Final Whistle: Money, money, money – and why rugby league has so little of it

[Martyn Sadler]

25 minutes ago, Click said:

Crazy choice of example, especially as it is just made up.

I'm not sure what you mean by that comment.

You seem to be suggesting that I've made up a club called London Broncos.

[Click]

14 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I'm not sure what you mean by that comment.

You seem to be suggesting that I've made up a club called London Broncos.

If that is what you think I am saying you've made up, that's quite something. 

You made up an example involving LB and even acknowledge it by you using the word "presumably"

[JohnM]

4 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I did agree with it at the outset, given the way in which the deal was presented to the world.

I was very optimistic about the impact it would have on our sport.

That's something I don't quite recall.

It's what we've found out since that initial announcement that has created much more doubt in my mind and in the minds of many club owners.

What specifically have you found out that is different from the project the sport as a whole signed up to and has caused this retreat from "very optimistic" to "much more doubt" That's quite a change so it must be something major.

Many club owners? Can you be more specific? How many SL club owners? How many Championship Club owners? How many Div 1 club owners?  That way we can consider what factors and elements these doubts relate to.

I would be very interested to know what developments have taken place, other than grading, that IMG can take undisputed credit for.

What developments were you expecting that IMG have not delivered on? Have you looked? IMG  made a series of recommendations that the RFL presented and the sport signed up to. Grading for example, delivers not just a grading score but action by the clubs. The benefits from forcing the SL clubs into making themselves more appealing to TV companies, to sponsors and advertisers and to existing, lapsed and potential new fans will only start to be quantified at the end of this upcoming season, the first live season of the project.

And it's not just you I'm asking. I'm constantly asking the RFL and the clubs and I'm not getting many positive answers.

I shall never tire of repeating, "It's a twelve year project". Perhaps that's because they don't like being asked "Have you stopped beating your wife" sort of questions. As I've written before, perhaps they don't like being asked repetitively "why aren't we there yet dad" before the car is even off the drive. 

My comments in blue italics above. I don't think anyone is saying that it is perfect. It is though, a damn sight better than anything the sports has come up with in the modern era. There are bound to be adjustments over time based on analysis of actual data amd experience over a season. After all, we won't automatically award Castleford Tigers the SuperLeague Trophy if they beat Hull KR on St Valentines Day. We'll wait to see if they win the Grand Final. So why make similar micro-term judgements about the Project before even the first SL match of the season?

 

Edited January 1 by JohnM

[Worzel]

4 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

New owners at Wigan, Castleford, Hull FC and Wakefield and some new investors at your club Hull KR.

I'm not sure that we can give IMG all the credit for their arrival although I'll grant you that it may be important in some cases. But we would have to question those investors to discover how much of a draw IMG's presence actually was.

And of course we have lost a major investor in David Hughes at London Broncos, which, to judge from his comments in 2024, was influenced by IMG's presence in Rugby League.

I wouldn't be opposed to a 12-year deal (and I wasn't when it was announced) but the more I hear about this deal, the more I believe it's the wrong deal.

Digital engagement has been growing rapidly in all sectors of society over the last couple of years. Again, I'm not sure precisely how much credit IMG can take for this. The RFL's social media activity, for example, doesn't seem to have derived much benefit from IMG.

Short-term decision making tends to prevail when any organisation's biggest problem is the fear of insolvency, which unfortunately has characterised too many Rugby League clubs throughout its history.

 

That's now what I'm doing and in fact I think that the clubs themselves are recognising the need for longer term thinking, given the catastrophic decline in TV income in recent years, which has meant that owners are having to dip deeper into their own pockets.

But I'm waiting to see some evidence of long-term planning from IMG.

Perhaps it will come in 2025.

Just to come back on a few specific points:

- Matt Ellis has said the IMG era was important in providing the security to invest; I know personally that Hull KRs investors were encouraged by the same factor. To be honest it’s pretty self-evident that reducing the risk of relegation increases the propensity of investors to invest in long-term rather than short-term actions, even current investors (if we factor out new ones)

- David Hughes is a red herring. He turned London into a husk of a club, albeit on a road paved with good intentions, and is perhaps the most regressive of all owners in his approach to club audience building. The results of that are clear over 2 decades (I say this whilst recognising how he kept the club alive, although in a zombie state). Rugby League does need a London strategy, but it doesn’t need a David Hughes shaped one. Under the new model a different owner would have invested David’s £25m+ very differently, with better outcomes for the game. 

- Digital engagement has not undergone in step change in society in the last 12 months as you claim; it certainly has in the last decade, accelerating in the last 5 years, which Super League missed the wave of. Yet in the last 12 months Super League and club numbers have gone through the roof (at least those who have leant in to the new strategy). Content has been a key driver in that, enabled by increased availability as a result of every game being televised under the new deal providing better short clips for social recycling both in-game and pre/post game. Some clubs will choose not to take IMGs advice, or may not have the funds to do so, and there’ll be laggards but the overall step-change in numbers has been phenomenal.

However, Rome wasn’t built in a day. If the IMG deal was only 6 years then the time to assess it would be perhaps 3 years hence, not now. But it isn’t even that: It’s 12 years, and it’s 12 years for a reason. Our sport has sleep-walked into some major strategic quicksand, and it will take time to get out of it. Changing tack now because a miracle hasn’t arrived in just 12 months is precisely the immature business culture that’s held rugby league back for decades.

I’d advocate clubs taking the Hull KR path, lean in and make stuff happen rather than blame others. 

 

[Superb Chops]

On 31/12/2024 at 12:59, dkw said:

Baseball is not sensible in any way when it comes to contracts, my favourite example is Bobby Bonilla, he gets paid more than 1 million dollars a year since 2011 until he's 72 in 2035. It's utterly insane 

Super League, therefore, needs to get the telephone number of Bonilla’s agent.

[Anita Bath]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

Just to come back on a few specific points:

- Matt Ellis has said the IMG era was important in providing the security to invest; I know personally that Hull KRs investors were encouraged by the same factor. To be honest it’s pretty self-evident that reducing the risk of relegation increases the propensity of investors to invest in long-term rather than short-term actions, even current investors (if we factor out new ones)

- David Hughes is a red herring. He turned London into a husk of a club, albeit on a road paved with good intentions, and is perhaps the most regressive of all owners in his approach to club audience building. The results of that are clear over 2 decades (I say this whilst recognising how he kept the club alive, although in a zombie state). Rugby League does need a London strategy, but it doesn’t need a David Hughes shaped one. Under the new model a different owner would have invested David’s £25m+ very differently, with better outcomes for the game. 

- Digital engagement has not undergone in step change in society in the last 12 months as you claim; it certainly has in the last decade, accelerating in the last 5 years, which Super League missed the wave of. Yet in the last 12 months Super League and club numbers have gone through the roof (at least those who have leant in to the new strategy). Content has been a key driver in that, enabled by increased availability as a result of every game being televised under the new deal providing better short clips for social recycling both in-game and pre/post game. Some clubs will choose not to take IMGs advice, or may not have the funds to do so, and there’ll be laggards but the overall step-change in numbers has been phenomenal.

However, Rome wasn’t built in a day. If the IMG deal was only 6 years then the time to assess it would be perhaps 3 years hence, not now. But it isn’t even that: It’s 12 years, and it’s 12 years for a reason. Our sport has sleep-walked into some major strategic quicksand, and it will take time to get out of it. Changing tack now because a miracle hasn’t arrived in just 12 months is precisely the immature business culture that’s held rugby league back for decades.

I’d advocate clubs taking the Hull KR path, lean in and make stuff happen rather than blame others. 

 

I agree with much of that but is the likely reward for (strategic) investment the same for clubs outside SL as it is for those in SL? Given there are no guarantees of entering SL…how would a club like say Barrow or Batley (or my own club Rochdale Hornets) get payback when the prospects of ever entering SL (and receiving SL central funding) based on IMG criteria are nil.

I am not having a go at these clubs…just the opposite…amazing they manage to keep professional rugby going in their communities.

I think its now investment for staying in SL not for reaching SL. 2024 was an anomaly with the one club London already condemned to losing SL status before a game was played ( or a ticket sold, a social media hit made or a directors box seat filled). 

[Roughyed Rats]

10 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

I agree with much of that but is the likely reward for (strategic) investment the same for clubs outside SL as it is for those in SL? Given there are no guarantees of entering SL…how would a club like say Barrow or Batley (or my own club Rochdale Hornets) get payback when the prospects of ever entering SL (and receiving SL central funding) based on IMG criteria are nil.

I am not having a go at these clubs…just the opposite…amazing they manage to keep professional rugby going in their communities.

I think its now investment for staying in SL not for reaching SL. 2024 was an anomaly with the one club London already condemned to losing SL status before a game was played ( or a ticket sold, a social media hit made or a directors box seat filled). 

Exactly. Works great in a pure franchise environment but not the halfway house system we currently have. IMG went through this process with European Basketball and it didn't take long before their original grading system was abandoned and closed-shop franchising introduced. Sadly, we've been down that road once before.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Exactly. Works great in a pure franchise environment but not the halfway house system we currently have. IMG went through this process with European Basketball and it didn't take long before their original grading system was abandoned and closed-shop franchising introduced. Sadly, we've been down that road once before.

What are attendances, investments, sponsorships like for those outside EuroLeague?

That's kind of important to know and I don't immediately have the answer.

Also, looks like a team was relegated for this season (Valencia) and a team promoted (Paris).

[Roughyed Rats]

17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

What are attendances, investments, sponsorships like for those outside EuroLeague?

That's kind of important to know and I don't immediately have the answer.

Also, looks like a team was relegated for this season (Valencia) and a team promoted (Paris).

It's licensing. There are 12 permanent licenses and 6 annual franchise licenses. Automatic P&R was scrapped just 3.5 years into a 10 year deal with IMG.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

It's licensing. There are 12 permanent licenses and 6 annual franchise licenses. Automatic P&R was scrapped just 3.5 years into a 10 year deal with IMG.

So, not a closed shop as clubs can enter and leave it?

And how about the investment in teams and leagues not in the EuroLeague?

[Worzel]

13 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

I agree with much of that but is the likely reward for (strategic) investment the same for clubs outside SL as it is for those in SL? Given there are no guarantees of entering SL…how would a club like say Barrow or Batley (or my own club Rochdale Hornets) get payback when the prospects of ever entering SL (and receiving SL central funding) based on IMG criteria are nil.

I am not having a go at these clubs…just the opposite…amazing they manage to keep professional rugby going in their communities.

I think its now investment for staying in SL not for reaching SL. 2024 was an anomaly with the one club London already condemned to losing SL status before a game was played ( or a ticket sold, a social media hit made or a directors box seat filled). 

Yes but I think if this is the reality now, then it always was. At what point did Barrow, Batley or Rochdale have a realistic prospect of getting into Super League in the last couple of decades?

We need to be honest with ourselves: It's mission-critical to the survival and growth of the game that the elite comp, Super League, has a platform on which it can prosper. Only by building that and the international game can we grow rugby league's profile and revenues in a meaningful way, which (if structured properly this time, per Martyn's point about the mistakes of 1995) can enable all layers of the game to be better invested in. 

If we continually constrain the elite comp (by e.g. allowing annual promotion and relegation on results alone) to keep alive the hypothetical dreams of clubs who haven't got into Super League under the old model either, then that won't happen.  

I know that's a bit confronting, but surely Barrow, Batley and Rochdale fans don't just engage with their clubs because they hope that, one day, they might get one season in the sunlit uplands? There's purpose and meaning in the Championship, League One and other competitions. 

[Roughyed Rats]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

So, not a closed shop as clubs can enter and leave it?

And how about the investment in teams and leagues not in the EuroLeague?

It's franchising. There is no investment in the teams lower. Their leagues were cut off completely. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

It's franchising. There is no investment in the teams lower. Their leagues were cut off completely. 

So, just to check, outside of EuroLeague, no one is investing in teams?

[Roughyed Rats]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

Yes but I think if this is the reality now, then it always was. At what point did Barrow, Batley or Rochdale have a realistic prospect of getting into Super League in the last couple of decades?

We need to be honest with ourselves: It's mission-critical to the survival and growth of the game that the elite comp, Super League, has a platform on which it can prosper. Only by building that and the international game can we grow rugby league's profile and revenues in a meaningful way, which (if structured properly this time, per Martyn's point about the mistakes of 1995) can enable all layers of the game to be better invested in. 

If we continually constrain the elite comp (by e.g. allowing annual promotion and relegation on results alone) to keep alive the hypothetical dreams of clubs who haven't got into Super League under the old model either, then that won't happen.  

I know that's a bit confronting, but surely Barrow, Batley and Rochdale fans don't just engage with their clubs because they hope that, one day, they might get one season in the sunlit uplands? There's purpose and meaning in the Championship, League One and other competitions. 

That would be true if those revenues were 'invested in all layers of the game' but they are not and they never will be as the elite will always look after themselves. The current system is a halfway house between P&R and licensing and just won't work. Personally, I'd have no problem letting the elite go it alone to 'grow the game' and let the remaining clubs go their own way. 

[Roughyed Rats]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So, just to check, outside of EuroLeague, no one is investing in teams?

Not sure of your point. I'm sure there is investment in their own competitions but they are run completely separately and have no relevance to EuroLeague. If SL went to franchising and completely left the RFL would be a similar analogy. I'm sure there would be some investment into teams competing in a semi-pro competition.  

[Worzel]

19 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

That would be true if those revenues were 'invested in all layers of the game' but they are not and they never will be as the elite will always look after themselves. The current system is a halfway house between P&R and licensing and just won't work. Personally, I'd have no problem letting the elite go it alone to 'grow the game' and let the remaining clubs go their own way. 

The current system is only a halfway house in the sense that it's transitional. Eventually you'll have at least 12 A-grade clubs, resulting in a 'closed' league with no P&R where new teams will only be added as the comp grows. That's the grown-up, pragmatic way to grow a fully-pro league and precisely how the NRL operates. 

The central point of Martyn's article is that as we grow TV revenues again, we should not make the mistake of just sharing it 12 ways. Yes of course the pro clubs should get the lions share, they create the value and we have a fully-pro league to maintain not strangle at rebirth, but over time more of a surplus should be created to be invested in the longer-term interests of the game. I agree fully with him on this. 

That isn't the same thing as "subsidising lower league clubs" though. I see no reason why a League One club's unrealistic expectations of being a semi-pro organisation should be subsidised at the expense of other community game development activities. 

[gingerjon]

24 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Not sure of your point. I'm sure there is investment in their own competitions but they are run completely separately and have no relevance to EuroLeague. If SL went to franchising and completely left the RFL would be a similar analogy. I'm sure there would be some investment into teams competing in a semi-pro competition.  

The point is the argument seems to be that there will now be no investment in rugby league outside Super League. I assume you're using EuroLeague basketball as a way of making the argument that IMG will be bad for the game because they will lead to that outcome.

And yet, EuroLeague is not a closed shop because clubs go into and out of it. And basketball outside of EuroLeague seems to be stronger than ever.

There seems to be nothing there for rugby league to be scared of or be concerned about.

[Wakefield Ram]

18 hours ago, Worzel said:

Just to come back on a few specific points:

- Matt Ellis has said the IMG era was important in providing the security to invest; I know personally that Hull KRs investors were encouraged by the same factor. To be honest it’s pretty self-evident that reducing the risk of relegation increases the propensity of investors to invest in long-term rather than short-term actions, even current investors (if we factor out new ones)

So if Matt Ellis had arrived next year, would he have thought it a worthwhile investment to fund 3 years outside SL and with no guarantee of promotion to SL?

After 2 years we have a re-hash of licencing with a scoring system based on what actual evidence? No explanation of why fandom is 25% of the total and more important than financial stability for example. IMG have made up a scoring system and people are treating it like it's gospel. Having minimum standards of financial stability and ground capacity make sense. How many social media clicks, size of directors box etc...? Just made up. 

And there is still no clarity on any future promotion or relegation or expansion of SL for next year. Not some distant future, 2026. If clubs are to plan long term, how can they not know what will happen next year? And what's in the rest of this 12 year plan? 

And the concept that somehow SL will grow the sport of RL as a whole is not based on any evidence. RL is a pyramid, SL is just a tiny top tier. A fraction of 1% of the players. 

[Click]

9 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

So if Matt Ellis had arrived next year, would he have thought it a worthwhile investment to fund 3 years outside SL and with no guarantee of promotion to SL?

After 2 years we have a re-hash of licencing with a scoring system based on what actual evidence? No explanation of why fandom is 25% of the total and more important than financial stability for example. IMG have made up a scoring system and people are treating it like it's gospel. Having minimum standards of financial stability and ground capacity make sense. How many social media clicks, size of directors box etc...? Just made up. 

And there is still no clarity on any future promotion or relegation or expansion of SL for next year. Not some distant future, 2026. If clubs are to plan long term, how can they not know what will happen next year? And what's in the rest of this 12 year plan? 

And the concept that somehow SL will grow the sport of RL as a whole is not based on any evidence. RL is a pyramid, SL is just a tiny top tier. A fraction of 1% of the players. 

How can you say that it isn't based on any evidence? 

Most RL fans in this country have probably now been introduced to the game through watching SL, rather than a Championship/League 1/Amateur club. Of course the top tier needing to be as strong as possible to help grow the sport of RL, that is where the eyes are, and that filters down.

[gingerjon]

I love the idea that the “elite” are (a) elite (have you seen the size of our biggest clubs?) and (b) have always acted exclusively in their own interest, as if the TV money for Super League (and before that the shared ticket levy) hasn’t been the biggest income for the whole game for decades.

[Archie Gordon]

So we now seem deadset on retrenching to a mens M62 SL comp with Cumbria, London/SE, the NE, South Wales, women, the community game, and the representative game starved of any investment or attention. And this is all being done in the best interests of those constituencies because they'll be on the end of some trickle-down economics later? 

That isn't how the game will build. It might deliver an extra 1k on the gate at Castleford in the short run but SL itself is constrained and it seems crazy to hitch all our hopes to it breaking out of its £20-35m pa lane. Success - and, ironically, SL's best chance of real growth - would be a healthy whole game and, alas, we have no strategy for that at all.

 

[Wakefield Ram]

46 minutes ago, Click said:

How can you say that it isn't based on any evidence? 

Most RL fans in this country have probably now been introduced to the game through watching SL, rather than a Championship/League 1/Amateur club. Of course the top tier needing to be as strong as possible to help grow the sport of RL, that is where the eyes are, and that filters down.

So unless you have Sky Sports or live near 12 clubs on M62, you're very unlikely to play RL?

Trickle down economics was discredited a long time ago. Kids take up rugby because they play it at school, because their friends play, because they get taken down to a local club by their parents, grandparents etc...

Without the pyramid SL wouldn't exist. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

So unless you have Sky Sports or live near 12 clubs on M62, you're very unlikely to play RL?

Trickle down economics was discredited a long time ago. Kids take up rugby because they play it at school, because their friends play, because they get taken down to a local club by their parents, grandparents etc...

Without the pyramid SL wouldn't exist. 

And, without the SL contract, the pyramid has no money.

[gingerjon]

39 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

So we now seem deadset on retrenching to a mens M62 SL comp with Cumbria, London/SE, the NE, South Wales, women, the community game, and the representative game starved of any investment or attention. And this is all being done in the best interests of those constituencies because they'll be on the end of some trickle-down economics later? 

That isn't how the game will build. It might deliver an extra 1k on the gate at Castleford in the short run but SL itself is constrained and it seems crazy to hitch all our hopes to it breaking out of its £20-35m pa lane. Success - and, ironically, SL's best chance of real growth - would be a healthy whole game and, alas, we have no strategy for that at all.

 

Oddly, I agree with a lot of your worries about the retrenchment of the game. But that’s a process that’s now over a decade along. It is a thing that exists outside of the IMG partnership.

It is quite remarkable how badly RL fluffed its chance with the women’s game. We were so far ahead of other sports and then decided to just … moan and do nowt to grow it sustainably.

If anyone cares, there’d be a book to be written about that failure.

[Roughyed Rats]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

And, without the SL contract, the pyramid has no money.

Your right. Oldham should be eternally grateful for the £32k combined they have got over the last two seasons