Loop fixtures to stay......

[Gooleboy]

What is the point of IMG been paid a load of dosh when their first recommendation is booted into touch by the SL Clubs, despite most fans hating the loop fixtures?

[Liverpool Rover]

2 hours ago, HawkMan said:

With 14 clubs and a balanced fixture programme,  doesn't that remove the justification for play offs and GF?  Lop-sided fixtures was the reason for them. Have a 26 game season,  winner is SL Champions. 

Then have top 4 qualify for end of season SUPER CUP. Winner of this plays WCC following season. OT finale becomes Super Cup final, WCC place at stake.

So, NRL champs versus Super Cup winners?!

Yup, football Champions League final isn't usually against two current champions.

.......I'll get my coat.

If you're going to have the Super Cup winners in the WCC then it may as well have it to decide the champions as well. The Grand Final is established now as the big season climax that the season builds towards and having a post season competition that doesn't determine the champions wouldn't have much interest for me.

I guess that once the grading system gets going that the league will expand so until then we will be stuck with the loop fixtures.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, Ragingbull said:

This IMG lot really are taking their time introducing any changes arent they. 

Hardly their fault things like this is it?

[Dave T]

I'm not sure this is that big an issue. I think there are far bigger things to fix than a few repeat fixtures a year. 

13 guaranteed home games a year isn't that many, and I'm not sure my club replacing games with Saints, Cas, Salford and Hudds with games against Fev and Bradford is going to make much difference. 

We need to remain visible, we need to provide content, losing 5 rounds and not replacing them with anything just doesn't sound like a good idea tbh. And nobody seems to be liking the sound of cup group stages. 

I dobt think there are too many sports that has fans who want fewer matches. 

[Moove]

I don't like loop fixtures, not fussed about magic either tbh. But what alternative were they proposing here? How were they suggesting a 25 game fixture list would work?

Why would anyone expect clubs to approve losing a home game the same week they're having to manage a drop in TV income and rising costs as well?

For the clubs who cut their cloth is there much cloth left to cut? For the clubs more dependent on wealthy owners were IMG just expecting them to chuck extra in to cover the revenue drop?

If the league was to expand to 14 to keep a 27 game fixture list (doesn't seem to be what IMG proposed) which part of 2024 club budgets takes the hit from spreading a key revenue stream thinner? Player wages? Or are we thinking that switching to 14 and getting rid of loop fixtures magically makes the money roll in?

Seems a bit of an odd time to make this recommendation when the structure is changing next year anyway and we're just finalising the next TV deal. Surely it's something you propose ahead of negotiating that as part of your long term strategy.

[Monkeymagic22]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure this is that big an issue. I think there are far bigger things to fix than a few repeat fixtures a year. 

13 guaranteed home games a year isn't that many, and I'm not sure my club replacing games with Saints, Cas, Salford and Hudds with games against Fev and Bradford is going to make much difference. 

We need to remain visible, we need to provide content, losing 5 rounds and not replacing them with anything just doesn't sound like a good idea tbh. And nobody seems to be liking the sound of cup group stages. 

I dobt think there are too many sports that has fans who want fewer matches. 

I’m pretty sure that Fev and Bradford would bring more away supporters than Huddersfield and Salford. Plus it’s something different, it’s not just another match against the same opponents. Sadly, the clubs just want to hoard as much of the diminishing TV pie, as they can, hence why the league stays at 12 clubs. 

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, Gooleboy said:

What is the point of IMG been paid a load of dosh when their first recommendation is booted into touch by the SL Clubs, despite most fans hating the loop fixtures?

How much have IMG been paid?

[Gomersall]

6 hours ago, Moove said:

long term strategy.

Never heard of them mate.

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

losing 5 rounds and not replacing them with anything just doesn't sound like a good idea tbh.

Something has already gone badly wrong with the process here. Either it's an all-in shift or it isn't - and we've already seen that tinkering leads to self interest and contraction. Upping to 14 (essentially saying to the mediocre:, "No worries, you're in and you didn't need to get any better on or off the pitch to do it.") will be the death knell for any positive change.

And putting up a vote to reduce fixtures but not linking it directly to any other change is just weird.

But, overall, the fact that the clubs control it all is the major problem and that appears to have not come close to changing.

[Gooleboy]

43 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

How much have IMG been paid?

I am guessing they aren't doing it for their love of Rugby League.

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

I am guessing

Okay.

[EagleEyePie]

As a few others have said, I don't really see the issue here. Clubs are now receiving less than before despite going from two televised games per week to every game televised per week. There's a chance that there will be an impact here on attendances that needs to be assessed and considered.

It's going to be easier than ever before for fans to stay at home and watch rather than attending games. If clubs had the option to charge a fee to fans to watch the game at home that's not an issue, but broadcasting it free on the channel most fans already subscribe to isn't going to increase matchday revenue which is still a big source of income for clubs. (It's also still a major source of income for football clubs despite the huge TV rights deals - although it's mostly corporate hospitality that makes the money).

Then you consider that most clubs have specifically chosen the day/night they play matches to maximise revenue and Friday nights seem to be the preference. It's certainly better for selling hospitality. With every game broadcast there's a chance that games no longer overlap meaning a team that usually plays Friday will be playing on Sunday for 6 home games in a row and that could have an impact too.

And then there's the fact that clubs are already selling season tickets for next year. It's bad practice to have people renew and then decide they are getting fewer games for what they pay and that the typical schedule that's been followed for years is also changing. No one wants to be dealing with refunds.

Essentially, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that loop fixtures are negatively affecting attendances. There's no obvious way for clubs to cover the loss in revenue in the short term given TV rights money is also dropping slightly. The broadcast deal is likely to result in a significant shift away from what fans are used to and it makes sense not to take unnecessary risks. There's not a lot of certainty at present so I'd argue it makes sense to stick with the fixture format until the broadcasting picture is a bit clearer. I don't think loop fixtures are high on the list of things that are negatively impacting our sport.

[Gomersall]

Can someone please clarify the “all SL games to be televised” situation? I haven’t seen it reported anywhere that Sky will be showing all six games in each SL round but some people appear to have put 2 + 2 together and come up with 5.

[Gomersall]

9 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Hardly their fault things like this is it?

Not sure but I took RB’s comment to be an ironic one and he’s pointing the finger at SL clubs riding roughshod over IMG recommendations. Then again I might be totally wrong and RB is serious.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, Gooleboy said:

I am guessing they aren't doing it for their love of Rugby League.

I'll illuminate rather than just do the wind-up thing. 

It's a gain-share deal and they take a % of the upside, a bit like sweat equity to early workers in a start-up. They don't put money in, but put in their resources. That's their risk. They get money from future TV & other revenues above a certain delta, and I'd expect a likely % stake in the RL Commercial organisation (which we could otherwise have sold to a VC firm in exchange for cash; but if we'd done that, the owners would have just blown it on wages - or debt repayments - so this is a better model to grow the game). They also get a case study, which they can use to sell their unbundled services to other sports, or cut a similar deal with another (larger) sport.  

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Not sure but I took RB’s comment to be an ironic one and he’s pointing the finger at SL clubs riding roughshod over IMG recommendations. Then again I might be totally wrong and RB is serious.

Yeah I reckon you're right... I take this topic too earnestly, it's my kryptonite 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, EagleEyePie said:

As a few others have said, I don't really see the issue here. Clubs are now receiving less than before despite going from two televised games per week to every game televised per week. There's a chance that there will be an impact here on attendances that needs to be assessed and considered.

It's going to be easier than ever before for fans to stay at home and watch rather than attending games. If clubs had the option to charge a fee to fans to watch the game at home that's not an issue, but broadcasting it free on the channel most fans already subscribe to isn't going to increase matchday revenue which is still a big source of income for clubs. (It's also still a major source of income for football clubs despite the huge TV rights deals - although it's mostly corporate hospitality that makes the money).

Then you consider that most clubs have specifically chosen the day/night they play matches to maximise revenue and Friday nights seem to be the preference. It's certainly better for selling hospitality. With every game broadcast there's a chance that games no longer overlap meaning a team that usually plays Friday will be playing on Sunday for 6 home games in a row and that could have an impact too.

And then there's the fact that clubs are already selling season tickets for next year. It's bad practice to have people renew and then decide they are getting fewer games for what they pay and that the typical schedule that's been followed for years is also changing. No one wants to be dealing with refunds.

Essentially, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that loop fixtures are negatively affecting attendances. There's no obvious way for clubs to cover the loss in revenue in the short term given TV rights money is also dropping slightly. The broadcast deal is likely to result in a significant shift away from what fans are used to and it makes sense not to take unnecessary risks. There's not a lot of certainty at present so I'd argue it makes sense to stick with the fixture format until the broadcasting picture is a bit clearer. I don't think loop fixtures are high on the list of things that are negatively impacting our sport.

There's no reasearch showing TV broadcast damages attendances (outside outlier fixtures with some other negative element), but lots of evidence that increased TV exposure of your sport increases commercial value and builds attendances in the long term. 

 

[ELBOWSEYE]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure this is that big an issue. I think there are far bigger things to fix than a few repeat fixtures a year. 

13 guaranteed home games a year isn't that many, and I'm not sure my club replacing games with Saints, Cas, Salford and Hudds with games against Fev and Bradford is going to make much difference. 

We need to remain visible, we need to provide content, losing 5 rounds and not replacing them with anything just doesn't sound like a good idea tbh. And nobody seems to be liking the sound of cup group stages. 

I dobt think there are too many sports that has fans who want fewer matches. 

With the loop fixtures I feel it's the same fixtures syndrome that is causing some crowds to drop. I know when Warrington were playing saints or Wigan away once in a season (league games only) you would looking at the fixtures to make sure you went to those games. Once you new that there's a chance of two games plus cup and playoffs the need to attend falls away.

[The Blues Ox]

12 hours ago, Ragingbull said:

This IMG lot really are taking their time introducing any changes arent they. 

Brilliant isn't it. We are told IMG are pretty much in control but the picture is becoming very clear now that if the SL teams don't get their way then they are simply allowed to vote against any proposed changes.

Who would have guessed that having the chairman of the current 12 SL teams been able to make decisions on the future of the game would be a bad thing.  Tin Pot.

[Moove]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

Brilliant isn't it. We are told IMG are pretty much in control but the picture is becoming very clear now that if the SL teams don't get their way then they are simply allowed to vote against any proposed changes.

Who would have guessed that having the chairman of the current 12 SL teams been able to make decisions on the future of the game would be a bad thing.  Tin Pot.

It would probably help if the proposed change wasn't a reduction in fixtures (and therefore revenue) at a time when the clubs are dealing with lower TV revenue and higher costs. Then on top of that they wait until clubs are about to start season ticket renewals, two months before the end of the season, to propose it.

If they had approved it what benefit would they have seen next season as a result? What do they lose by waiting a year and dealing with it alongside the other structure changes?

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Moove said:

It would probably help if the proposed change wasn't a reduction in fixtures (and therefore revenue) at a time when the clubs are dealing with lower TV revenue and higher costs. Then on top of that they wait until clubs are about to start season ticket renewals, two months before the end of the season, to propose it.

If they had approved it what benefit would they have seen next season as a result? What do they lose by waiting a year and dealing with it alongside the other structure changes?

It literally says in the article when they set out the recommendations last year so it isn't just now this has happened. I presume this was in conjunction with other recommendations, one of which we know was the scrapping of Magic. I'm sure it is part of an overall approach, probably the group stage talk about the Challenge Cup, rather than just scrapping these fixtures and that being it.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Damien

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

I’m pretty sure that Fev and Bradford would bring more away supporters than Huddersfield and Salford. Plus it’s something different, it’s not just another match against the same opponents. Sadly, the clubs just want to hoard as much of the diminishing TV pie, as they can, hence why the league stays at 12 clubs. 

'Something different' is overrated.

And Salford bring plenty, certainly more than a weak Bradford Bulls club who are not in a place to play in SL at the moment.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

'Something different' is overrated.

And Salford bring plenty, certainly more than a weak Bradford Bulls club who are not in a place to play in SL at the moment.

Doing the same old thing and expecting different results is overrated too.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Damien

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Something has already gone badly wrong with the process here. Either it's an all-in shift or it isn't - and we've already seen that tinkering leads to self interest and contraction. Upping to 14 (essentially saying to the mediocre:, "No worries, you're in and you didn't need to get any better on or off the pitch to do it.") will be the death knell for any positive change.

And putting up a vote to reduce fixtures but not linking it directly to any other change is just weird.

But, overall, the fact that the clubs control it all is the major problem and that appears to have not come close to changing.

I've only fleetingly read what has happened here, but I think it was Tommy who highlighted that this vote has said no change for 2024 and the whole restructure happens in 2025. Based on the fact that 2024 sees a dummy-run of licensing, there is some logic in that approach, I'm not sure when the re-brand and relaunch of the top flight is happening, but it does rather feel like making changes in 2024 and then more in 2025 would be one of those examples of 'constant tinkering with the structure' that fans apparently hate.

I agree with your point about the process - that'll be one to watch.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

With the loop fixtures I feel it's the same fixtures syndrome that is causing some crowds to drop. I know when Warrington were playing saints or Wigan away once in a season (league games only) you would looking at the fixtures to make sure you went to those games. Once you new that there's a chance of two games plus cup and playoffs the need to attend falls away.

I don't disagree with getting rid of loop fixtures. I think the alternatives at the moment are:

1 - Cull the number of rounds - I think that's a bad move financially and visibility-wise.

2 - Move up to 14 teams - a sound principle - but do we really have 14 strong teams and enough players etc?

3 - Another comp to replace it - group stages in the cup etc. Unfortunately this will lead to loop fixtures.

None of the above are ideal - I think option 2 is where we need to be, but I don;t think that can be delivered by simply moving two teams in - we are meant to be standards-driven.