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

[redjonn]

Surely it can't be as simple as increased revenue or profit over a starting year point.   You would expect it to include an increase above certain factors, like take account of inflation, take account of a trend increase, etc etc that is surely its above a certain percentage of what may happen anyway.

[Damien]

44 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.

My issue with the fee is how this was sold. Based on the information at the time I distinctly remember posting that if IMG were coming on board for free, which was absolutely how it was reported, with an incentive to grow the game and revenue that I was all for it. I saw no downside because if IMG make a fortune then so does Rugby League.

A 450k fee, and presumably there will be similar every year, changes all of that. I am certainly not against paying fees if we are getting value for money and benefits from that work. However that really wasn't how this was sold and it does change the parameters and motivation to succeed significantly. I have not seen anything particularly that the game couldn't have done anyway and much is just a rehash of previous attempts to change the game. Again I'm fine with that but it does concern me that seemingly IMG have no real power and recommendations on Magic and loop fixtures have already been ignored. Implementing change has always been the real difficulty and I am certainly less keen on all of this if we are just paying IMG for much the same stagnation and lack of change that we have had before. If IMG are being paid then we really need to be following through with their recommendations. 

I also don't believe this is a sudden surprise to clubs or the RFL. The way it was sold is very typical of the way the sport tries to kid fans and put a more positive spin on things. A bit of transparency goes a long way and the way the RFL handles things often just kicks the problems down the road.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Damien

[marklaspalmas]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

My issue with the fee is how this was sold. Based on the information at the time I distinctly remember posting that if IMG were coming on board for free, which was absolutely how it was reported, with an incentive to grow the game and revenue that I was all for it. I saw no downside because if IMG make a fortune then so does Rugby League.

A 450k fee, and presumably there will be similar every year, changes all of that. I am certainly not against paying fees if we are getting value for money and benefits from that work. However that really wasn't how this was sold and it does change the parameters and motivation to succeed significantly. I have not seen anything particularly that the game couldn't have done anyway and much is just a rehash of previous attempts to change the game. Again I'm fine with that but it does concern me that seemingly IMG have no real power and recommendations on Magic and loop fixtures have already been ignored. Implementing change has always been the real difficulty and I am certainly less keen on all of this if we are just paying IMG for much the same stagnation and lack of change that we have had before. If IMG are being paid then we really need to be following through with their recommendations. 

I also don't believe this is a sudden surprise to clubs or the RFL. Like over grandiose announcements it is beginning to seem very typical of the way the sport tries to kid fans and put a more positive spin on things. A bit of transparency goes a long way and the way the RFL handles things often just kicks the problems down the road.

Ta. I thought I'd mis-remembered the whole thing with all these new interpretations going on.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Surely it can't be as simple as increased revenue or profit over a starting year point.   You would expect it to include an increase above certain factors, like take account of inflation, take account of a trend increase, etc etc that is surely its above a certain percentage of what may happen anyway.

There's no mention of increased anything. It says a slice of future revenue and profits.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Damien said:

My issue witIf IMG are being paid then we really need to be following through with their recommendations. 

Just picking this out because it is key.

Regardless of how/what IMG are being paid, the point is that this was always a commercial decision from their perspective and a strategic development one from the RFL. If every one of their recommendations is going to be ignored or watered down to such an extent as to be meaningless then we may as well not be bothering. (Which I am aware is what those writing the "SHOCK AT IMG PAYMENT" fact free columns want).

Because, frankly, we've plenty of evidence that those running the game (and those in its media ecosystem) with their failed internationals, dwindling commercial deals and laughable approach to development, can get on with killing the game just as easily without third party involvement.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, marklaspalmas said:

Ta. I thought I'd mis-remembered the whole thing with all these new interpretations going on.

It just means you didn't read the Q&A on day one.

But then, to be honest, it looks like no one did.

[Archie Gordon]

This quote about profits and revenues is simply Aaron Bower's (mis)understanding? 

I think we need something better than that!

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

My issue with the fee is how this was sold. Based on the information at the time I distinctly remember posting that if IMG were coming on board for free, which was absolutely how it was reported, with an incentive to grow the game and revenue that I was all for it. I saw no downside because if IMG make a fortune then so does Rugby League.

A 450k fee, and presumably there will be similar every year, changes all of that. I am certainly not against paying fees if we are getting value for money and benefits from that work. However that really wasn't how this was sold and it does change the parameters and motivation to succeed significantly. I have not seen anything particularly that the game couldn't have done anyway and much is just a rehash of previous attempts to change the game. Again I'm fine with that but it does concern me that seemingly IMG have no real power and recommendations on Magic and loop fixtures have already been ignored. Implementing change has always been the real difficulty and I am certainly less keen on all of this if we are just paying IMG for much the same stagnation and lack of change that we have had before. If IMG are being paid then we really need to be following through with their recommendations. 

I also don't believe this is a sudden surprise to clubs or the RFL. The way it was sold is very typical of the way the sport tries to kid fans and put a more positive spin on things. A bit of transparency goes a long way and the way the RFL handles things often just kicks the problems down the road.

Where did the idea it was for free come from? where was this reported?

 

I do think I remember some articles referencing something like that, indeed LE might have interpreted it that way that's maybe why Martyn is now surprised?

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Where did the idea it was for free come from? where was this reported?

 

I do think I remember some articles referencing something like that, indeed LE might have interpreted it that way that's maybe why Martyn is now surprised?

I remember there being a debate on here about whether they were working for free. I believe the conclusion (as much as we ever reach a conclusion) was that they would (effectively) be taking commission off things such as TV and sponsorship deals because, oddly, people don't work for free.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

This quote about profits and revenues is simply Aaron Bower's (mis)understanding? 

I think we need something better than that!

You may need to wait for the full audited accounts.

But don't rely on an RL journalist to dissect them.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You may need to wait for the full audited accounts.

But don't rely on an RL journalist to dissect them.

Don't be so cynical.

I look forward to 'Five SHOCK things we learned from the RFL Accounts' article with the body copy not relating whatsoever to the Headline.

[marklaspalmas]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It just means you didn't read the Q&A on day one.

But then, to be honest, it looks like no one did.

I'll cheerfully admit to that. I think I read a number of press reports and tweets and formed notions based on them. I felt sure the implication was that IMG would be paid from future revenue generated. I was wrong. No biggie.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, marklaspalmas said:

I'll cheerfully admit to that. I think I read a number of press reports and tweets and formed notions based on them. I felt sure the implication was that IMG would be paid from future revenue generated. I was wrong. No biggie.

Future revenue has been generated and now IMG are being paid.

[sentoffagain2]

2 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

I'll cheerfully admit to that. I think I read a number of press reports and tweets and formed notions based on them. I felt sure the implication was that IMG would be paid from future revenue generated. I was wrong. No biggie.

   I thought IMG would get a percentage of EXTRA revenue generated by their proposals.Not for the first time it looks like i was wrong.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

I'll cheerfully admit to that. I think I read a number of press reports and tweets and formed notions based on them. I felt sure the implication was that IMG would be paid from future revenue generated. I was wrong. No biggie.

You weren't wrong, that seems to be exactly what has happened.

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Future revenue has been generated and now IMG are being paid.

Which is less than the revenue before IMG became involved. I don't think anyone thought that a slice of future revenue means they still get a slice if revenue goes down. Performance bonuses generally don't work like that. Again that is far from clear if it is even the case here and conflates two different things i.e a flat fee and a performance element based upon targets such as revenue.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Damien

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, sentoffagain2 said:

   I thought IMG would get a percentage of EXTRA revenue generated by their proposals.Not for the first time it looks like i was wrong.

No consultancy business would agree to that as their only source of income from a deal.

[marklaspalmas]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Future revenue has been generated and now IMG are being paid.

Quite. A lot of people seem surprised by this. Perhaps that's something to do with how the original deal was "sold" to the public at the time. Perhaps its collective amnesia. Or wishful thinking.

Can we assume the clubs & the RFL are happy with the quantity of money generated and the %age of that money that's gone to IMG for their work?

[gingerjon]

Just now, Damien said:

Which is less than the revenue before IMG became involved. I don't think anyone thought that a slice of future revenue means they still get a slice if revenue goes down. Performance bonuses generally don't work like that. Again that is far from clear if it is even the case here and conflates two different things.

When has it ever been said they are working for performance bonuses only?

Given the very real risk - seemingly becoming a reality - that the very same people who have driven RL in this country to its current state would be too proud and myopic to truly change anything, no agency with a brain would sign up to anything so far outside their control.

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.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

Can we assume the clubs & the RFL are happy with the quantity of money generated and the %age of that money that's gone to IMG for their work?

I wouldn't assume that but that's because they all seem to believe they're all one magic shortcut away from fixing everything - the magic shortcut never seeming to involve 'doing some hard work for a prolonged period of time'.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

When has it ever been said they are working for performance bonuses only?

Given the very real risk - seemingly becoming a reality - that the very same people who have driven RL in this country to its current state would be too proud and myopic to truly change anything, no agency with a brain would sign up to anything so far outside their control.

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.

When has it ever been said until now that they weren't? Again the reporting very much gave this impression. I remember that reporting being discussed on here, and it was widely, and not a single person questioned it. It is entirely why some thought bringing IMG on board was a no brainer.

That wasn't even the point though. My point was I think you are conflating different things.  A flat fee is different to a performance incentive. The 450k very much to me appears to be a flat fee for work done and nothing to do with future revenues. It is quite possible to pay a consultancy a flat fee with a performance incentive based on future revenues/profits (or whatever metrics you choose). As such it is quite possible that the future revenues element is performance based and this 450k payment is nothing to do with just getting a slice of future revenues no matter what. That is exactly why I was always so against private equity.

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Damien

[dkw]

48 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

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

Oh yeah, I have no way of knowing either, just anything I`ve seen like this in industry has been entirely based on profit (though obviously a lot more nuanced than just that).

 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

When has it ever been said until now that they weren't? Again the reporting very much gave this impression. I remember that reporting being discussed on here, and it was widely, and not a single person questioned it. It is entirely why some thought bringing IMG on board was a no brainer.

That wasn't even the point though. My point was I think you are conflating different things.  A flat fee is different to a performance incentive. The 450k very much to me appears to be a flat fee for work done and nothing to do with future revenues. It is quite possible to pay a consultancy a flat fee with a performance incentive based on future revenues/profits (or whatever metrics you choose). As such it is quite possible that the future revenues element is performance based and this 450k payment is nothing to do with just getting a slice of future revenues no matter what. That is exactly why I was always so against private equity.

 

It is also quite possible to pay a flat fee out of future revenues.

I genuinely don't get why people are surprised, outraged or whatever'd that IMG are being paid.

[Dovster]

2 hours 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.

Are you not expecting IMG to make a massive difference? - to pay for themselves?

Time will tell i guess. I really hope your optimism is correctly placed.

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

 

I genuinely don't get why people are surprised, outraged or whatever'd that IMG are being paid.

Me neither, I do think that the reporting of the deal wasn't clear, and that's probably down to the RFL communicating it badly, although as the RFL said to Martyn  "it would not be right for him to confirm the details of any contract “mainly due to the commercial confidentiality of such agreements”.

Which is fair enough isn't it?

Martyn starts his article by saying 

"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"

Where did he get that impression because I don't think even any of us on here said it was generated by the broadcasting deals did we?

 

To be surprised that a Consultancy company are getting paid for Consulting is bizarre. 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Chrispmartha