The IMG Gradings Thread - Post all your IMG Gradings related questions or comments here

[iffleyox]

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

 

I'm also pretty astounded that people including LE would have thought IMG wouldn't be on  some kind of retainer fee, that's how consultant agency work.

Or fixed fee for a specific project - but you wouldn't do that over so many years

[Lowdesert]

21 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

It's a trueism, in slight defence of consultants, that sometimes they are doing internal work that there simply isn't the manpower or headspace to do internally. For example, the RFL employs a couple of of people who have experience of commissioning and using insight (I know one of them, assuming they're still there), but it doesn't really have a whole insight department (that I've spotted anyway).

so when you say 'could and should' the obvious question back is 'by whom, and by not doing what in their day job?'

Future strategy work I'd argue should never be done 100% internally anyway - no one in a 'normal' business has got enough experience of doing it properly, or perspectives from outside industries, and there are too many internal conflicts/vested interests/insitutional conservatives and people with personal hobbyhorses. 

In the RFL's case there's also the consideration that it's simply not a huge number of people - it's basically got about enough people to keep things ticking over, so sitting around working out the future of the game is absolutely their responsibility but I'm not sure at the same time that it's anyone's actual job...

 

I agree with a lot of that.  I should have clarified that the clubs should be doing the majority internally.

Yes indeed, the RFL are very light on staffing.

[gingerjon]

41 minutes ago, Dovster said:

By not telling the press they also are keeping it from the public.

They did tell the press. It's literally there on the day of the partnership announcement.

It's not really their fault if the press forget and then don't check their own reporting.

[iffleyox]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They did tell the press. It's literally there on the day of the partnership announcement.

It's not really their fault if the press forget and then don't check their own reporting.

In this whole - what are we now, 135 pages - I think this is absolutely a sad indictment of where a lot of journalism is now. There are people who are totally on board with the IMG stuff, there are people who are utterly against it - that's fine, and some people are really clear in their posts that whichever position they take they have taken from a position of understanding what is going on.

But, nothing so far 'revealed' is new or should be coming as a surprise at this stage...

[Archie Gordon]

Share of future revenues?

Oh dear.

[Dovster]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

I haven't twisted your words at all, if they put the effort in they will get more rewards, that's why its based on future profits.

IMG could just sit back and take the money but they are a professional organisation why would they want to do that, they are a business and just doing nothing rarely turns out well.

I wouldn't judge IMG on how RL has usually been run, including by many of the clubs.

I'm also pretty astounded that people including LE would have thought IMG wouldn't be on  some kind of retainer fee, that's how consultant agency work.

Phrased it to suit your arguement then.

My point was that we are possibly paying a good deal of money without seeing any returns as yet.

[Dovster]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

IMG may not want full details of their contracts made public.

Well that worked out for them

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, Dovster said:

Phrased it to suit your arguement then.

My point was that we are possibly paying a good deal of money without seeing any returns as yet.

They’re just over one year into a 12 year deal. Did people expect them to work for free?

Next year it looks like we will see a major shift in how the game is broadcast probably using img’s own streaming platform then in 2025 a rebrand.

[muckymunksy]

Trying to get out of the contract already iv heard and stick with promotion and Relegation. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, muckymunksy said:

Trying to get out of the contract already iv heard and stick with promotion and Relegation. 

Heard from who?

IMG hasn’t forced grading on to the clubs or the RFL, they voted for it

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Heard from who?

Presumably the same folk who, according to a different poster or two, spill all their secrets 'in hospitality'.

[muckymunksy]

From Julie who works for the RFL 

[Dave T]

47 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

They’re just over one year into a 12 year deal. Did people expect them to work for free?

Next year it looks like we will see a major shift in how the game is broadcast probably using img’s own streaming platform then in 2025 a rebrand.

I'm struggling to find the interview now, but there was something a month or so ago which did actually highlight that there was an outcome that would lead IMG to effectively working for free. Now this is from memory, so I'm not sure how it was worded and the context is important - but I'm not surprised that people are surprised that a payment is being made on the back of a reduced TV deal, the commentary has very much been around them taking a cut of increased revenues.

But, in the real world, I'm not sure why anyone thinks we should be afraid of paying people. Sure, sometimes things work, sometimes they don't, but I do think part of our problem is that we are so tight that we do things on the cheap that we never make a real success of anything we do.

One thing that does keep coming up is that apparently the sport always appears surprised - whether that is the payoff to Nasty Nige, Elstone's salary, the huge fee for Private Equity, and now a bill from IMG. My personal view is that the clubs are not surprised at all, it is noise from fans and media who are happy to write a whole article telling s that they know nothing and found out from fan on their forum.

My view on things like this £450k bill are 'meh'. I'm not paying it, but I do live in the real world and know that you actually have to pay for things. It's nonsense to go down the route of "that money could be spent on grassroots" as it is an isolated number with no background, context or any detail in the slightest. It does rather show people to be very small-minded in their thinking though.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

the commentary has very much been around them taking a cut of increased revenues

Like I say, day one, the Q&A ... payment out of future revenues.

No mention of increase. No mention of extra.

EDIT

Agree with the main point of your post though. Paying people for working, even if they aren't very good at their job, is a thing that happens. Even useless estate agents get a base salary before commission.

Edited November 23, 2023 by gingerjon

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm struggling to find the interview now, but there was something a month or so ago which did actually highlight that there was an outcome that would lead IMG to effectively working for free. Now this is from memory, so I'm not sure how it was worded and the context is important - but I'm not surprised that people are surprised that a payment is being made on the back of a reduced TV deal, the commentary has very much been around them taking a cut of increased revenues.

But, in the real world, I'm not sure why anyone thinks we should be afraid of paying people. Sure, sometimes things work, sometimes they don't, but I do think part of our problem is that we are so tight that we do things on the cheap that we never make a real success of anything we do.

One thing that does keep coming up is that apparently the sport always appears surprised - whether that is the payoff to Nasty Nige, Elstone's salary, the huge fee for Private Equity, and now a bill from IMG. My personal view is that the clubs are not surprised at all, it is noise from fans and media who are happy to write a whole article telling s that they know nothing and found out from fan on their forum.

My view on things like this £450k bill are 'meh'. I'm not paying it, but I do live in the real world and know that you actually have to pay for things. It's nonsense to go down the route of "that money could be spent on grassroots" as it is an isolated number with no background, context or any detail in the slightest. It does rather show people to be very small-minded in their thinking though.

I agree, which is why I highlighted the 'article' as a bit embarrassing. Its written and worded as if IMG are springing a bill on the RFL and almost as if they are taking the mock and ripping them off.

The interview you reference doesn't actually negate IMG billing for the money, I suspect that what was meant was that when and if the IMG model starts to increase the revenue then their bill is effectively written off because they've increased revenue enough for it to be paid (if that makes sense)

As pointed out and in the original press releases which LE were reporting on and privy to, it states from now (as in when the agreement started) IMG will be paid from future profit and revenue, no where did it state they only get paid on an extra profit and revenue.

The sport absolutely shouldn't be afraid of paying people, that's how business works.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[philcow]

How can a club get a fair grading as when the chairman of one club says that img have been no where near the place so seperate indoor training and running facilties and gym complex are not factored well they cant be if place not visited i find all of this just a big con.

Edited November 23, 2023 by philcow

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Like I say, day one, the Q&A ... payment out of future revenues.

No mention of increase. No mention of extra.

EDIT

Agree with the main point of your post though. Paying people for working, even if they aren't very good at their job, is a thing that happens. Even useless estate agents get a base salary before commission.

The problem with that Q&A, is that that is rubbish too. Is it profit, or revenue, very different things? Although it can be both to be fair. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I agree, which is why I highlighted the 'article' as a bit embarrassing. Its written and worded as if IMG are springing a bill on the RFL and almost as if they are taking the mock and ripping them off.

The interview you reference doesn't actually negate IMG billing for the money, I suspect that what was meant was that when and if the IMG model starts to increase the revenue then their bill is effectively written off because they've increased revenue enough for it to be paid (if that makes sense)

As pointed out and in the original press releases which LE were reporting on and privy to, it states from now (as in when the agreement started) IMG will be paid from future profit and revenue, no where did it state they only get paid on an extra profit and revenue.

The sport absolutely shouldn't be afraid of paying people, that's how business works.

Do you have a link to the press release that states the financial agreement point?

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dave T said:

The problem with that Q&A, is that that is rubbish too.

Well, it would be. It's written by someone in the RFL (social) media circle.

Imagine if they were paid by results ...

[dkw]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

The problem with that Q&A, is that that is rubbish too. Is it profit, or revenue, very different things? Although it can be both to be fair. 

I`d be amazed if its revenue, IMG could then go out and spend an absolute shed load on advertising, all kinds of stuff and massively raise the revenue relatively easily. The problem would then be the huge outlay to get that revenue would leave no profit ever.

[gingerjon]

Just now, dkw said:

I`d be amazed if its revenue

I suspect it may be revenue with their costs included in the payment.

But that's an absolute hunch based on nothing because otherwise I can't see how they can be paid out of 'profits'. Profits after what? After the RFL have had their fill of the drinks trolley at Old Trafford?

 

[dkw]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I suspect it may be revenue with their costs included in the payment.

But that's an absolute hunch based on nothing because otherwise I can't see how they can be paid out of 'profits'. Profits after what? After the RFL have had their fill of the drinks trolley at Old Trafford?

 

Theres very few contracts like this that are based on revenue, though in fairness the only ones I know of are not in the sports or entertainment sectors so it could be I suppose.

I`m pretty sure IMG will be have complete knowledge of RFL expenditure as part of this, I fully expect there will be joint Audits agreed to get the final annual revenue and profits, so hopefully there`s full transparency on spends.

[iffleyox]

10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I suspect it may be revenue with their costs included in the payment.

But that's an absolute hunch based on nothing because otherwise I can't see how they can be paid out of 'profits'. Profits after what? After the RFL have had their fill of the drinks trolley at Old Trafford?

 

Exactly, they could be the best or the worst in the world at what they do, but no one is going to sign a twelve year deal with the RFL based only on future profits surely. You’d have no business model. As an aside, it’s why whenever a new gin distillery appears I start the clock on announcement of their first 10 year old single malt a decade later (which is what they wanted to do all along). No one works for free.

Edited November 23, 2023 by iffleyox

[Chrispmartha]

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Do you have a link to the press release that states the financial agreement point?

"IMG will take a slice of all future profits and revenues which come into the game from now on"

 

Can't find the press release but found the Q&A

 

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-img-everything-know-23919503

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, dkw said:

Theres very few contracts like this that are based on revenue, though in fairness the only ones I know of are not in the sports or entertainment sectors so it could be I suppose.

I`m pretty sure IMG will be have complete knowledge of RFL expenditure as part of this, I fully expect there will be joint Audits agreed to get the final annual revenue and profits, so hopefully there`s full transparency on spends.

Like I say, it is only a guess on my part. I'd not take it as anything remotely like gospel.