IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

Which bit of this is incorrect?

The average fan of Wimbledon and The Open – IMG’s longest-standing rights-holder partnerships – tends to have far more disposable income than the average Super League fan. Rugby league is a predominantly working-class sport in England, with top teams based in some of the country’s poorest communities.

Is somebody saying it's incorrect?

[Londonbornirishbred]

29 minutes ago, Worzel said:

IMG say London is important for the future of the sport 

That doesn’t mean keeping a zombie club on life support is the best way of achieving success in London, does it? London were 24th for a lot of good reasons. A professional sports club doesn’t have a CEO taking down post pads after the ref blows his whistle. The Broncos in the last few years have been an empty shell, and everyone knows it.

Hughes was part of the problem, not part of the solution. We don’t need a “scraping by somehow” token dot on the map. We need a strategy, and before that we need to be able to afford one. 

Well. We have about 20 million leas a year thannqe used to get from SKY. I would suggest that the ither cluns chipping in 10% of their income a decade ago and the RFL/Sky owning and running London would have delivered a better result for everyone.....but we will never know.

we only have the relative success of Melbourne to go on.

[phiggins]

5 hours ago, JohnM said:

That would be fine had it been a simple straightforward piece, short and to the point, not a novel that challenges the authorities to deny Leigh a grade A or else.  Leigh have done well this season and should be congratulated for that. However,  the owner acting as the game's Court Jester  obscures the good that has been done. 

The initial release had 500 words and 6 pictures. The second email had about 50 words.

Not sure what novels you're reading?

[Worzel]

1 minute ago, Londonbornirishbred said:

Well. We have about 20 million leas a year thannqe used to get from SKY. I would suggest that the ither cluns chipping in 10% of their income a decade ago and the RFL/Sky owning and running London would have delivered a better result for everyone.....but we will never know.

we only have the relative success of Melbourne to go on.

It would have done, yes. But like you say, we’ll never know. The issue was always that the northern clubs didn’t understand how a successful competition creates a virtuous circle that enriches all clubs: Not all actions investing money elsewhere are negative for the other clubs in the long term. 

But we are a sport characterised by its small-minded, local, short-term myopia. 

[Dave T]

24 minutes ago, Worzel said:

It would have done, yes. But like you say, we’ll never know. The issue was always that the northern clubs didn’t understand how a successful competition creates a virtuous circle that enriches all clubs: Not all actions investing money elsewhere are negative for the other clubs in the long term. 

But we are a sport characterised by its small-minded, local, short-term myopia. 

I think its too simplistic and combatitive to just put things down to Northern Simpletons beibg too tight to invest. I think its far more a failure of leadership. Clubs will broadly try and look after themselves first, thats no different in many other sports, and is definitely the case in the more successful NRL. 

But its funny how they can be won round with pots of cash, which is usually the thing that gets votes. Too often clubs are expected to make sacrifices for expansion, whether that is cash, or teams making way. 

In the NRL when tbey talk about new teams joining, there are huge sums of investment that come along with it, nobody gives up their place necessarily and each club benefits directly by millions of dollars a year. 

Probably the one real opportunity i think we missed was the £200m deal we got. Which was the closest to a real investment from sky rather than just a tv deal. That deal felt like the time to setup an expansion pot, yet the leaders led us in a very different durection, which imo ultimately led us to where we are now with deals half the price.

Im not even just talking about the S8's, more the fact that we were given pots of money and we just didnt deliver growth and we focused lower down the pyramid which was never going to make real change to the number of eyeballs. We need to remember that the money is comibg from a TV company.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

The initial release had 500 words and 6 pictures. The second email had about 50 words.

Not sure what novels you're reading?

The initial release had 500 words and 6 pictures. The second email had about 50 words

new opportunity for  his creative writing?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2024/bbc-500-words-creative-writing-competition-returns

[binosh]

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

You clearly either haven’t read the article or have read it and not understood it or have just dismissed it because it doesn’t fit your existing viewpoint

Not so sure you understand yourself about Londons importance to IMG in their initial interviews, what’s changed? Completely understand the article, just too little to late from the RFL leading partner in my humble partisan opinion.

[Worzel]

33 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think its too simplistic and combatitive to just put things down to Northern Simpletons beibg too tight to invest. I think its far more a failure of leadership. Clubs will broadly try and look after themselves first, thats no different in many other sports, and is definitely the case in the more successful NRL. 

But its funny how they can be won round with pots of cash, which is usually the thing that gets votes. Too often clubs are expected to make sacrifices for expansion, whether that is cash, or teams making way. 

In the NRL when tbey talk about new teams joining, there are huge sums of investment that come along with it, nobody gives up their place necessarily and each club benefits directly by millions of dollars a year. 

Probably the one real opportunity i think we missed was the £200m deal we got. Which was the closest to a real investment from sky rather than just a tv deal. That deal felt like the time to setup an expansion pot, yet the leaders led us in a very different durection, which imo ultimately led us to where we are now with deals half the price.

Im not even just talking about the S8's, more the fact that we were given pots of money and we just didnt deliver growth and we focused lower down the pyramid which was never going to make real change to the number of eyeballs. We need to remember that the money is comibg from a TV company.

The NRL’s surplus only exists because the clubs don’t insist on getting a greater distribution. At every single time in out history that we’ve had decent TV deals, our clubs have chosen to maximise their distributions. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call It out to be  honest. It happened, sadly. 

[binosh]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

IMG say London is important for the future of the sport 

That doesn’t mean keeping a zombie club on life support is the best way of achieving success in London, does it? London were 24th for a lot of good reasons. A professional sports club doesn’t have a CEO taking down post pads after the ref blows his whistle. The Broncos in the last few years have been an empty shell, and everyone knows it.

Hughes was part of the problem, not part of the solution. We don’t need a “scraping by somehow” token dot on the map. We need a strategy, and before that we need to be able to afford one. 

I have never said they should in fact if you go back far enough I’ve clearly stated London have had their chance over 30 years and blown it.

However I’m still intelligent enough to understand IMG going in the national press earlier in the year stating the importance of London to SL and how they want to strengthen every club going forward then going radio silent on the subject for 12 months and then releasing a desperate statement about how London should be helped centrally for a minimum term too little too late about as much use as T1ts on fish. 

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Worzel said:

The NRL’s surplus only exists because the clubs don’t insist on getting a greater distribution. At every single time in out history that we’ve had decent TV deals, our clubs have chosen to maximise their distributions. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call It out to be  honest. It happened, sadly. 

We do ringfence some for central activities and lower league clubs though. We dont just split it 12 ways.

 

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, dkw said:

I'd love to see which part of the article you read that from, because there's nothing even close to it in there.

That is called perspective, 2 people looking at the same thing from an entirely different angle see things differently, so who is right? Go on tell me you are.

[Dave T]

48 minutes ago, binosh said:

I have never said they should in fact if you go back far enough I’ve clearly stated London have had their chance over 30 years and blown it.

However I’m still intelligent enough to understand IMG going in the national press earlier in the year stating the importance of London to SL and how they want to strengthen every club going forward then going radio silent on the subject for 12 months and then releasing a desperate statement about how London should be helped centrally for a minimum term too little too late about as much use as T1ts on fish. 

Do you have the article you refer to about what IMG said on London?

I think you are making the mistake of when people saying London is important to RL translating that to London Broncos are important to Super League.

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

You clearly either haven’t read the article or have read it and not understood it or have just dismissed it because it doesn’t fit your existing viewpoint

Whoosh!

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

The initial release had 500 words and 6 pictures. The second email had about 50 words

new opportunity for  his creative writing?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2024/bbc-500-words-creative-writing-competition-returns

Will you be on the judging panel, or will it be too many novels to read?

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

Not even October yet.

[Tommygilf]

50 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think its too simplistic and combatitive to just put things down to Northern Simpletons beibg too tight to invest. I think its far more a failure of leadership. Clubs will broadly try and look after themselves first, thats no different in many other sports, and is definitely the case in the more successful NRL. 

But its funny how they can be won round with pots of cash, which is usually the thing that gets votes. Too often clubs are expected to make sacrifices for expansion, whether that is cash, or teams making way. 

In the NRL when tbey talk about new teams joining, there are huge sums of investment that come along with it, nobody gives up their place necessarily and each club benefits directly by millions of dollars a year. 

Probably the one real opportunity i think we missed was the £200m deal we got. Which was the closest to a real investment from sky rather than just a tv deal. That deal felt like the time to setup an expansion pot, yet the leaders led us in a very different durection, which imo ultimately led us to where we are now with deals half the price.

Im not even just talking about the S8's, more the fact that we were given pots of money and we just didnt deliver growth and we focused lower down the pyramid which was never going to make real change to the number of eyeballs. We need to remember that the money is comibg from a TV company.

That lower league focus though came from the fact that the leadership at the time was reliant on a house of cards style base for its continuation. Every party had to be bought in some way and when the promised money failed to be what was promised the support faltered accordingly.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Will you be on the judging panel, or will it be too many novels to read?

There was no need for the piece in the first place. He could have demonstrated a degree of maturity and professionalism as befits the owner of a SuperLeague club and waited for the official announcement from the RFL. 

There's no doubting under his ownership  the emergence of the club from the shadows to be a team to be reckoned with, so time to give the stroppy attenton-seeking kid act a rest, and grow up.

[ATLANTISMAN]

6 hours ago, Londonbornirishbred said:

Well. We have about 20 million leas a year thannqe used to get from SKY. I would suggest that the ither cluns chipping in 10% of their income a decade ago and the RFL/Sky owning and running London would have delivered a better result for everyone.....but we will never know.

we only have the relative success of Melbourne to go on.

Agree however if clubs think that SKY will continue at 21 million a year 2027 onwards they will be sadly disappointed.

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

That lower league focus though came from the fact that the leadership at the time was reliant on a house of cards style base for its continuation. Every party had to be bought in some way and when the promised money failed to be what was promised the support faltered accordingly.

Indeed. And this is what i talk about with leadership. It was a pretty radical approach that went through - imagine if we had leaders who presented a different vision.

I often dedend the game here from some of the harsh claims - for a skint game we jave generally been prepared to vote existing clubs out, new clubs in, new systems etc.

Lewis was maybe the last visionary leader imo, i know the likes of Dwyer arent fully in charge nut if they can sufficiently influence strategy then there may be hope for things like proper credible expansion plans.

[phiggins]

6 hours ago, JohnM said:

There was no need for the piece in the first place. He could have demonstrated a degree of maturity and professionalism as befits the owner of a SuperLeague club and waited for the official announcement from the RFL. 

There's no doubting under his ownership  the emergence of the club from the shadows to be a team to be reckoned with, so time to give the stroppy attenton-seeking kid act a rest, and grow up.

Leigh are one of a number of clubs that do not know what division that they will be playing in next season, despite finishing in the play offs again. All the while, will be trying to keep sponsors and season ticket holders on board for next year. Having submitted the data that they feel gives an A grade, to release the detail and back it up with numbers is entirely reasonable. It also acknowledged that the official score is still tbc by the RFL.

My view, anyone with an issue with it is basing it on an existing dislike of the owner. 

[dkw]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

That is called perspective, 2 people looking at the same thing from an entirely different angle see things differently, so who is right? Go on tell me you are.

go on then, show me where in the article it says anything even close to what his "perspective" is.

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, dkw said:

go on then, show me where in the article it says anything even close to what his "perspective" is.

Read back it has already been done.

[Harry Stottle]

8 hours ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Not even October yet.

Should have November 5th, 'light the blue touchpaper, and stand well back'

[DemonUK]

19 hours ago, Dave T said:

Leigh have ranked themselves as 8th for the last 3 years I believe. If they lose this weekend and Saints win, they will finish this year in 6th, whih takes their 3 year average to 9th, which sees them 'lose' the points they have just awarded themselves. 

I have no idea why they 'banked' the points with this update and published it.

They based the original figure on finishing 7th and I am sure it states there would be no difference whether they finished 5th  or 6th.  Also (probably won't make much difference) but the stadium capacity is reduced due to the Stage that is set up in part of the East Stand for the last two seasons.

[Worzel]

11 hours ago, binosh said:

I have never said they should in fact if you go back far enough I’ve clearly stated London have had their chance over 30 years and blown it.

However I’m still intelligent enough to understand IMG going in the national press earlier in the year stating the importance of London to SL and how they want to strengthen every club going forward then going radio silent on the subject for 12 months and then releasing a desperate statement about how London should be helped centrally for a minimum term too little too late about as much use as T1ts on fish. 

It wasn't a desperate statement, it was an interview conducted many weeks ago, before Hughes threw his toys out of the pram.

If IMG believed London Broncos were the solution they'd have creatively ensured they fitted into this model. The fact they didn't, and created a model where they were 24th and told Hughes "what you have isn't a platform we value" shows you everything you need to know. They're fine with this outcome, Broncos in their current guise weren't ever seen - by them - as part of the solution, so why would they be fazed by these events?

You're just desperate to find something to beat them over the head with, it's as transparent as the glass in my window.