IMG : Tue Sep 17, 2024 3:37 pm  

So then, we are now two-and-a-bit years into rugby league's 12-year (yes, 12-YEAR!!) strategic partnership deal with IMG, which promised, let's not forget, to "revolutionise the sport’s long-term prospects". How do we feel the revolution is progressing thus far? Are IMG to be regarded as a band of latter-day Che Guevaras, gallantly fighting on behalf of the downtrodden fans and leading our beloved sport to the promised land of riches and success? Or are they, in fact, merely a bunch of chancers who have so far done bugger all apart from introduce a grading system that is serving only to deny us what would have been an enthralling relegation battle this season?

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: IMG : Tue Sep 17, 2024 4:04 pm  

i dont know so much about img, there's been poop thrown about this year about hull and to a lesser extent cas in terms of on field performance, but there's a typical RL style return to the tail wagging the dog now, people being unhappy about london going down, cos hull are a disgrace as opposed to them scoring quite badly last year, moving the goalposts again, 12 months into the plan, rather than giving it a chance.

This is rugby league, moan that something needs fixing, provide a fix, moan about the fix, We're killing ourselves as a sport.

Re: IMG : Thu Sep 19, 2024 6:11 pm  

There just aren't enough quality rugby league players to sustain 12 clubs, where we need enough to spread across at least 16.

Re: IMG : Thu Sep 19, 2024 8:49 pm  

MorePlaymakersNeeded wrote:

There just aren't enough quality rugby league players to sustain 12 clubs, where we need enough to spread across at least 16.

Don’t agree - there is plenty of talent in the lower leagues.
The issue is money and persuading the 12 clubs it would make financial sense to increase SL to 14 or 16 and cut out the loop fixtures.

Re: IMG : Fri Sep 20, 2024 8:03 am  

This IMG just mirrors Brexit for me in a way.
Voted for but heavy resistance that drags it out and does more damage than good because of it.
I can see this dredging going on for years.

[BOBBIE_IS_SUPERMAN]

Re: IMG : Fri Sep 20, 2024 2:46 pm  

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote:

i dont know so much about img, there's been poop thrown about this year about hull and to a lesser extent cas in terms of on field performance, but there's a typical RL style return to the tail wagging the dog now, people being unhappy about london going down, cos hull are a disgrace as opposed to them scoring quite badly last year, moving the goalposts again, 12 months into the plan, rather than giving it a chance.

This is rugby league, moan that something needs fixing, provide a fix, moan about the fix, We're killing ourselves as a sport.

Exactly this , how many younger players have been blooded this year as a result of No relegation? This will pay dividends in the long run.

Re: IMG : Fri Sep 20, 2024 2:54 pm  

Think they've done alright with the hand they've been dealt. Since they've come in:

- Attendances are up
- Got Sky to film and produce every SL game, allowing for a video ref at every game
- Got us back on terrestrial TV, first on C4 for a pittance (which they produced) and then to the BBC for a bit of money
- Created a streaming service for super league games which is a very good step
- Clubs started working on improving/modernising their stadiums (and salford finally sorted a long term deal on their stadium)
- Clubs have started putting effort into matchday experience (Hull KR, Wigan, Leigh spring to mind)
- SL has been rebranded and now looks much sleeker/more mordern
- Licencing has been done in probably the most transparent way possible, with clubs knowing exactly where they stand, with measurable things they can improve on to improve their score and improve their club all round

There's definitely been some disappointments. I think everyone was disappointed at the TV deal going down (although I'm of the opinion that its the next TV deal they should actually be judged on). I think the licensing system is contentious and not enthusiastically agreed on. Would love them to have included some criteria on youth development and women's development but they have explained that this just isn't feasible at the moment (some clubs aren't even allowed a youth academy as they don't have a license from the RL) and that they do hope that it's something they can do in the future and that eventually they will make having a women's team mandatory.

I also thought they didn't do a very good job at capitalising on the world cup, wheelchair WC or saints winning the WCC in Aus. Both you could argue came a bit too soon for them to have anything feasible to use, but then they also did nothing with Wigan winning the WCC this year either so that excuses has worn thin.

Ultimately, they probably expected to be given a bit more carte blanche to do what they think is right, but they've been burned by the reality of the fact that the SL clubs and chairmen have too much power and only serve their own self interest. Some of the ideas they've came with have been outright refused (scrapping loop fixtures, restructuring the CC, scrapping magic for a new event) so in a lot of ways they're hamstrung by the things that have always hamstrung us as a sport. That and the fact there's no money to do any real massive marketing.

How we will look after the 12 years, I don't know. Realistically we will probably be in a similar place as we are now... But I do think they're doing far more than the RFL have done over the last 20 odd years to at least try

Re: IMG : Fri Sep 20, 2024 3:30 pm  

Crosswire wrote:

Don’t agree - there is plenty of talent in the lower leagues.
The issue is money and persuading the 12 clubs it would make financial sense to increase SL to 14 or 16 and cut out the loop fixtures.

If that were true, than why do we have some really, really poor sides at the lower end of SL.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: IMG : Fri Sep 20, 2024 3:33 pm  

MorePlaymakersNeeded wrote:

If that were true, than why do we have some really, really poor sides at the lower end of SL.

i don think the current wakey side even with mcmeekan and johnstone would be much trouble for the top 6 sides

Re: IMG : Sat Sep 21, 2024 7:41 am  

MorePlaymakersNeeded wrote:

If that were true, than why do we have some really, really poor sides at the lower end of SL.

Simply because they are not professional and the fitness levels are nowhere near the same.