IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

That was my comment. It really isn’t a joke, and if you can’t understand or haven’t seen at first hand what you get for a “strategic review” then perhaps you should commission one yourself from your own pocket. 
 

If the problem is a lack of quality decision makers in league’s organisation, the answer will never be “out source it”. I hope that you are never in a position to spend other people’s money if you deride anyone who questions what the ultimate purpose of it all is. 
 

We need better leaguie decision makers. That is what our game needs. 

If you have ever been involved in a "Strategic review" that was just an intern creating a spreadsheet for you then you have been well and truly ripped off. Its a complete nonsense of a comment, as is "we need leaguies". What the hell even is a "leaguie" 

 

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

It should also be said that, when given the chance, the RFL still recruit Marketing Directors on 45k.

Yup, I can personally validate the appalling levels of recruitment nous at the RFL so “doing it ourselves” was never an option. To be fair with me it was £70k in 2005, a pay cut at the time albeit not as nuts as that. I still would have done it, but the interview with Nigel Wood and Gary Tasker was such a car crash that I knew it was a pointless exercise. Just blind ignorance of their present position, what was needed to move the dial, and how long it would take. 

They hired some random fella from Salford Council’s marketing department in the end. That’s the level we operate at without an external partner. It’s now 2024, we’ve tried the in-house route for at least those 2 decades in between with ever-worsening results so I don’t think it’s exactly unreasonable to give IMG some proper time now. 

[phiggins]

4 hours ago, Worzel said:

£42k per Super League club. 

There are bang average squad players on that. It’s less than Hull KRs fireworks budget for 3 home matches. So let’s not pretend the sport is making some sort of huge investment here. IMG will be under water on this deal by millions already, the business case is on the back end. Probably 2 media rights deals away.

The fact that some people here think they’re milking the sport shows us how far detached from reality our game is in many ways. 

That is fair context to the amount, but I would say that clubs aren't really in a position where they can wait potentially 6 years (2 media deals) before seeing a return. We've already heard from two big clubs reporting losses, saying they need to see an increase in central distributions.

If that bang average squad player didn't improve, he'd move on before 6 years. Similarly, if the fireworks were part of a package to improve the matchday experience, but it wasn't translating into revenue, there would be a rethink before 6 years.

[17 stone giant]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Excellent and very logical post Giant, but I thought in all honesty I did what you suggest of me in my post prior to you delivering this which was a few hours before yours.

 

Indeed you did. My apologies, I hadn't read that particular remark.

[Worzel]

27 minutes ago, phiggins said:

That is fair context to the amount, but I would say that clubs aren't really in a position where they can wait potentially 6 years (2 media deals) before seeing a return. We've already heard from two big clubs reporting losses, saying they need to see an increase in central distributions.

If that bang average squad player didn't improve, he'd move on before 6 years. Similarly, if the fireworks were part of a package to improve the matchday experience, but it wasn't translating into revenue, there would be a rethink before 6 years.

We signed a 12 year contract because we understood the timescale. It was always going to be about media buying cycles, the clubs knew this when they went into it. 

If the clubs needed a quicker return (which let’s be honest isn’t possible anyway) then they could have gone down whatever that alternative path was. Instead, we collectively recognised this was a long-term problem, requiring a long-term solution, and chose this.  

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Its too early to pull the plug but I hope some serious questions are being answered where it matters

There is no one willing to field any questions let alone answer them!

Edited October 15 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Worzel said:

£42k per Super League club. 

There are bang average squad players on that. It’s less than Hull KRs fireworks budget for 3 home matches. So let’s not pretend the sport is making some sort of huge investment here. IMG will be under water on this deal by millions already, the business case is on the back end. Probably 2 media rights deals away.

The fact that some people here think they’re milking the sport shows us how far detached from reality our game is in many ways. 

Have you any idea what will be the % take for IMG at the end of the 12 year period, and a % of what exactly?

[Worzel]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Have you any idea what will be the % take for IMG at the end of the 12 year period, and a % of what exactly?

No, I don’t. But if it’s a 12 year project then it will be in the multiple millions otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.

We need to remember that the other alternative clubs were looking at was getting a Private Equity investor in. If we’d gone down that route, the PE firm would have given us money up front to both pay down owners’ debt and invest in our own infrastructure to do what IMG are doing. But they would have wanted a min 25% of our future revenue (as a minority shareholder) in exchange, in perpetuity. Basically we were considering mortgaging the sport. The IMG joint venture model is far “cheaper”, puts the risk on them as well as a share of the reward, and has a definitive end date when we can renegotiate or discontinue. 

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Worzel said:

No, I don’t. But if it’s a 12 year project then it will be in the multiple millions otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it

Now this is the worrying part and listening to owners of SL clubs neither do they, which beggars belief in how they can sign something off without knowing the costs.

So if the 'secret' is soley in the domain of the RFL/RL Comm then that just exacerbates the problem, whichever side of this debate we are on we collectively agree that those who are running this game are not fit for purpose and if it is they who have brokered this deal that is indeed worrying.

I have this vision of IMG exiting the 'commercial' meeting rubbing their hands and having a good laugh saying "well that was easy".

[phiggins]

40 minutes ago, Worzel said:

We signed a 12 year contract because we understood the timescale. It was always going to be about media buying cycles, the clubs knew this when they went into it. 

If the clubs needed a quicker return (which let’s be honest isn’t possible anyway) then they could have gone down whatever that alternative path was. Instead, we collectively recognised this was a long-term problem, requiring a long-term solution, and chose this.  

A long term problem does need a long term solution. But at the same time, short term problems require short term solutions. Both can exist, as long as the solutions aren't conflicting.

We have finals in stadiums that hold 90k and ~75k, we have Magic Weekend which will likely have a combined capacity of 104k. The RFL have previously threatened to reduce central funding if these are poorly attended. So by that logic, if work is done to get these events as close to capacity as possible, then we should be able to see an increase. There must be numerous sponsorships that can be sold as well.

If the central distributions to clubs does not increase in the next 5 years, I think we'll see the resolve of some people that have invested into clubs, particularly the more recent ones, being tested.

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, phiggins said:

A long term problem does need a long term solution. But at the same time, short term problems require short term solutions. Both can exist, as long as the solutions aren't conflicting.

We have finals in stadiums that hold 90k and ~75k, we have Magic Weekend which will likely have a combined capacity of 104k. The RFL have previously threatened to reduce central funding if these are poorly attended. So by that logic, if work is done to get these events as close to capacity as possible, then we should be able to see an increase. There must be numerous sponsorships that can be sold as well.

If the central distributions to clubs does not increase in the next 5 years, I think we'll see the resolve of some people that have invested into clubs, particularly the more recent ones, being tested.

Both The Challenge cup and Grand Final attendances were up quite a bit on previous years, Magic This year was a damp squib and that's down to a poor choice of stadium more than anything

[gingerjon]

34 minutes ago, Worzel said:

No, I don’t. But if it’s a 12 year project then it will be in the multiple millions otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.

We need to remember that the other alternative clubs were looking at was getting a Private Equity investor in. If we’d gone down that route, the PE firm would have given us money up front to both pay down owners’ debt and invest in our own infrastructure to do what IMG are doing. But they would have wanted a min 25% of our future revenue (as a minority shareholder) in exchange, in perpetuity. Basically we were considering mortgaging the sport. The IMG joint venture model is far “cheaper”, puts the risk on them as well as a share of the reward, and has a definitive end date when we can renegotiate or discontinue. 

The alternatives, from memory, were either a spectacularly dodgy looking PE vehicle, "give it (with 'it' to be defined) to the Hearns" or "nothing".

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Both The Challenge cup and Grand Final attendances were up quite a bit on previous years, Magic This year was a damp squib and that's down to a poor choice of stadium more than anything

Yep, and if work from IMG has contributed to those attendances, then great. Lets see more of that, and hopefully more improvement next year, leading to more money into the game.

Less said about Magic the better. I don't particularly care for it as a concept anyway, especially not when you put it at Elland Road.

[LeeF]

4 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

That was my comment. It really isn’t a joke, and if you can’t understand or haven’t seen at first hand what you get for a “strategic review” then perhaps you should commission one yourself from your own pocket. 
 

If the problem is a lack of quality decision makers in league’s organisation, the answer will never be “out source it”. I hope that you are never in a position to spend other people’s money if you deride anyone who questions what the ultimate purpose of it all is. 
 

We need better leaguie decision makers. That is what our game needs. 

Clearly you haven’t read what I posted about needing an outside catalyst for the reasons I stated. If you don’t understand that then that’s your issue not mine.

As for strategic reviews I would politely ask you that you consider who you have used and maybe not use them. My own personal experience of numerous strategic reviews is a lack of interns being used with some good recommendations and suggestions for implementation. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Yep, and if work from IMG has contributed to those attendances, then great. Lets see more of that, and hopefully more improvement next year, leading to more money into the game.

Less said about Magic the better. I don't particularly care for it as a concept anyway, especially not when you put it at Elland Road.

didn't IMG say they weren't keen on magic either?

[Fevrover]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Yep, and if work from IMG has contributed to those attendances, then great. Lets see more of that, and hopefully more improvement next year, leading to more money into the game.

Less said about Magic the better. I don't particularly care for it as a concept anyway, especially not when you put it at Elland Road.

IMG wanted to get rid of Magic .

[Fevrover]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

didn't IMG say they weren't keen on magic either?

Just beat me to it lol.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Yep, and if work from IMG has contributed to those attendances, then great. Lets see more of that, and hopefully more improvement next year, leading to more money into the game.

Less said about Magic the better. I don't particularly care for it as a concept anyway, especially not when you put it at Elland Road.

That would be Magic that IMG recommended be shelved which the clubs disagreed with and ended up at a venue which wasn’t the RFL’s first choice (or probably even their fifth choice) and was poorly delivered 

[Gav Wilson]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

didn't IMG say they weren't keen on magic either?

I believe IMG recommended binning loop fixtures - of which Magic is one - rather than the concept of Magic itself. 

[phiggins]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

didn't IMG say they weren't keen on magic either?

They did. No idea why we persist with it. 

8 minutes ago, Fevrover said:

IMG wanted to get rid of Magic .

I know. My criticism was of Magic weekend. Not IMG. I agreed with their stance on the concept.

5 minutes ago, LeeF said:

That would be Magic that IMG recommended be shelved which the clubs disagreed with and ended up at a venue which wasn’t the RFL’s first choice (or probably even their fifth choice) and was poorly delivered 

Yes, that one.

[Chrispmartha]

Loop fixtures are terrible the quicker we can get to 14 teams the better 

[phiggins]

15 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Loop fixtures are terrible the quicker we can get to 14 teams the better 

I wonder if clubs' views on how many games they need to host might be affected by the limit to players' minutes played, which means you can't have ever presents any more? 

As it is, regardless of how many clubs there are, I'd look to reduce the regular rounds to 22 or 23 anyway (even if 14 teams), and use the free weekends for international, WCC, and potentially a group stage to the challenge cup, or a new comp that is designed for teams to play fringe players or academy players that are coming through. 

[Taffy Tiger]

8 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I wonder if clubs' views on how many games they need to host might be affected by the limit to players' minutes played, which means you can't have ever presents any more? 

As it is, regardless of how many clubs there are, I'd look to reduce the regular rounds to 22 or 23 anyway (even if 14 teams), and use the free weekends for international, WCC, and potentially a group stage to the challenge cup, or a new comp that is designed for teams to play fringe players or academy players that are coming through. 

I think this is a good idea in principle , but clubs need the revenue generated by those extra home games . With CF reducing due to less Sky money , having 13 home games is a minimum for clubs.

Edited October 15 by Taffy Tiger

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

I think this is a good idea in principle , but clubs need the revenue generated by those extra home games . With CF reducing due to less Sky money , having 13 home games is a minimum for clubs.

That's why I would look at a restructure of the CC, or a new comp, that gives the extra games back, but without the expectation that they will be full first choice 17s on show. I know some season ticket holders might complain, but I think a lot would be keen to see how players on fringes fare, without having to wait for injuries, suspensions or dead rubber matches at the end of the season.

[Archie Gordon]

20 minutes ago, phiggins said:

...

As it is, regardless of how many clubs there are, I'd look to reduce the regular rounds to 22 or 23 anyway (even if 14 teams), and use the free weekends for international, WCC, and potentially a group stage to the challenge cup, or a new comp that is designed for teams to play fringe players or academy players that are coming through. 

Yes please.