IMG proposals

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

15 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Yes good solid clip but I thought the music could have been a bit catchier maybe stirring.

BTW, I think I saw the tiniest of knock-ons in that try at the 1.30 minute mark.

Yeah I agree on the 'stirring music' thingy, I'm a sucker for that. Want to build up to an explosion, one of those things that makes you want to jump up, stick some facepaint on and go out and punch someone 

[The Rocket]

3 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Yeah I agree on the 'stirring music' thingy, I'm a sucker for that. Want to build up to an explosion, one of those things that makes you want to jump up, stick some facepaint on and go out and punch someone 

Crikey, I`ll just settle for goosebumps !!

[Guest]

Faithless... RIP Maxi Jazz. 

[The Future is League]

The very latest proposals.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/15/rugby-league-revolution-as-img-prepares-to-rip-it-up-and-start-again

[Oxford]

From the last sentence in the article

"On the field it will be as thrilling and entertaining as ever, ...."

I think we'll all feel and be alot better for the season kicking off.

"Blow that whistle REF!"

 

[Man of Kent]

8 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Not a different bit. Think the whole point of the IMG deal is that we use the whole of their stable, using the right teams there for the right stuff. Whoever does the promos for Channel 4 will be the people doing promos and other video content for us in other scenarios. You can see the content recycling from earlier snippets in this video, for example, including from the controversially rugby-less "League" one the other week. 

I fully expect the next Sky deal will involve IMG picking up production duties for them too, effectively bringing that in-house so we control quality, with Sky (and other Superleague broadcasters) acting as the distributor rather than the producer. Lot of synergies in doing this across multiple media partners, but the main reason is us controlling how we present the sport. 

 

I’m with you, chief, but the IMG production company is separate from the bit of IMG in RL Commercial. 

[gingerjon]

10 hours ago, Copa said:

A 20/20 cricket match is still much longer than a rugby league game.

And the most valuable and most watched T20 league is the one with the longest games.

[RP London]

 

11 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Not a different bit. Think the whole point of the IMG deal is that we use the whole of their stable, using the right teams there for the right stuff. Whoever does the promos for Channel 4 will be the people doing promos and other video content for us in other scenarios. You can see the content recycling from earlier snippets in this video, for example, including from the controversially rugby-less "League" one the other week. 

I fully expect the next Sky deal will involve IMG picking up production duties for them too, effectively bringing that in-house so we control quality, with Sky (and other Superleague broadcasters) acting as the distributor rather than the producer. Lot of synergies in doing this across multiple media partners, but the main reason is us controlling how we present the sport. 

 

Out of interest how would a change like that affect the money on offer. Arguably more TV companies could come in to bid as they would have little outlay in terms of logistics, they are just buying content, which would be appealing (you would think) but even if we were to stay with Sky do we get more automatically because they are not having to spend on production? (never worked in the industry so have no idea if this would affect things like this in a meaningful way).

[Sports Prophet]

On 14/02/2023 at 15:36, Jughead said:

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/challenge-cup-set-radical-change-26222953

Read this all before. 

I’ve been an advocate of a group stage for the last 16 for years.

If executed correctly, this change will be to benefit of the RFL, the clubs, the television companies, the sponsors and the fans. 

Next, we’ll see the RLIF announce a Super 6s group stage prior to semi finals or a Final for France 25.

[Tommygilf]

22 minutes ago, RP London said:

 

Out of interest how would a change like that affect the money on offer. Arguably more TV companies could come in to bid as they would have little outlay in terms of logistics, they are just buying content, which would be appealing (you would think) but even if we were to stay with Sky do we get more automatically because they are not having to spend on production? (never worked in the industry so have no idea if this would affect things like this in a meaningful way).

I think its a good step which is why most top sports leagues have moved to do this. It makes selling your content so much easier, as you own it and produce it. 

With the range of interested parties, plus OuRLeague being a semi reliable substitute, it looks extremely positive. 6 games a week spread across Sky, Ch4, OuRLeague and others (such as the beeb), and you've got a good set up. Likely Sky will take on more games too as their production costs are reduced; just as they have with Catalans home games.

[Sports Prophet]

8 hours ago, The Future is League said:

The very latest proposals.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/15/rugby-league-revolution-as-img-prepares-to-rip-it-up-and-start-again

I’m not sure this article adds anything does it? Apart from a vague idea that a short sided event could replace Magic Weekend.

[Damien]

13 hours ago, Copa said:

A 20/20 cricket match is still much longer than a rugby league game.

There is nothing wrong with the length of a rugby league game. 80 mins isn't a long period of time at all and is pretty much the perfect length to captivate attention.

[fighting irish]

11 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Yeah I agree on the 'stirring music' thingy, I'm a sucker for that. Want to build up to an explosion, one of those things that makes you want to jump up, stick some facepaint on and go out and punch someone 

I know a good therapist.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

37 minutes ago, RP London said:

 

Out of interest how would a change like that affect the money on offer. Arguably more TV companies could come in to bid as they would have little outlay in terms of logistics, they are just buying content, which would be appealing (you would think) but even if we were to stay with Sky do we get more automatically because they are not having to spend on production? (never worked in the industry so have no idea if this would affect things like this in a meaningful way).

Sky would factor their production cost savings into the price they’d be prepared to pay for content. So pay more, but we’d have overhead our side. Don’t really see a particular finance angle to this when it all nets out, the upside for us is control the decision for Sky is the classic outsource dilemma - do they value simplicity and moving cost risk over to a 3rd party, over some loss of control in content creation.

They obviously already do outsource some programming production, but who knows how they’d see this scenario. Be interesting to see how it plays out. 

[redjonn]

16 hours ago, Dave T said:

The stated aim is to expand the number of teams in SL, so I think the above is a little misguided. But it will only be done when there are enough strong teams.

understand the point but their is a sort of catch 22... need the TV monies to help towards building a stronger squad, so without putting the clubs in SL and hence more TV monies they struggle to have stronger teams.

Although this is a separate debate and I shouldn't have added it tas it distracts from my first comments on group CC.

[DI Keith Fowler]

I think if the Sky games came under our control we'd probably still seek to have some kind of difference in production styles between those and the C4 games. The C4 games can be more irreverent, relaxed, summer festival type affairs and the Sky games can be more box office, under the lights, more serious and intense. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, DI Keith Fowler said:

I think if the Sky games came under our control we'd probably still seek to have some kind of difference in production styles between those and the C4 games. The C4 games can be more irreverent, relaxed, summer festival type affairs and the Sky games can be more box office, under the lights, more serious and intense. 

I think you would see that, it is just the filming and potentially the commentary for some regions that would be centrally controlled.

Think the differences between the Premier League on Sky, BT and Amazon

[DI Keith Fowler]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think you would see that, it is just the filming and potentially the commentary for some regions that would be centrally controlled.

Think the differences between the Premier League on Sky, BT and Amazon

I think IMG do the entirety of the C4 production, I don't think we'd be looking to just film it we'd be looking to do the entire production, pre-match, post-match and trailers. 

I'm more saying we'd probably look to insert an artificial distinction between the production on both channels even though they'll likely be made by the exact same team behind the scenes. 

[Jughead]

24 minutes ago, Damien said:

There is nothing wrong with the length of a rugby league game. 80 mins isn't a long period of time at all and is pretty much the perfect length to captivate attention.

This. There’s a lot wrong with the way in which we present those 80 minutes and attempt (or in some cases, don’t) to captivate audiences and interest. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

26 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I know a good therapist.

I won't ask why 

[RP London]

25 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Sky would factor their production cost savings into the price they’d be prepared to pay for content. So pay more, but we’d have overhead our side. Don’t really see a particular finance angle to this when it all nets out, the upside for us is control the decision for Sky is the classic outsource dilemma - do they value simplicity and moving cost risk over to a 3rd party, over some loss of control in content creation.

They obviously already do outsource some programming production, but who knows how they’d see this scenario. Be interesting to see how it plays out. 

Thanks and to @Tommygilffor his response too. Pretty much what a assumed to be honest. 

The main reason for wondering was also about putting "bids" into perspective in exactly the way you mention that our costs would be going up. So increase in TV rights income has to be balanced.. however, the obvious bonus is there is more content to sell and use. therefore overall there could be a real bonus to this. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I’m with you, chief, but the IMG production company is separate from the bit of IMG in RL Commercial. 

I hear you, 100%, I just don't think IMG are as siloed as all that implies? IMG production rolls up into IMG Media, Paul Kelly runs that, signed the RL deal and has fronted some press on it. Like all media and marketing shops, it's a collaborative biz with cross-unit project teams built for a case depending on the tasks. Either way, an IMG team of some form made it and that's all I meant really. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

Thanks and to @Tommygilffor his response too. Pretty much what a assumed to be honest. 

The main reason for wondering was also about putting "bids" into perspective in exactly the way you mention that our costs would be going up. So increase in TV rights income has to be balanced.. however, the obvious bonus is there is more content to sell and use. therefore overall there could be a real bonus to this. 

My own read is that it depends whether Sky Sports sees itself as a platform, a product, or a blend of the two. The media trend is to be a platform, but I think Sky Sports will see themselves as a blend. If so you'd want to produce your core content (the stuff that defines how attractive your platform is), and outsource the peripheral content that fills that out. For Sky that likely means you'd keep Premier League live match core production in-house, but outsource peripheral things like secondary sports (rugby league) or wider content (things like Premier League magazine programmes etc.)

Think when you combine that media trend with sports' rights holders interest in owning their own content in order to build and protect their sporting brand, and recycle content into other channels online and social, then it starts to smell like a win-win when both parties like the same idea.

This is why I like the IMG partnership, it's us as a sport saying to Sky "look lads, we're an innovative sport, evolving in a direction that fits your own strategy". That's the sort of partner that gets more money, because that strategic fit has a value. 

 

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I think IMG do the entirety of the C4 production, I don't think we'd be looking to just film it we'd be looking to do the entire production, pre-match, post-match and trailers. 

I'm more saying we'd probably look to insert an artificial distinction between the production on both channels even though they'll likely be made by the exact same team behind the scenes. 

I'd be surprised if that was the case. As Tommy highlights, there is a model for this already, Premier League football.

Channels would bring their own approach to it, as we are seeing with C4 vs Sky Sports. 

[Man of Kent]

22 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I hear you, 100%, I just don't think IMG are as siloed as all that implies? IMG production rolls up into IMG Media, Paul Kelly runs that, signed the RL deal and has fronted some press on it. Like all media and marketing shops, it's a collaborative biz with cross-unit project teams built for a case depending on the tasks. Either way, an IMG team of some form made it and that's all I meant really. 

Yeah, I just think pointing at a Channel 4 promo and saying 'Look, the IMG deal did that' is a bit misleading.