37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

[Spidey]

24 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Read my original comment. Weren´t talking about it from Leeds perspective  talking about SKY and the TV Deal. Leeds vs Bradford at Elland Road back in SL would do fantastic figures for SKY and would help the sport get a better deal. 

One game a year will not impact a TV deal

[Spidey]

27 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Yes but it wouldn´t just be one game would it. You have Leeds vs Bulls both games and then A significant uptick in crowds for Bulls games vs Pies , Saints , Wire etc. Of course one game doesn´t make a difference but two marquee games plus a boost to the rest of your tv fixtures would. 

I think you put a lot of faith in Bulls 2024. They could be a decent SL club, but them (and no other club by the way) individually would make much of a difference to a TV deal

[RigbyLuger]

Can Bradford Bulls of 2024 be Bradford Bulls of 2004? 

[The Ghost of 99]

There's no way Leeds would take those games to Elland Road anyway.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, The Ghost of 99 said:

There's no way Leeds would take those games to Elland Road anyway.

I think you are right.

Leeds  commercial & hospitality plus general facilities has been highly invested in since then. Thus the financial equation may not be of any benefit now.  

Edited December 22, 2022 by redjonn

[redjonn]

12 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Why as a league would you not say publicly we want them to do it? First Leeds vs Bulls game needs to be big for Sky and the sport. They can say no  but then that should be publicly revealed that they refused to do it. 

It would probably make them similar cash and season after have it at your home but would be criminal not to do it first game back.

you may be right, but then why not have the Bulls home game moved to whatever super stadium as the first game back. Why Elland Road, is that the easy option ?

[The Ghost of 99]

What reason is there to think Leeds vs Bradford would get 40k? Do Leeds season ticket holders get a say in whether they have to go to that crappy stadium?

And even that attendance would probably net Leeds less than a 20k gate at Headingley given rental costs and Elland Road's inferior corporate offerings.

[steve oates]

3 hours ago, The Ghost of 99 said:

What reason is there to think Leeds vs Bradford would get 40k? Do Leeds season ticket holders get a say in whether they have to go to that crappy stadium?

And even that attendance would probably net Leeds less than a 20k gate at Headingley given rental costs and Elland Road's inferior corporate offerings.

Good post, spot on and what's not to like about getting those fixtures back in Superleague

[GUBRATS]

25 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Good post, spot on and what's not to like about getting those fixtures back in Superleague

Win the Championship and it can happen 

[JohnM]

It's working already. I've just heard that we've got the Worldwide Fund For Nature as major sponsor. Particular focus on threatened species. Do we have any clubs named after such species?

[Gomersall]

On 22/12/2022 at 20:27, ShropshireBull said:

No but they don´t need to be that big, they just need to be a healthy club around 6-8 k but sell out for the big tv games. 

They got big gates at Odsal on the back of Peter Deakin’s marketing which then allowed them to go on to win the big games. A Bulls treading water in SL on gates no better than Cas can get adds nothing to the TV deal IMO. It’s almost 2023 not almost 2002.

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

They got big gates at Odsal on the back of Peter Deakin’s marketing which then allowed them to go on to win the big games. A Bulls treading water in SL on gates no better than Cas can get adds nothing to the TV deal IMO. It’s almost 2023 not almost 2002.

A Bradford team would surely have more potential than a Castleford team though no? Especially if Wakefield were in the same league too.

[Gomersall]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

A Bradford team would surely have more potential than a Castleford team though no? Especially if Wakefield were in the same league too.

Possibly if they were winning trophies. If not they’d be just another run of the mill club with run of the mill home attendances IMO. They’d get a few decent gates that would be boosted by their close proximity to several other SL clubs. Another case of milking the same people rather than bringing new support in. Again, all IMO. Potential is nothing if it’s never realised. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Gomersall

[Oxford]

It seems ridiculous that after more than a century of tinkering around the edges and some huge developments that RL is still looking inwards to solve all its problems.

Now we have the outcome in forums where clubs are pitted against one another in another shake up that sees all the sport's difficulties as interior ones.

Bernard Guach points out that an aging fan base is at the root of RL's lack and that youth is not turning to the game.

But this is all part of the same issue when you spend all your time thinking that the problem is you.

 

[gingerjon]

16 minutes ago, Oxford said:

 RL is still looking inwards to solve all its problems.

RL is looking inwards by working with an outside agency to explore new markets and new ways of working?

Are you in some kind of inverso world?

[Oxford]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

RL is looking inwards by working with an outside agency to explore new markets and new ways of working?

Are you in some kind of inverso world?

And a pleasant good morning to you too gj.

Most, if not all, of the obvious suggestions so far have been about RL as a structure and the image it presents.

Have a nice day!

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

23 hours ago, Oxford said:

And a pleasant good morning to you too gj.

Most, if not all, of the obvious suggestions so far have been about RL as a structure and the image it presents.

Have a nice day!

IMG have said the thing they’re least interested in is structure. You’re right, many people have chosen to ignore that, and continue to debate structure. But that’s why  it’s great they’re here, and driving things, rather than just another RL leader who bends eventually, inevitably to the idiotic internal desire to just talk about structure all the time. It’s just moving the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Their understanding of how idiotic that is, is why I’ve got some confidence. 

[Toby Chopra]

On 31/12/2022 at 12:18, Oxford said:

And a pleasant good morning to you too gj.

Most, if not all, of the obvious suggestions so far have been about RL as a structure and the image it presents.

Have a nice day!

I don't think you can dismiss the image rugby league presents - and by extension how it communicates with audiences - as not being a priority for IMG.

It's at the heart of the game's struggles, and something that we've been notoriously bad at a/ diagnosing, and b/ treating over the years. 

If IMG can do even half of what we hope on those fronts, the sport will be transformed. Sounds worthwhile to me. 

Edited January 1, 2023 by Toby Chopra
spelling

[JohnM]

In my view, Channel 4 are doing a good job in addressing the "northern game for northerners " issues.

[Oxford]

5 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

I don't think you can dismiss the image rugby league presents - and by extension how it communicates with audiences - as not being a priority for IMG.

It's at the heart of the game's struggles, and something that we've been notoriously bad at a/ diagnosing, and b/ treating over the years. 

If IMG can do even half of what we hope on those fronts, the sport will be transformed. Sounds worthwhile to me. 

I don't think I've dismissed anything tony.

The reason the game has been agonisingly bad at analysis is because it looks inwards like changing it's structure and rules more often than tory PMs enter and leave Downing Street. The first thing IMG have concentrated on has been in much the same pattern.

I will say, once again, that I think IMG will succeed.

But it won't be because of having a restructure or category A, B & C's. These have lots to do with the inner workings of the sport and the people involved and almost nothing to do with the barriers that hold it back.

 

 

[Toby Chopra]

52 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I don't think I've dismissed anything tony.

The reason the game has been agonisingly bad at analysis is because it looks inwards like changing it's structure and rules more often than tory PMs enter and leave Downing Street. The first thing IMG have concentrated on has been in much the same pattern.

I will say, once again, that I think IMG will succeed.

But it won't be because of having a restructure or category A, B & C's. These have lots to do with the inner workings of the sport and the people involved and almost nothing to do with the barriers that hold it back.

 

 

Sure, structure is inward looking, and as others have said, I don't think it's a priority for IMG. 

But your post suggested image is also internal, whereas it's by definition outward looking, and 'whole sport' rather than micro, so I think they're on the right track there. 

But genuine question, your original post said it was ridiculous that RL was still looking inward to solve its problems. So, beyond structure, image and communication, where do you think the game needs to look to improve things? 

[Oxford]

21 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

But your post suggested image is also internal, whereas it's by definition outward looking, and 'whole sport' rather than micro, so I think they're on the right track there. 

But genuine question, your original post said it was ridiculous that RL was still looking inward to solve its problems. So, beyond structure, image and communication, where do you think the game needs to look to improve things? 

The image the sport has of itself is different to the one the outside world has though there are overlaps.

You have to ask and be clear about which one of these is the most crucial in order for the sport to progress.

Structure and playing about with it indicate something to with people in the sport seeing that has crucial. IMG's focus on restructure implies much the same thing.

I don't think I said anything about communication apart from a response to another post though.

Much like the assumption that everything the RFL did was wrong the idea that IMG efforts can only be good is illogical.

All my efforts, in response to your last question, would be aimed at a younger audience and focussed more or less entirely on social media and creating an image of the sport that would appeal to them.

The lessons from those sports who had to change from a poor market position would give plenty of possibilities.

Like most, if not all, posters I don't have all the answers and my posts are more questioning and trying to make sense of what is taking place.

I do find it interesting that the sensibly cynical and often rightly careful suspicion of change has largely disappeared on this forum and others though when it comes to IMG.

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Oxford

[Toby Chopra]

14 hours ago, Oxford said:

The image the sport has of itself is different to the one the outside world has though there are overlaps.

You have to ask and be clear about which one of these is the most crucial in order for the sport to progress.

Structure and playing about with it indicate something to with people in the sport seeing that has crucial. IMG's focus on restructure implies much the same thing.

I don't think I said anything about communication apart from a response to another post though.

Much like the assumption that everything the RFL did was wrong the idea that IMG efforts can only be good is illogical.

All my efforts, in response to your last question, would be aimed at a younger audience and focussed more or less entirely on social media and creating an image of the sport that would appeal to them.

The lessons from those sports who had to change from a poor market position would give plenty of possibilities.

Like most, if not all, posters I don't have all the answers and my posts are more questioning and trying to make sense of what is taking place.

I do find it interesting that the sensibly cynical and often rightly careful suspicion of change has largely disappeared on this forum and others though when it come to IMG.

 

I don't think anyone's saying IMG's involvement will be a guaranteed win, I think most people are fully aware of the size of the job to turn thinngs around. But the early signs are positive in that it's widely agreed that we need help in the areas that IMG are skilled, so let's see what they can do. 

My advice would be to ignore the structure stuff, it's not a big deal in the grand scheme if things, certainly compared to the more existential challenges the sport faces. 

Instead, let's see what difference IMG makes over the next two or three years in the areas it specialises in: image, branding, comms, broadcasting etc.

Nothing will change overnight, it'll be a gradual process, but if 5 years from now we the sport's revenues are still going down, then we can say it's failed. But until then, let's see what they can do. 

[steve oates]

15 hours ago, Oxford said:

I do find it interesting that the sensibly cynical and often rightly careful suspicion of change has largely disappeared on this forum and others though when it come to IMG.

 The only things that have disappeared my friend is the Welsh club leaving serious problems for League one, and IMG themselves who went back to the office with their no money without results "contract" (which was more like a cynical ultimatum) after reinventing the useless old grading system we had some seasons back, to what purpose nobody knows. 

What exactly was it you found in their stated intentions, to come to your conclusion.  

[Oxford]

18 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I don't think anyone's saying IMG's involvement will be a guaranteed win, I think most people are fully aware of the size of the job to turn thinngs around. But the early signs are positive in that it's widely agreed that we need help in the areas that IMG are skilled, so let's see what they can do. 

My advice would be to ignore the structure stuff, it's not a big deal in the grand scheme if things, certainly compared to the more existential challenges the sport faces. 

Instead, let's see what difference IMG makes over the next two or three years in the areas it specialises in: image, branding, comms, broadcasting etc.

Nothing will change overnight, it'll be a gradual process, but if 5 years from now we the sport's revenues are still going down, then we can say it's failed. But until then, let's see what they can do. 

I think there is a belief that because IMG are from outside the sport it is a slam dunk.

I also think the structure changes are part and parcel of those within the game and contain ulterior intentions.

I have said all along that I'm sure the answers to the progress of the sport lie outside and those need to be addressed first and foremost.

I don't think they'll fail, I'm convinced they'll make progress in some of the most important areas and I never expected jam today.

1 minute ago, steve oates said:

 The only things that have disappeared my friend is the Welsh club leaving serious problems for League one, and IMG themselves who went back to the office with their no money without results "contract" (which was more like a cynical ultimatum) after reinventing the useless old grading system we had some seasons back, to what purpose nobody knows. 

What exactly was it you found in their stated intentions, to come to your conclusion.  

There has definitely been a change of culture on this and other forums because of IMG.

The RFL only had to nod to bring on huge criticism.

Was that last bit a question, by the way?