle. So we are left with the ball up the jumper lets try and break the line mentality for 2/3 of all tackles. 

 

Watching some aussie games from 10-15 years ago this wasnt the case (and I suspect it wasnt in SL then either). We definitely need to play more ‘open rugby’ to change the balance between tedium and excitement

Having hardly watched any RL for 3 or 4 years and now getting back into it around RLWC, I am struck by how little the wrestle/delay on the floor seems to be called for a penalty - I get the impression that it's done subtly with the set-restart? but still lots of times it goes unchecked. If they penalised it more, the ball would be back in play quicker with more gaps in the defence for attackers to exploit. Something like that would help because the players have got bigger and fill the pitch much more I am sure than was the case in past decades.

[Wakefield Ram]

2 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Why would IMG want to do that? 

 

Because what management consultants do is tell the most important people i.e. the big SL clubs what they want to hear. 

Builds goodwill for the more important contracts later where they'll make money. Do you think IMG really give a monkeys about the games structure? 

[David Dockhouse Host]

19 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Because what management consultants do is tell the most important people i.e. the big SL clubs what they want to hear. 

Builds goodwill for the more important contracts later where they'll make money. Do you think IMG really give a monkeys about the games structure? 

Rather sceptical view. 

What big contracts would they later have that would force then to pamper to big clubs?

 

[Angelic Cynic]

History lesson.

If you keep on doing what you've always done you always get....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=amjL6dIxse8

 

[Niels]

On 17/10/2022 at 20:45, Anita Bath said:

Agree. It seems like teams wont take risks of passing the ball out along the line until the fourth tackle. So we are left with the ball up the jumper lets try and break the line mentality for 2/3 of all tackles. 

 

Watching some aussie games from 10-15 years ago this wasnt the case (and I suspect it wasnt in SL then either). We definitely need to play more ‘open rugby’ to change the balance between tedium and excitement

I think the Cook Islands took conservative play to the extreme tonight

It was exciting because of the context. But I am not sure it would be good to watch every week.

[Wakefield Ram]

On 18/10/2022 at 17:54, David Dockhouse Host said:

Rather sceptical view. 

What big contracts would they later have that would force then to pamper to big clubs?

 

I've worked with management consultants for 20+ years, so I reserve my right to be sceptical. I can only think of one time they were of any practical use.

The strategy is "land and expand". Get their foot in the door by telling important  people what they want to hear (like a structure that exempts some SL clubs from Relegation), then maximise their income. IMG are out to make as much money out of RL as they can. Nothing wrong in that in itself, but always worth bearing in mind. 

To date they have produced nothing new, just a re-hash of old ideas. Their specialism is marketing, not sports re-structuring. 

[Big Picture]

48 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I've worked with management consultants for 20+ years, so I reserve my right to be sceptical. I can only think of one time they were of any practical use.

The strategy is "land and expand". Get their foot in the door by telling important  people what they want to hear (like a structure that exempts some SL clubs from Relegation), then maximise their income. IMG are out to make as much money out of RL as they can. Nothing wrong in that in itself, but always worth bearing in mind. 

To date they have produced nothing new, just a re-hash of old ideas. Their specialism is marketing, not sports re-structuring. 

And their problem with respect to RL is that there isn't a lot for them to market.  A regional league full of small clubs run in small time ways and an International scene where some World Cup matches are seen as less appealing to many fans than league matches.  That isn't much for them to work with.

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I've worked with management consultants for 20+ years, so I reserve my right to be sceptical. I can only think of one time they were of any practical use.

The strategy is "land and expand". Get their foot in the door by telling important  people what they want to hear (like a structure that exempts some SL clubs from Relegation), then maximise their income. IMG are out to make as much money out of RL as they can. Nothing wrong in that in itself, but always worth bearing in mind. 

To date they have produced nothing new, just a re-hash of old ideas. Their specialism is marketing, not sports re-structuring. 

I think the ideas are new, they've never had Cat a etc. Before 

Licensing was different, maybe similar but different