IMG Grading Unveiled

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

That's why I'd go with regions tbh. North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, Greater London, West Midlands, North East and the South West are covered and at least get the point across without being as you say unduly unfair to some just because of the decisions of 1974. These are broadly coterminous with the economic areas, save for Sheffield who may take sligh umbridge at losing some of its "city region" to its south.

Yes that makes more sense.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Damien said:

Yes that makes more sense.

Were also fortunate, or unfortunate, that most clubs won't claim any support from outside those regions.

[Guest]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Or London !!!

Once again you need to be reminded that I do not support London and don't even live in the UK anymore.

[Derwent Parker]

4 minutes ago, NW10LDN said:

Those clubs get the most money because they draw viewers. Shocking to see how many people within rugby league don't understand sports rights. Sky/C4 won't be agreeing to any deal which sees funding for the SL clubs slashed in favour of Fev or Keighley. 

But Fev and Keighley etc would have better teams with 2M every year? etc and would still provide class  rugby which by the way is still played at lower levels.

 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Or London !!!

Hey Harry, are we happy with the predictions being right on what IMG will go for and how the grades within grades will look?

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Derwent Parker said:

But Fev and Keighley etc would have better teams with 2M every year? etc and would still provide class  rugby which by the way is still played at lower levels.

 

They'd have better teams than they do now, but not necessarily better than what is already there. Which is rather the point.

[Derwent Parker]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Firstly they don't get £2 million a season.

Secondly they all contribute to the content that earns that TV contract.

Thirdly, it isn't a gift.

########

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Derwent Parker said:

########

I'm shocked at the complexity and dexterity of your response.

[Just Browny]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That's why I'd go with regions tbh. North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, Greater London, West Midlands, North East and the South West are covered and at least get the point across without being as you say unduly unfair to some just because of the decisions of 1974. These are broadly coterminous with the economic areas, save for Sheffield who may take sligh umbridge at losing some of its "city region" to its south.

I think I'd split Yorkshire somehow. Hull aren't taking any fans off Leeds, or vice versa. You can throw a towel over Wigan, Wire, Leigh, Widnes and Saints.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Just Browny

[MattSantos]

25 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

And as I've always thought when talk of "wealth redistribution" is spoken about, what do you do when there is no wealth?

Lets be clear, that is where the sport is currently. 3 Super League clubs can't afford to spend the cap either through a benefactor or their own revenues. At least 2 more would struggle to do so without said benefactors. 

If all clubs, or at least the majority, are pushing towards a common goal of growing, then even those totally opposed to any idea will benefit from it. 

The Elite will be what brings in the money into the game, firstly through Super League, then Internationals, then the Challenge cup, then the Championship and so on.

Some people thought the Championship would bring in a good amount of TV money, and logically Super League would bring in more but both would be a sign of a healthy position. That evidently has not happened at all, and so a different path is being taken.

Adhering to and striving for these standards will benefit any club that tries it. But they won't turn clubs into entities they aren't or possibly cannot be. 

Are you a 

 

27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

And as I've always thought when talk of "wealth redistribution" is spoken about, what do you do when there is no wealth?

Lets be clear, that is where the sport is currently. 3 Super League clubs can't afford to spend the cap either through a benefactor or their own revenues. At least 2 more would struggle to do so without said benefactors. 

If all clubs, or at least the majority, are pushing towards a common goal of growing, then even those totally opposed to any idea will benefit from it. 

The Elite will be what brings in the money into the game, firstly through Super League, then Internationals, then the Challenge cup, then the Championship and so on.

Some people thought the Championship would bring in a good amount of TV money, and logically Super League would bring in more but both would be a sign of a healthy position. That evidently has not happened at all, and so a different path is being taken.

Adhering to and striving for these standards will benefit any club that tries it. But they won't turn clubs into entities they aren't or possibly cannot be. 

It's more money to those at the 'elite' level. Any money generated will stay there. There isn't the mechanism or indeed a plan to share wealth amongst the Championship and then down into the communities etc. This isn't the NFL..

Do the proposals make sense, yes. To those clubs who it makes sense for, it really does and yes, stronger clubs should be the result and that can only be a good thing. But, to consider it as a boon to the whole game is laughable and tantamount* to trickle down economics. 

Internationals aren't covered by IMG are they? A plan in this space such as an international calendar and the consequential redistribution of wealth  is a potential 'whole game solution'. The IMG stuff isn't this and people should call that out.

*tantamount. What a good word!

 

 

 

 

They aren't looking at Internationals, but i'm happy to be told im wrong here. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

But Fev and Keighley etc would have better teams with 2M every year? etc and would still provide class  rugby which by the way is still played at lower levels.

 

They won't get 2m a year off Sky or C4 when the next rights deal is up. Broadcasters care about how big the potential interest in the club is and the facilities.

[Derwent Parker]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm shocked at the complexity and dexterity of your response.

your welcome

[thecoffeeman]

I always like to read these things to the end. 

It's both a very good press release and a poor one at the same time.

It's good in that it's grammatically correct, but poor in that the real story is tucked away at the end. 

The RFL need a real cultural shift to get basics like this right if IMG are to be allowed to make any money for the sport.

This is the final paragraph:

 

"Meanwhile, IMG sister company and cultural marketing agency 160over90 expects to complete the wider rebrand of the Men’s and Women’s Super League competitions later this year ahead of the 2024 season launch."

[Ragingbull]

4 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I think I'd split Yorkshire somehow. Hull aren't taking any fans off Leeds, or vice versa. You can throw a towel over Wigan, Wire, Leigh, Widnes and Saints.

Kick Warrington out. No chance they are ever going to win it anyway so its pointless them being there.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Just Browny said:

I think I'd split Yorkshire somehow. Hull aren't taking any fans off Leeds, or vice versa.

Yeah I get that, it is one area I did consider but for the simplicity of existing divisions tbh.

It would probably really benefit the Hull Clubs however, who could share the 1.2 million or so in Humberside and leave the other 5 or 6 million or so to the rest. 

Again though this is for at most, 10% of the available marks. With my former tutoring hat on I'd be saying "give it 10% of the time and no more before you move on, there's more important questions in the exam".

[MattSantos]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Again though this is for at most, 10% of the available marks. With my former tutoring hat on I'd be saying "give it 10% of the time and no more before you move on, there's more important questions in the exam".

I'm sorry, but this is pish.

I've just gone through a very similar grading process with work and in partnership with a Corporate, offered their banking piece to a new bank who won the 'tender' by around 3%. it's the small stuff that won it for them. That's billions of dollars of flow and millions of revenue per year to that bank.

% points matter. They hugely matter. 

We're not talking a 3 hour window here in which clubs have to get stuff right. Again, % points matter. Ask Dave Brailsford.

 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Are you a 

 

It's more money to those at the 'elite' level. Any money generated will stay there. There isn't the mechanism or indeed a plan to share wealth amongst the Championship and then down into the communities etc. This isn't the NFL..

Do the proposals make sense, yes. To those clubs who it makes sense for, it really does and yes, stronger clubs should be the result and that can only be a good thing. But, to consider it as a boon to the whole game is laughable and tantamount* to trickle down economics. 

Internationals aren't covered by IMG are they? A plan in this space such as an international calendar and the consequential redistribution of wealth  is a potential 'whole game solution'. The IMG stuff isn't this and people should call that out.

*tantamount. What a good word!

 

 

 

 

They aren't looking at Internationals, but i'm happy to be told im wrong here. 

Your initial question appears to have been mistyped, am I a what?

Money has always trickled down from the elite level of the game. The biggest Super League contract ever saw well over £1 million a season going into League 1 alone. the top 4 in the championship took home over £2 million a season between them. But if Super League cannot wash its own face, nobody gets anything - that is the stark reality the game faces. If Leeds Rhinos suffer, it'll be Bramley and Hunslet going to the wall, oh wait, that has happened before because the game's elite level wasn't strong enough to support the wider sport. Its not implicit trickle down economics, its explicit.

I mentioned internationals because they should be a prime asset for the game like the Cup and to a lesser financial extent the championship. The cold hard cash amount coming into the central pot from all these areas however is near enough nothing. That can only change if everyone starts pulling in a growth first direction - some will never have a ceiling high enough to compete at the full time level.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

I'm sorry, but this is pish.

I've just gone through a very similar grading process with work and in partnership with a Corporate, offered their banking piece to a new bank who won the 'tender' by around 3%. it's the small stuff that won it for them. That's billions of dollars of flow and millions of revenue per year to that bank.

% points matter. They hugely matter. 

We're not talking a 3 hour window here in which clubs have to get stuff right. Again, % points matter. Ask Dave Brailsford.

1% 'ers for Mr Brailsford seems to have involved some unscrupulous practices...

I stand by my point. If there are 10 marks on offer for one thing and 25 for another, the 25 marker is far more important to do well in.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

1% 'ers for Mr Brailsford seems to have involved some unscrupulous practices...

It was all down to nutrition and special zips.

[Pie tries]

I like it.

Plans encourage ambition within a transparent structure.

International game remain biggest are being woefully unexploited. seven years since we played Aus - I was in the 92 Lions tour (non playing !)….when is the next?

[Griff]

16 minutes ago, Ragingbull said:

Kick Warrington out. No chance they are ever going to win it anyway so its pointless them being there.

Au contraire. This is Warrington's year.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

It was all down to nutrition and special zips.

The pillows! The pillows!

[MattSantos]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Your initial question appears to have been mistyped, am I a what?

Money has always trickled down from the elite level of the game. The biggest Super League contract ever saw well over £1 million a season going into League 1 alone. the top 4 in the championship took home over £2 million a season between them. But if Super League cannot wash its own face, nobody gets anything - that is the stark reality the game faces. If Leeds Rhinos suffer, it'll be Bramley and Hunslet going to the wall, oh wait, that has happened before because the game's elite level wasn't strong enough to support the wider sport. Its not implicit trickle down economics, its explicit.

I mentioned internationals because they should be a prime asset for the game like the Cup and to a lesser financial extent the championship. The cold hard cash amount coming into the central pot from all these areas however is near enough nothing. That can only change if everyone starts pulling in a growth first direction - some will never have a ceiling high enough to compete at the full time level.

Are you a..  Was "Are you against doing FX at spot?." I'm operating 2 screens and frankly, i don't have the skills for 1. 

I have a different view on whether the cash trickles down. I don't believe it does. I believe it gets wasted by incompetence. Look at Wakey's and Cas's stadiums... 

The cold hard cash coming in from Internationals is rubbish, yes. A 'whole game solution' aims to fix this and puts a plan in place to ensure sustainability and the distribution of wealth to promote growth. This plan isnt this and to your own point is to make the game elite level richer. There's nothing wrong with that, i just take umbridge at the notion that this is good for the whole game*

 

*Caveat, it may be good for the game as getting rid of clubs like Swinton, Oldham, Dewsbury et al from the 'professional' pyramid may be actually good for the game in the long run... that's a different debate. 

[MattSantos]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

1% 'ers for Mr Brailsford seems to have involved some unscrupulous practices...

I stand by my point. If there are 10 marks on offer for one thing and 25 for another, the 25 marker is far more important to do well in.

Unscrupulous or not. They absolutely matter, hence the nature in which they were achieved.

I'd rather not be flippant about the 10 and do both.. 

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It was all down to nutrition and special zips.

'Nutrition and special zips'. Sounds like an early Elbow song. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

I have a different view on whether the cash trickles down. I don't believe it does.

But it does.

The central funding that every club outside Super League gets? That comes primarily from the Super League TV deal and sponsorships.