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

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

No, I dont read it like that. As I said I think the restructure element and work with clubs to improve marketing etc are two distinct things and are paid differently. 

For example I think its more than possible that the brand and marketing agency 160over90 get paid a fee for work to improve clubs, and clubs aren't getting this for free, while the wider restructure part is performance based. I don't think return in this context means simply getting paid for helping a club improve their website.

I can see this being the case. He does segment the activity across their divisions, and I expect this is where the ambiguity may come in. 

[marklaspalmas]

22 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

As you've said elsewhere, there is no money to address those issues.

The only way, thanks to the past 15 years of absolute failure, that anyone can see to generate money *for the whole game* is through the professional clubs and the only way that works is if the professional clubs in a position to capitalise on opportunities are in the best shape possible.

We can argue about and discuss the details but that's why we are where we are.

I am absolutely confident that virtually nothing that IMG suggest or want to put in place will happen and the game will continue to diminish and dwindle as a result.

Yep. Maximising the monetary value of the top league is the best way to generate extra income. But it is a long process, will generate further conflict between those inside and outside the top league, and the clubs involved (in & out) have shown very little understanding of and appetite for the work involved. And tbh that's understandable too. They all defend their own interests. As do the vast majority of fans.

[Martyn Sadler]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

 

I saw the article from the tweet and the tweet headline is part of an article is it not?

Do you think your tweet accurately represented the content of your article? (this could be asked of many of LE's tweets)

but anyway you hint in the article that it has indeed been sprung on the people within the game as has been pointed out.

 

You didn't refer to the Tweet initially. Your referred to the article.

Where do I "hint" (you originally said "gave the impression") in the article that the invoice has been 'sprung' on the RFL?

[Chrispmartha]

7 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You didn't refer to the Tweet initially. Your referred to the article.

Where do I "hint" (you originally said "gave the impression") in the article that the invoice has been 'sprung' on the RFL?

Christ you are (nearly) as pedantic as me.

 

"Obviously that raises the question of who, exactly, has seen and read through the contract with IMG".

 

"I’m quite sure that the clubs haven’t and I wonder whether the non-executive directors of both the RFL and RL Commercial have done so.

"If so, I wonder whether any of them raised any objection to this deal when it was presented to them."

 

Hint, gave the impression, take whichever you like.

 

Now we've addressed that, do you think your Tweet was misleading?,

 

You can have that as another description aswell!

Edited November 23, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[Martyn Sadler]

17 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Christ you are (nearly) as pedantic as me.

Not pedantic, but I don't like being misinterpreted.

17 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

"Obviously that raises the question of who, exactly, has seen and read through the contract with IMG".

"I’m quite sure that the clubs haven’t and I wonder whether the non-executive directors of both the RFL and RL Commercial have done so.

"If so, I wonder whether any of them raised any objection to this deal when it was presented to them."

Hint, gave the impression, take whichever you like.

There is no semblance of a hint there that the RFL was surprised by the invoice from IMG.

17 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Now we've addressed that, do you think your Tweet was misleading?

I think it was very misleading, as was the original headline on the article as it was presented online, but not as it was presented in the newspaper, where the headline was 'RFL Faces 450K Bill from IMG'.

Two separate employees were responsible for the changed headline and the Tweet and they have both had a flea in their ear.

What is quite interesting about this, as I've emphasised to them, is that many people read the headline but not the article.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Not pedantic, but I don't like being misinterpreted.

There is no semblance of a hint there that the RFL was surprised by the invoice from IMG.

I think it was very misleading, as was the original headline on the article as it was presented online, but not as it was presented in the newspaper, where the headline was 'RFL Faces 450K Bill from IMG'.

Two separate employees were responsible for the changed headline and the Tweet and they have both had a flea in their ear.

What is quite interesting about this, as I've emphasised to them, is that many people read the headline but not the article.

I'm glad you have emphasised that to them, I'm surprised anyone working in the media wouldn't realise that. I mean this sincerely as well Martyn I think your publication will get a bad reputation with things like the SM output, which is a shame.

I disagree there is no semblance of a hint, I even think the headline RFL Faces £450K Bill from IMG is also slightly 'click bait' but that's just my interpretation.

[Martyn Sadler]

24 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I disagree there is no semblance of a hint, I even think the headline RFL Faces £450K Bill from IMG is also slightly 'click bait' but that's just my interpretation.

All I can say is that you have an over-active imagination.

It's generally better to read what is written rather than trying to see hidden meanings that don't actually exist.

That only leads to conspiracy theories.

If I had wanted to say what you seem to think I hinted, I would have said it directly.

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

All I can say is that you have an over-active imagination.

It's generally better to read what is written rather than trying to see hidden meanings that don't actually exist.

That only leads to conspiracy theories.

If I had wanted to say what you seem to think I hinted, I would have said it directly.

It's also probably better not to be condescending but hey ho,. your text in the article is written in a way that the reader has to try to interpret answers to your 'questions'. I'm not the only poster on here that has questioned what you've written.

That's what happens with opinion pieces like this, especially ones short on actual facts, the reader will also have an opinion on it.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Can you point out where I said that IMG has 'sprung' this on the RFL?

I said that I was surprised, not that the RFL was surprised.

To help you, the article is reproduced below.

I asked the RFL CEO what the payment represents, and he declined to confirm what it was for.

"I was surprised to learn recently that the RFL have apparently been issued with an invoice to pay £450,000 to IMG.
I was surprised because I had been under the impression that IMG's income from Rugby League would be generated by any increases in broadcasting contracts over the coming years during the twelve-year period of their partnership with the RFL.
It seems, however, that the £450,000 payment is due because of the work that the digital arm of IMG have done with the clubs.
To be fair to IMG, most clubs have told me that IMG's advice has enabled them to significantly improve their digital operations and it may be that the payment is fully justified, both by the outcome of that work and its inclusion in the IMG contract with the RFL.
I emailed RFL CEO Tony Sutton to ask for clarification of this payment, asking him to confirm its size, when it would be paid and what it is for, while also asking him whether the RFL has the funds in place to enable it to pay this amount.
Tony's response is that it would not be right for him to confirm the details of any contract "mainly due to the commercial confidentiality of such agreements".
Obviously that raises the question of who, exactly, has seen and read through the contract with IMG.
I'm quite sure that the clubs haven't and I wonder whether the non-executive directors of both the RFL and RL Commercial have done so.
If so, I wonder whether any of them raised any objection to this deal when it was presented to them.
After all, scrutinising such matters is what they are supposed to be getting paid for."

on the area in bold and hence the 450k

My question with regards to getting clarity would be

why are not the individual clubs paying for the specific work to the club.

if some form of central invoicing is the RFL then sub invoicing for the individual clubs

if RFL are genuinely surprised and it is central invoicing to RFL for individual club work have they not got some form of checks in place against club spend... otherwise I could see clubs taking great advantage if its no cost to them - or they think no cost to them

[Martyn Sadler]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

It's also probably better not to be condescending but hey ho,. your text in the article is written in a way that the reader has to try to interpret answers to your 'questions'. I'm not the only poster on here that has questioned what you've written.

That's what happens with opinion pieces like this, especially ones short on actual facts, the reader will also have an opinion on it.

You're obviously determined to have the last word, so I'm happy to oblige you.

[Chrispmartha]

9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You're obviously determined to have the last word, so I'm happy to oblige you.

Word

[Chrispmartha]

11 minutes ago, redjonn said:

 

if RFL are genuinely surprised 

Don't start him off

[Harry Stottle]

On 23/11/2023 at 09:51, Tommygilf said:

Like several clubs do then?

Who have you got in mind then?

[Harry Stottle]

21 hours ago, gingerjon said:

They would obviously be paid more if they raised more but that would require the clubs and the RFL to action their plans - which they have so far failed to do.

Wouldnt it be good for IMG to be given Carte Blanche and be sole instigator and provider of every direction the game is to take, that is the only way that no blame, finger pointing or credit can be afforded to any other party whatever the outcome of this system. Whether that be massively increased revenues and profits, companies clamouring to invest and grounds sold out for all fixtures, or it falls flat on its face, we lose clubs, and in 12 years time having spent over £5M - not allowing for increased fees - we are no different than we are today.

[Liverpool Rover]

10 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Wouldnt it be good for IMG to be given Carte Blanche and be sole instigator and provider of every direction the game is to take, that is the only way that no blame, finger pointing or credit can be afforded to any other party whatever the outcome of this system. Whether that be massively increased revenues and profits, companies clamouring to invest and grounds sold out for all fixtures, or it falls flat on its face, we lose clubs, and in 12 years time having spent over £5M - not allowing for increased fees - we are no different than we are today.

That is what should have happened. What's the point of bringing in IMG at the expense that is coming with it if at the end of the day the clubs are going to have the final say and ignore IMGS recommendations?

I came across a thread on twitter about RL in the 70s and 80s when the game was in decline and the RFL brought in a consultancy firm to advise on how to turn the game around and ended up not following through on the recommendations. Moving finals and GB games to larger football stadiums was met with opposition because "traditional" RL grounds were being overlooked. It looked a bit similar to now to me.

 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Rover said:

That is what should have happened. What's the point of bringing in IMG at the expense that is coming with it if at the end of the day the clubs are going to have the final say and ignore IMGS recommendations?

I came across a thread on twitter about RL in the 70s and 80s when the game was in decline and the RFL brought in a consultancy firm to advise on how to turn the game around and ended up not following through on the recommendations. Moving finals and GB games to larger football stadiums was met with opposition because "traditional" RL grounds were being overlooked. It looked a bit similar to now to me.

 

Yeah I've pointed this out before on here. The RFL has lost all the ambition it showed in the 1980s and 1990s in areas like this and has become scared to speculate to accumulate.

[gingerjon]

9 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

That is what should have happened. What's the point of bringing in IMG at the expense that is coming with it if at the end of the day the clubs are going to have the final say and ignore IMGS recommendations?

I came across a thread on twitter about RL in the 70s and 80s when the game was in decline and the RFL brought in a consultancy firm to advise on how to turn the game around and ended up not following through on the recommendations. Moving finals and GB games to larger football stadiums was met with opposition because "traditional" RL grounds were being overlooked. It looked a bit similar to now to me.

 

There's a danger in weaponised nostalgia that you miss out the bits where the foundations were not fixed and the game was essentially bankrupt. Or, as this guy always seems to do, pretend the game was more progressive than the prevailing culture.

But, that aside, we really could do with *any* ambition now.

[marklaspalmas]

1996 Super League

2012 Licensing

2025 IMG Gradings

Is there a danger of history repeating itself here?

A plan which is essentially (and understandably in many way) to select, ring-fence and promote the top 12 league clubs, maximising income and raising standards.

But a plan which fails to follow through by offering any coherent plan for the rest of the sport. What is the UK RL pyramid and how does it work? How should the semi-professional leagues be re-organised, re-branded and promoted? And the community game? And junior development? And Womens RL? And the international scene?

This is a much wider remit than IMG is concentrating on, but neglect of these aspects alienates swathes of the sport's followers. 'Deal with it', or 'Catch up, but with no money' hardly seems likely to motivate the whole sport to make this work.

[Griff]

23 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

1996 Super League

2012 Licensing

2025 IMG Gradings

Is there a danger of history repeating itself here?

Oh aye.

Definitely.

[gingerjon]

46 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

neglect of these aspects alienates swathes of the sport's followers

See my earlier comments - on here and elsewhere - about how there isn't one single aspect of the game in England that I'm positive about any more.

It's not from lack of initiatives or plans, it's from total lack of delivery.

And that's been the case for a long, long time now. In many ways, we don't need new ideas - we need things to be seen through.

[Cerulean]

1 hour ago, marklaspalmas said:

... A plan which is essentially (and understandably in many way) to select, ring-fence and promote the top 12 league clubs, maximising income and raising standards.

But a plan which fails to follow through by offering any coherent plan for the rest of the sport. What is the UK RL pyramid and how does it work? How should the semi-professional leagues be re-organised, re-branded and promoted? And the community game? And junior development? And Womens RL? And the international scene?

This is a much wider remit than IMG is concentrating on, but neglect of these aspects alienates swathes of the sport's followers. 'Deal with it', or 'Catch up, but with no money' hardly seems likely to motivate the whole sport to make this work.

This could possibly be the most astute summary of the sport’s predicament I’ve ever seen, and would form an ideal starting point for all future discussion.

[del capo]

2 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

1996 Super League

2012 Licensing

2025 IMG Gradings

Is there a danger of history repeating itself here?

A plan which is essentially (and understandably in many way) to select, ring-fence and promote the top 12 league clubs, maximising income and raising standards.

But a plan which fails to follow through by offering any coherent plan for the rest of the sport. What is the UK RL pyramid and how does it work? How should the semi-professional leagues be re-organised, re-branded and promoted? And the community game? And junior development? And Womens RL? And the international scene?

This is a much wider remit than IMG is concentrating on, but neglect of these aspects alienates swathes of the sport's followers. 'Deal with it', or 'Catch up, but with no money' hardly seems likely to motivate the whole sport to make this work.

There is no shortage of a plan for the future direction of the Game.

Take a look at the two documents ' Strategic Plan 2022 - 2030 ' and ' Community Strategy 2022 - 2030 ' both on the RFL website.  They are in fact blueprints for progress and  If they are followed TGG will be in a far better place in a few years time.

 But they need to be followed and the problem is of course one of delivery. It always has been. No point in writing them otherwise. Everybody has a part to play but it has to start at the Top.

For instance under  the section ' Fan focused '  and then sub-headed  ' A great spectator experience'  the promise is to ' Deliver outstanding major RFL events at world -class stadiums '.

I'll leave you to decide whether the Tonga Tour or Magic fall into the category of outstanding or major before you have to even contemplate the world class status of Elland Road et al........

[marklaspalmas]

25 minutes ago, del capo said:

There is no shortage of a plan for the future direction of the Game.

Take a look at the two documents ' Strategic Plan 2022 - 2030 ' and ' Community Strategy 2022 - 2030 ' both on the RFL website.  They are in fact blueprints for progress and  If they are followed TGG will be in a far better place in a few years time.

 But they need to be followed and the problem is of course one of delivery. It always has been. No point in writing them otherwise. Everybody has a part to play but it has to start at the Top.

For instance under  the section ' Fan focused '  and then sub-headed  ' A great spectator experience'  the promise is to ' Deliver outstanding major RFL events at world -class stadiums '.

I'll leave you to decide whether the Tonga Tour or Magic fall into the category of outstanding or major before you have to even contemplate the world class status of Elland Road et al........

If those (unknown to me) docs nail it, why IMG?

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

If those (unknown to me) docs nail it, why IMG?

The biggest problem in Rugby League is always the implementation of the plan. We've had plenty of plans that have come to nowhere. This is where I was hoping IMG would have more success and clout. However with their recommendations to scrap Magic and loop fixtures ignored its not looking too good so far.

[gingerjon]

25 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

If those (unknown to me) docs nail it, why IMG?

Because IMG's is about the commercial value of Super League.