37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

Those are certainly improvements in the League's operation, but they're not necessarily (or even likely) specifically what Sky is looking for.

Sky almost certainly wants to see a bigger audience for their SL telecasts to justify the rights fee being paid for them.  We know that the audience wasn't big enough to warrant the 40 million £ per year they were paying before, but we don't know with certainty whether it's big enough to warrant the 25 million £ per year they're paying now.  They might (for example) have concluded that a 15 million £ per year was all the game could absorb at one time and cut back less then they might have on that account.

We do know that their management is accountable for delivering profits sufficient to pay Comcast a good return on their multi-billion dollar investment in Sky though, and for that they the maximum bang for the buck from all their sports properties.  Whether the C4 coverage and the World Cup will expand the audience for SL on Sky sufficiently remains very much to be seen.

As @Man of Kentsays above, RL could be for the chop.

Of course we don't know what the expectations/demands are, we can only summise and make our own assumptions. 

But Sky's figures for RL have been relatively static for almost 30 years. They know what they get and there are no huge surprises. Where I believe there are opportunities for us and Sky is around the level and depth of content we can provide. 

But tbh, we can't necessarily mic or-manage the TV deal situation - as has been discussed, Sky has changed hands in recent years, new CEO's come and go and new strategies implemented. We always have a risk of being culled. All we can focus on is making our position as strong as possible and providing a quality TV product that we can sell to whoever that is. 

And to deliver a strategy to get that outcome, imho getting the right leadership structure sorted is the starting position here. I've been quite consistent that I believe the root cause of pretty much every problem we discuss is poor leadership taking poor options. Fixing that would be top of my list. I'm not sure if we have done that, but I do think what we have now is probably better than what we had. And that has to give cause for optimism. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Its more than what they are asking League 1 teams to play with next season...

I mean yes, that is rubbish, but it is a different issue. Those clubs don't have player wage bills of £2.5m and the visibility argument doesn't really apply there as there is no mass coverage of tier 3 RL. 

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

By doing what exactly?

Alot of sports stuff tends to use the US model of event making as a gold standard which includes less is more when it comes to matches.

Whether on not this model has legs in the British sporting environment is still out with the jury.

The middle class in this country tend to be event (trend) led but that usually involves sports they don't have over 100 years of prejudice to overcome.

 

[The 4 of Us]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

By doing what exactly?

Making an effort. 
 

For example, Wigan has previously been constrained by the limitations of the dtadium use and where the revenues go.

Since getting hold of the athletics stadium next door to the DW there’s a lot more going on pre and post match, and although it may not make a huge difference to the bottom line, it makes each game much more of an event. 
 

 

[DI Keith Fowler]

34 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

Making an effort. 
 

For example, Wigan has previously been constrained by the limitations of the dtadium use and where the revenues go.

Since getting hold of the athletics stadium next door to the DW there’s a lot more going on pre and post match, and although it may not make a huge difference to the bottom line, it makes each game much more of an event. 
 

 

I know of one lifelong union fan who now takes his whole family to Wigan since they started doing doing the prematch stuff next door. Then attended WC games after getting the bug. 

[idrewthehaggis]

8 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

A 22 week league season with SL teams entering at the last 16 of the Cup and whatever playoff format is used will mean a 29/30 week season which for me is long enough. IMO giving the players a longer off season to recover is something that is needed.

It is worth noting in that Rimmer interview in I think '21 and within the IMG questionnaire there was talk about-

* More internationals

* Group stages in the Challenge Cup.

* A very vague expansion of the World Club Challenge

* 7/9s competition perhaps on a "regional" team basis.

 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, The 4 of Us said:

Making an effort. 
 

For example, Wigan has previously been constrained by the limitations of the dtadium use and where the revenues go.

Since getting hold of the athletics stadium next door to the DW there’s a lot more going on pre and post match, and although it may not make a huge difference to the bottom line, it makes each game much more of an event. 
 

 

So what , buy a council community stadium next door to your rented venue ? , To tell the truth I'm amazed the council sold it to them 

If that hadn't been an option , what else could they have done ? 

Very fortunate if you ask me 

Edited January 3, 2023 by GUBRATS

[The 4 of Us]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So what , buy a council community stadium next door to your rented venue ? , To tell the truth I'm amazed the council sold it to them 

If that hadn't been an option , what else could they have done ? 

Very fortunate if you ask me 

I give a response to your question and you respond that they’re lucky and you’re amazed. 
 

But is it an acceptable example of making an effort of the sort you were wondering? 

[GUBRATS]

11 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

I give a response to your question and you respond that they’re lucky and you’re amazed. 
 

But is it an acceptable example of making an effort of the sort you were wondering? 

No it isn't , they were lucky , one that it existed next dor to the DW , and second that the council let them buy it 

Right , just looked , they didn't buy it , but conveniently the council have let them lease it , very lucky 

The LSV essentially won't let Leigh do anything , not even an outside bar , but they had one there for the women's euros 

Everybody is equal , but some are more equal than others 

Edited January 3, 2023 by GUBRATS

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

No, I just meant that 22+playoffs +cup+internationals feels like a nice amount of rugby per year for me to watch, mostly on TV. And even if the bit on Sky (SL) was a month shorter, it wouldn't affect my subscription. 

But for season ticket holders it's a different question. 

Well as long as you're alright then Toby let's do it

[GUBRATS]

28 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

I give a response to your question and you respond that they’re lucky and you’re amazed. 
 

But is it an acceptable example of making an effort of the sort you were wondering? 

So if Robin Park hadn't existed , what do you think Wigan could have done ? , Let's say they did own the DW , is it realistic to think it would be viable as a venue being used 11/12 times a year ? , Which is what the question in point was ? 

[AB90]

6 hours ago, Oxford said:

Alot of sports stuff tends to use the US model of event making as a gold standard which includes less is more when it comes to matches.

Whether on not this model has legs in the British sporting environment is still out with the jury.

The middle class in this country tend to be event (trend) led but that usually involves sports they don't have over 100 years of prejudice to overcome.

 

I’d push back against the premise that the US model includes a ‘less is more when it comes to matches’.

NBA (2nd most popular league) - 82 regular season games

MLB (3rd most popular league) - 162 regular season games

NFL has only 18 regular season games however if the league had its own way they would 100% try to increase that. Only the strong players union prevents them.

[Tommygilf]

6 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

No it isn't , they were lucky , one that it existed next dor to the DW , and second that the council let them buy it 

Right , just looked , they didn't buy it , but conveniently the council have let them lease it , very lucky 

The LSV essentially won't let Leigh do anything , not even an outside bar , but they had one there for the women's euros 

Everybody is equal , but some are more equal than others 

I think that is an example of precisely how everybody isn't equal. The Womens Euros are bigger deal now than the local Rugby League team

[GUBRATS]

32 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think that is an example of precisely how everybody isn't equal. The Womens Euros are bigger deal now than the local Rugby League team

That's it Tommy , focus on one part of the answer , the " you're just a little club " bit , not the stadium was built for the ' little ' club and the council should be doing all they can to help it grow and succeed, just as it would appear the same council has done for the Wigan club 

Your club dragged a Union club into the fold to try to make more use of your stadium , that sort of tells us that using one only 11/12 times a year isn't really enough 

[gingerjon]

41 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The Womens Euros are bigger deal now than the local Rugby League team

It was a staging requirement that each venue had an outside bar, fan zone etc so that you got the same at every ground and every game through the tournament.

(One of the reasons why there was a shortage of bidders, I believe, was that the UEFA requirements were quite onerous).

Keeping it on topic, I've long advocated that there should be a minimum matchday experience requirement across Super League.

[GUBRATS]

39 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It was a staging requirement that each venue had an outside bar, fan zone etc so that you got the same at every ground and every game through the tournament.

(One of the reasons why there was a shortage of bidders, I believe, was that the UEFA requirements were quite onerous).

Keeping it on topic, I've long advocated that there should be a minimum matchday experience requirement across Super League.

Id agree Jon , but we can't even get minimum facilities done 

And as an aside , sometimes getting one makes the other more difficult or indeed impossible 

Edited January 4, 2023 by GUBRATS

[Tommygilf]

51 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

That's it Tommy , focus on one part of the answer , the " you're just a little club " bit , not the stadium was built for the ' little ' club and the council should be doing all they can to help it grow and succeed, just as it would appear the same council has done for the Wigan club 

Your club dragged a Union club into the fold to try to make more use of your stadium , that sort of tells us that using one only 11/12 times a year isn't really enough 

Its just facts mate, I thought you preferred dealing in those? No need to be so prickly. 

Big events can command bigger concessions from other partners like stadiums, especially when there are alternatives on the table too. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

It was a staging requirement that each venue had an outside bar, fan zone etc so that you got the same at every ground and every game through the tournament.

(One of the reasons why there was a shortage of bidders, I believe, was that the UEFA requirements were quite onerous).

Keeping it on topic, I've long advocated that there should be a minimum matchday experience requirement across Super League.

What would be your minimum matchday? There's some things I think the clubs do already in the pre match but a lot is a bit basic.

[GUBRATS]

35 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its just facts mate, I thought you preferred dealing in those? No need to be so prickly. 

Big events can command bigger concessions from other partners like stadiums, especially when there are alternatives on the table too. 

This isn't prickly , and it is facts , on the current discussion that has drifted again onto ' match day experience ' some clubs have in the pursuit of good facilities had to give up control of income and the ability to decide what ' experience ' they can provide , so the question was asked , the answer provided ( only one ) highlighted the fact that one particular club have been lucky in being able to get control of a council owned community facility that conveniently is located next door to their rented match stadium , so was the person who provided the answer being realistic that other clubs could/should do the same ? 

No 

So let's leave the drift alone and back to the original point of discussion, is it realistic for some clubs to operate with an 11/12 home match season ? 

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

What would be your minimum matchday? There's some things I think the clubs do already in the pre match but a lot is a bit basic.

You tell me , you're the expert on everything round here 

[JohnM]

My system is showing 47 pages of "contributions" to the debate.  

Does anyone know exactly what is proposed, what has been accepted,  (stress on fact, not speculation,  hearsay, wishful thinking, rugby league congenital negativity). 

[GUBRATS]

8 minutes ago, JohnM said:

My system is showing 47 pages of "contributions" to the debate.  

Does anyone know exactly what is proposed, what has been accepted,  (stress on fact, not speculation,  hearsay, wishful thinking, rugby league congenital negativity). 

Nope

[Harry Stottle]

16 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

That's my worry too.

Comcast is widely seen as paying over the odds for Sky, which has since lost subscribers and is under pressure to cut costs. RL, which is not a core Sky sport and is generally treated by them like an embarrassing relative left out of family photos, could be for the chop.

Yes I think that a lot of posters are dismissing the relevance that Concast could have in the next contract, either that or they are just doing the 'Ostrich Syndrome' of not trying to think about it in the hope that it goes away and anyone who mentions it are just being negative.

[Oxford]

7 hours ago, AB90 said:

I’d push back against the premise that the US model includes a ‘less is more when it comes to matches’.

NBA (2nd most popular league) - 82 regular season games

MLB (3rd most popular league) - 162 regular season games

NFL has only 18 regular season games however if the league had its own way they would 100% try to increase that. Only the strong players union prevents them.

I agree, but the model is not about all sports and that was only one element, the NFL model would certainly be the most informed and clearly most similar. And, whenever parallels have been mentioned that's certainly the one used most often.

However, without a total cultural change in attitudes towards RL as a sport, I have major doubts that anyone but God could achieve what IMG are being asked to do.

And working from other sports based in other radically different cultures will always have more pitfalls than helpful ideas.

If, as I suspect, alot of this change is about ridding the sport of lots of precieved dead wood there may be even fewer posters on here than at present.

I'm reminded of the RU Chairman's 1895 speech  "We are smaller in number but...." only without the complete support of the establishment of course.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Oxford

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, The 4 of Us said:

Making an effort. 
 

For example, Wigan has previously been constrained by the limitations of the dtadium use and where the revenues go.

Since getting hold of the athletics stadium next door to the DW there’s a lot more going on pre and post match, and although it may not make a huge difference to the bottom line, it makes each game much more of an event. 
 

 

So if it does not make much of a difference to the bottom line do I take it that it is not well attended pre and post match, or put another way is the Wigan fan base not supportive of making the game day 'much more of an event', honest question.

PS, I replied to your post before seeing the debate that followed.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Harry Stottle