IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, phiggins said:

To be fair to the sport, or the clubs or whoever rejected the recommendation on loop fixtures. Short term decisions will always beat long term ones, if your short term aim is survival, which given the financial position the sport finds itself in, is likely the case for many clubs.

It is the job or IMG and RL Commercial as a partnership to present a compelling case for carrying out any of these recommendations, and they seem to have failed to do so here. I've said earlier on this thread, RL fans often use the 'turkeys voting for Christmas' analogy, but then criticise the turkeys and not the people putting forward a proposal that will see them slaughtered.

I agree. I think the issue of loop fixtures is overstated, but i don't see a credible alternative offered up.

A 14 team SL fixes this but costs for two extra teams and potentially weakens the comp substantially.

Just culling them has direct costs from crowds and ancillary sales, plus fewer tv games, less hospitality etc. The word scarcity is easy to quote, less easy to monetise (see the Samoa tests as an example).

I'd argue that moving to 14 teams would be the most cost efficient way of removing them.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Just a thought.

Indeed - and until anything comes along to say that was the case, one that can be ignored.

[JohnM]

Round about 2 trillion posts ago I warned of the dangers of RFL/IMG engaging with the forces of darkness.

Whilst yes, there are issues over communicating the project vision, and yes Dwyer is right to call out the lies, he's also re- energised those critics who want the project to fail. 

Of course, there are critics who just want to know more, or who have genuine points to discuss.

But now, the deniers are squabbling about what he didn't say. Good grief! 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree. I think the issue of loop fixtures is overstated, but i don't see a credible alternative offered up.

A 14 team SL fixes this but costs for two extra teams and potentially weakens the comp substantially.

Just culling them has direct costs from crowds and ancillary sales, plus fewer tv games, less hospitality etc. The word scarcity is easy to quote, less easy to monetise (see the Samoa tests as an example).

I'd argue that moving to 14 teams would be the most cost efficient way of removing them.

I think 14 teams is possible with an enhanced income (TV and sponsorship). Otherwise I think we're looking at Challenge Cup reform.

[Worzel]

36 minutes ago, phiggins said:

To be fair to the sport, or the clubs or whoever rejected the recommendation on loop fixtures. Short term decisions will always beat long term ones, if your short term aim is survival, which given the financial position the sport finds itself in, is likely the case for many clubs.

It is the job or IMG and RL Commercial as a partnership to present a compelling case for carrying out any of these recommendations, and they seem to have failed to do so here. I've said earlier on this thread, RL fans often use the 'turkeys voting for Christmas' analogy, but then criticise the turkeys and not the people putting forward a proposal that will see them slaughtered.

No, you are giving clubs with a long track record of being involved in poor collective decisions a free pass. They haven't earned one. Sorry, but if I want to hold them accountable for being small-minded luddites then I'll do so.

The only Turkey slaughter in this scenario is the one where the professional sport slowly dies through lack of change. In fact it's more analogous to a disease than a slaughter. Personally, if I was running a Turkey farm and needed to cull a few mangy old birds in order to save the rest of the rafter, then I would.  

[Worzel]

20 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Round about 2 trillion posts ago I warned of the dangers of RFL/IMG engaging with the forces of darkness.

Whilst yes, there are issues over communicating the project vision, and yes Dwyer is right to call out the lies, he's also re- energised those critics who want the project to fail. 

Of course, there are critics who just want to know more, or who have genuine points to discuss.

But now, the deniers are squabbling about what he didn't say. Good grief! 

Agreed. It's like playing chess with a pigeon, there's no point. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then s#### all over the board. Then struts around like it won.

[Harry Stottle]

21 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Indeed - and until anything comes along to say that was the case, one that can be ignored.

As I say just a thought, how do you envisage IMG got the uplift if infact they did, have we any proof that it was soley down to them, I can't recall Rhodri saying "it's a good job IMG were there we were #######".

Irrespective of my suggestion being near or miles away from the truth, the next contract negotiations after another couple of years of IMG involvement in the game from the last contract negotiations will surely raise the next contract substantially, don't you think?

Awaits with bated breath.

[Archie Gordon]

6 minutes ago, Worzel said:

...

The only Turkey slaughter in this scenario is the one where the professional sport slowly dies through lack of change. In fact it's more analogous to a disease than a slaughter. Personally, if I was running a Turkey farm and needed to cull a few mangy old birds in order to save the rest of the rafter, then I would.  

I think that reveals a fair bit about what is not liked about the IMG approach.

Some of us old birds don't think a survival-of-the-fittest cull would be helpful. It's also not the best way to eradicate (or control) disease.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

the next contract negotiations after another couple of years of IMG involvement in the game from the last contract negotiations will surely raise the next contract substantially, don't you think?

A lot will depend on whether there is any interest from non Sky broadcasters and/or if a deal can be done for different slots as the Premier League manages to do.

Cricket recently couldn't find a buyer for its secondary internationals package, deals are not rising quickly away from soccer for most sports.

A few pages back, the rising offer for the women's football top division was used a stick to beat IMG. Their amount is smaller than ours, and the headline figure includes the costs for Sky producing every game as part of the deal. But, they are likely in a stronger position because there is a whole suite of commercial support coming in.

That's where we need to get to. A strong TV deal - or deals - aligned with a much more diverse commercial portfolio. I think we're doing the right things but there's still a lot of hard work, and probably a bit of luck, to get there.

So you keep trying to knock it down, or make it all about you, I'll keep hoping that the game moves forward.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

A lot will depend on whether there is any interest from non Sky broadcasters and/or if a deal can be done for different slots as the Premier League manages to do.

Cricket recently couldn't find a buyer for its secondary internationals package, deals are not rising quickly away from soccer for most sports.

A few pages back, the rising offer for the women's football top division was used a stick to beat IMG. Their amount is smaller than ours, and the headline figure includes the costs for Sky producing every game as part of the deal. But, they are likely in a stronger position because there is a whole suite of commercial support coming in.

That's where we need to get to. A strong TV deal - or deals - aligned with a much more diverse commercial portfolio. I think we're doing the right things but there's still a lot of hard work, and probably a bit of luck, to get there.

So you keep trying to knock it down, or make it all about you, I'll keep hoping that the game moves forward.

Harry has openly said he want's IMG to fail, worth bearing in mind when reading his posts

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So you keep trying to knock it down, or make it all about you, I'll keep hoping that the game moves forward.

When I was sat in the boardroom I just didn't jump at the first suggestion I thought could have positive or negative impacts on what we were discussing I would consider both scenarios.

Up to now, no I don't think the approach of IMG methods will do the game as a whole much good, but good for SL. So I will have to wait to be corrected if all the game flourishes or not.

As for your childish comment all about me, what's that all about because I differ in thought from you, I will treat that with the contempt it deserves, I don't see you pulling up those who favour IMG's methods with their thoughts, obviously you agree with them.

[Harry Stottle]

22 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Harry has openly said he want's IMG to fail, worth bearing in mind when reading his posts

Yes and always in the same theme Chris, I consider they will do the broader game than SL no good at all, you could add that in but it obviously doesn't carry the same impact.

[Worzel]

25 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think that reveals a fair bit about what is not liked about the IMG approach.

Some of us old birds don't think a survival-of-the-fittest cull would be helpful. It's also not the best way to eradicate (or control) disease.

Surely sport is all about survival of the fittest?

Clearly I'm exaggerating to make a point, but that point stands: There is no future for rugby league in this country without a vibrant elite league that is growing its commercial revenues. Some clubs can contribute to making that happen, some can benefit from it even if they don't directly contribute to it (through the growth of the sports' central distributions), and some clubs can actively get in the way. At the moment we pay far too much attention to the desires of the third group. Even if we don't want to cull them, we can at least put them in some sort of quarantine whilst we fix the rest of the sport.  

[phiggins]

44 minutes ago, Worzel said:

No, you are giving clubs with a long track record of being involved in poor collective decisions a free pass. They haven't earned one. Sorry, but if I want to hold them accountable for being small-minded luddites then I'll do so.

The only Turkey slaughter in this scenario is the one where the professional sport slowly dies through lack of change. In fact it's more analogous to a disease than a slaughter. Personally, if I was running a Turkey farm and needed to cull a few mangy old birds in order to save the rest of the rafter, then I would.  

You seem to be giving whoever is at the centre a free pass, and putting all the accountability on the group of people you have generalised to be luddites.

Sorry, but every party has areas that they are accountable for. And if clubs are presented with a recommendation that comes with a clear short term cost, then they will reject it unless they are provided with a longer term vision and benefit.  Providing that vision will be the responsibility of RLC / IMG, and they should not be given a free pass for it.

[Chrispmartha]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes and always in the same theme Chris, I consider they will do the broader game than SL no good at all, you could add that in but it obviously doesn't carry the same impact.

But what I said is you've said you want them to fail not that you think they will.

 

Which seems bizarre to me.

[JohnM]

At last: the appellation Luddite used properly: a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery.

[Archie Gordon]

5 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Surely sport is all about survival of the fittest?

Clearly I'm exaggerating to make a point, but that point stands: There is no future for rugby league in this country without a vibrant elite league that is growing its commercial revenues. Some clubs can contribute to making that happen, some can benefit from it even if they don't directly contribute to it (through the growth of the sports' central distributions), and some clubs can actively get in the way. At the moment we pay far too much attention to the desires of the third group. Even if we don't want to cull them, we can at least put them in some sort of quarantine whilst we fix the rest of the sport.  

I agree with just about all of that but I find the idea that we are held back by a rump of clubs - who are simultaneously both rubbish and powerful - to not be true. These clubs aren't powerful and they aren't really catered for. The failure to achieve a vibrant elite league with growing revenues isn't really about sidelining the demands of some also-rans, it's about a lack of vision.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

But what I said is you've said you want them to fail not that you think they will.

 

Which seems bizarre to me.

For the very reason that I have stated on numerous occasions that I consider the game will suffer below SL level with their methods, so yes I do not want IMG methods being involved in our sport if that could be construed as failing then I stand accused. It doesn't matter to those who couldn't care less if those methods impacts the wider sport as long as SL is fine, each to their own.

Plenty things seemingly appear bizarre to you, you have used that phrase many times and not just to me.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I agree with just about all of that but I find the idea that we are held back by a rump of clubs - who are simultaneously both rubbish and powerful - to not be true. These clubs aren't powerful and they aren't really catered for. The failure to achieve a vibrant elite league with growing revenues isn't really about sidelining the demands of some also-rans, it's about a lack of vision.

If you're talking about the middle block of 4-5 (max) clubs currently outside Super League but with possible aspirations to be Super League then they absolutely have been catered for. From unbalanced Championship funding to the dropping of minimum SL standards, to the entire focus of a league restructure being around the 'promotion to SL 8s' at the expense of the actual title end of the division.

The same meat raffle and nostalgia approach that gave us the lack of development of the women's game as independent, the 2019 Lions Tour, the Challenge Cup final day as 'stack em high and sell em cheap', and a complete loss of sponsors.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

For the very reason that I have stated on numerous occasions that I consider the game will suffer below SL level with their methods, so yes I do not want IMG methods being involved in our sport if that could be construed as failing then I stand accused. It doesn't matter to those who couldn't care less if those methods impacts the wider sport as long as SL is fine, each to their own.

Plenty things seemingly appear bizarre to you, you have used that phrase many times and not just to me.

What about those that think it will benefit both SL and those outside it, it doesn’t have to be as black and white as you are suggesting.

And yes I find it bizarre that you would want the sport to fail.

[Archie Gordon]

10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If you're talking about the middle block of 4-5 (max) clubs currently outside Super League but with possible aspirations to be Super League then they absolutely have been catered for. From unbalanced Championship funding to the dropping of minimum SL standards, to the entire focus of a league restructure being around the 'promotion to SL 8s' at the expense of the actual title end of the division.

The same meat raffle and nostalgia approach that gave us the lack of development of the women's game as independent, the 2019 Lions Tour, the Challenge Cup final day as 'stack em high and sell em cheap', and a complete loss of sponsors.

I would regard these as scraps offered from the high table. None of these things has contributed to SL failing to become more attractive. The main players are the big clubs. It is just wrong IMO for these guys to look at Salford, Castleford, Featherstone and Bradford and say things would have been better if we didn't base most things around what you want.

The problem lies with those shaping the big picture and making decisions - that's not the likes of Salford.

Edited November 5, 2024 by Archie Gordon
Typo.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

What about those that think it will benefit both SL and those outside it, it doesn’t have to be as black and white as you are suggesting.

And yes I find it bizarre that you would want the sport to fail.

I have never ever said I want the sport to fail and I take umbrage to you even suggesting that of me.

Seemingly all your eggs are firmly in IMG's basket in that if they fail then game will cease to exist, categorically, no it won't.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I would regard these as scraps offered from the high table.

You'd regard restructuring the league and moving its entire focus from the top of the table to the middle 8s as being scraps?

The deliberately unbalanced funding in the Championship, meaning a handful of the same clubs had budgets, from central funding alone, of double or triple the amount of other clubs in the same division. Scraps?

Removing minimum standards so there was no need to even pretend to do anything to their grounds?

Thankfully, we do seem to be moving on from it all. It's just a shame we have a lost decade of investment and massive contraction to show for it.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

I have never ever said I want the sport to fail and I take umbrage to you even suggesting that of me.

Seemingly all your eggs are firmly in IMG's basket in that if they fail then game will cease to exist, categorically, no it won't.

Your second point is a total strawman as I’ve never stated such a thing.

The sport has partnered with IMG if it fails they have failed. And youve said you want IMG to fail.

no one has mentioned the sport not existing other than you.

[JohnM]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

For the very reason that I have stated on numerous occasions that I consider the game will suffer below SL level with their methods, so yes I do not want IMG methods being involved in our sport if that could be construed as failing then I stand accused. It doesn't matter to those who couldn't care less if those methods impacts the wider sport as long as SL is fine, each to their own.

Plenty things seemingly appear bizarre to you, you have used that phrase many times and not just to me.

"It doesn't matter to those who couldn't care less if those methods impacts the wider sport"

There aren't any like that. Only two groups, those - critics and supporters alike - who want the project to succeed for the good of the whole sport, and those who are working to see it fail.