IMG Grading Unveiled

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

6 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Do Championship clubs give any of their TV deal to League One?

Yes. They're paid a packet of crisps and two lemon sherberts, and they give one of the lemon sherberts to League One.

[Chrispmartha]

14 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

That is what I suggested when I mentioned this earlier. Hypothetical CFs [could be 1.5/1/0.5 etc]

Cat A- all get 2M as they do know - and SL safety 

Cat B - all get 1.3M

Cat C - all get same - something sensible but not crumbs

This will be more fair and the Bs that swap between SL and Champ will not lose their CF

and when income rises give the Categories a % across the board.

Make the step from A to B same as B to C [could be 1.5/1/0.5 etc]

Again where are you getting this £2m from?

What you are suggesting is making the P&R battle the most competitive in turn making the top of the tree less competitive.

[steve oates]

14 hours ago, Oxford said:

Thread after thread, page after page, post after post bringing out the best in people and their supposed shared passion. If IMG had decided to create a disunified sport, which they didn't of course, it couldn't have been more successful. IMG is necessary so that we don't keep cocking it up, but there's no guarantee they won't or haven't already.

IMG may be necessary, but certainly not for preventing us "cocking it up".  We haven't done too badly over the 27 years of Superleague in terms of organising the clubs into whatever league formats we have decided to try, go with, or reject. The expertise is certainly not with IMG, so what use are they really?

For some on here they are the Messiah, who will solve all our ills and organise the game such that crowds and TV revenues will go on an upward trend. No chance. For me they are there as supposedly third party "experts" to cast an un-bias eye over game, and steer it in the best direction for all, probably because the clubs are at a stage where they maybe can't agree anything on their own. 

But the idea from IMG the game may not promote a club from the Championship if they didn't score well enough off the pitch and someone else will be picked (say from 6th place) blows a big hole in the whole thing. Not that the A clubs would care, except for Hetherington. That madness should be enough to signal IMG aren't the ones to solve the games "problems"............

[Derwent Parker]

38 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

"Gifted" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Sky pay media rights for a product. The clubs that create that product receive money, in order to create the product. 

Would you have it shared equally amongst all the clubs? Do you think Sky would pay for the part-time, semi-pro Super League product you'd have as a result? The result of your alternative distribution of TV rights money would be... no TV rights money any more. I guess we'd all be finally equal though eh. 

 

Sky pay money for the rights to show the sport.

They dont insist it has to be only to those 12.

The money when it first came in should have been split more equal, but it wasn't and now the game AS A WHOLE is suffering apart from those 12 - I have never implied that the L1 teams should have the same as SL teams but not the huge disparity we have now. The Gap is far too big between Leagues to the extent that if you get relegated you could/will suffer, if you dont get back immediately.

The game in the few years before the Sky money was just as good as it is now. Apart from the change to Summer which means we play on better pitches - well usually.

You State "The clubs that create that product receive money" but I say it also reads vice versa "The clubs that receive the money can  then create that product"

People on here keep stating The top 12 are the elite so they get the money or these are the strongest 12.

I said they are the strongest 12 because they get that money.

If Sky stopped all the money tomorrow and you or others are on here stating in 5 or 10 years time that "The top 12 are the elite and are the strongest 12" and they are doing it on a level playing field THEN you will be correct

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, steve oates said:

IMG may be necessary, but certainly not for preventing us "cocking it up".  We haven't done too badly over the 27 years of Superleague in terms of organising the clubs into whatever league formats we have decided to try, go with, or reject. The expertise is certainly not with IMG, so what use are they really?

For some on here they are the Messiah, who will solve all our ills and organise the game such that crowds and TV revenues will go on an upward trend. No chance. For me they are there as supposedly third party "experts" to cast an un-bias eye over game, and steer it in the best direction for all, probably because the clubs are at a stage where they maybe can't agree anything on their own. 

But the idea from IMG the game may not promote a club from the Championship if they didn't score well enough off the pitch and someone else will be picked (say from 6th place) blows a big hole in the whole thing. Not that the A clubs would care, except for Hetherington. That madness should be enough to signal IMG aren't the ones to solve the games "problems"............

I’ve not seen anyone close to saying they are the Messiah.

IMG are involved to provide what they think is the best way to grow the sport - it’s up to the clubs whether they do that, IMG are not here to do the clubs work for them.

[Derwent Parker]

54 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Is this £2m figure you keep stating the actual figure?

or the £20k for that matter

No - It varies depending on whom you ask - not seen it written down.

But you know what they refer to very very large and very very low in comparison.

If it wasn't anywhere near that - you wouldn't want to "Pull up the drawbridge " whenever anybody suggest anything that threatens it?

Edited March 23, 2023 by Derwent Parker

[Chrispmartha]

7 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Sky pay money for the rights to show the sport.

They dont insist it has to be only to those 12.

The money when it first came in should have been split more equal, but it wasn't and now the game AS A WHOLE is suffering apart from those 12 - I have never implied that the L1 teams should have the same as SL teams but not the huge disparity we have now. The Gap is far too big between Leagues to the extent that if you get relegated you could/will suffer, if you dont get back immediately.

The game in the few years before the Sky money was just as good as it is now. Apart from the change to Summer which means we play on better pitches - well usually.

You State "The clubs that create that product receive money" but I say it also reads vice versa "The clubs that receive the money can  then create that product"

People on here keep stating The top 12 are the elite so they get the money or these are the strongest 12.

I said they are the strongest 12 because they get that money.

If Sky stopped all the money tomorrow and you or others are on here stating in 5 or 10 years time that "The top 12 are the elite and are the strongest 12" and they are doing it on a level playing field THEN you will be correct

Erm, no the point is the SL is the elite of the sport, not necessarily the teams within it.

Thats the whole point in the grading system to try and get the best teams in it and by best I mean the best clubs that are run correctly, not just the teams that spend all their money on players to get promoted.

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

No - It varies depending on whom you ask - not seen it written down.

But you know what they refer to very very large and very very low in comparison.

If it wasn't anywhere near that - you wouldn't want to "Pull up the drawbridge " whenever anybody suggest anything that threatens it?

Where have I Suggested pulling up the drawbridge? 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

45 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I think it's perfectly possible that Featherstone could be as strong as Cas or Wakefield had they been in Super League from the start, with the same funding. It wouldn't be fair to argue otherwise.

But I don't think the sport needs 3 teams from the same tight geographic area in a 12 team league, if it is to maximise its broadcast attractiveness or commercial value. Complexities like that are what IMG are trying to factor in with the grading system. 

The top division is full of teams in tight geographical areas, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leigh with Salford in spitting distance, Hull and Hull KR, Huddersfield, Leeds, Cas and Wakey.  Yet you think adding Featherstone to that mix will reduce its broadcast attractiveness.  Seriously?

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

The top division is full of teams in tight geographical areas, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leigh with Salford in spitting distance, Hull and Hull KR, Huddersfield, Leeds, Cas and Wakey.  Yet you think adding Featherstone to that mix will reduce its broadcast attractiveness.  Seriously?

He didn’t say it would reduce it, but would it add to it?

[Derwent Parker]

26 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Again where are you getting this £2m from?

What you are suggesting is making the P&R battle the most competitive in turn making the top of the tree less competitive.

The top of the tree really isn't that competitive - only 4 teams have won in almost 30 years [and one of them is out of contention at present] so its usually between 3 teams!

I am thinking of the game as a whole - it appears you are not

[The Phantom Horseman]

59 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I think it's perfectly possible that Featherstone could be as strong as Cas or Wakefield had they been in Super League from the start, with the same funding. It wouldn't be fair to argue otherwise.

But I don't think the sport needs 3 teams from the same tight geographic area in a 12 team league, if it is to maximise its broadcast attractiveness or commercial value. Complexities like that are what IMG are trying to factor in with the grading system. 

If it's to maximise its broadcast attractiveness or commericial value the sport presumably doesn't need two teams from an even tighter geographic area such as Hull, so it's bye-bye to the lesser-supported team from that region too, right?

[Derwent Parker]

9 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Where have I Suggested pulling up the drawbridge? 

Its a term for a very very strong defence whenever anyone puts a comment out suggesting change to CF or P & R , but I think you know that.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

The top of the tree really isn't that competitive - only 4 teams have won in almost 30 years [and one of them is out of contention at present] so its usually between 3 teams!

I am thinking of the game as a whole - it appears you are not

And you want to make that competition at the top worse not better.

I am thinking of the whole game, that’s the point, you are thinking of hobbling the top to benefit those at the middle, making the top tier better is better for the whole game, that’s exactly the point.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Its a term for a very very strong defence whenever anyone puts a comment out suggesting change to CF or P & R , but I think you know that.

No you are claiming i want a closed shop for SL when I don’t.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

8 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Sky pay money for the rights to show the sport.

They dont insist it has to be only to those 12.

The money when it first came in should have been split more equal, but it wasn't and now the game AS A WHOLE is suffering apart from those 12 - I have never implied that the L1 teams should have the same as SL teams but not the huge disparity we have now. The Gap is far too big between Leagues to the extent that if you get relegated you could/will suffer, if you dont get back immediately.

The game in the few years before the Sky money was just as good as it is now. Apart from the change to Summer which means we play on better pitches - well usually.

You State "The clubs that create that product receive money" but I say it also reads vice versa "The clubs that receive the money can  then create that product"

People on here keep stating The top 12 are the elite so they get the money or these are the strongest 12.

I said they are the strongest 12 because they get that money.

If Sky stopped all the money tomorrow and you or others are on here stating in 5 or 10 years time that "The top 12 are the elite and are the strongest 12" and they are doing it on a level playing field THEN you will be correct

Pretty much all Super League clubs run at a loss, or break even at best. If you cut their funding to distribute more money to other pro and semi-pro sides then the product would not be as good, because the players, the coaching and the development pathways funded by those media rights would not be as good. We will then be in a vicious cycle of declining media rights payments, and the slow (or not so slow) death of rugby league as a pro sport. 

Your priority is cutting our now smaller cake more "fairly". Whereas I think our much more important strategic priority as a sport is to improve Super League, in order to charge more money for the media rights, which we can then use to fund more generous distributions to other organisations in the game beyond the Top 12 clubs. 

That is the only way we can reliably get more funding for lower league and community clubs in the future. It's wishful thinking to think we can just reduce Super League funding and that not have consequences for future media revenues. When Super League was getting £40m instead of £25m, more money was being cascaded down the pyramid than is now. 

 

 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

14 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

The top division is full of teams in tight geographical areas, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leigh with Salford in spitting distance, Hull and Hull KR, Huddersfield, Leeds, Cas and Wakey.  Yet you think adding Featherstone to that mix will reduce its broadcast attractiveness.  Seriously?

Straws and camels backs spring to mind, yes. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Pretty much all Super League clubs run at a loss, or break even at best. If you cut their funding to distribute more money to other pro and semi-pro sides then the product would not be as good, because the players, the coaching and the development pathways funded by those media rights would not be as good. We will then be in a vicious cycle of declining media rights payments, and the slow (or not so slow) death of rugby league as a pro sport. 

Your priority is cutting our now smaller cake more "fairly". Whereas I think our much more important strategic priority as a sport is to improve Super League, in order to charge more money for the media rights, which we can then use to fund more generous distributions to other organisations in the game beyond the Top 12 clubs. 

That is the only way we can reliably get more funding for lower league and community clubs in the future. It's wishful thinking to think we can just reduce Super League funding and that not have consequences for future media revenues. When Super League was getting £40m instead of £25m, more money was being cascaded down the pyramid than is now. 

 

 

Exactly you don’t grow the sport by making your premium product worse.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

8 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

If it's to maximise its broadcast attractiveness or commericial value the sport presumably doesn't need two teams from an even tighter geographic area such as Hull, so it's bye-bye to the lesser-supported team from that region too, right?

I haven't suggested cutting one of the two Wakefield sides, so your implied charge of hypocrisy doesn't hold water. I make you a firm commitment: If someone starts up a 3rd pro team in Hull, I will relentlessly oppose their entry to the top 12. 

[Adelaide Tiger]

8 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

No - It varies depending on whom you ask - not seen it written down.

But you know what they refer to very very large and very very low in comparison.

If it wasn't anywhere near that - you wouldn't want to "Pull up the drawbridge " whenever anybody suggest anything that threatens it?

I saw the figure written down recently.  Prior to a recent SKY game Jon Wells provided an analysis based on why some clubs do not spend up to the salary cap.

IIRC the screen shot showed- £2.1m salary cap, £1.5m income from SKY.  The bottom line was that every club had to find £600k to meet the SC as well as fund the money to run off field operations.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

23 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

He didn’t say it would reduce it, but would it add to it?

I've no idea, where can I look up the value of what each individual club brings to the deal?

[glossop saint]

55 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Again where are you getting this £2m from?

What you are suggesting is making the P&R battle the most competitive in turn making the top of the tree less competitive.

Yet complains about Saints and Wigan winning everything and no variation at the top. The holes in the logic are obvious. In 90% of their arguments. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

I've no idea, where can I look up the value of what each individual club brings to the deal?

Wait for the gradings

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

12 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I haven't suggested cutting one of the two Wakefield sides, so your implied charge of hypocrisy doesn't hold water. I make you a firm commitment: If someone starts up a 3rd pro team in Hull, I will relentlessly oppose their entry to the top 12. 

Irony?

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

I've no idea, where can I look up the value of what each individual club brings to the deal?

You can't. The value that each individual club brings to the deal is fairly small and much less than SL TV income / 12.