Owning and Investing in a RL club in an IMG world

[Jughead]

We’ve seen the criteria that the clubs are to be judged upon moving forward and I was wondering how that is going to affect current club owners and their willingness to continue funding a club and whether the criteria is going to make clubs more or less appealing to potential investors. 

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, Jughead said:

We’ve seen the criteria that the clubs are to be judged upon moving forward and I was wondering how that is going to affect current club owners and their willingness to continue funding a club and whether the criteria is going to make clubs more or less appealing to potential investors. 

Which clubs ? 

[Jughead]

12 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Which clubs ? 

Whatever club you’d like. 

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Whatever club you’d like. 

The ones ' in ' , or the ones ' out ' ?

[Jughead]

21 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

The ones ' in ' , or the ones ' out ' ?

Whatever you like. 

The criteria affects those who run a club now and any people who may look to. 

[Griff]

I think we're still a long way from seeing funding a club as being an investment. With maybe a couple of exceptions.

[Chrispmartha]

As an investor would you prefer to invest in something that has defined criteria on which you know you have to achieve to reach or indeed keep top flight status or would you prefer to throw cash at player salaries and hope for the best?

Which is more sustainable?

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

53 minutes ago, Griff said:

I think we're still a long way from seeing funding a club as being an investment. With maybe a couple of exceptions.

Always confuses me in sport this one 

I don't really think many people are really looking to get financial returns ....I'm guessing other benefits like simply the kudos of owning a club are the primary reason for having it 

[Jughead]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

As an investor would you prefer to invest in something that has defined criteria on which you know you have to achieve to reach or indeed keep top flight status or would you prefer to throw cash at player salaries and hope for the best?

Which is more sustainable?

That’s all true. I think the criteria will certainly make some clubs look more attractive than others, too. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

As an investor would you prefer to invest in something that has defined criteria on which you know you have to achieve to reach or indeed keep top flight status or would you prefer to throw cash at player salaries and hope for the best?

Which is more sustainable?

From the people I know, the existing owners less happy about IMG are the one's who struggle to see RL outside the "heartlands" as legitimate. I had a think about what word to use there but legitimate and somehow inauthentic seems to most accurately describe the attitude. This will inevitably expose itself through comments in the media, indeed it already has.

They'll whinge, but they are raging against the flow here. In my experience I've found that the tactics and approaches of some of these men to their other business pursuits won't work here; which naturally frustrates people. There's also somewhat of a frustration that to achieve in this criteria at their club, they are going to need more money than they can put in. For a lot of these men, I think that makes them feel a bit inadequate and thus even more frustrated. Some of these men will walk from their current ventures. Hopefully their clubs are resilient enough to carry on at the given level and draw in new investment. Some will whinge hot air then actually do quite well working towards the criteria. This isn't a negative criticism btw, just my own understanding of how a lot of these men work and their psychology around a club.

The one's who are a bit more open to IMG are in my experience more realistic about where they are as a club and as directors how far they can take the organisation before more investment is needed. That includes those sitting on the C/B border potentially. It's an opportunity to not have to just spend money on 1st team players but to build the whole club and be rewarded accordingly. That in theory should benefit the whole game in an area, not just that club's first team that season.

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

That’s all true. I think the criteria will certainly make some clubs look more attractive than others, too. 

I'd say that's partly the point.

[tuutaisrambo]

Well I think Fev's owner will lose interest if we don't get promotion this year through the play offs cos we've got zero chance under licensing/grading unless Cas and Wakefield go bust.

There's quite a few teams in the same boat.

IMG need to be careful not to kill off the game below Super league level.....there's no point concentrating on the pretty blossoms when the roots of the tree are dead.

I gather funding outside SL will be greatly reduced once the grading era kicks in and it'll be very tough to grow a club when most criteria you are graded on will suffer if you aren't already in SL.

As for investment........I don't think anyone is in Rugby League to make money.........with the lack of an international game and the size of domestic rugby league there's very little scale to grow for even the top clubs unless they can link up with the NRL..........Or switch to Union 

 

 

[whatmichaelsays]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

From the people I know, the existing owners less happy about IMG are the one's who struggle to see RL outside the "heartlands" as legitimate. I had a think about what word to use there but legitimate and somehow inauthentic seems to most accurately describe the attitude. This will inevitably expose itself through comments in the media, indeed it already has.

They'll whinge, but they are raging against the flow here. In my experience I've found that the tactics and approaches of some of these men to their other business pursuits won't work here; which naturally frustrates people. There's also somewhat of a frustration that to achieve in this criteria at their club, they are going to need more money than they can put in. For a lot of these men, I think that makes them feel a bit inadequate and thus even more frustrated. Some of these men will walk from their current ventures. Hopefully their clubs are resilient enough to carry on at the given level and draw in new investment. Some will whinge hot air then actually do quite well working towards the criteria. This isn't a negative criticism btw, just my own understanding of how a lot of these men work and their psychology around a club.

The one's who are a bit more open to IMG are in my experience more realistic about where they are as a club and as directors how far they can take the organisation before more investment is needed. That includes those sitting on the C/B border potentially. It's an opportunity to not have to just spend money on 1st team players but to build the whole club and be rewarded accordingly. That in theory should benefit the whole game in an area, not just that club's first team that season.

I think there's a lot in this. 

I listened to Leeds' "Box 2" podcast with Gary Hetherington yesterday and whilst you do have to take it with a big pinch of "this is the club's own PR", I think there was a lot of honest truth in one thing that GH said - that whilst RL has always been open to change, almost all of that change has been based on opinion and gut feeling, with very little data, research or rigor behind those decisions. Which has usually meant that the way to get things done is not to prove that something is the right thing to do, but to instead just get enough people around to your way of thinking. Perhaps that's why so many of our ideas, changes and concepts don't last. 

People usually don't like having their opinions challenged, especially successful people with a bit of ego (and let's be honest, I don't think you could own a huge community asset like an RL club without being at least a bit egotistical, and you've more often than not got to be successful to get to that position) or people with that "this how we've always done it" mindset, but IMG have come into the sport with that data, research and rigor, and they're challenging - and even disproving - many of those opinions and gut feelings. That is going to jar with some. 

I've said before that I don't think it helps RL that so few of its major stakeholders come from an entertainment or media industry background. We're not selling widgets, and the tactics that many of RL's key figures have used to successfully sell lots of widgets over the years aren't necessarily going to translate to RL. This is why IMG are such an important partner. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by whatmichaelsays

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

IMG need to be careful not to kill off the game below Super league level.....there's no point concentrating on the pretty blossoms when the roots of the tree are dead.

This is a massive question and one many will regret going down imo.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

The ones ' in ' , or the ones ' out ' ?

That is a very pertinent question, for those who are 'out' if the carrot is dangled to far away will the owners just say "bhugger it" will investors be interested?

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think there's a lot in this. 

I listened to Leeds' "Box 2" podcast with Gary Hetherington yesterday and whilst you do have to take it with a big pinch of "this is the club's own PR", I think there was a lot of honest truth in one thing that GH said - that whilst RL has always been open to change, almost all of that change has been based on opinion and gut feeling, with very little data, research or rigor behind those decisions. Which has usually meant that the way to get things done is not to prove that something is the right thing to do, but to instead just to get enough people around to your way of thinking. Perhaps that's why so many of our ideas, changes and concepts don't last. 

People usually don't like having their opinions challenged, especially people with a bit of ego (and let's be honest, I don't think you could own a huge community asset like an RL club without being at least a bit egotistical) or people with that "this how we've always done it" mindset, but IMG have come into the sport with that data, research and rigor, and they're challenging - and even disproving - many of those opinions and gut feelings. That is going to jar with some. 

I've said before that I don't think it helps RL that so few of its major stakeholders come from an entertainment or media industry background. We're not selling widgets, and the tactics that many of RL's key figures have used to successfully sell lots of widgets over the years aren't necessarily going to translate to RL. This is why IMG are such an important partner. 

I'll have to listen to that on the way to work today.

I do agree though, take the big decisions of the past decade. The 8s, essentially backed by an amalgamation of solely self interested parties being given a deal by Nigel Wood. When that soured, he was gone. Likewise SL breakaway and Rob Elstone, another tick in the get everyone to agree that is bad and therefore this must be good or at least better box.

I think what IMG can do is help drive the investment into the best areas for the sport as a whole. By doing that with a research based project, its going to challenge some well established opinions; but they need to be challenged.

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This is a massive question and one many will regret going down imo.

And your opinion on this Tommy?

You have previously stated on these pages that the monies coming into the sport via Sky should be kept in the SL domain as it is those who have earned it, behind that is the knowledge that if funding is withheld it could be curtains for some club's.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

And your opinion on this Tommy?

You have previously stated on these pages that the monies coming into the sport via Sky should be kept in the SL domain as it is those who have earned it, behind that is the knowledge that if funding is withheld it could be curtains for some club's.

How long have you got H? It's a question really worthy only of some proper long length thought and discussion, and without having had that thoroughly my instinct is that there aren't many clear answers.

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

How long have you got H? It's a question really worthy only of some proper long length thought and discussion, and without having had that thoroughly my instinct is that there aren't many clear answers.

As long as you want Tommy, your time going to work is at a premium much so more than mine being one of the retiree's.

I am sure you can eloquently state your case.

[Oxford]

19 hours ago, Jughead said:

We’ve seen the criteria that the clubs are to be judged upon moving forward and I was wondering how that is going to affect current club owners and their willingness to continue funding a club and whether the criteria is going to make clubs more or less appealing to potential investors. 

Well potential investors are most likely to look at longevity and consistency of investment and the outcomes long term.

So investing in a category A would seem logical prudent and sensible long term. Category B questionable at best, and C keep a wide birth. And that may be the point.

[binosh]

I’m surprised no one has done the exercise in theory and graded the clubs as we speak now, the criteria has been out a week I’m disappointed.

So who do we think will in what category and why? Show you’re working out please.

[Roughyed Rats]

10 minutes ago, binosh said:

I’m surprised no one has done the exercise in theory and graded the clubs as we speak now, the criteria has been out a week I’m disappointed.

So who do we think will in what category and why? Show you’re working out please.

Without the specific measuring criteria (which hasn't been released by IMG) we are really none the wiser. For example, you can get up to 2 grading points for catchment and they list 'Area Population divided by the number of clubs in the area'. In respect of my club Oldham, that's 242,100 divided by 1 = 242,100. Now does that get 2 points, 1 point or zero? We haven't got a clue as they have not published any specific metrics that equate to points.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Roughyed Rats

[nadera78]

1 hour ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Well I think Fev's owner will lose interest if we don't get promotion this year through the play offs cos we've got zero chance under licensing/grading unless Cas and Wakefield go bust.

There's quite a few teams in the same boat.

IMG need to be careful not to kill off the game below Super league level.....there's no point concentrating on the pretty blossoms when the roots of the tree are dead.

I gather funding outside SL will be greatly reduced once the grading era kicks in and it'll be very tough to grow a club when most criteria you are graded on will suffer if you aren't already in SL.

As for investment........I don't think anyone is in Rugby League to make money.........with the lack of an international game and the size of domestic rugby league there's very little scale to grow for even the top clubs unless they can link up with the NRL..........Or switch to Union 

 

 

The community clubs and schools are the roots, not the Championship and League 1 clubs.

[Oxford]

34 minutes ago, binosh said:

I’m surprised no one has done the exercise in theory and graded the clubs as we speak now, the criteria has been out a week I’m disappointed.

So who do we think will in what category and why? Show you’re working out please.

That's funny I thought no one was doing it cos it'd been done to death already!

[Tommygilf]

49 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As long as you want Tommy, your time going to work is at a premium much so more than mine being one of the retiree's.

I am sure you can eloquently state your case.

I don't start till 3 today, but I am trying to sort a mortgage so whilst I have time its not loads!

In short, and again these are just formative thoughts in bullet points:

- lower league clubs aren't the community game

- in some areas, the community game is ran better than the "professional" club

- cutting away all semi professional sides wouldn't be a good move

- trends in the sport, I suppose somewhat reflected in IMGs catchment criteria, have shown that top flight clubs can pick up interest from areas with declining or dead lower league sides in certain circumstances

- in continuation from the above, not every club is integral to the sport in its area as others are in theirs

- if the argument is that a pro club is essential to the sport in a locale, that has to be able to measured and hard to replicate by another to be exceptional

- the "roots" are amateur with a (semi) professional stem above them, this shouldn't be confused

Just a few points as I said, not had chance to think or write much further.