IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Archie Gordon]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

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.

Offered as scraps, yes.

I do agree, however, that as soon as the likes of Leeds realised these scraps might be a bit more than that, they quickly withdrew the concession.

There is just no way that Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Warrington, etc., are offering anything other than what they feel are scraps. Those much maligned turkeys scratching around at the bottom of SL and top of Champ have never had the power to shape the elite league. It's odd, therefore, to hold them responsible or believe that sidelining their limited voice will deliver something better. It's all about the game's (lack of independent) leadership - most else is a distraction.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

It's all about the game's (lack of independent) leadership - most else is a distraction.

We agree on that.

And what we're seeing now does look a lot more like leadership than we've had in the recent past - albeit that's not saying much and there are still too many weak points.

But, being blunt, everything in the game hinges on the value that the top tier can create. There will no money for development, no money for community clubs, no money for any of the myriad ideas that could make things better if properly delivered, without a top tier drawing in more broadcast money and significant sponsorship.

Saying that and acting on that does mean that the top tier needs to be as commercially strong and ready, as it is performance strong and ready.

[Harry Stottle]

22 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

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.

What are you talking about, I said seemingly you are putting all your eggs in IMG's basket, so just for Clarity what do you mean by the sport failing, if it is just that employing a failing IMG is just that the sport will have failed in that decision of partnering them them that is not a big problem other than any expense it has cost, the sport failing could really mean to have very dire consequences.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

What are you talking about, I said seemingly you are putting all your eggs in IMG's basket, so just for Clarity what do you mean by the sport failing, if it is just that employing a failing IMG is just that the sport will have failed in that decision of partnering them them that is not a big problem other than any expense it has cost, the sport failing could really mean to have very dire consequences.

If after the 12 years partnership with IMG the sport hasn’t progressed on and off the field then it has failed.

I haven’t got a clue what you mean by me putting all my eggs in IMGs basket?

[Martyn Sadler]

18 hours ago, Worzel said:

Certainly, you

1) Took a line item and assumed it was annual, and

2) Added in a wholly separate cost of non-exec directors, to create a bigger headline figure

This gave some people the incorrect impression that the cost of the new IMG era was about £750k per year.

Now to be clear I don't say whether that was willful misrepresentation (you wanted people to think that, perhaps because you don't like the IMG concept and it helps the argument against it), or perhaps negligent misrepresentation (your motives were well-intentioned, but as a responsible, professional journalist could maybe have done more digging to clarify things and present the wider context) or merely an innocent misrepresentation (you genuinely believed the information and the impression it gave was accurate, and that you'd done all you reasonably could as a professional to check they were).

I'll happily leave that for others to judge, clearly it could be the latter. We all make mistakes eh.  

 

You seem to be thoroughly befuddled.

i always made it clear that the £450K annual payment for various services provided by IMG began this year.

And that the RFL and RL Commercial between them are paying £300K to NEDs.

Those are the facts.

So I'm not sure what you're blathering about.

[Martyn Sadler]

18 hours ago, phiggins said:

Have they denied that? Bits that I have seen in reports today, along with quotes on this thread are;

 - IMG have only received around £450k so far

 - That no cost expected to be incurred until year 3 (a quote from Martyn highlighted by Tommygilf)

 - That RLCommercial have committed to a similar sum over 10 years (quote from DB, albeit in a SARL article. Can't remember what he said exactly)

All three of the above can be true from what I can see? But I probably have missed something. To my eternal shame, I did some work today.

You've got it right.

[Worzel]

55 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You seem to be thoroughly befuddled.

i always made it clear that the £450K annual payment for various services provided by IMG began this year.

And that the RFL and RL Commercial between them are paying £300K to NEDs.

Those are the facts.

So I'm not sure what you're blathering about.

You can try and present it like that if you choose Martyn, I fully expected your usual defensiveness when challenged, but I'd respectfully suggest that a little more self-reflection is in order. You made choices about what facts to present, which to bundle together, and how to present them. You know why you made those choices. 

The fact you dismiss what I said as "blathering" says all we need to know to be honest.

[Worzel]

2 hours 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.

Yes, you're possibly right. In the absence of a strong enough vision, told with conviction, the sound of the 'rump' of clubs complaining can become disproportionately loud. I don't blame them for advancing their own interests. I blame "us" more widely for spending too much time listening to them. Perhaps that is partly because of the absence of another voice. 

[Martyn Sadler]

12 minutes ago, Worzel said:

You can try and present it like that if you choose Martyn, I fully expected your usual defensiveness when challenged, but I'd respectfully suggest that a little more self-reflection is in order. You made choices about what facts to present, which to bundle together, and how to present them. You know why you made those choices. 

The fact you dismiss what I said as "blathering" says all we need to know to be honest.

What is it about you that makes it impossible for you to admit when you are wrong, always wanting to have the last word while digging yourself deeper into a hole?

I've given you the facts as they are now and as they were when I wrote about them.

Your insinuations are misleading and extremely tiresome.

Yet you make a habit of it.

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

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.

Let's be honest, the 8s didn't remove minimum standards. The failure to enforce them throughout the summer era did that.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Let's be honest, the 8s didn't remove minimum standards. The failure to enforce them throughout the summer era did that.

Agree in many ways - but they were formally lowered, and the monitoring of them reduced, with the move to Middle 8s.

[binosh]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

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

I also agree with this, SL is never going to go to 14 teams and no loop fixtures until there is more income into the central pot, in my opinion the RFL are hoping IMG pull something out of the bag in the next round of negotiations, if I was a betting man I’d wager that IMG have already recommended 14 teams to the RFL and been met with a Collective push back.

[JohnM]

Tiresome is an adjective that could well be applied to the continual and continuing bleating from opponents of the Re-imagining Rugby League Project.  I have most of them on ignore but somehow, in the still of the night, when all good men and true should be abed, resting their brains and their bodies in preparation of the day to come, I can still hear the faint whispers of what sound like ghosts of rugby past, breathing "Never...never....NEVER! "   

 Correct me if I am wrong and help us all out by adding relevant detail.

1.  IMG have been paid £450,000 for a piece of work outside of the core project agreement.

2. Where is the committment that IMG will be paid £450, 000 again?

3. Where is the information regarding payments to NEDs? How mch and to whom?

Further reading: 

RFL Board

Independent External Board Evaluation.pdf

One of the seven drectors, Ed Mallaburn,   is IMG Media’s Head of Sport

RL Commercial Board

One of the seven drectors, Ed Mallaburn,   is IMG Media’s Head of Sport

 

 

[phiggins]

10 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Tiresome is an adjective that could well be applied to the continual and continuing bleating from opponents of the Re-imagining Rugby League Project.  I have most of them on ignore but somehow, in the still of the night, when all good men and true should be abed, resting their brains and their bodies in preparation of the day to come, I can still hear the faint whispers of what sound like ghosts of rugby past, breathing "Never...never....NEVER! "   

 Correct me if I am wrong and help us all out by adding relevant detail.

1.  IMG have been paid £450,000 for a piece of work outside of the core project agreement.

2. Where is the committment that IMG will be paid £450, 000 again?

3. Where is the information regarding payments to NEDs? How mch and to whom?

Further reading: 

RFL Board

Independent External Board Evaluation.pdf

One of the seven drectors, Ed Mallaburn,   is IMG Media’s Head of Sport

RL Commercial Board

One of the seven drectors, Ed Mallaburn,   is IMG Media’s Head of Sport

 

 

1. Where is it said that the money paid is outside of core project agreement?

2. It has been reported multiple times that there will be a yearly payment from now on. That hasn't been denied. You would assume that they will continue to provide work to RLC, and rightfully expect to be paid. 

[JohnM]

10 minutes ago, phiggins said:

1. Where is it said that the money paid is outside of core project agreement?

2. It has been reported multiple times that there will be a yearly payment from now on. That hasn't been denied. You would assume that they will continue to provide work to RLC, and rightfully expect to be paid. 

Show us the proof. 

[phiggins]

20 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Show us the proof. 

Of what?

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

What is it about you that makes it impossible for you to admit when you are wrong, always wanting to have the last word while digging yourself deeper into a hole?

I've given you the facts as they are now and as they were when I wrote about them.

Your insinuations are misleading and extremely tiresome.

Yet you make a habit of it.

Martyn, your article is still up for all to read, I'm not insinuating anything.

What information you present, how, and in what context is a choice; it influences what message people take from that, and I think you're smart enough to know that. To pretend that your words are uniquely neutral is disingenuous.  

You make a habit of being unable to take criticism. I'm wrong on many things, but at least I have the courage to present my convictions clearly.

[JohnM]

31 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Of what?

And another Luddite bites the dust. Ignore

[Worzel]

35 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Of what?

I think JohnM was asking for proof of your 2nd point

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, as I think £450k per year's perfectly reasonable, but that said it would be interesting to know

[phiggins]

14 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I think JohnM was asking for proof of your 2nd point

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, as I think £450k per year's perfectly reasonable, but that said it would be interesting to know

Ok. Of course, I don't have any proof, I only see what is reported. And those reports of an annual figure were neither confirmed or denied yesterday. I would also expect IMG to be paid if they are working on the project, and would be surprised if work isn't ongoing. I also don't have an issue with clubs hoping to see some short term returns, as well as long term, on that cost. 

If JohnM thinks that makes me a luddite, then I won't lose any sleep. It's a shame if Return on investment, and compensation for work provided are outdated concepts though.

[phiggins]

24 minutes ago, JohnM said:

And another Luddite bites the dust. Ignore

John, John, John...

He can't hear me...

JOHN, JOHN, JOHN!!!

[RP London]

28 minutes ago, phiggins said:

John, John, John...

He can't hear me...

JOHN, JOHN, JOHN!!!

phiggins and John M out for a walk this afternoon

 

[phiggins]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

phiggins and John M out for a walk this afternoon

 

Jesus Christ!

[GeordieSaint]

https://x.com/johnnyddavidson/status/1853853729197338820

[Hopie]

17 hours ago, JohnM said:

"All that is mentioned in the articles I have seen is that IMG suggested no loop fixtures"

The specific and burning issue has been that certain opponents of the project have been  lying about the £450k 

"Dwyer also corrected inaccurate reports stating that IMG had received £1.3million so far for their work in the sport. They have received £450,000 to date for their work across three years, much less than had been reported."

No words of contrition, no apology from the guilty. Dwyer's words are not good enought, it seems, since some of those opponents are now asking, "Yes, but he doesn't say what they'll receive next year ....".  Or, " he didn't deny..."

Hence my earlier comment likening their questioning of the IMG statement to  "have you stopped beating your wife yet.,yes or no".

IMG can't and never will win with these provincials. Fortunately they are a tiny minority. Unfortunately, they have a megaphone. 

What you quoted from me is correct, there is much more in the interview about what they are not doing than what IMG are doing. I am not surprised that the "press conference" held was to a select audience instead of a more open one, because obvious questions that follow the quotes don't seem to have been asked. 

You come across as very angry about the discussions about cost and I'm not sure why, and the last few pages have certainly had a bit of heat about them, to me there is an obvious method where 2+2=5 when a cost this year in the third year of the deal has been trebled incorrectly, I don't think that amounts to a clear case of lying but I doubt your mind will change on that, nor are you likely to change other people's minds.