Two leagues of 10 would involve horrendous amounts of loop fixtures though, unless there were some creative cross-division games but they would likely be lopsided. Even if nominally SL the lower league will have less funding so you'd also be sending two SL clubs down, with all the financial and squad retention implications of that.
FWIW I think IMG have focussed on entirely the wrong area, or at least media reporting of it has focussed on the wrong area. Whilst yo/yo clubs are clearly a bit of an issue the structure of the game simply isn't the main problem we face. How the sport and its players are promoted, how local communities are re-engaged with Rugby League, how confidence in and of the sport is rebuilt after quite a long malaise etc. These are the areas of real importance. We've been through enough structure changes over many years that show that they are never the positive revolution they are sold as. In fact constantly changing is one of the problems that has led to where we are: it has given off the impression of a sport adrift, unsure of what to do, unstable and potentially contrived.
A 12 team top flight is perfectly fine, one up one down likewise. The people in charge have historically reached for changes in structure as a lever to pull precisely because it's the easiest route to follow. Sadly it looks initially like IMG are going down the same route, hoping that ill-thought out changes in league structure or top flight criteria will be the golden shot instead of actually focussing on the important but more difficult things. I suspect more of the latter is happening in the background but going in big with this proto-licencing doesn't fill me with much confidence.
Two leagues of 10 would involve horrendous amounts of loop fixtures though, unless there were some creative cross-division games but they would likely be lopsided. Even if nominally SL the lower league will have less funding so you'd also be sending two SL clubs down, with all the financial and squad retention implications of that.
FWIW I think IMG have focussed on entirely the wrong area, or at least media reporting of it has focussed on the wrong area. Whilst yo/yo clubs are clearly a bit of an issue the structure of the game simply isn't the main problem we face. How the sport and its players are promoted, how local communities are re-engaged with Rugby League, how confidence in and of the sport is rebuilt after quite a long malaise etc. These are the areas of real importance. We've been through enough structure changes over many years that show that they are never the positive revolution they are sold as. In fact constantly changing is one of the problems that has led to where we are: it has given off the impression of a sport adrift, unsure of what to do, unstable and potentially contrived.
A 12 team top flight is perfectly fine, one up one down likewise. The people in charge have historically reached for changes in structure as a lever to pull precisely because it's the easiest route to follow. Sadly it looks initially like IMG are going down the same route, hoping that ill-thought out changes in league structure or top flight criteria will be the golden shot instead of actually focussing on the important but more difficult things. I suspect more of the latter is happening in the background but going in big with this proto-licencing doesn't fill me with much confidence.
This.
It’s always surface level stuff, and it eats away at the integrity of the sport.
Two leagues of 10 would involve horrendous amounts of loop fixtures though, unless there were some creative cross-division games but they would likely be lopsided. Even if nominally SL the lower league will have less funding so you'd also be sending two SL clubs down, with all the financial and squad retention implications of that.
FWIW I think IMG have focussed on entirely the wrong area, or at least media reporting of it has focussed on the wrong area. Whilst yo/yo clubs are clearly a bit of an issue the structure of the game simply isn't the main problem we face. How the sport and its players are promoted, how local communities are re-engaged with Rugby League, how confidence in and of the sport is rebuilt after quite a long malaise etc. These are the areas of real importance. We've been through enough structure changes over many years that show that they are never the positive revolution they are sold as. In fact constantly changing is one of the problems that has led to where we are: it has given off the impression of a sport adrift, unsure of what to do, unstable and potentially contrived.
A 12 team top flight is perfectly fine, one up one down likewise. The people in charge have historically reached for changes in structure as a lever to pull precisely because it's the easiest route to follow. Sadly it looks initially like IMG are going down the same route, hoping that ill-thought out changes in league structure or top flight criteria will be the golden shot instead of actually focussing on the important but more difficult things. I suspect more of the latter is happening in the background but going in big with this proto-licencing doesn't fill me with much confidence.
Agreed. You're right that they have focused on the structure rather than the product. If they continue to do what they currently believe in, I really think it won't end well.
In fairness, if they are going to do a total rebrand then they are going to have to do some things differently. But as is so often the case, any changes are hardly going to be radical if they're to get the backing of the clubs. But the club's might be in for a nasty wake up. IMG will take their slice regardless of whether the game's income is transformed. More changes to come yet, I feel, regardless of what gets voted in initially.
I MG clearly trying to change the perception of the game, its look, its brand, its style. A good starting point.
Rugby League, or its leaders, don't feel the game is worth anything. There's no razzmatazz. There's no hype. No build up. People in power just don't think the game is worth it.
IMG will hopefully change that. Create drama, create hype, in the age of social media clubs, players, coaches, journalists should all be trying to make a big deal out of anything they can. This week's narrative, today's news, tomorrow's chip wrap.
I MG clearly trying to change the perception of the game, its look, its brand, its style. A good starting point.
Rugby League, or its leaders, don't feel the game is worth anything. There's no razzmatazz. There's no hype. No build up. People in power just don't think the game is worth it.
IMG will hopefully change that. Create drama, create hype, in the age of social media clubs, players, coaches, journalists should all be trying to make a big deal out of anything they can. This week's narrative, today's news, tomorrow's chip wrap.
Two leagues of 10 would involve horrendous amounts of loop fixtures though, unless there were some creative cross-division games but they would likely be lopsided. Even if nominally SL the lower league will have less funding so you'd also be sending two SL clubs down, with all the financial and squad retention implications of that.
FWIW I think IMG have focussed on entirely the wrong area, or at least media reporting of it has focussed on the wrong area. Whilst yo/yo clubs are clearly a bit of an issue the structure of the game simply isn't the main problem we face. How the sport and its players are promoted, how local communities are re-engaged with Rugby League, how confidence in and of the sport is rebuilt after quite a long malaise etc. These are the areas of real importance. We've been through enough structure changes over many years that show that they are never the positive revolution they are sold as. In fact constantly changing is one of the problems that has led to where we are: it has given off the impression of a sport adrift, unsure of what to do, unstable and potentially contrived.
A 12 team top flight is perfectly fine, one up one down likewise. The people in charge have historically reached for changes in structure as a lever to pull precisely because it's the easiest route to follow. Sadly it looks initially like IMG are going down the same route, hoping that ill-thought out changes in league structure or top flight criteria will be the golden shot instead of actually focussing on the important but more difficult things. I suspect more of the latter is happening in the background but going in big with this proto-licencing doesn't fill me with much confidence.
Agree with that. I'd love them to look at the TV deals, the TV exposure, promotion of the game, build up, press coverage, sponsors etc etc.. that is just as important if not more so that licensing. It could be a bit of chicken and egg though ? Get the game on the field in a better shape and perhaps the TV and press improves as does the sponsorship ?
Agree with that. I'd love them to look at the TV deals, the TV exposure, promotion of the game, build up, press coverage, sponsors etc etc.. that is just as important if not more so that licensing. It could be a bit of chicken and egg though ? Get the game on the field in a better shape and perhaps the TV and press improves as does the sponsorship ?
It depends on when the current deal runs to. Not as important at the moment if there's 2/3 years left on the deal
IMG must be thrilled to hear Sam Tomkins say Owen Farrell would have been the best player in SL for each of the last 10 years. Way to promote the sport, Sam!
