37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

 

Whilst making a bob or two may be the aim for some in sport, in reality for a vast number of investors, it is a donation for them. They never expect to make money back. 

Often they are a plaything, a prestige thing, a civic pride thing, and sometimes it is all about running your club that you supported as a kid. 

In RL you can still get those sporting highs - leading your team out at Wembley or Old Trafford, or heading to Oz for the WCC - but the money required is a lot less than some sports, and that opens it up to a lot more investors. 

The crux of your post is the middle paragraph, in nearly all cases it is the 'local lads made good' that are the backbone of the British RL and this is the driving force for them because as you say "They never expect to make money back" 

So on that basis after 120+ years of local money how are IMG going to persuade prospective investors being those that have no natural connection or intrinsic inherent attachment to the sport it is a good idea to invest in something that there is little to no chance of a return?

Perhaps they can roll out the TGG tag, and hope investors see the light.

 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Both sides will have an exit clause. The last long term "strategic partnership" I worked with ended prematurely with the client suing the strategic partner for failure to deliver. 

Exactly, 12 years commitment from both parties never in a month of Sunday's.

[Man of Kent]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Anyway, I think you and others may well get your wish if this grading system acheives the light of day, soon realisation that there will be no transfer of clubs between the SL and Championship will happen, the wealthier 'B' clubs - those in the top flight - with SL funding will always have the upper hand, in time those ambitious Championship clubs will lose their enthusiasm to invest both on and off the field and in turn the speccies will drift away, the community game will be affected with the apathy towards RL that will grow beyond SL towns and in time will affect the future player production - they are not all born in Wigan, Leeds and St. Helen's - I just hope those at the RFL have really thought this through.

How would a wealthier sport damage player production, Harold?

We want more money in the game to attract the next generations of players to rugby league, don't we?

[Harry Stottle]

45 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

How would a wealthier sport damage player production, Harold?

We want more money in the game to attract the next generations of players to rugby league, don't we?

Hi Kentish, it a feeling based upon observation of having spent more years than I care to remember around the amatuer game and watching it decline both in participation, volunteer and spectator numbers.

I do think that this grading system will eventually be just a closed shop by another name, if as I predict that levels of interest will wane away below SL towns and the 'focal' point for the amatuer club's of those towns 'pro' team is compromised it will have a non reversible adverse effect on the amatuer club's.

You mention more money in the game, how is that going to be achieved? as I said in a previous post our sport In this country for 120+ years sits firmly on the backs of the local lads made good who contribute not for investment to make money but for the pleasure they derive from their involvement, where will IMG find those types from?

[ELBOWSEYE]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi Kentish, it a feeling based upon observation of having spent more years than I care to remember around the amatuer game and watching it decline both in participation, volunteer and spectator numbers.

I do think that this grading system will eventually be just a closed shop by another name, if as I predict that levels of interest will wane away below SL towns and the 'focal' point for the amatuer club's of those towns 'pro' team is compromised it will have a non reversible adverse effect on the amatuer club's.

 

To put the decline of participation at amateur clubs at the door of IMG and the removal of P&R is wrong. 

The numbers have at adult level been declining for decades and many issues have caused this some societal, in 1982 when I moved from Leigh to Warrington the amount of open aged teams were 4 or 5 times more than now Woolston 4,Crosfield, rylands, Latchford 2 each, thamesboard, winwick and others I can't remember. Today you're lucky if they can fulfil a 2nd team fixture. And there are more children who have access to rugby league than in those periods, the change to summer rugby has been one effect but there are many none of it is the removal of P&R.. 

Edited November 24, 2022 by ELBOWSEYE

[Man of Kent]

40 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi Kentish, it a feeling based upon observation of having spent more years than I care to remember around the amatuer game and watching it decline both in participation, volunteer and spectator numbers.

I do think that this grading system will eventually be just a closed shop by another name, if as I predict that levels of interest will wane away below SL towns and the 'focal' point for the amatuer club's of those towns 'pro' team is compromised it will have a non reversible adverse effect on the amatuer club's.

You mention more money in the game, how is that going to be achieved? as I said in a previous post our sport In this country for 120+ years sits firmly on the backs of the local lads made good who contribute not for investment to make money but for the pleasure they derive from their involvement, where will IMG find those types from?

Looks like yet another 'rugby league will shrivel and die if Leigh Beaumonts are disadvantaged' argument to my eye

But you are an intelligent man, Harold. I'm sure you have the vision to see what IMG is doing is designed to attract investment into the game by reducing risk.

And some may even look at Uncle Derek and see that a bit of money from an ego-maniac can go far in RL.

[Oxford]

37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

Does this mean that only 5 read the small print ?

And have we heard from the Luxembourg Jury?

[Harry Stottle]

33 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

To put the decline of participation at amateur clubs at the door of IMG and the removal of P&R is wrong. 

The numbers have at adult level been declining for decades and many issues have caused this some societal, in 1982 when I moved from Leigh to Warrington the amount of open aged teams were 4 or 5 times more than now Woolston 4,Crosfield, rylands, Latchford 2 each, thamesboard, winwick and others I can't remember. Today you're lucky if they can fulfil a 2nd team fixture. And there are more children who have access to rugby league than in those periods, the change to summer rugby has been one effect but there are many none of it is the removal of P&R.. 

As I said Elbow I have spent many years in and around the amatuer game and can echo what you said, I am of the opinion that any type of closed shop will be detrimental to the game below SL and will escalate the decline of the amatuer game, if your opinion differs that is fine.

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Looks like yet another 'rugby league will shrivel and die if Leigh Beaumonts are disadvantaged' argument to my eye

But you are an intelligent man, Harold. I'm sure you have the vision to see what IMG is doing is designed to attract investment into the game by reducing risk.

And some may even look at Uncle Derek and see that a bit of money from an ego-maniac can go far in RL.

C'mon Kentish, don't fall in with the multitude of the moronic comments regards Leigh or Beumont there is no need whatsoever in this discussion, in fact if you look at what I am saying my concern is far greater than just SL, I actually care for the much wider aspects of sport.

I have not a clue what IMG are doing and in particular how it is designed to attract investment.

Now then, as regards that 'investment' I expressed the fact that since the birth of the game it is local money support that has kept the sport alive, money given not for investment or payback but for self esteem and pleasure, I am really looking forward to seeing IMG's Investement Prospectus that is going to entice all those professionals who make a living from their portfolio's, perhap's you can enlighten me in what manner it will be submitted.

[Wakefield Ram]

34 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Looks like yet another 'rugby league will shrivel and die if Leigh Beaumonts are disadvantaged' argument to my eye

But you are an intelligent man, Harold. I'm sure you have the vision to see what IMG is doing is designed to attract investment into the game by reducing risk.

And some may even look at Uncle Derek and see that a bit of money from an ego-maniac can go far in RL.

IMGs aim is to maximise their fee income. The only realistic way they can claim their % is to attract brand new sponsorship into the game and improve the existing marketing. 

The IMG plan so far has just been a re-hash of old ideas. Call me cynical, but the licences for a handful of biggest clubs and the possibility of licences for other SL clubs with immunity from relegation is just a way to get their foot in the door.

Rugby League needs better marketing and new and bigger sponsorship deals and that is what IMG are good at. But if they don't make the return they want, they will be gone well before 12 years and the game, not IMG, will have to deal with the fallout.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Wakefield Ram

[gingerjon]

21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I expressed the fact that since the birth of the game it is local money support that has kept the sport alive

And yet, for about the last thirty years, it has been Sky's TV deal which has kept the sport alive.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

And yet, for about the last thirty years, it has been Sky's TV deal which has kept the sport alive.

I'm not so sure. 

Nothing sends a club down the swanny quicker than a backer walking away or running out of cash themselves. 

It's why the focus has been on sustainability for a long time. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not so sure. 

Nothing sends a club down the swanny quicker than a backer walking away or running out of cash themselves. 

It's why the focus has been on sustainability for a long time. 

Individual clubs.

The game needs the vastly more money put in by Sky than has been put in by any single local lad done good. It wouldn't have a professional structure at all without it.

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

And yet, for about the last thirty years, it has been Sky's TV deal which has kept the sport alive.

OK fair comment, but without those at club level there would be nothing for Sky to purchase.

[Man of Kent]

42 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The IMG plan so far has just been a re-hash of old ideas. Call me cynical, but the licences for a handful of biggest clubs and the possibility of licences for other SL clubs with immunity from relegation is just a way to get their foot in the door.

Is it or is it a slowly-slowly, catchy-monkey franchising model that will open up investment beyond the Derek Beaumonts of the world?

[Damien]

50 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The IMG plan so far has just been a re-hash of old ideas. Call me cynical, but the licences for a handful of biggest clubs and the possibility of licences for other SL clubs with immunity from relegation is just a way to get their foot in the door.

To be fair in terms of things like league structure there are no new ideas. Whatever they do will be a rehash to some degree. What they do need to do is do everything better around any implementation and see it through.

[Oxford]

I can't wait for the day these are the bottom 3 at the end of the season Saints, Warriors and Rhinos and a team half way up the divsion is relegated!

And to think when one club new to SL was given dispensation there was uproar.

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Oxford

[ELBOWSEYE]

I think we shouldn't put our nose up at any investors be that Derek Beaumont or any other individuals or Sky, they should all be welcomed, individuals linked to clubs will always have their clubs interests at heart and some will be interested in the sport in general. I don't agree with everything Warrington out forward but we would be up ###### creek without a paddle without the backers. 

[Oxford]

2 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I think we shouldn't put our nose up at any investors be that Derek Beaumont or any other individuals or Sky, they should all be welcomed, individuals linked to clubs will always have their clubs interests at heart and some will be interested in the sport in general. I don't agree with everything Warrington out forward but we would be up ###### creek without a paddle without the backers. 

Couldn't agree more but from the top to the bottom of the game they've not always been made welcome and far too often abused and even intimidated in person.

Look at that list of people who might still have been investing in the game but legged it instead.

 

 

[ELBOWSEYE]

Just now, Oxford said:

Couldn't agree more but from the top to the bottom of the game they've not always been made welcome and far too often abused and even intimidated in person.

Look at that list of people who might still have been investing in the game but legged it instead.

 

 

A certain MK springs to mind. 

[Oxford]

Just now, ELBOWSEYE said:

A certain MK springs to mind. 

He was on the list .....

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I think we shouldn't put our nose up at any investors be that Derek Beaumont or any other individuals or Sky, they should all be welcomed, individuals linked to clubs will always have their clubs interests at heart and some will be interested in the sport in general. I don't agree with everything Warrington out forward but we would be up ###### creek without a paddle without the backers. 

Good luck to Leigh but hopefully the Leopards is the high watermark for benevolent dictactors messing around with club heritage due to a personal fetish. 

[gingerjon]

13 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

A certain MK springs to mind. 

Maybe if he'd paid his bills.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Individual clubs.

The game needs the vastly more money put in by Sky than has been put in by any single local lad done good. It wouldn't have a professional structure at all without it.

Well of course, 1 tv deal is a decent amount. But as a proportion of total revenues, it isn't as dominant as it could be. 

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Oxford said:

He was on the list .....

Who is on this list, because I just don't see a list of investors who are hounded out of the game?

Koukash was a troll and loved the attention, like his mate down the road, and after he left Salford he still wanted to be involved, he was just full of empty promises.