Dave T

Convincing people they are worthless so they become grateful for whatever they can get is one form of negging.

That's what negging does. We now become happy for any scraps.

Logistically it's fine. Commercially it's absolutely barmy. To charge £37 if you want to watch both games just feels like a poor decision.

All of that is just an unnecessary fudge though. They have designed a brand new system, it should be made fit for purpose and future-proof. Grade A is genuinely unnecessary unless they are going to be fluid with the number of teams in SL, which they won't be. The whole 'suck it and see what happens' approach doesn't demonstrate control. When you have a blank canvas, creating something flawed is a worry.

Capping at 12 clubs and guaranteeing A grades a place in SL is contradictory.

I'm just surprised you're surprised mate

No, your grading lasts one year. If the next October you've dropped to rank 13, you're out.

Slide 8 and 9 of this deck. Reimagining Rugby League Presentation – MEDIA_27Sep2022.pdf (rugby-league.com) Slide 8 highlights that "Category A - Top Tier Participant on a Permanent Basis" - whatever that means. Slide 9 highlights that 2024-2026 will have 12 teams, and then we move into 202? we would expand (on the basis of us having more than 12 Grade A teams. It doesn't address what happens if we have more than 12 A teams in advance of that. I am conscious that things may have moved on since this was published (September 2022) - but it is still there on the RFL website under the strategy docs.

This is fair - I don't think the thresholds are too onerous, but we aren't at 14 yet, or anywhere near - clubs may be hovering around that 12-13.5 mark, but as you say, it is difficult to make that last step. My main frustration here is that this was always going to be controversial, and tbh, very boring - I think they had to land the strategy and associated comms well - and they just haven't. The Grade A point is just confusing. It means nothing. Grade A gets you nowt. Yet at the start of this Grade A guaranteed you permanent SL status and gave you that security, but there is no security if your score is changed annually. The loose comms around how may teams they will have in SL is poor too. It is just vague statements, basically kicking the can down the road. I don;t think they appreciated how fixated people would get on these 0.25 scores etc.

Indeed. Suspended fines can only work if it is a significant fine hanging over them. It's a weird decision.

1.7 How can I contact the SuperLeague+ Team with Questions or Issues? Before contacting the SuperLeague+ team, we would suggest searching our FAQs and help documentation for a solution to your concern. If you still have questions or concerns, you can reach our support team at support@superleague.co.uk

The point that is absolutely explicit is that A grade clubs are guaranteed an SL place. So if we manage to get 13+ A grades at the end of this year, I have no idea what they will be doing. Tbh it's another example of poor implementation, or poor communication at best.

Most people posting here have little to no real rivalry with KR. I have to assume that RMT's criticism isn't driven by club rivalries. I'm not sure why you are trying to turn this into an FC v KR thing.

Suggesting that what they have done wasn't that bad compared to others does nothing other than defend them. There is literally no other reason to post that.

Hmm. So this sponsorship was such a bad decision that you wrote to the club to complain, but anyone else complaining about this sponsorship is just having a dig at your club?