The Phantom Horseman

For the second time this season I don't think Fev saw the best version of Barrow, the inconsistency of most teams in the Championship this year is crazy (which is why I think York are probably the best team at the moment, they seem to be at least 7 or 8 out of 10 every week). Barrow were pretty moderate and after a shakey first 20 minutes Fev were not bad. From looking dead and buried in terms of the play-offs a few weeks ago, Fev have gained crucial wins against Widnes, Barrow (x2), and Halifax in the last couple of months that have enabled them to claw their way back into the top 6, having been one from the bottom after losing 6 of the first 8 games. Looks like the 5 teams in the current 5 to 9 slots are competing for the last 2 play-off spots. My gut feeling is that Fev and Doncaster are the two favourites for those last 2 spots on recent form, which makes the game at the Eco-Power Stadium on 17th August a big one.

Toulouse at 100% are really good. They're clearly missing Shorrocks & Ashall-Bott, in particular, at the moment, but they also tend to throw in 2 or 3 absolute clunkers away from home each year. London improving steadily with one or two useful additions/returns over the last few weeks, so not easy to call.

Cooke suggesting in his pre-game interview that King might play. https://www.facebook.com/FevRoversRLFC/videos/1416910549616460

It's just really hard to forecast games in the Championship as teams are so inconsistent. Barrow are missing a few looking at their squad (Bradley Walker, Josh Wood, Andrew Bulman, Jarrod Stack and Ryan King all missing for instance), but they have Salford's Joe Bullock who they didn't have when we played at their place. I thought they were very poor that day but given their result against Bradford we have to prepare for the best version of them.

Cooke said in his interview after the York game that King might need another week ie the Barrow game might come too soon. Not surprising if Wynne isn't fit for Sunday, also not surprising in the grand scheme of things that York's full back didn't get a ban judged on the disciplinary update today, but I think it's pretty poor that the RFL no longer see fit to publish the reasoning behind bans/non bans for incidents such as this that were placed on report.

Brad Day missing this week hence Ruan presumably.

See the top of the forum. "The place to talk about anything other than Rugby League".

Yes but that's not an inherent advantage to being in SL over being in the Championship. In any case my gripe with IMG isn't against the system in its entirety, but some of the scoring, not just the incumbency bias but also the catchment area and a couple of other issues.

No, straight P&R isn't comparable in this sense at all. Under straight P & R a team that finishes top/wins the Grand Final doesn't have to worry that the team at the bottom of SL might have higher crowds/more sponsorship/more merchandise sales.

Yeah for clarity I don't doubt they'll manage to push it through. I guess I'm just aggrieved that we're in July and there's still some discussion about the methodology of how we work out who goes in what division next year, but I should know better because we've been here plenty of times before!

Yes my bad, you're correct, but it still highlights the massive inbuilt advantage of being in SL. One year being in SL will signficantly boost your attendances and lots of other financial areas, 3 in a row will make you almost untouchable for Championship clubs barring a Salford-style meltdown.

Seriously? Their average attendances more than trebled from 2023 to 2024 (1,079 to 3,282). That's a 1.25 point rise in IMG points on its own. You really think this is down to "taking things seriously", rather than the fact that every club gets more supporters when they move from Championship to SL, including a lot of healthy support from away clubs? I must admit I'm still wondering how they get this through without facing the prospect of legal challenges. From the 2025 Operation Rules "At the end of the 2025 Super League Season the RFL shall confirm each Club’s Grading position with the top 12 ranked sides being placed in Super League for the following Season as set out in the Grading Handbook, such Grading Handbook being subject to amendment as approved by the Board from time to time." If a team that finishes in the top 12 doesn't get into SL next year - or indeed a team that finishes in the top 14 doesn't get into a 14-team SL - all hell's going to break loose, isn't it?

There have reportedly already been a couple of Championship clubs that have said they are prepared to move up to SL without getting any of the SL funding. This sounds barmy until you look again at the vast IMG windfall that comes with SL incumbency. Instead of having to "buy" IMG points via owner investment, electronic advertising boards, big screens, etc etc, teams would be able to increase their score via much-improved gates (in particular), increased merchandise sales, much-improved sponsorship. It would probably cost far more in pure financial terms for a team to increase its IMG score from the Championship than it would to have a year in SL with zero central funding, but which would STILL leave you with a higher score from that year for league position (exluding Championship GF/1895 win points) than if you'd been in the Championship even if you didn't win a game. Clubs have looked at what happened to London's IMG score in 2024 - up from 8.07 points to 12.65 points at the end of their SL year, despite finishing bottom and winning only 3 of their 27 games - and the massive incumbency advantage that I and others on here have talked about repeatedly on here since day 1 of the IMG scheme seems finally to have dawned on them. If you're a Championship team with SL ambitions, it 100% makes sense to offer to get zero central funding in return for a year in SL and the IMG points bounty that comes with it.

Well, Featherstone's pitch is actually full length - unlike a number of others, notably Oldham's... Before anyone gets hot under the collar about this - that's not the same as saying Oldham's pitch is not long enough for pro RL, because the RFL Operational Manual states that the pitch must be between 88m and 100m long, and between 55m and 68m wide (Toulouse must have special dispensation if their pitch is indeed 70m - perhaps it's a corprorate stadium where they aren't allowed to change the markings). This is a fairly sore subject for Featherstone fans, because our pitch did indeed use to be less than 100m long but about a dozen years ago the club invested a lot of money in extending it to the maximum length, whilst also reducing the slope significantly and building two new stands with the help of fan volunteers known locally as the "Stand Gang". None of this counts for any IMG points whatsoever! You can imagine how Fev fans feel about the fact that other clubs have done nothing about their own sub-optimal playing surfaces. Personally I don't mind about the pitches that are less than 100m long (such as Castleford's, which measures about 90m from posts to posts), because that doesn't have such a huge impact on gameplay, but width is a totally different matter - it really sticks in the throat that Bradford are allowed to play on a 55m wide pitch (and for one season were allowed to play on an even narrower one, around 52m I believe), yet are still considered to meet minimum standards for SL, because that massively impacts on the quality of the game as the original poster states. So you are right Tim, the farce of IMG rules DOES ignore pitch dimension, albeit it's because of the RFL's ridiculous rule that decrees a 55m pitch is just as ok as a full-width 68m one.