Jump to content

IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RP London said:

Thing is its not the scepticism of the brave new world that I commented about, I am sceptical about whether this will ultimately succeed. Its the fact its "I cant see them lasting long term" that then clouds the conversation when you are talking about long term investment in areas and 5 years plans vs long term strategy.. I have lived through all of what you say and remember the start of Super League well so I am "stained" with the same knowledge and experience of these short term gains. The fact they have a 12 year contractual obligation and have been talking like they mean it makes me actually think there is hope becuase its not 1 person who can just walk away and their plans go with them its a company that will want to maximise the dividend they get from this.

 

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The Super League launch was a shambles, and Lindsay was a cowboy, but I do think that we shouldn't allow that to unfairly judge what SL has done for the sport since it started. 

If I look back at those early 90's, we have really moved our top flight on since then, we play in summer, in great facilities, every game on TV, crowds have increased substantially, have a strong French club, have introduced a great Grand Final and have tried some exciting things like Magic etc. 

Yes. Things are different. Past mistakes should not colour the present, but there is a certain inevitability that they do.

Also, it needs to be said, without being too cynical, that each fan's view of the present & future, and the level of faith and optimism they have in IMG, does to some extent depend on where their own club is in the current scheme of things.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


19 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

A London based team is important for Super League.

The current edition of London Broncos are a far cry from that.

Why is a London club important to Super League ? Didn't we have one for 20 years (1995-2014) . In what way did that benefit Super League ? I remember at the time the same statements being made . How it would increase the TV deals having a National rather than 'regional' sport . How so much more investement would be brought into the game with a team from the capital . None of this happened , why should it be any different this time ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Why is a London club important to Super League ? Didn't we have one for 20 years (1995-2014) . In what way did that benefit Super League ? I remember at the time the same statements being made . How it would increase the TV deals having a National rather than 'regional' sport . How so much more investement would be brought into the game with a team from the capital . None of this happened , why should it be any different this time ?

I do agree with asking these questions, it is often too easy to just say things like "Xxxx are important to SL", whether that is Catalans, London, Toronto or whoever. 

But, I think it would be easy to make a case that things were better in the past. We did used to have bigger TV deals, we did used to have a bigger panel of sponsors. 

Now I'm not saying that having London Broncos in SL wad the reason for that, but maybe the overall perception of a comp that had presence in France, London, Wales and was a bit more outward looking was more attractive to partners and fans. 

There is an argument that after years of growing deals and sponsors, that we are where we are now because we failed with expansion and retracted. 

Edited by Dave T
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do agree with asking these questions, it is often too easy to just say things like "Xxxx are important to SL", whether that is Catalans, London, Toronto or whoever. 

But, I think it would be easy to make a case that things were better in the past. We did used to have bigger TV deals, we did used to have a bigger panel of sponsors. 

Now I'm not saying that having London Broncos in SL wad the reason for that, but maybe the overall perception of a comp that had presence in France, London, Wales and was a bit more outward looking was more attractive to partners and fans. 

There is an argument that after years of growing deals and sponsors, that we are where we are now because we failed with expansion and retracted. 

 Not sure I agree completely  , but fair points and well made . 

 

Edited by Taffy Tiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Why is a London club important to Super League ? Didn't we have one for 20 years (1995-2014) . In what way did that benefit Super League ? I remember at the time the same statements being made . How it would increase the TV deals having a National rather than 'regional' sport . How so much more investement would be brought into the game with a team from the capital . None of this happened , why should it be any different this time ?

We had a very successful London amateur and junior setup, one that produced players to rival the M62 (as did Wales in its brief period).

London commercially is clearly an important asset. Being based in the capital, in a country that is as much a City dominated State as we are with London, should be obvious. 

Right now our TV deals etc are all down on previous. It really must not help anybody in the Sport, either with Broadcasters or Sponsors, by saying we're so geographically stunted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

We had a very successful London amateur and junior setup, one that produced players to rival the M62 (as did Wales in its brief period).

London commercially is clearly an important asset. Being based in the capital, in a country that is as much a City dominated State as we are with London, should be obvious. 

Right now our TV deals etc are all down on previous. It really must not help anybody in the Sport, either with Broadcasters or Sponsors, by saying we're so geographically stunted.

Again fair points , but I still feel that 20 years in top flight RL didn't benefit the sport that much during this time . However , I do take on board your points and the similar ones made by Dave T . Perhaps we did fail to capitalise on this when they were last in SL and we are better postioned to do so now , under the IMG banner . Who knows?

I would say though , that under the new IMG scoring system , there is no reason why London shouldn't be able to get there on their own merits.

It is looking like you will need a mid to high 14s score to make it in 2025. If we could have a London team getting into SL in the same way as other clubs, then the future for the game in the capital could be very rosy , as to achieve a score good enough for the top 12 , you would naturally be strong in most areas and have a good financial footing for the future .

I am all for expanding the game , but only if it benefits the game as a whole . I can see the positive side of a strong capital team , but their failure to make more of their opportunities in the past , makes me feel that the only way they will achieve SL status in the future ,  is via another route to that set out in the IMG criteria . 

We know that they have put in a letter/request to RFL highlighting why they feel they should be allowed to stay in SL , and until we know the full content of this letter , we can't really speculate too much on their reasoning .

Maybe we will have to wait and see what their proposals are for going forward .

 

Thanks for the replies . Both have made me look at this a little differently , but I still need to be comvinced .

 

Edited by Taffy Tiger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Again fair points , but I still feel that 20 years in top flight RL didn't benefit the sport that much during this time . However , I do take on board your points and the similar ones made by Dave T . Perhaps we did fail to capitalise on this when they were last in SL and we are better postioned to do so now , under the IMG banner . Who knows?

I would say though , that under the new IMG scoring system , there is no reason why London shouldn't be able to get there on their own merits.

It is looking like you will need a mid to high 14s score to make it in 2025. If we could have a London team getting into SL in the same way as other clubs, then the future for the game in the capital could be very rosy , as to achieve a score good enough for the top 12 , you would naturally be strong in most areas and have a good financial footing for the future .

I am all for expanding the game , but only if it benefits the game as a whole . I can see the positive side of a strong capital team , but their failure to make more of their opportunities in the past , makes me feel that the only way they will achieve SL status in the future ,  is via another route to that set out in the IMG criteria . 

We know that they have put in a letter/request to RFL highlighting why they feel they should be allowed to stay in SL , and until we know the full content of this letter , we can't really speculate too much on their reasoning .

Maybe we will have to wait and see what their proposals are for going forward .

 

Thanks for the replies . Both have made me look at this a little differently , but I still need to be comvinced .

 

I'm not convinced by my argument myself I would add 😆

I think with some of these things it is tough to make the direct correlation between individual clubs and the benefits. I think there has to be a bit of a holistic vision, and whilst it's difficult to say London added tangible benefits (they were often pretty poor), I do think the image of the league was better when we had a wider geographical spread, which I do think has to help when discussing with partners. 

I think we have too many parts of the country where we are a complete irrelevance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Again fair points , but I still feel that 20 years in top flight RL didn't benefit the sport that much during this time . However , I do take on board your points and the similar ones made by Dave T . Perhaps we did fail to capitalise on this when they were last in SL and we are better postioned to do so now , under the IMG banner . Who knows?

I would say though , that under the new IMG scoring system , there is no reason why London shouldn't be able to get there on their own merits.

It is looking like you will need a mid to high 14s score to make it in 2025. If we could have a London team getting into SL in the same way as other clubs, then the future for the game in the capital could be very rosy , as to achieve a score good enough for the top 12 , you would naturally be strong in most areas and have a good financial footing for the future .

I am all for expanding the game , but only if it benefits the game as a whole . I can see the positive side of a strong capital team , but their failure to make more of their opportunities in the past , makes me feel that the only way they will achieve SL status in the future ,  is via another route to that set out in the IMG criteria . 

We know that they have put in a letter/request to RFL highlighting why they feel they should be allowed to stay in SL , and until we know the full content of this letter , we can't really speculate too much on their reasoning .

Maybe we will have to wait and see what their proposals are for going forward .

 

Thanks for the replies . Both have made me look at this a little differently , but I still need to be comvinced .

 

I suppose I refer to this:

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think with some of these things it is tough to make the direct correlation between individual clubs and the benefits. I think there has to be a bit of a holistic vision, and whilst it's difficult to say London added tangible benefits (they were often pretty poor), I do think the image of the league was better when we had a wider geographical spread, which I do think has to help when discussing with partners. 

I think we have too many parts of the country where we are a complete irrelevance.

The Gillette to Betfred/Mushy Peas timeline I guess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Lakin was interviewed by the BBC today, wide range of Hull KR topics, but on the IMG subject he said: 

- The IMG deal is 12 years long for a reason, that's how much work is needed to get the sport moving in the right direction

- They have already done a lot of unseen work behind the scenes to support clubs' growth, especially around social media

- They've built a "star pathway" programme in the background, to create a long-term platform to build the profile of key players

- Their next focus is to improve the broadcast rights value for the next media purchasing cycle in 2 years time

Frankly, if Paul is happy with the work IMG are doing, then I am. He demonstrably knows what is needed to turn this sport around, and deliver progressive change. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I suppose I refer to this:

The Gillette to Betfred/Mushy Peas timeline I guess...

It gets worse than that... you're forgetting Glenn's Vodka, which I swear is some sort of moonshine knocked up in the shed of a bloke with an A-Level in chemistry from Airedale Academy in Castleford, sold out of the boot of his Halfords-bodykit-bedecked Citreon Saxo in pub car parks across the West Riding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I suppose I refer to this:

The Gillette to Betfred/Mushy Peas timeline I guess...

When you look back at the website using the Wayback Machine it really is an eye opener. For a while we had Emirates, Holiday Inn, Valvoline, Dewalt, Falken and the rather splendid D&B. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

When you look back at the website using the Wayback Machine it really is an eye opener. For a while we had Emirates, Holiday Inn, Valvoline, Dewalt, Falken and the rather splendid D&B. 

 

To be fair though Emirates and Holiday Inn were just contra deals. We carried their logo in exchange for some small discounts on flights and hotels. Things were pretty bad back then too... they're just even worse now!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Worzel said:

To be fair though Emirates and Holiday Inn were just contra deals. We carried their logo in exchange for some small discounts on flights and hotels. Things were pretty bad back then too... they're just even worse now!!

Aye, I just wanted to highlight D&B if I'm honest. Lovely stuff 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

When you look back at the website using the Wayback Machine it really is an eye opener. For a while we had Emirates, Holiday Inn, Valvoline, Dewalt, Falken and the rather splendid D&B. 

 

Quite, its not all down to London or anything like that.

The difference is undeniable though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

Aye, I just wanted to highlight D&B if I'm honest. Lovely stuff 😆

Dandelion & Burdock, lovely stuff.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.