IMG looking to ditch Super League branding

[whatmichaelsays]

20 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Well you added your voice to the usual suspects. The heartlands of Rugby League are not even in the north

They are in Hull, West Yorkshire and West Lancashire. We are up against Leeds United, Huddersfield Town, Bradford City, Manchester city, Hull City, Manchester United, Liverpool and Everton. These are bigger richer clubs, some of them World class clubs. And they are the market leaders....They are the people we are up against 

We do a hell of a job to penetrate that market, and get the crowds we get.

That's completely missing the point. You said:

Quote

 

All along the M62 everyone knows about the game

 

That's plainly not true and football clubs aren't the reason for that being the case. Football clubs don't prevent rugby league, or any of the clubs, doing more to engage new audiences and using them as an excuse is a complete cop-out. 

Yes, we might be competing for attention, but that's where creative thinking and a better understanding of who the sport wants to reach makes the difference - and that happens to be something that IMG have a decent track record in. 

There is undoubtedly things that RL does do well, and some areas where we probably punch above our weight. But we also have areas where we don't do well, and the sport has recognised that and sought the support from a partner that does have expertise in those areas. I can't understand why anybody would have an issue with that, unless they were frightened that we might actually succeed. 

[steve oates]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

oh do shut up.. every time someone has something positive to say about IMG you come back with utter tosh like the above. We get it

OK so you are now down to wanting the alternative view to yours to be "shut up" and I assume as you use the word "We" you are positioning yourself as the people's Champion on here?? To all who come on this thread please make sure your view coincides with RP London's view.

My view coincides with the Superleague club owners who do not think IMG are worth a penny.  Should they "Shut up"??

They were the people and clubs that dragged Rugby League from it's 1990's demise and took it into the professionalism that saw the SKY contract agreed, along with new richer owners, and improved stadia.

Your a dreamer with the deepest respect my friend, you like some others on here see Rugby League bursting out all over the planet. I personally don't see it myself for what I think is good reason, and I am with the club owners, but I certainly would not advocate you or anyone else being silenced. ...........  Apology?

[Martyn Sadler]

18 minutes ago, steve oates said:

My view coincides with the Superleague club owners who do not think IMG are worth a penny.  Should they "Shut up"??

That's an interesting comment.

Do you have some insights that are not in the public domain?

Which club owners don't think IMG are worth a penny?

Incidentally, according to the terms of the (very complicated) contract between the RFL, Super League and IMG, they won't earn a penny until they can show they are generating the surplus income that they will take a percentage of.

[steve oates]

5 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Yes, we might be competing for attention, but that's where creative thinking and a better understanding of who the sport wants to reach makes the difference - and that happens to be something that IMG have a decent track record in. 

There is undoubtedly things that RL does do well, and some areas where we probably punch above our weight. But we also have areas where we don't do well, and the sport has recognised that and sought the support from a partner that does have expertise in those areas. I can't understand why anybody would have an issue with that, unless they were frightened that we might actually succeed. 

Great post until you added the needless dig...........    

IMG's track record with Rugby Union, Soccer and Rugby League is what exactly?

Also what was the track record of the club owners, faced in 1995 with a game dying a death......?

It is they who actually delivered Superleague to save and grow the game, along with TV contracts who clearly do not trust that IMG will deliver anything, after all they have been round the table with IMG and afterwards said not a penny without any tangible improvements. ........  I have good reason to believe what I believe.......  You?

[whatmichaelsays]

2 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Great post until you added the needless dig...........    

IMG's track record with Rugby Union, Soccer and Rugby League is what exactly?

Also what was the track record of the club owners, faced in 1995 with a game dying a death......?

It is they who actually delivered Superleague to save and grow the game, along with TV contracts who clearly do not trust that IMG will deliver anything, after all they have been round the table with IMG and afterwards said not a penny without any tangible improvements. ........  I have good reason to believe what I believe.......  You?

2023 is not 1995. 

You're comparing an era that was before the mass adoption of multi-channel TV, before social media, before Google, before high-speed internet, before it was common for working-class people to go to university, before low-cost airlines made people more mobile, before our communities became as transient and diverse as they are now.

More importantly, before the vast majority of current club leaders took leadership roles with their current clubs. Without checking, I suspect that there is only Hetherington (then at Sheffield) left from 1995's crop of leaders still in a prominent position within the game, and he has been publicly supportive of IMG's involvement.

What worked in 1995 does not have relevance to what will work today, tomorrow and into the future. The world has changed, and so have the communities that RL serves. 

As you ask about IMG, they have been a significant partner of the Premier League for much of it's life, and played a role in the growth of what is now one of the most successful sporting competitions in the world, and arguably the UK's biggest cultural export. They have online streaming capabilities that the RFL couldn't possibly create themselves, and they've delivered pretty sizable commercial growth in Euroleague basketball. 

But yeah, no value, right? 

[steve oates]

4 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Which club owners don't think IMG are worth a penny?

Incidentally, according to the terms of the (very complicated) contract between the RFL, Super League and IMG, they won't earn a penny until they can show they are generating the surplus income that they will take a percentage of.

Collectively, the owners took the majority view IMG "aren't worth a penny" up front, that's the point I make to counter the argument this is inevitably going to be a great success. Let us see in time Martyn what that surplus income they generate may be, and what additional success they bring to the game. As always developments like this tend to attract over the top reactions about how the game is finally going to go big time. As I say that happened with the advent of Superleage. 

Not sure this is the same thing??

[Martyn Sadler]

6 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Collectively, the owners took the majority view IMG "aren't worth a penny" up front, that's the point I make to counter the argument this is inevitably going to be a great success. Let us see in time Martyn what that surplus income they generate may be, and what additional success they bring to the game. As always developments like this tend to attract over the top reactions about how the game is finally going to go big time. As I say that happened with the advent of Superleage. 

Not sure this is the same thing??

As you suggest, we will have to wait and see how this turns out.

But if the clubs had thought that IMG "aren't worth a penny", then they certainly wouldn't have agreed to a 12-year deal.

But Rugby League does have a record of not being able to take advantage of the opportunities offered to it.

[steve oates]

8 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

As you suggest, we will have to wait and see how this turns out.

But if the clubs had thought that IMG "aren't worth a penny", then they certainly wouldn't have agreed to a 12-year deal. But Rugby League does have a record of not being able to take advantage of the opportunities offered to it.

So what are the terms of the 12  year deal, What have we paid up front??

[steve oates]

22 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

As you ask about IMG, they have been a significant partner of the Premier League for much of it's life, and played a role in the growth of what is now one of the most successful sporting competitions in the world, and arguably the UK's biggest cultural export. 

But yeah, no value, right? 

I am sure that had IMG been engaged by Rugby League to boost the game back in 1995 from when it decided to professionalise and chase TV contracts, that the organisation IMG would today be rightly be boasting about how they saved and enriched Rugby League over this 27 years.  I would certainly take the view they of course had added a value to the game, albeit we certainly did  OK in 1996 without someone like them.

That IMG success success is not relevant to Rugby League, who themselves took the game into professionalism and arranged TV deals beyond the BBC. We didn't need IMG in 1996??

So why do we need them now??.  IMG are coming in after the game itself has long been professionalised. They are coming in after the only major broadcaster who would give us a sizeable deal, SKY is now dropping the offers. With respect you can't take the view IMG copped a big Soccer deal for the premier league in 1996 and therefore they will easily, with their great expertise and track record get our SKY deal increased or get another broadcaster to pay what SKY don't want to pay anymore.

On that basis Martin and Michael I can see them being of no value unless they can push SKY deal upwards, keep it the same? or find other well paying deals from other broadcasters to go along with. I'd welcome your considered views??

That is one hell of a hard task, far harder than selling soccer.......

[Martyn Sadler]

55 minutes ago, steve oates said:

So what are the terms of the 12  year deal, What have we paid up front??

The precise terms of the deal are a closely guarded commercial secret but the RFL hasn't paid anything up front.

Even on the most optimistic assumptions, IMG won't get a return in the first two years of the agreement.

[The 4 of Us]

UFC is a pretty good example of what IMG have involved themselves via a shared interest in the owner Endeavor. 
 

Sincw their involvement in 2016 it looks like revenue has increaesed 50% and is currently above $1Billion 

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/platform/amp/2022/6/10/23155850/documents-show-ufc-now-makes-over-1-billion-a-year-minimal-costs-and-more-growth-expected

[whatmichaelsays]

42 minutes ago, steve oates said:

I'd welcome your considered views??

 

I've given them. 

Nobody is saying that this is an easy thing to solve. Also, nobody is saying that our only measure of success should be soccer. What we're talking about here is driving incremental growth, using tactics and strategies that RL has so-far shown that it doesn't really have the expertise or resources to take advantage of. The fact the IMG have skin in the game on this is a good thing. 

Referring back to the mid-90s is irrelevant to this discussion. The people involved in RL are different, the environment in which we have to sell the sport is different, the needs and expectations of consumers are different and what works and doesn't work are different. It feels like one of those points where people blame decline in CC Final attendances on the fact that there aren't any pub or working men's club trips anymore - even though that pub and club culture hasn't existed for more than a quarter of a century. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, steve oates said:

 

My view coincides with the Superleague club owners who do not think IMG are worth a penny.  Should they "Shut up"??

 

I think you're confusing gainshare pricing models with "not paid a penny".

IMG don't need the business, they're not working for free they're working for equity. It's not uncommon, I have contracts where we do that. They're choosing to be rewarded this way because they believe strongly in both the opportunity and their capability, so feel its how they'll end up getting more money across the 12 years.

[steve oates]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I've given them. 

 

Thank you.....

[steve oates]

56 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

IMG don't need the business, they're not working for free they're working for equity. It's not uncommon, I have contracts where we do that. They're choosing to be rewarded this way because they believe strongly in both the opportunity and their capability, so feel its how they'll end up getting more money across the 12 years.

Thank you....

What is the "opportunity" over the next 12 years?. 

My take may be naive, but I see it as the the opportunity to perhaps reverse the decline in the SKY deal at least or take the opportunity to sell Superleague rights to another broadcaster for a greater amount of money than SKY offer?

[The 4 of Us]

Maybe, just maybe IMG have some experience and expertise to draw on and they have some views about how they could grow the equity in the game apart from simple TV contracts.

if they do a UFC with the sport, who knows where it ends. 
 

They clearly have a view because they seen willing to put the time and effort in. 

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

Maybe, just maybe IMG have some experience and expertise to draw on and they have some views about how they could grow the equity in the game apart from simple TV contracts.

if they do a UFC with the sport, who knows where it ends. 
 

They clearly have a view because they seen willing to put the time and effort in. 

How have UFC grown financially ? , Where has it come from ?

[steve oates]

8 hours ago, RP London said:

I'd agree with a lot of this. I would guess, but only a guess, that much of the consultation will be around "do you know what this is?" to the wider public and about grabbing the attention. Rather than a wholesale name change I can see it being much more about the demarcation of a new era and trying to get it out to people almost as something "new", a relaunch etc, to re ignite the imagination and interest. 

In isolation it looks like "fluff" but done along with other changes this sort of thing can be the icing on the cake that really helps make it stand out.

Can't leave you out, as you seem to see additional value coming not just through finding a new bigger broadcasting investor now SKY seem to be losing interest, but rather through a "Re-launch" that will attract thousands more fans".

I would guess that if the game's relaunch did attract thousands more fans, that could include fans who will not necessarily go to games but would subscribe to watch on TV, so TV audiences could rise justifying a better deal from SKY.

More interest whether through the gate or on TV............A double Whammy perhaps.........??

[Tommygilf]

57 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

How have UFC grown financially ? , Where has it come from ?

New audiences essentially. A decade ago it was a niche/fringe sport. Now its very hard to escape and in key money spending and social media relevant audiences it is ever increasing its presence. Its now far more mainstream than a decade ago.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

Thank you....

What is the "opportunity" over the next 12 years?. 

My take may be naive, but I see it as the the opportunity to perhaps reverse the decline in the SKY deal at least or take the opportunity to sell Superleague rights to another broadcaster for a greater amount of money than SKY offer?

That is merely an outcome. IMGs involvement is based on far more than a single TV deal.

[GUBRATS]

33 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

New audiences essentially. A decade ago it was a niche/fringe sport. Now its very hard to escape and in key money spending and social media relevant audiences it is ever increasing its presence. Its now far more mainstream than a decade ago.

Where is it ' on ' ?

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Where is it ' on ' ?

Streaming, via their own and other platforms like DAZN, PPV, "Traditional Box Office" PPV channels, I believe BT Sports also have a deal with them in the UK and Ireland. ESPN have the rights in the US iirc.

[The 4 of Us]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Where is it ' on ' ?

Do you not partake of search engines? 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, The 4 of Us said:

Do you not partake of search engines? 

What are them ? 

I'll strip down and rebuild an engine , started that when I was fifteen

Edited December 21, 2022 by GUBRATS

[DI Keith Fowler]

49 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

What are them ? 

I'll strip down and rebuild an engine , started that when I was fifteen

Must be one complicated engine.