Re: IMG : Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:21 am  

vastman wrote:

Im not sure it's quite that cut and dried. However people need to realise that for all the hype IMG are glorified consultants and can't push through anything anymore than SKY could 25 years ago. All teams will vote based on self interest and always will.

What happens if clubs dont accept the IMG proposals ?

On the subject of self interest, this is the main reason for having a strong and impartial governing body and I'm not sure that ours is either of those things.

Re: IMG : Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:26 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

What happens if clubs dont accept the IMG proposals ?

On the subject of self interest, this is the main reason for having a strong and impartial governing body and I'm not sure that ours is either of those things.

Nothing. IMG are not the governing body, the RFL is, IMG have no stake in the game unless I missed something. They have been employed to re-build the sport but how many of us have been at companies who've paid a fortune for consultants only to totally ignore every recommendation made.

Very expensive window dressing unless the clubs drop all self interest and I'll believe that when I see it.

Re: IMG : Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:16 am  

Vastman, I get that they are merely consultants.
However, on the basis that they are in position for 12 years? there will be an interesting conversation if their "root and branch" overhaul of the game, together with their recommendations are rejected.
Where would that leave them and the game?

I thought that I'd read that their plan would be implemented, regardless.

Re: IMG : Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:17 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Vastman, I get that they are merely consultants.
However, on the basis that they are in position for 12 years? there will be an interesting conversation if their "root and branch" overhaul of the game, together with their recommendations are rejected.
Where would that leave them and the game?

I thought that I'd read that their plan would be implemented, regardless.

That’s my understanding that IMG have the authority to make the changes.

I’m pretty sure there will be some ongoing consultation with the RFL though.

Re: IMG : Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:38 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Vastman, I get that they are merely consultants.
However, on the basis that they are in position for 12 years? there will be an interesting conversation if their "root and branch" overhaul of the game, together with their recommendations are rejected.
Where would that leave them and the game?

I thought that I'd read that their plan would be implemented, regardless.

My only answer is as I say, that I'll believe it when I see it. FWIW I think IMG will slowly disappear and their recommendations will be either ignored or watered down.

Re: IMG : Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:43 am  

Trojan Horse wrote:

That’s my understanding that IMG have the authority to make the changes.

I’m pretty sure there will be some ongoing consultation with the RFL though.

But who gives them that authority. The 12 club chairman, and what can be given can be taken away.

The original scenario if I recall was that IMG would take over the running of the game and then after overhauling the sport go out and attract private equity.

This may still be the aim I'm not sure, but seeing as it appears a vote is required, then IMG are not running the game IMHO, just advising. To me these are two distinctly different scenarios.

Re: IMG : Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:03 pm  

This is rugby league, nothing stays the same for long. We may have two or three seasons operating in line with IMG ideas and then tinkering will start, then wholesale changes and finally back to where we were at some point in the past. A couple of years at that and then the next bright idea will pop up.

Re: IMG : Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:34 pm  

Prince Buster wrote:

This is rugby league, nothing stays the same for long. We may have two or three seasons operating in line with IMG ideas and then tinkering will start, then wholesale changes and finally back to where we were at some point in the past. A couple of years at that and then the next bright idea will pop up.

Aside from the fact that these guys have a 12 year contract and they will be worth some serious cash.

Many on here will have experience of consultants and usually, they are just an expensive distraction, brought in as a scapegoat for some serious cost cutting measures but, I dont think that is the case here, after all, without culling clubs from SL, which costs are there to be cut.
I repeat, a 12 year contract !

Unless they have some very, very good ideas on increasing revenue streams for the sport, that actually work, it's difficult to know if they can actually change the course of the sport and make RL something more than a "small time Norther sport".

A good starting point would be to ensure that the world cup is actually covered by the UK press, rather than ignored in favour of our more illustrious cousins (Union).
The average man on the street probably doesnt know that the WC starts in less than 2 weeks and at this point, some of the games should be sold out but, "we" wre happy with just 35,000 tickets having been sold for Newcastle.

It's fair to say that RL has a huge amount of ground to make up.

[PopTart]

Re: IMG : Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:50 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Vastman, I get that they are merely consultants.
However, on the basis that they are in position for 12 years? there will be an interesting conversation if their "root and branch" overhaul of the game, together with their recommendations are rejected.
Where would that leave them and the game?

I thought that I'd read that their plan would be implemented, regardless.

We've given them responsibility.

I dint know exactly what that means but to me it's either in a contract so we don't have a choice or we just pay them fir nothing.

Re: IMG : Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:08 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Aside from the fact that these guys have a 12 year contract and they will be worth some serious cash.

Many on here will have experience of consultants and usually, they are just an expensive distraction, brought in as a scapegoat for some serious cost cutting measures but, I dont think that is the case here, after all, without culling clubs from SL, which costs are there to be cut.
I repeat, a 12 year contract !

Unless they have some very, very good ideas on increasing revenue streams for the sport, that actually work, it's difficult to know if they can actually change the course of the sport and make RL something more than a "small time Norther sport".

A good starting point would be to ensure that the world cup is actually covered by the UK press, rather than ignored in favour of our more illustrious cousins (Union).
The average man on the street probably doesnt know that the WC starts in less than 2 weeks and at this point, some of the games should be sold out but, "we" wre happy with just 35,000 tickets having been sold for Newcastle.

It's fair to say that RL has a huge amount of ground to make up.

Have you seen that contract?

I'm not having a go but it's all in the small print. I'd be hugely surprised if that contact was in any way legally binding. Both parties will have a walk away clause, Ken Davey may be knocking on but he's no fool, he will have protected the SL clubs interests.