Aaron Bower interviews IMG boss Matt Dwyer

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Martyn's already admitted on here that he doesn't have the contact details for IMG. If you remember, he submitted his "West Wales and Wigan in the same division" mega plan to them via the Contact Us section on their website.

I'm not sure when I admitted any such thing.

If I did, I must have been drunk.

And I don't drink.

So you're trolling again.

Matt Dwyer is on my email contact list and has been from the start, although he doesn't always reply to emails.

We'll invite him onto our Podcast and see whether he responds.

Rhodri Jones will be joining us next week.

As for my "mega plan", I think you'll find that West Wales would never have played Wigan under my plan, at least until they had reached Wigan's level.

[Dave T]

17 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

I disagree.

It's controversial because it's wrong. Their algorithms for assessment are wrong.You don't pick your "best" clubs. You set up systems, explain new methods, impose them, fine tune them and the top clubs will become apparent.

Much less conflict, confusion, controversy.

If they had done absolutely nothing with grading whatsoever, Wakey would replace London in 2025 anyway and that's what they wanted.

 

Whilst I don't agree with every word of your post, I agree in large part. I think this has been IMG's biggest mis-step and I do wonder how much of that is due to the governance and the fact that they just couldn't get a closed shop signed off.

Ignoring personal preference, I think there is a clear argument that P&R is bad. The problem is that this solution doesn't address that. This doesn't remove the shock of relegation, or the uncertainty - things that are always quoted as issues - in fact you could argue that the uncertainty has been increased and you could easily see multiple clubs relegated.

I think if the decision was taken to keep P&R, then there were more sensible ways of doing it - ways that could still prevent really weak clubs making it into SL.

What I would say, is that in reality, we should end up with a place where many clubs just have the standard points (finances, attendances, facilities etc.) and in effect they are your minimum standards - if you don't have these, you won't overtake a club and make it - but the system does feel overly-complicated. 

I actually think licensing was a better solution.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I'm not sure when I admitted any such thing.

If I did, I must have been drunk.

And I don't drink.

So you're trolling again.

Matt Dwyer is on my email contact list and has been from the start, although he doesn't always reply to emails.

We'll invite him onto our Podcast and see whether he responds.

Rhodri Jones will be joining us next week.

As for my "mega plan", I think you'll find that West Wales would never have played Wigan under my plan, at least until they had reached Wigan's level.

My memory, and apologies if I got it wrong, was that you were asked on here who you had sent your plan to - because you hadn’t had a reply - and you said it was the generic address on the website?

[Worzel]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I would be grateful if you would try hard not to read my mind, or anyone else's for that matter.

Try to restrict yourself to replying to the points I actually make.

If you want my view on Nigel Wood, it is that he rescued the game from financial disaster, allowing the RFL to build a solid financial base, which is essential if the governing body is to be in a position to do anything else. He was politically very adept and an excellent negotiator. But his PR ability was very limited. I think he should have remained as the RFL's Finance Director with a much more outgoing individual appointed as CEO, although the clubs are difficult to manage as a group by anyone who doesn't understand the underlying tensions among them.

But the truth is that without financial stability, it's hard to achieve non-financial objectives in any organisation.

Richard Lewis may have had a much smoother persona than Nigel but he did two things that impacted badly on Rugby League - abolishing Great Britain and introducing a poorly thought out licensing system, which ultimately failed. So I'm not sure he deserves as much credit as you give him.

You seem to make assertions without any evidence to back up your claims.

And in relation to your final paragraph, I was never close to the regime run by Nigel Wood, much to my regret. Wood was reluctant to speak to anyone in the media, including me, which was one of his major faults, while his opponents were only too happy to.

As for IMG, I'm not negative about them generally, but I'm not a member of the IMG fan club, as many on here appear to be.

I'm happy to acknowledge the good work they do, on digital media and the deal they have negotiated for coverage in France, for example, while being critical where criticism is merited, such as some of the more illogical elements of the grading system.

You are perfectly entitled to view IMG through rose-coloured spectacles, but some of us prefer to be a little more realistic.

I do love it when people clutch their handbags about the nature of somebody's challenge to them, asking them to only focus on raw facts rather than have nuanced opinions that have evolved in a rich context of information, and then close with a patronising "You are perfectly entitled to view IMG through rose-coloured spectacles, but some of us prefer to be a little more realistic."

You're as human as the rest of us Martyn, do me a favour. 

I don't see IMG through rose-tinted spectacles. Far from it. However, my personal analysis is that they bring a lot of what the game has lacked over the years and albeit with inherent limitations that is generally a good thing. There are reasons for those things having been lacking in the past. One of those is resources, driven by financial constraints. But that is not the only reason: Poor leadership was the main one. You can do better things than the RFL has done, with less resources and better decisions. I'm also old enough and wise enough to be able to differentiate between somebody being "realistic", and somebody assessing a situation with a cynical eye. 

Just to come to a couple of your Richard Lewis points, as you flippantly dismiss strategic insight, vision and communication skills as some sort of "PR" fluff. 

1. Great Britain. This was partly driven by a corporate affairs strategy to build bridges with Sport England. The funding derived from that relationship was in large part responsible for rebuilding the RFLs finances... ironically enough.

2. Licensing. Much like Framing the Future, this was much needed. The issue with licensing was that it wasn't implemented firmly enough, with consequences, and then because it became meaningless was discarded. I'd politely suggest that was much more down to the very same West Yorkshire defend-the-base 'club' than it was the concept itself, or Lewis. 

I appreciate this is a world you live in every second of the day, whereas I have an unrelated business to grow, so your grasp of the minutiae of each and every event across 20 years may well be better than mine. But that's not the same thing as having a better analysis. Sometimes you're far better off outside looking in, with real-world benchmarks to assess things against, than you are sitting in the maelstrom of it all.

 

 

[Martyn Sadler]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Martyn's opinion is perfectly valid, but as he's posted it publicly here, it is well worthy of being pulled apart.

It is clear to me that Martyn has quite a strong starting position of the RFL being great and any change to that is a negative as a starter. I think that is a flawed position to come from.

I've spent more than 30 years criticising the RFL for not being great so it's hard to imagine a more incorrect assertion.

 

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't believe that the RFL deserves all of the criticism that they have received, but I do think it is a hell of a stretch to believe that they were doing a great job and that they didn't need major overhaul. It is absolutely fair though to challenge how it was done initially - the Lenegan/Moran/McManus coup looked poor to start, stayed poor and ended poorly.

But that doesn't mean that things didn't need to be different from how it used to be under the RFL. And thankfully, the RFL recognised this and the new model is a whole new world. Time will tell whether this will ultimately work, but there are absolutely early signs of positivity. 

Where I have an issue with Martyn's post is the bias has taken over everything else. It's all well and good to highlight the £40m TV deal and the £25m World Cup deal, they were absolutely great things - but to refuse to acknowledge what they did with that funding is silly. The Super 8's didn't hit the mark, whatever our personal preferences were, we didn't really have an amazing, clear strategy that utilised that £200m. The World Cup had many great things going for it, but it also had many bits that were quite simply pants, far worse than the 2013 tournament.

We also can't ignore the decline in income, loss of partners, and the shambolic position we have found ourselves in with England RL being isolated. Now the RFL have my sympathy with some of the above, but ultimately, these things are happening on their watch. 

We also need to stop being so worried about spending money.

I agree with much of what you say here.

What you do with the money is of course important and in my view far more of it should have been invested in marketing the game. But to invest it, you have to earn it first, which is why I think Nigel Wood's contribution to the RFL's financial health should be acknowledged.

And, at the risk of people accusing me once again of being a Wood fanboy, it's useful to remember that Wood was the tournament director for the 2013 World Cup, which I agree was a great success, but had nothing to do with the 2022 version, other than generating the £25 million government support for it. The bad decisions made by the organisers of that tournament were nothing to do with him.

You are right to say we are in a whole new world and on balance I think the association with IMG is a positive one, not so much because of what they are proposing, but because of the signal it sends out that our sport is conscious of the need to modernise.

But, having said that, many clubs are still teetering on a knife edge, given the reduction in funding they have suffered since Wood's departure and ultimately IMG will be judged on whether they can reverse this trend.

[Martyn Sadler]

11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

My memory, and apologies if I got it wrong, was that you were asked on here who you had sent your plan to - because you hadn’t had a reply - and you said it was the generic address on the website?

Your memory is wrong but thanks for your apology.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I've spent more than 30 years criticising the RFL for not being great so it's hard to imagine a more incorrect assertion.

 

I agree with much of what you say here.

What you do with the money is of course important and in my view far more of it should have been invested in marketing the game. But to invest it, you have to earn it first, which is why I think Nigel Wood's contribution to the RFL's financial health should be acknowledged.

And, at the risk of people accusing me once again of being a Wood fanboy, it's useful to remember that Wood was the tournament director for the 2013 World Cup, which I agree was a great success, but had nothing to do with the 2022 version, other than generating the £25 million government support for it. The bad decisions made by the organisers of that tournament were nothing to do with him.

You are right to say we are in a whole new world and on balance I think the association with IMG is a positive one, not so much because of what they are proposing, but because of the signal it sends out that our sport is conscious of the need to modernise.

But, having said that, many clubs are still teetering on a knife edge, given the reduction in funding they have suffered since Wood's departure and ultimately IMG will be judged on whether they can reverse this trend.

I'm not sure why your posts are about Wood. I never mentioned Wood. He hasn't been at the RFL for years.

But you defo aren't a fan?

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I do love it when people clutch their handbags about the nature of somebody's challenge to them, asking them to only focus on raw facts rather than have nuanced opinions that have evolved in a rich context of information, and then close with a patronising "You are perfectly entitled to view IMG through rose-coloured spectacles, but some of us prefer to be a little more realistic."

You're as human as the rest of us Martyn, do me a favour. 

I don't see IMG through rose-tinted spectacles. Far from it. However, my personal analysis is that they bring a lot of what the game has lacked over the years and albeit with inherent limitations that is generally a good thing. There are reasons for those things having been lacking in the past. One of those is resources, driven by financial constraints. But that is not the only reason: Poor leadership was the main one. You can do better things than the RFL has done, with less resources and better decisions. I'm also old enough and wise enough to be able to differentiate between somebody being "realistic", and somebody assessing a situation with a cynical eye. 

Just to come to a couple of your Richard Lewis points, as you flippantly dismiss strategic insight, vision and communication skills as some sort of "PR" fluff. 

1. Great Britain. This was partly driven by a corporate affairs strategy to build bridges with Sport England. The funding derived from that relationship was in large part responsible for rebuilding the RFLs finances... ironically enough.

2. Licensing. Much like Framing the Future, this was much needed. The issue with licensing was that it wasn't implemented firmly enough, with consequences, and then because it became meaningless was discarded. I'd politely suggest that was much more down to the very same West Yorkshire defend-the-base 'club' than it was the concept itself, or Lewis. 

I appreciate this is a world you live in every second of the day, whereas I have an unrelated business to grow, so your grasp of the minutiae of each and every event across 20 years may well be better than mine. But that's not the same thing as having a better analysis. Sometimes you're far better off outside looking in, with real-world benchmarks to assess things against, than you are sitting in the maelstrom of it all.

 

 

It is often quoted that licensing failed as a fact, and I'm not sure what that is based on in reality. 

Just because the game didn't stick with something doesn't mean it wasn't working. 

Otherwise, that means most systems have failed.

[gingerjon]

16 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Your memory is wrong but thanks for your apology.

Did you get a reply then?

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is often quoted that licensing failed as a fact, and I'm not sure what that is based on in reality. 

Just because the game didn't stick with something doesn't mean it wasn't working. 

Otherwise, that means most systems have failed.

for something to fail you have to have parameters to judge it against.. I am not sure what those are for a league system that lasted about 5 years... 

also I see the "didn't they do well getting £25m out of the government" argument being used, yet we don't know what the government would have given a different person.. the government was supporting loads of sport coming to the UK at that time, loads of different world cups (hockey, netball, cricket etc) women's Euros, the men's Euro main matches etc.. so it could have been good money in a crowded space or it could have been that they would have given more.. Its the same as blaming someone for a poor tv deal when the deals are all dropping and actually that person negotiated a blinding deal under the circumstances. 

[Damien]

31 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Martyn's opinion is perfectly valid, but as he's posted it publicly here, it is well worthy of being pulled apart.

It is clear to me that Martyn has quite a strong starting position of the RFL being great and any change to that is a negative as a starter. I think that is a flawed position to come from.

I don't believe that the RFL deserves all of the criticism that they have received, but I do think it is a hell of a stretch to believe that they were doing a great job and that they didn't need major overhaul. It is absolutely fair though to challenge how it was done initially - the Lenegan/Moran/McManus coup looked poor to start, stayed poor and ended poorly.

But that doesn't mean that things didn't need to be different from how it used to be under the RFL. And thankfully, the RFL recognised this and the new model is a whole new world. Time will tell whether this will ultimately work, but there are absolutely early signs of positivity. 

Where I have an issue with Martyn's post is the bias has taken over everything else. It's all well and good to highlight the £40m TV deal and the £25m World Cup deal, they were absolutely great things - but to refuse to acknowledge what they did with that funding is silly. The Super 8's didn't hit the mark, whatever our personal preferences were, we didn't really have an amazing, clear strategy that utilised that £200m. The World Cup had many great things going for it, but it also had many bits that were quite simply pants, far worse than the 2013 tournament.

We also can't ignore the decline in income, loss of partners, and the shambolic position we have found ourselves in with England RL being isolated. Now the RFL have my sympathy with some of the above, but ultimately, these things are happening on their watch. 

We also need to stop being so worried about spending money.

I agree with all of your post but just wanted to highlight this because I think it has been a major contributor to the decline of the game in several key areas. The game absolutely has not spent the money it needed to in investing and improving itself over the last couple of decades. Whenever times were good, such as the £200m TV deal, it was wasted for no real benefit.

Thankfully we now seem to be addressing that. The benefits of spending money, such as the £440,000 so far with IMG, in areas where the game is obviously badly deficient have been obvious. Spending money in the right areas to facilitate growth is a wise and prudent thing to do, we shouldn't bemoan that, and so far and we have seen great improvement.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

I agree with all of your post but just wanted to highlight this because I think it has been a major contributor to the decline of the game in several key areas. The game absolutely has not spent the money it needed to in investing and improving itself over the last couple of decades. Whenever times were good, such as the £200m TV deal, it was wasted for no real benefit.

Thankfully we now seem to be addressing that. The benefits of spending money, such as the £440,000 so far with IMG, in areas where the game is obviously badly deficient have been obvious. Spending money in the right areas to facilitate growth is a wise and prudent thing to do, we shouldn't bemoan that, and so far and we have seen great improvement.

Totally agree. And whilst Martyn will claim that he is prepared to give credit - his bias is absolutely demonstrated on this point, where he dismissively describes it as a payment for 'advice'.

The general consensus does appear to be that the launch, tv deals, SL+ launch, marketing and digital work has been great, a buzz created for the launch of the season, and a genuine transformation. On the flip side, the grading is receiving more challenge, and I include myself in that as I believe the execution is off.

But Martyn does appear to struggle to give any credit anywhere (apart from the odd reluctant point made in response to direct challenge). 

One final point - the £440k keeps being brought up as though it's a negative, but maybe a good journo would try and understand what we are getting for that. i.e. does this give us access to services? To people? Does it mean we don't hire people direct? Just keep shouting £400k is weird.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Totally agree. And whilst Martyn will claim that he is prepared to give credit - his bias is absolutely demonstrated on this point, where he dismissively describes it as a payment for 'advice'.

The general consensus does appear to be that the launch, tv deals, SL+ launch, marketing and digital work has been great, a buzz created for the launch of the season, and a genuine transformation. On the flip side, the grading is receiving more challenge, and I include myself in that as I believe the execution is off.

But Martyn does appear to struggle to give any credit anywhere (apart from the odd reluctant point made in response to direct challenge). 

One final point - the £440k keeps being brought up as though it's a negative, but maybe a good journo would try and understand what we are getting for that. i.e. does this give us access to services? To people? Does it mean we don't hire people direct? Just keep shouting £400k is weird.

On the £440k didn’t Martyn himself say that they haven’t actually paid that they have given them the betting rights in exchange?

But your point is valid why do people think that paying for experts is a bad thing?

[Damien]

24 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

On the £440k didn’t Martyn himself say that they haven’t actually paid that they have given them the betting rights in exchange?

But your point is valid why do people think that paying for experts is a bad thing?

Which as the rights had zero value isn't a bad exchange if it's the case.

People keep making out that these rights were squandered but it simply isn't the case as we never monetised them. Worst case scenario is that IMG don't realise any value and they are still worthless when we get them back in 3 years. Best case scenario is that IMG build them up, do well out of them and increase their value and then in 3 years we have another lucrative asset to sweat. Either way its a win, win.

[Click]

44 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Totally agree. And whilst Martyn will claim that he is prepared to give credit - his bias is absolutely demonstrated on this point, where he dismissively describes it as a payment for 'advice'.

The general consensus does appear to be that the launch, tv deals, SL+ launch, marketing and digital work has been great, a buzz created for the launch of the season, and a genuine transformation. On the flip side, the grading is receiving more challenge, and I include myself in that as I believe the execution is off.

But Martyn does appear to struggle to give any credit anywhere (apart from the odd reluctant point made in response to direct challenge). 

One final point - the £440k keeps being brought up as though it's a negative, but maybe a good journo would try and understand what we are getting for that. i.e. does this give us access to services? To people? Does it mean we don't hire people direct? Just keep shouting £400k is weird.

Does anyone know one that could do some kind of investigation? 

[Angelic Cynic]

On 13/02/2024 at 19:20, LeeF said:

Some IMG “sceptics” would benefit from reading this and the follow up articles. 

I read it.Chelsea and Formula 1.

I benefited. Learned a new word.

Sophistry. 

[Gooleboy]

Supporters of the chosen few clubs will find it a lot easier to be positive about all this than those of clubs who worry about being cast away for ever and feel as though their clubs will never reach the promised land. Also the feeling of mistrust is ingrained after other efforts by the elite to get themselves a closed shop failed. I would imagine everyone who supports the game wants it to fair better, that goes without saying, and before anyone says "well it is up to these clubs to reach the standards required," would you be prepared to invest loads of money in a club that may still not be able to get to the A grade because their location makes it nigh on impossible due to the set criteria?

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, Gooleboy said:

would you be prepared to invest loads of money in a club that may still not be able to get to the A grade because their location makes it nigh on impossible due to the set criteria?

Which club would that be?

[Gooleboy]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Which club would that be?

It's a question to yourself and other supporters of all things IMG to see what your opinion is that's all.

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

It's a question to yourself and other supporters of all things IMG to see what your opinion is that's all.

It’s a loaded question. You stated that location would mean they couldn’t achieve a grade A.

I’m asking you which that would be because I don’t think it applies to any team

[Gooleboy]

38 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It’s a loaded question. You stated that location would mean they couldn’t achieve a grade A.

I’m asking you which that would be because I don’t think it applies to any team

Ok, but you must know some clubs may never reach grade A for whatever reasons, so I was asking how you would feel if you were an owner or supporter of such a club. Or, as you are well versed in all things IMG, do you think the A grade is achievable by all member clubs?

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Ok, but you must know some clubs may never reach grade A for whatever reasons, so I was asking how you would feel if you were an owner or supporter of such a club. Or, as you are well versed in all things IMG, do you think the A grade is achievable by all member clubs?

In theory yes. But it’s a daft question really as you can easily say the same about getting promoted to SL.

Has any clubs had their owners pull out of the club because of IMG?

Theres a few clubs had new owners come in.

[Chrispmartha]

Just to add you don’t need a grade A to be in SL

[Worzel]

6 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

And, at the risk of people accusing me once again of being a Wood fanboy, it's useful to remember that Wood was the tournament director for the 2013 World Cup, which I agree was a great success, but had nothing to do with the 2022 version, other than generating the £25 million government support for it. The bad decisions made by the organisers of that tournament were nothing to do with him.

 

Sally Bolton just called and asked if she could have her credit back

Always the old bloke that does the work eh.

[Wakefield Ram]

On 14/02/2024 at 16:00, Martyn Sadler said:

“If you’re a rugby league fan, it’s never been this good,” says Matt Dwyer.

I don't think you could argue with that point if you want to see as many games as possible on television, either on mainstream channels or on the new streaming service.

In business terms, it's an example of a company trying to raise its turnover by generating more income from its existing customer base.

That isn't necessarily a faulty strategy, but it only has limited scope.

“Every sport is trying to get on the BBC, I promise you – and we’ve done it. It’s prime free-to-air exposure. They all want it, and rugby league has it," adds Dwyer.

“It will take a while for the exposure to translate into more fans, which translates into growing the sport, but that’s the basis of what we want to do. The scale of exposure we have now versus last – or any – season is unprecedented for this sport. The amount of other sports that would love to have the exposure we’re having moving forward is.. well, all of them, except football."

That may well be true, but the question facing IMG and Rugby League more generally is precisely how to attract those new fans, which is crucial for the game but which he isn't yet in a position to clarify.

There will be ten Super League matches this season broadcast on BBC channels at varying times and on various channels, including BBC 3.

The problem with last year's Channel 4's coverage was that it was too intermittent to generate a significant following and the BBC's coverage could be similar and Rugby League could once again look like a filler rather than a major part of the broadcaster's sports output.

How will the BBC promote its Rugby League coverage?

Whatever contract has been signed, for no money apparently, I hope it includes some clauses about the degree of promotional support the BBC will give its Rugby League coverage. Otherwise it will have limited value.

The problem for Rugby League is the decline in broadcast income from £40 million per year to £21.5 million per year under the current contract.

At a recent meeting with Sky, the RFL was told to get its act together to generate more eyeballs for its coverage if that decline is to be reversed. What will be the impact of the new streaming service in that regard?

The Chairman of one leading club told me this week that he expects his club to lose £2 million in 2024 and more in 2025, when the new rules about how many games players can play take effect, necessitating larger squads.

In the meantime we are paying IMG £440,000 per year for the benefit of their advice.

I hope we are getting value for money, although I'm not quite as sanguine as some of the more optimistic sorts on this thread.

For me, the jury is still out.

"Dwyer is hesitant to reveal sign up numbers" means take up is poor. 

Understand the strategy of getting as many games on TV as possible to increase exposure. 

Agree the jury is still out

Edited February 15 by Wakefield Ram