IMG looking to ditch Super League branding

[The Masked Poster]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

It's not quite true though. They've always been a bit sporadic. They always used the SL 1,2,3 thing a little randomly, often in the build up to the Grand Final. It was also a bit odd as they didn't have a Grand Final right at the start, so they talked about the 20th GF when it wasn't the 20th SL season. 

It's rather like now when they use the phrase Big Dance which means nowt to most people and is pretty cringe worthy. 

But it was the same from the start. I wouldnt say it was lack of effort, they did have a freshen up of the SL branding a few years back under Elstone. I just think SL as a name is a little tired. 

So why are Women's Football using the term? Or the proposed European Super League? 

It's obviously not as naff as painted. 

I also remember the number thing going on consistently more than that, 9 or 10, maybe more. And doing these things sporadically highlights my point about neglect.

Edited December 16, 2022 by The Masked Poster

[Roughyed Rats]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Feel free to answer the question. Because, respect, this is just coming across a little tin foil hat. 

I'm pretty sure that would be diverting this thread off topic. Perhaps you should google it?  No need to resort to insults. It's OK to allow people to have different opinions than your own.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Roughyed Rats

[whatmichaelsays]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

These businesses are not stupid. Not everyone is after a quick buck. 

If they are after a big, quick return, they are playing with the wrong sport to be honest. 

The way to make money from RL is by being a long term partner and growing our, frankly, paltry commercial income to a substantial amount. 

Agreed. You need both the long and the short, not just the short. Businesses that do both make more money. 

[JohnM]

20 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

I'm pretty sure that would be diverting this thread off topic. Perhaps you should google it?  No need to resort to insults. It's OK to allow people to have different opinions than your own.

Indeed it is ok for people to present different opinions, just as it is ok  for any opinion to be questioned or challenged, reasoning to be queried, evidence requested.

[The Masked Poster]

Can't agree on the right to the term 'rugby' though. The game was Rugby and it was, like it or not, the Northern Union that broke away. I don't think that is denying our heritage to admit as much, WE were the ones that left the relationship. It might be rather like Pete Best claiming his new band was The Beatles because he was originally in the band. 

I cannot emphasize how boring I find rugby union but let's not deny reality. We have every right to use the term Rugby, - because it is - but breaking away means we were....er, a breakaway. 

[zorquif]

10 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

London is key to the IMG vision apparently

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/dec/15/london-img-transform-rugby-league

So needs to be something that appeals to the South such as "The Latte League", "The Tofu Try League" or "Win a house Rugby".

Now, now, let's not promise something we can't deliver!

1 hour ago, Copa said:

Gotta have “rugby” in the name but absolutely stay clear of Super Rugby.

Why let the association football ruffians have "football"? We should include that in the name!

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

I'm pretty sure that IMG shareholders will want a return on investment quicker than that!!!! 

What return will they expect and by when?

What is the current share price?

What impact on that share price do you expect?

How much do you think success or failure will affect dividends?

Hint: IMG owners are capitalised at $9.8 billion. Stock price is just under $21 .

Here's a reminder. 

https://img.com/news/article/?id=rugby-football-league-and-super-league-announce-strategic-partnership-with-img-to-transform-rugby-league

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by JohnM

[Pie tries]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Yes, this 

It absolutely does my head in. The pre-1895 sport is as much ours as it is theirs. The rules of Union bear little relationship to 'rugby' rules in 1894, just as our rules have also evolved. The idea that Union is the 'original' rugby and we're some sort of new offshoot is typical patronising b****** from the Union crowd. I refuse to play along with their propaganda.  

 

The RL WC is the original ‘rugby’ World Cup - s too for Lions tours… 

[Pie tries]

1 hour ago, The 4 of Us said:

Absolutely.

Has this been done at Headingly yet? Whether or not, Burrows and Sinfield embracing should be the centrepiece of any trophy. A la the NRL trophy.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/sport/rob-burrow-kevin-sinfield-leeds-rhinos-headingley-leeds-b1906246.html%3famp

Absolutely this - iconic and sums up our sport

[Roughyed Rats]

11 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Indeed it is ok for people to present different opinions, just as it is ok  for any opinion to be questioned or challenged, reasoning to be queried, evidence requested.

Absolutely and without the need to resort to insults. Couldn't agree more.

[Pie tries]

This thread is brilliant- it’s all that’s great (and not) about RL. 
 

IMG not sitting on their hands - great to see ideas and movement to genuinely take the game forward

Edited December 18, 2022 by Pie tries

[iffleyox]

45 minutes ago, Iceberg Slim said:

A1 Rugby League (Short just A1)

 

 

makes a change from M62 - I like it. The Championship, being the middle of the three tiers could be the A1(M) league...

[JohnM]

11 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Absolutely and without the need to resort to insults. Couldn't agree more.

In that case,

1. Where's the insult?

2. Where are your supporting arguments for your opinion?

[Roughyed Rats]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

In that case,

1. Where's the insult?

2. Where are your supporting arguments for your opinion?

I'm pretty sure you can read. It was a conversation with somebody else and, as I explained, continuing down the line of discussion proposed would be taking this thread off topic. Thanks.

[Eddie]

I haven’t read all the comments but I don’t see any reason to change the name Super League, it’s distinctive and most people know what it is, even non RL fans. Ok change it if they like but changing it because women’s football have subsequently named their comp that would be pathetic. 

[Eddie]

11 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

London is key to the IMG vision apparently

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/dec/15/london-img-transform-rugby-league

So needs to be something that appeals to the South such as "The Latte League", "The Tofu Try League" or "Win a house Rugby".

Calling London a sleeping giant is ridiculous. A sleeping giant is a big club fallen on hard times (Bradford and Windes would be RL’s prime example), not a small club who’ve never been big but are from a big place so may have some potential. 

[Martyn Sadler]

41 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I haven’t read all the comments but I don’t see any reason to change the name Super League, it’s distinctive and most people know what it is, even non RL fans. Ok change it if they like but changing it because women’s football have subsequently named their comp that would be pathetic. 

Yes, the article referenced by the OP is slightly misleading.

Matt Dwyer didn't suggest that the 'Super League' brand will be ditched.

To start with, that wouldn't be their decision to make, but secondly, his comment was that IMG is researching the brand value that underpins the Super League competition.

If you create a brand and others copy you, that seems to me to be evidence that the brand has value that others recognise. It doesn't mean that you should therefore retreat from it.

On the other hand, if the research suggests that the branding has no value and that an alternative may generate a higher value, then they may recommend going down that route.

But that's a long way off.

And the question that would then arise would be what alternative name to use and the cost of building up that branding from scratch.

The evidence would have to be compelling to go down that route.

[JohnM]

42 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

I'm pretty sure you can read. It was a conversation with somebody else and, as I explained, continuing down the line of discussion proposed would be taking this thread off topic. Thanks.

I've read and re-read the post you refer to. There was no insult there.  

Let's continue on the other IMG thread.

[Martyn Sadler]

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Calling London a sleeping giant is ridiculous. A sleeping giant is a big club fallen on hard times (Bradford and Windes would be RL’s prime example), not a small club who’ve never been big but are from a big place so may have some potential. 

The Broncos were big enough in the 1990s to persuade Richard Branson to buy the club.

Who could forget the full houses at the Stoop in the World Club Challenge in that period?

That status may not have lasted very long, but it still suggests that there is great potential there.

The problem is that the Broncos and the Skolars are completely independent entities whose priorities may not accord with IMG's vision for London.

[Chrispmartha]

23 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Calling London a sleeping giant is ridiculous. A sleeping giant is a big club fallen on hard times (Bradford and Windes would be RL’s prime example), not a small club who’ve never been big but are from a big place so may have some potential. 

Just to be pedantic the definition of sleeping Giant is:

One that has great but unrealised power or a newly emerging power.

So London can be described as that.

 

[Eddie]

13 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The Broncos were big enough in the 1990s to persuade Richard Branson to buy the club.

Who could forget the full houses at the Stoop in the World Club Challenge in that period?

That status may not have lasted very long, but it still suggests that there is great potential there.

The problem is that the Broncos and the Skolars are completely independent entities whose priorities may not accord with IMG's vision for London.

Oh yes I agree there is potential there, if done properly, but they’ve never been a giant or anywhere near it. I’m sure we’d all love to see a strong London side in Super League (or whatever it’ll be called) challenging for honours. 

[Eddie]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

Just to be pedantic the definition of sleeping Giant is:

One that has great but unrealised power or a newly emerging power.

So London can be described as that.

 

Well ok (not that the definition there is the colloquial one), but in that case you could stick a club in Bristol, Swansea or Norwich and call them a sleeping giant. 

[DI Keith Fowler]

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Well ok (not that the definition there is the colloquial one), but in that case you could stick a club in Bristol, Swansea or Norwich and call them a sleeping giant. 

I think it's more that IMG have identified that there is significant latent interest in London that could be turned into a strong club team. I don't think those other places have that at all. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

It's rather like now when they use the phrase Big Dance which means nowt to most people and is pretty cringe worthy. 

But it was the same from the start. I wouldnt say it was lack of effort, they did have a freshen up of the SL branding a few years back under Elstone. I just think SL as a name is a little tired. 

I still like the name Super League. I know netball and women's soccer has it now but it's still unique in men's British sport and I think it still means RL to most fans (I know the womens soccer is growing but still we can keep it as meaning RL to most sports fans)

I also don't mind the term Big Dance.....it's just a fun slang term ...again one I only hear in RL so why not own it 

I hope to God we don't just become the RL Premiership.....just the most boring and generic term already used by union and soccer 

If we must change we should make it unique .....ice hockey and French  RL use Elite...again something different I like 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[Big Picture]

25 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The Broncos were big enough in the 1990s to persuade Richard Branson to buy the club.

Who could forget the full houses at the Stoop in the World Club Challenge in that period?

That status may not have lasted very long, but it still suggests that there is great potential there.

The problem is that the Broncos and the Skolars are completely independent entities whose priorities may not accord with IMG's vision for London.

So then, matches involving London against teams from other countries were a hit, matches against teams from little towns up North not so much even with Richard Branson owning the club and a high profile Londoner on their roster.  There's a lesson there.