Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, JohnM said:

I think it's beyond generalisation, though. It's either a misunderstanding of the position, or a misrepresentation of the position to get a reaction. Martyn did say he had yet to see a single thing that has been done etc.  He's not , in my view, a fan of the integration of infinitesimals.  He seems to be expecting instant impact.

To be fair, only a week or two ago you were saying that after 2.5 years of the IMG journey, the car is still on the driveway.


Posted
4 hours ago, Dave T said:

It's really weird language isn't it?

But not a surprise 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

To be fair, only a week or two ago you were saying that after 2.5 years of the IMG journey, the car is still on the driveway.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. It might be worth reading my post again, in full, then listening to Martyn's podcast words.  He's clearly  saying he hadn't seen a single thing that IMG have done, again clearly implying he expects then to have done something and I'm saying that he won't have at this stage since "the car is still  on the drive".  Change through integrating infinitesimals over time.

Edited by JohnM
Posted
16 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

To be fair, only a week or two ago you were saying that after 2.5 years of the IMG journey, the car is still on the driveway.

On another thread, mention is made of a centegenarian who has a Wigan season ticket.     Although I'm not a centegenerian, this no doubt accidental (😀) misunderstanding of the ReImagining project and advisers IMG has been going on for so long, it feels like 100 years...and more.

Posted

The tendency to try and create divides and group people into IMG fans or haters is tiresome, and is really poor for this publication imo.

My position is that I'm always happy to see new expertise brought into the sport - the reason for that is I just don't always feel that we take the business side of the sport too seriously - we have had past players being Commercial Directors and even CEO's who don't necessarily have the qualifications. We have some really weak performances at both club and governing body level - so I'm happy that we look outside of our existing structure. 

I have no direct experience of IMG, so I can't say whether IMG are the best partner, and I expect most of us are in the same boat. I was however very happy that we didn't go down the Private Equity route, even though that may have brought an injection of cash into the game, I think we would be giving away too much.

So broadly speaking, I'm comfortable that we have brought in more expertise into the game. It's not for me to worry about due diligence etc. but I do expect that an organisation the size of IMG have far more expertise than we do within the game at the moment. 

A really important point to remember though is that the governing body is the RFL, and the Commercial body is RLCom. Ultimately, IMG are not the decision maker here (if they were we wouldn't have loop games by now) - and we cannot absolve the two organisations above of responsibility for the game, which many fans and even club officials seem to want to do. The way the game is run is on the RFL and RLCom. No passing the buck should be accepted here. 

And that brings us onto the results so far. For me it is a mixed bag. I've been relatively comfortable with everything that was proposed as part of their 'reimagining RL' piece. The summary of it I would sell as 'smarten ourselves up, present ourselves in the best way we can, improve digitally, improve engagement with fans, and we should see positive commercial outcomes'. I think that's broadly sound and uncontroversial. 

In terms of the two key things that have been delivered that have their fingerprints on we have Grading and SL+.

Grading is a mixed bag. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many advocate scrapping on-field P&R, we did it before, other similar sports don't have it or are discussing scrapping it, the clubs voted it in. It's also easy to see that this would be a controversial one, it was last time, and will be for a while. But let's not put this down to an IMG radical idea. It's pretty basic, one that the leaders of the game wanted. 

In terms of implementation, I think it's been pretty poor tbh. I don't have an issue with many of the minor points that others do, and it does rank clubs as you'd expect them, but I hate the annual assessments and the timings, but I expect these were compromises and reflect the fact that they don't make the decisions. It's definitely a fudge and weaker for it imo.

On SL+, I think it's been really rather good tbh. Whether it ever stacks up commercially I'm not sure, but the TV deal is a revolutionary one and being able to watch every SL game is a real step forward as a fan. So that's a real positive for me.

So in the first couple of years, it looks like these are the two main visible outputs from the partnership that the sport has implemented. Its a mixed bag imo, and if I was scoring them it'd be maybe a 6 out of 10, room for improvement, but I certainly don't think there has been much controversial or wrong that has happened. I'd have liked a few more visible things - ticketing, marketing, events etc - but again, it should be remembered that it is ultimately the RFL and RLCom that owns this, and they need to step up.

Apologies for the rambling post, but I suppose my final point is that it's perfectly possible to be happy with IMG and also want more from the partnership.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The tendency to try and create divides and group people into IMG fans or haters is tiresome, and is really poor for this publication imo.

My position is that I'm always happy to see new expertise brought into the sport - the reason for that is I just don't always feel that we take the business side of the sport too seriously - we have had past players being Commercial Directors and even CEO's who don't necessarily have the qualifications. We have some really weak performances at both club and governing body level - so I'm happy that we look outside of our existing structure. 

I have no direct experience of IMG, so I can't say whether IMG are the best partner, and I expect most of us are in the same boat. I was however very happy that we didn't go down the Private Equity route, even though that may have brought an injection of cash into the game, I think we would be giving away too much.

So broadly speaking, I'm comfortable that we have brought in more expertise into the game. It's not for me to worry about due diligence etc. but I do expect that an organisation the size of IMG have far more expertise than we do within the game at the moment. 

A really important point to remember though is that the governing body is the RFL, and the Commercial body is RLCom. Ultimately, IMG are not the decision maker here (if they were we wouldn't have loop games by now) - and we cannot absolve the two organisations above of responsibility for the game, which many fans and even club officials seem to want to do. The way the game is run is on the RFL and RLCom. No passing the buck should be accepted here. 

And that brings us onto the results so far. For me it is a mixed bag. I've been relatively comfortable with everything that was proposed as part of their 'reimagining RL' piece. The summary of it I would sell as 'smarten ourselves up, present ourselves in the best way we can, improve digitally, improve engagement with fans, and we should see positive commercial outcomes'. I think that's broadly sound and uncontroversial. 

In terms of the two key things that have been delivered that have their fingerprints on we have Grading and SL+.

Grading is a mixed bag. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many advocate scrapping on-field P&R, we did it before, other similar sports don't have it or are discussing scrapping it, the clubs voted it in. It's also easy to see that this would be a controversial one, it was last time, and will be for a while. But let's not put this down to an IMG radical idea. It's pretty basic, one that the leaders of the game wanted. 

In terms of implementation, I think it's been pretty poor tbh. I don't have an issue with many of the minor points that others do, and it does rank clubs as you'd expect them, but I hate the annual assessments and the timings, but I expect these were compromises and reflect the fact that they don't make the decisions. It's definitely a fudge and weaker for it imo.

On SL+, I think it's been really rather good tbh. Whether it ever stacks up commercially I'm not sure, but the TV deal is a revolutionary one and being able to watch every SL game is a real step forward as a fan. So that's a real positive for me.

So in the first couple of years, it looks like these are the two main visible outputs from the partnership that the sport has implemented. Its a mixed bag imo, and if I was scoring them it'd be maybe a 6 out of 10, room for improvement, but I certainly don't think there has been much controversial or wrong that has happened. I'd have liked a few more visible things - ticketing, marketing, events etc - but again, it should be remembered that it is ultimately the RFL and RLCom that owns this, and they need to step up.

Apologies for the rambling post, but I suppose my final point is that it's perfectly possible to be happy with IMG and also want more from the partnership.

But Dave, you are besotted with IMG...

  • Haha 1
Posted

I think the positives are that every SL game is broadcast, along with the subsequent access to the goldmine of action that can be shared on social media.

But I don't think SL clubs - or SL itself - is close to properly exploiting this. The contrast with the NRL/NRLW remains huge. Much more input and expertise is undoubtedly required from IMG. This is where we need help.

The grading has been poorly conceived, poorly implemented, and has broadly been a waste of (a lot of) effort. A sideshow. It turns out the best 12 clubs off-the-field are pretty much the best 12 on-the-field. The SL clubs that need to improve haven't and don't seem obliged to - that was/is mission critical. We will go to the broadcast companies with exactly the same offer next time as last time it seems - a 12-team SL playing 27 rounds in front of 4-24k crowds. We'll likely get a small uplift as we've never had three consecutive falls in value before.

None of the other reimagining looks like happening: calendar unchanged, international game has been further downgraded, women/girls not a priority, geo expansion mothballed, new revenues trickling-down to the whole game unlikely. Here I blame SL, RFL or whoever is making decisions - IMG seem to have had every novel proposal they've made knocked back; I expect they're finding the relationship management tougher than they thought.

  • Like 2
Posted

These are foundations.

You can't build all the fancy stuff people want if we don't know where the club is in all it's different parts.

Grading first, build the clubs over time, create better league overall.

  • Like 2
Posted
39 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think the positives are that every SL game is broadcast, along with the subsequent access to the goldmine of action that can be shared on social media.

But I don't think SL clubs - or SL itself - is close to properly exploiting this. The contrast with the NRL/NRLW remains huge. Much more input and expertise is undoubtedly required from IMG. This is where we need help.

The grading has been poorly conceived, poorly implemented, and has broadly been a waste of (a lot of) effort. A sideshow. It turns out the best 12 clubs off-the-field are pretty much the best 12 on-the-field. The SL clubs that need to improve haven't and don't seem obliged to - that was/is mission critical. We will go to the broadcast companies with exactly the same offer next time as last time it seems - a 12-team SL playing 27 rounds in front of 4-24k crowds. We'll likely get a small uplift as we've never had three consecutive falls in value before.

None of the other reimagining looks like happening: calendar unchanged, international game has been further downgraded, women/girls not a priority, geo expansion mothballed, new revenues trickling-down to the whole game unlikely. Here I blame SL, RFL or whoever is making decisions - IMG seem to have had every novel proposal they've made knocked back; I expect they're finding the relationship management tougher than they thought.

I think we are seeing the difference between PE and a consultant. 

I think people wanted them to come in and really shake things up and I don't know whether that will ever really be possible as a consultant really. 

If IMG were in charge, I think its clear things would be different (not guaranteed better) and I think that's jarring.

  • Like 2
Posted
51 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think the positives are that every SL game is broadcast, along with the subsequent access to the goldmine of action that can be shared on social media.

But I don't think SL clubs - or SL itself - is close to properly exploiting this. The contrast with the NRL/NRLW remains huge. Much more input and expertise is undoubtedly required from IMG. This is where we need help.

The grading has been poorly conceived, poorly implemented, and has broadly been a waste of (a lot of) effort. A sideshow. It turns out the best 12 clubs off-the-field are pretty much the best 12 on-the-field. The SL clubs that need to improve haven't and don't seem obliged to - that was/is mission critical. We will go to the broadcast companies with exactly the same offer next time as last time it seems - a 12-team SL playing 27 rounds in front of 4-24k crowds. We'll likely get a small uplift as we've never had three consecutive falls in value before.

None of the other reimagining looks like happening: calendar unchanged, international game has been further downgraded, women/girls not a priority, geo expansion mothballed, new revenues trickling-down to the whole game unlikely. Here I blame SL, RFL or whoever is making decisions - IMG seem to have had every novel proposal they've made knocked back; I expect they're finding the relationship management tougher than they thought.

A very good summary.

Not sure there is a guarantee of any uplift in Sky money though. It will be dictated by viewing figures, advertising rates, subscriptions. But we will essentially be going back to the table with the same offer as last time. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

A very good summary.

Not sure there is a guarantee of any uplift in Sky money though. It will be dictated by viewing figures, advertising rates, subscriptions. But we will essentially be going back to the table with the same offer as last time. 

It is important to remember that when our TV deal peaked, it wasn't because we doubled our viewing figures. It's far more complex than that.

It's important that we position ourselves as a sport than can provide substantial quality content at a time of year that they sometimes struggle for live UK content.

I worry our position is weak, and the real game changer is through getting genuine interest from other platforms.

  • Like 2
Posted
43 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think we are seeing the difference between PE and a consultant. 

I think people wanted them to come in and really shake things up and I don't know whether that will ever really be possible as a consultant really. 

If IMG were in charge, I think its clear things would be different (not guaranteed better) and I think that's jarring.

I am of course pleased we didn't go with PE.

But I'd like to remind folk that IMG came in as a partner - unpaid, sharing risk, sharing profit. It is only after the fact that we discovered they were a consultant.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I am of course pleased we didn't go with PE.

But I'd like to remind folk that IMG came in as a partner - unpaid, sharing risk, sharing profit. It is only after the fact that we discovered they were a consultant.

Partner is ok terminology, in the same way that Sky are a partner.

They do have representation on the boards, so are technically more than a consultant, but it would appear a pretty weak setup.

I think one of the biggest challenges here is that none of this partnership came with a pot of money, and for a skint sport, that's a problem.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I think we are seeing the difference between PE and a consultant. 

I think people wanted them to come in and really shake things up and I don't know whether that will ever really be possible as a consultant really. 

If IMG were in charge, I think its clear things would be different (not guaranteed better) and I think that's jarring.

Exactly. What we have here is effectively a marketing agency - someone the game has approached with the brief to "come up with ideas to solve this problem". IMG have, in response, come up with ideas, some of which the game has liked, and some the game as been less enthusiastic about. That's pretty typical in a relationship of this nature. What's important is that the game recognises that for all of the ideas it does reject, the likelihood of the problem persisting remains. Agencies can do a lot of things, but they must be empowered to do them. 

To me, this was always the danger with the whole "bring someone in" or "give Eddie Hearn a call" clamour that we've seen for a lot of period since Richard Lewis left Red Hall, because this discourse positioned all of RL's problems as problems that we couldn't possibly control or solve ourselves, and that only a "white knight" could come in and save us. That clamour was probably quite convenient for certain club owners to be frank, given that it provided a nice deflection from their own inaction. 

What the IMG relationship has shown us, in my view, is a few things: 

1) That many of these problems were within the game's gift to solve with the desire and gumption to solve them,

2) That where we don't have the resource of expertise to solve them, handing that to someone with the right technical and strategic knowledge can drive improvement (eg, the improvement in digital and broadcast content).

3) That many of the problems were self-inflicted (there is nuance as to why we may have inflicted some of those problems on ourselves, but they're self-inflicted nonetheless).

The RFL / RLC / the clubs are still the dominant factor in this relationship. It's them that has to have the want to address these issues, it's them that needs to feel confident and willing to trust the experts to address these things, and it's them that needs to have some honest conversations about how much it really is prepared to change on some of the more difficult changes we need to implement. It's not good enough to simply say "we've brought in IMG and what have the actually done for us?"

Edited by whatmichaelsays
  • Like 9
Posted
On 05/01/2025 at 13:09, JohnM said:

Just watched the League Express podcast #70. Its always worth watching and if yuou haven't , you should.

Otherwise, how else would you know that those of us who support the RFL's "Re-imagining Rugby League" project are, as Martyn put it "besotted with IMG".

 

Just listened to this week's podcast with Matty Peet. Was quite funny to listen to Martyn's reaction when Matty said he was a fan of the IMG grading. It clearly wasn't what he was wanting to hear so dropped the subject sharpish.

  • Haha 6
Posted
3 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Just listened to this week's podcast with Matty Peet. Was quite funny to listen to Martyn's reaction when Matty said he was a fan of the IMG grading. It clearly wasn't what he was wanting to hear so dropped the subject sharpish.

I've not had chance to watch this yet. I do find it a worthwhile and recommended watch. Always good to hear what  Martyn has to say. Good to see, too, that not all of his guests are in the Garry Schofield mold. 

Yours, besotted, now of North Staffordshire.

Posted
4 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Just listened to this week's podcast with Matty Peet. Was quite funny to listen to Martyn's reaction when Matty said he was a fan of the IMG grading. It clearly wasn't what he was wanting to hear so dropped the subject sharpish.

Matty Peet. The latest inductee to the IMG Ultras gang

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
17 hours ago, LeeF said:

Matty Peet. The latest inductee to the IMG Ultras gang

502155_eb91ad81563842979e1e354fe5b5a770~

Posted
43 minutes ago, DEANO said:

Meanwhile Salford seem to fulfill imgs requirements 

Good point. When are clubs checked?

Are the grading scores re-assessed:

Every season?

Every month?

Every game?

Every day?

Every hour?

Posted
1 hour ago, DEANO said:

Meanwhile Salford seem to fulfill imgs requirements 

They did terribly on the financial scoring, one of the reasons they have such a low position despite their recent performance on the pitch. Under the P&R model you’d think they were one of the “best” 6 clubs we had. The evidence of the last month shows how ridiculous that judgement would have been. 

So I’m not sure your point really works eh…

  • Like 6
Posted
On 09/01/2025 at 21:31, LeeF said:

Matty Peet. The latest inductee to the IMG Ultras gang

I used that expression, as it succinctly describes the group of posters who appear to attribute nothing but positives to everything and anything IMG do, while demeaning - and indeed defaming - critics. If you don’t like it, then don’t behave like it. 
 

I know what Radlinski and Peet said. They are positive people, who want our game to grow.

I think that:

- IMG are very good indeed at what they generally do, which is secure TV and other deals;

- IMG are perfectly placed to say that in order to maximise revenue the game has to get its act together and to recommend ways in which to do so;

- it is right for the game to dust off its frame the future/objective ratings for clubs: in one form or another we have done this in the past, with some success. In doing that, IMG would be perfectly placed to frame the criteria;

- I would have done the assessments in house. That’s a judgment call, and I can see that others would take a different position. I think Salford’s position supports my argument, but accept that is from a distance.

Someone made the point above around change taking time. I agree, but presumably someone somewhere has an idea as to when we can expect to see some improvement.
 

It may be never, as the clubs themselves may not be capable of lifting their game, or may not be bothered to do so, given that they only need to be in the top 12. Wakefield, after all, are still yet to meet framing the future standards and were awarded a place. 

IMG are an absolutely excellent choice to sell our game, and help us to do so. It is for the game to step up and help them do their job. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I used that expression, as it succinctly describes the group of posters who appear to attribute nothing but positives to everything and anything IMG do, while demeaning - and indeed defaming - critics. If you don’t like it, then don’t behave like it. 
 

I know what Radlinski and Peet said. They are positive people, who want our game to grow.

I think that:

- IMG are very good indeed at what they generally do, which is secure TV and other deals;

- IMG are perfectly placed to say that in order to maximise revenue the game has to get its act together and to recommend ways in which to do so;

- it is right for the game to dust off its frame the future/objective ratings for clubs: in one form or another we have done this in the past, with some success. In doing that, IMG would be perfectly placed to frame the criteria;

- I would have done the assessments in house. That’s a judgment call, and I can see that others would take a different position. I think Salford’s position supports my argument, but accept that is from a distance.

Someone made the point above around change taking time. I agree, but presumably someone somewhere has an idea as to when we can expect to see some improvement.
 

It may be never, as the clubs themselves may not be capable of lifting their game, or may not be bothered to do so, given that they only need to be in the top 12. Wakefield, after all, are still yet to meet framing the future standards and were awarded a place. 

IMG are an absolutely excellent choice to sell our game, and help us to do so. It is for the game to step up and help them do their job. 

I’m an IMG Ultra, in fact I might have a t-shirt made now, it sounds great. 

I‘ve watched the game mismanage itself for 30 years. I’ve watched supporters with the mindset of the shopkeepers in the League of Gentlemen criticise sensible attempts at change, and blame outsiders for failure, for those same 30 years. So frankly if criticising them with rational argument counts as “demeaning” and “defaming” them then I’ll stick that quote on the back of a t-shirt too.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I used that expression, as it succinctly describes the group of posters who appear to attribute nothing but positives to everything and anything IMG do, while demeaning - and indeed defaming - critics. If you don’t like it, then don’t behave like it. 
 

I know what Radlinski and Peet said. They are positive people, who want our game to grow.

I think that:

- IMG are very good indeed at what they generally do, which is secure TV and other deals;

- IMG are perfectly placed to say that in order to maximise revenue the game has to get its act together and to recommend ways in which to do so;

- it is right for the game to dust off its frame the future/objective ratings for clubs: in one form or another we have done this in the past, with some success. In doing that, IMG would be perfectly placed to frame the criteria;

- I would have done the assessments in house. That’s a judgment call, and I can see that others would take a different position. I think Salford’s position supports my argument, but accept that is from a distance.

Someone made the point above around change taking time. I agree, but presumably someone somewhere has an idea as to when we can expect to see some improvement.
 

It may be never, as the clubs themselves may not be capable of lifting their game, or may not be bothered to do so, given that they only need to be in the top 12. Wakefield, after all, are still yet to meet framing the future standards and were awarded a place. 

IMG are an absolutely excellent choice to sell our game, and help us to do so. It is for the game to step up and help them do their job. 

I used that expression, as it succinctly describes the group of posters who appear to attribute nothing but positives to everything and anything IMG do, while demeaning - and indeed defaming - critics. If you don’t like it, then don’t behave like it. 

There is no group of such posters. What there is, is a number of posters who understand the need for a long term solution to an even longer term problem and are prepared to argue for the "Re-Imagining Rugby League" project against the project's antagonists.

Detailed reading of the posts of the " Ultras" will reveal both underlying support for the project as well as actual reasoned criticism and discussion of various areas for improvement.

Compare this with the active  campaigning against the project by some who should know better, loosely characterised by constant negative criticism tempered by "I do want it to succeed but.."  or , "I wish I was wrong but..."

It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with supporting the aims and objectives of the project and wanting it to be seen through to completion. It is, as far as I can recall, the first serious and considered attempt at a strategic plan for the sport, rather than a "big bang" change of direction (cf the birth of SuperLeague) or nibbling at the edges.

There is though, something wrong with, however dressed up as conditional support, constant picking away at any individual point spotted through the microscope of antipathy. It's not defamatory to detect the sense of this directly or tangentially in posts and podcasts.

There's a spectrum of opinion on here spanning 180 degrees but it is significantly distorted in shape more by the naysayers than the "Ultras" 

If supporting the project and calling out the criticism (and critics on occasions, too) makes me an Ultra, so be it.

  • Like 4
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I used that expression, as it succinctly describes the group of posters who appear to attribute nothing but positives to everything and anything IMG do, while demeaning - and indeed defaming - critics. If you don’t like it, then don’t behave like it. 
 

I know what Radlinski and Peet said. They are positive people, who want our game to grow.

I think that:

- IMG are very good indeed at what they generally do, which is secure TV and other deals;

- IMG are perfectly placed to say that in order to maximise revenue the game has to get its act together and to recommend ways in which to do so;

- it is right for the game to dust off its frame the future/objective ratings for clubs: in one form or another we have done this in the past, with some success. In doing that, IMG would be perfectly placed to frame the criteria;

- I would have done the assessments in house. That’s a judgment call, and I can see that others would take a different position. I think Salford’s position supports my argument, but accept that is from a distance.

Someone made the point above around change taking time. I agree, but presumably someone somewhere has an idea as to when we can expect to see some improvement.
 

It may be never, as the clubs themselves may not be capable of lifting their game, or may not be bothered to do so, given that they only need to be in the top 12. Wakefield, after all, are still yet to meet framing the future standards and were awarded a place. 

IMG are an absolutely excellent choice to sell our game, and help us to do so. It is for the game to step up and help them do their job. 

We all know that you that phrase and that it was as daft and inaccurate then as it is now.

The phrase and definition you use doesn’t apply to any posters on here if you bother to actually read posts in full. The only ones who seem blinkered are some of the anti IMG posters. They are the true “Ultras” if you want to throw that phrase around. 

Edited by LeeF
  • Like 1

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.