Jump to content

37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Hopefully the process will be a bit more forensic this time.

I shouldn't worry too much about colateral losses if I were you.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


21 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Not sure I buy that.  Financial failure like that rarely happens overnight.  There are usually warning signs for an extended period in the run up.  As with union, Worcester and Wasps were known basket cases for at least a year before they went pop.

Difficult to have faith in a system that couldn't spot Bradford were on the road to oblivion.  Hopefully the process will be a bit more forensic this time.

Of course these things don't happen overnight - but when you look at the numbers that almost killed the Bulls, they really were quite modest. 

In the summary for the 2011 licenses it was acknowledged that they had challenges, but it wasn't expected that they would escalate to the level they did.

When you go back and look at the numbers in the articles at the time, they really are quite modest. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that IMG have put people in place for certain different roles.

But ... has there been any news about how they're tackling the market place rather than all the remedies for RL's terminal internal percieved notions of itself?

 

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Angelic Cynic said:

KeithPorterThe new stadium was funded by planning gains that enabled Tesco and other large retailers to develop the old United Glass site, along with the club's neighbouring Knowsley Road stadium. 

 

https://www.amenity.co.uk/news-media/new-stadium-for-st-helens-rugby-league-club.html

What a lazy and inaccurate piece of journalism. The UG Site was bought by Langtree Developments and the council contributed to the cost of the ground remediation (from the money they got from the development planning of the whole site and the money they got from the housing development planning from Knowsley Road). Saints bought their parcel of land from Langtree and built the stadium funded 100% by themselves (from the money they got from selling Knowsley Rd and the rest funded by the board of directors as directors loans). The Council also paid for the new linkroad footbridge (the Steve Prescott bridge) that links the whole site to the town centre.

Tesco didn't contribute a single penny towards the stadium. The council committed to contributing to the ground remediation costs otherwise no developer would have been interested in the site as it was one of the most heavily polluted sites you'll see anywhere

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Don't forget, when Bradford got over their initial problems (first time) the other SL clubs then decided to withhold Bradford's Sky money and divvy it up among themselves. 

 

Which was nice. 

Aye the alleged rich clubs of SL have previous in this regard, this is why I am taking the IMG yet to be announced full intentions and criterion submissions very cautiously, just in case they don't fit precisely with the Chairmen who call the shots.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Oxford said:

Then why have a restructure then?

And if no help is to be provided which I assume is what you mean how are they any different from what went on in the past?

Why, is it assumed the game is not good enough as a spetacle and if so who by?

And where is the evidence that these efforts will improve the game or that those improvements will mean greater generation of income?

As I stated if clubs are left to do this on their own not only has nothing changed but the whole business is a foregone conclusion which means there is little doubt about the real purpose of restructure and grading criteria.

 

Saying that IMG or SL or both of them combined is not an answer to who is the dead wood.

Can't or won't assumes alot considering they're to recieve no help.

Your answers have convinced  me that all that is taking place is lots of clubs will be put out of business and that this part of it is little more than a disguise for dumping.

 

IMG are onboard to help the RFL grow, develop & improve the game as a whole NOT to help individual clubs. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. They won't give 2 hoots as to who those individual clubs are as long as they can implement the changes they believe are necessary to grow the game and for them to get a decent return on their investment.

IMG's objective is to have a SL consisting of Cat A license clubs, Championship of Cat B's etc. If they can get a SL of 14 or 16 Cat A clubs and similar Cat B's then that makes the game as a whole more valuable and saleable to 3rd parties such as TV companies, sponsors & advertisers. More money coming into the game means a bigger return for them.

The restructure & license criteria are designed to force clubs to improve, to make them more stable, viable and ultimately more valuable. The more clubs improve the higher the likelihood they will be able to attract bigger & better sponsors & advertisers to them, which then in turn improves the league and the game as a whole.

As I said previously IMG will undoubtedly offer advice to clubs on how they think they can improve their businesses and meet the various licensing criteria but they certainly won't be holding their hand to ensure they get there. They won't be doing business plans for them, they won't be arranging sponsorship deals for them or anything like that. Ultimately it will be down to the individual clubs to decide where they want to be in the new structure and how they can get there.

The licensing criteria will tell them what they need to achieve and IMG (and the RFL no doubt) will offer advice to clubs on how to achieve it.

You talk like we're living in some socialist dystopia where everyone should be equal, everyone should have the same, those that currently don't have should be given more help to ensure they become equal. This is the real world, there are have's and have not's, not everyone is equal and probably never will be. Where a club ends up in the new structure will be down to what they choose to do on and off the field in line with the criteria set.

Some existing SL clubs will grow, improve and maybe even easily meet the various criteria set for an A license. Some will probably never achieve it and will ultimately find themselves never playing in SL again. Over time i'm sure we'll see some current Championship clubs grow & improve and replace those current SL clubs who can't achieve an A license.

I just don't know what it is that you don't understand about this business model the RFL have decided to go with in bringing IMG onboard ? Its not a model built on sentiment or preference for one individual club over another. Its a business model & structure that clubs have to decide where they realistically want to sit within it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

IMG are onboard to help the RFL grow, develop & improve the game as a whole NOT to help individual clubs. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

If you wish to discuss things that's fine but you'll have to refrain from this kind of approach. I don't expect admin to pick this up so I'd be grateful if you could. There is nothing I don't understand as yet but give it time I'm sure they'll come up with something. My feelings on this are clear although I think IMG will succeed that success may be something I'm dead set against in certain areas. With every post and every article it seems to become clearer that my suspicions about the process are clear.

"As I said previously IMG will undoubtedly offer advice to clubs on how they think they can improve their businesses and meet the various licensing criteria but they certainly won't be holding their hand to ensure they get there."

And on this very issue is where you and I disagree. It's nothing to do with comprehension quite the opposite. I think you're correct on this point and that's a dead giveaway as far as intended outcomes are concerned and is no different than when the RFL did exactly the same thing. The point here is that is not any kind of improvement in itself and more like continuation.

I think if you're a Rhino's, Warriors', Wolves' or Saints' fan  or administrator  this will look and sound brilliant and you'd have every right to be pleased. If you have no affiliation beyond this and are simply a TGG fan likewise.

This help or no help argument is a side issue for the most part but is a very telling one.

 

  • Thanks 1

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have to assume that there is little to no evidence or news that IMG have moved forward on the market place then. Or will someone else point out stuff I already know and Phil Ford around this question?

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

If you wish to discuss things that's fine but you'll have to refrain from this kind of approach. I don't expect admin to pick this up so I'd be grateful if you could. There is nothing I don't understand as yet but give it time I'm sure they'll come up with something. My feelings on this are clear although I think IMG will succeed that success may be something I'm dead set against in certain areas. With every post and every article it seems to become clearer that my suspicions about the process are clear.

"As I said previously IMG will undoubtedly offer advice to clubs on how they think they can improve their businesses and meet the various licensing criteria but they certainly won't be holding their hand to ensure they get there."

And on this very issue is where you and I disagree. It's nothing to do with comprehension quite the opposite. I think you're correct on this point and that's a dead giveaway as far as intended outcomes are concerned and is no different than when the RFL did exactly the same thing. The point here is that is not any kind of improvement in itself and more like continuation.

I think if you're a Rhino's, Warriors', Wolves' or Saints' fan  or administrator  this will look and sound brilliant and you'd have every right to be pleased. If you have no affiliation beyond this and are simply a TGG fan likewise.

This help or no help argument is a side issue for the most part but is a very telling one.

 

It wasn't meant as a personal offence, I asked that question as some of your previous posts suggest that you've already convinced yourself that this is just a sham exercise designed to please certain top SL clubs and has nothing to do with an overall improvement of the game. Some of your previous comments have been;

"I have a feeling that the standards argument is a front for dumping some clubs".

"I am convinced that the endgame of the restucturing is about getting rid of certain clubs under the guise of improving standards".

"I don't know who's involved in the criteria for giving out status but I am more or less certain who will be given which category. I am also pretty sure that certain clubs will be a shoe-in which convinces me of its real purpose"

While your perfectly entitled to your opinion it isn't based on any actual evidence from anything the RFL of IMG have stated. Would so many of the clubs backed their proposals if this really was their aim ? I doubt it.

You've also posted questions relating to clubs;

how can we get everyone to improve?

who will be asked to improve, is there anyone who won't be and why ?

what will be in place to ensure that every member can achieve that grade ?

Again none of those are relevant to IMG 's role with the RFL. They've made it clear that their role is with the structure of the game and in changing that to maximise the commercial potential of the game. 

They recognize that within our game there are clubs that are really struggling both on and off the field whether that be having poor stadium, poor junior development, poor revenue streams, constantly being on the verge of going bust from oner season to the next. In such a competitive sports marketplace its not enough these days to just have a good product on the pitch if you want to bring in big TV deals, sponsorships, advertising etc. You need both the product, the game as a whole and the clubs who make up the leagues to be as marketable & commercially attractive as possible.

If you were a big blue-chip company looking to put your money into sponsoring a sport, how attractive is RL right now with a SL within only a handful of clubs who are commercially viable and able to realistically compete year after year. Wouldn't you be far more interested in investing in one where you had a SL made up of 12, 14 or 16 strong, viable clubs, all spending to the SC limit, all with a fairly even chance of lifting silverware each year, all playing in nice modern stadiums with top class facilities.

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

It wasn't meant as a personal offence, I asked that question as some of your previous posts suggest that you've already convinced yourself that this is just a sham exercise designed to please certain top SL clubs and has nothing to do with an overall improvement of the game. Some of your previous comments have been;

"I have a feeling that the standards argument is a front for dumping some clubs".

"I am convinced that the endgame of the restucturing is about getting rid of certain clubs under the guise of improving standards".

"I don't know who's involved in the criteria for giving out status but I am more or less certain who will be given which category. I am also pretty sure that certain clubs will be a shoe-in which convinces me of its real purpose"

While your perfectly entitled to your opinion it isn't based on any actual evidence from anything the RFL of IMG have stated. Would so many of the clubs backed their proposals if this really was their aim ? I doubt it.

You've also posted questions relating to clubs;

how can we get everyone to improve?

who will be asked to improve, is there anyone who won't be and why ?

what will be in place to ensure that every member can achieve that grade ?

Again none of those are relevant to IMG 's role with the RFL. They've made it clear that their role is with the structure of the game and in changing that to maximise the commercial potential of the game. 

They recognize that within our game there are clubs that are really struggling both on and off the field whether that be having poor stadium, poor junior development, poor revenue streams, constantly being on the verge of going bust from oner season to the next. In such a competitive sports marketplace its not enough these days to just have a good product on the pitch if you want to bring in big TV deals, sponsorships, advertising etc. You need both the product, the game as a whole and the clubs who make up the leagues to be as marketable & commercially attractive as possible.

If you were a big blue-chip company looking to put your money into sponsoring a sport, how attractive is RL right now with a SL within only a handful of clubs who are commercially viable and able to realistically compete year after year. Wouldn't you be far more interested in investing in one where you had a SL made up of 12, 14 or 16 strong, viable clubs, all spending to the SC limit, all with a fairly even chance of lifting silverware each year, all playing in nice modern stadiums with top class facilities.

Have posted this previously so apologies if you've read this before.

IMG are a marketing agency and not a sport re-structuring expert. None of the proposals are new. No detail on what the criteria are and who will make the grading decisions. Why will this work when licensing didn't? Yes clubs support the principle, but when the criteria threatens the status of some SL clubs, things will change. 

"Sham exercise designed to please certain SL clubs" unfortunately this is classic consultancy, tell the people with influence what they want to hear. And Wigan, Saints, Leeds have heard exactly what they wanted to hear.

I would be much more interested in hearing about IMGs plans to improve marketing and gain new sponsorship. Little or nothing significant will change in the next few seasons around ground improvements, finances, team's and etc.. so what will IMG be doing to improve marketing and attract sponsors? 

Thats what they are good at. If the argument is they can't attract new money until the game is re-structured then nothing will be happening for a few years.

 

Edited by Wakefield Ram
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

What a lazy and inaccurate piece of journalism. The UG Site was bought by Langtree Developments and the council contributed to the cost of the ground remediation (from the money they got from the development planning of the whole site and the money they got from the housing development planning from Knowsley Road). Saints bought their parcel of land from Langtree and built the stadium funded 100% by themselves (from the money they got from selling Knowsley Rd and the rest funded by the board of directors as directors loans). The Council also paid for the new linkroad footbridge (the Steve Prescott bridge) that links the whole site to the town centre.

Tesco didn't contribute a single penny towards the stadium. The council committed to contributing to the ground remediation costs otherwise no developer would have been interested in the site as it was one of the most heavily polluted sites you'll see anywhere

What relationship was there between the Tesco and planning permission being granted for the stadium? These inter linked developments are where Wakey and Cas have been screwed over for years despite their best efforts to get traction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Ghost of 99 said:

What relationship was there between the Tesco and planning permission being granted for the stadium? These inter linked developments are where Wakey and Cas have been screwed over for years despite their best efforts to get traction.

How have cas been screwed? They wanted a new ground but wernt prepared to pay for it. Excepted council or a shopping centre development to pay for it but both fell through. Can't see why they can't upgrade WR they've had plenty of Sky money and some healthy crowds over the years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Tesco didn't contribute a single penny towards the stadium. The council committed to contributing to the ground remediation costs otherwise no developer would have been interested in the site as it was one of the most heavily polluted sites you'll see anywhere

As I remember it at the time - if Tesco wasn't going to be built then the stadium would not have been constructed. 

Losses to pay and 1.65 million pounds down on offer from Taylor Wimpey for Knowsley Road - https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/9200517.saints-pin-faith-on-new-stadium-after-heavy-losses/

44million with 25 million for stadium - if 3 interlinked planning applications approved - https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/3200502.saints-housing-deal-on-course/

It is of no consequence to me - but both Warrington & St Helens have new stadia adjacent to large Tesco shops.The rest of English rugby league clubs don't. 

Some guys have all the luck - sang a few people over the years.

Sending your Academy team to Australia gets you a top categorization from me.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

It wasn't meant as a personal offence, I asked that question as some of your previous posts suggest that you've already convinced yourself that this is just a sham exercise designed to please certain top SL clubs and has nothing to do with an overall improvement of the game. Some of your previous comments have

Well that's fine thank you.

I have stated why I'm suspicious, but also said that I think IMG will be successful.

All I'm asking is what are they doing about breaking down the market place barriers that have plagued RL since 1895?

And you're right, of course, being a good product is not sufficient in itself but, on the other hand, when it's biggest proponents don't have faith in the product why on Earth should anyone else?

I read that IMG are slowly taking the reins with the SL people  moving on and that should make things clearer with a little luck.

I don't think any of the quotes of mine you pointed out need explanation or furthering but they are not the product of any misunderstanding  they're just opinions about what's going on.

 

 

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It's either one of two things, all those who have resigned have done so as a strategic move with the blessing of IMG or behind closed doors there is something that they totally disagree with pertaining to the discussions that are going on at moment and have resigned in protest. 

It will be interesting finding out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2022 at 12:45, Dave T said:

I feel you have missed the point of my post. 

To expand from 12 to 14 by adding two grade C clubs was absolutely backward and went against everything that the system was supposed to stand for. Similarly, iirc Widnes were promoted as a Grade C club. And finally, we scrapped the system before it had chance for it to bed in and drive improvements. Promoting Grade C clubs meant there was literally no need for clubs to drive towards being a Grade A club. 

Fair enough. But when you talk about clubs "Driving towards being an "A" club" your assumption seems to be that clubs are not doing their best to be the best that can.

IIRC the way Warrington greatly improved was to have the attention of a highly rich benefactor, and the help and support to get a new stadium from the council?  Widnes got the new stadium but they did not get a rich backer, they lost one.  If they had a backer like yours,  there would today be some magnificent Derby games between two "A" grade clubs and cracking crowds.

Therefore the IMG woffle is irrelevant, what the "C" grade clubs like Widnes need is a rich backer.......or a modern stadium, but preferably both.

This is how the game actually works in the real world. Not the world of IMG

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

You need both the product, the game as a whole and the clubs who make up the leagues to be as marketable & commercially attractive as possible.

Saints return this season on attendances was an average of 11,700, considering all the recent success that the club has enjoyed I should imagine those that are interested in the sport and are based in what one could describe as the target market of the club is probably as high as it can acheive, what do you reckon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It's either one of two things, all those who have resigned have done so as a strategic move with the blessing of IMG or behind closed doors there is something that they totally disagree with

I would be certain Harry that those who have resigned don't see how IMG can come in and get new stadia built in places like Cas and wakey, get a larger quality playing pool, get a bigger TV contract, and consequently up crowds and local sponsors significantly.

They are to me disassociating themselves from what they see as a probable failure..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, steve oates said:

IIRC the way Warrington greatly improved was to have the attention of a highly rich benefactor, and the help and support to get a new stadium from the council?  

....and Tesco!

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/5235997.tesco-set-to-open-its-doors/

 

 

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.