Exiled Wiganer

There is no reason why PNG and a second NZ side can’t draw on local talent very quickly indeed. I have no idea about Perth. From the little I know they sound like London. Take good games there and lots of people will watch them, without having deep roots in TGG. Of course, the NRL knows best when it comes to its own competition.

I think those selections are all absolutely spot on and superb. We are so blessed to have so many wonderful players across the globe. Glory days!

What I like about Field is that his style is so smooth you can only tell he is moving at warp speed when you see others trailing in his wake. It wasn’t focussed on because Wardle dropped the ball over the line but in the break before that towards the end of the Grand Final, Field left Burgess for dead on his outside, and Burgess can run.

That seems to me to be an extraordinary stretch, unless you were in the room, and privy to the selection process. If, for instance, clubs were shown the headings and principles, without all the fine details of the methodology by, say the RFL commercial people whose job it was to make this work, and who presumably vouched for its fitness for purpose, then it would be perfectly understandable for them to vote in favour. Looking at the headings, they are not an insane list, but the devil is in the detail and the application. I look at this entirely differently, as I can’t see how the clubs could have been expected to ask whether the evaluation was going to consider whether a business was built entirely on sand. Because that is so obviously part of the brief that it should not bear repeating. It is telling that the clubs passed this decision to RFL Commerical, as they clearly see their job to make sure this works. It is proportionate and rational to question what lead to this week’s chaos. Again, I would not be surprised if Toulouse are digging very deeply into who knew what and when.

Now Salford have been given a get out of jail free card, it’s open season!

Red lights have gone off on a dozen laptops after that comment.

I have no interest in your view of my credibility. I have repeatedly questioned what the RFL has delegated to IMG. In fact it is pretty much a theme of all my concerns around the licensing process. As to forward looking financial assessment, that is not my home patch. Nor is it IMG’s. I see that the clubs have left the decision to RFL Commercial who are writing the cheque. So, this may be a non story after all, and there may be nothing to see here. Or the clubs may be washing their hands of it, so that it is clearer where the responsibility may lie if Salford face more problems.

I have absolutely no idea why you are finding this so difficult to follow. Why is it “odd” to expect a financial test to consider the ability of a club to stay afloat? Forward looking tests are business audit 101. You seem to be saying that that would be some form of crazy witchcraft. I hope for your sake you never buy a business. I am not “desperate” in the slightest. Read the actual words, and take off your IMG t shirt and rose tinted glasses gift set. There is no need for a “bogeyman”. People successfully sue for missing out unfairly on business opportunities all the time, after supposedly competitive tenders. Usually they train their guns either on the person or persons applying the test or the person who denied them that opportunity. If the test is not fit for purpose, but has been applied correctly, then their case becomes much harder of course. This is a serious matter. Something has gone so wrong that the clubs are all meeting today to investigate a request - some might say a “desperate” one - to get an advance of funds because Salford can’t pay their bills. They are doing this within weeks of having been confirmed in SL for 25. If I were running any club I would want to know how this happened, what the assessments were meant to do, how they were applied and most importantly who knew what, and when. If I were in charge of Toulouse I would be very interested indeed.

I am not sure whether you are saying my stance was in your opinion based on “feelings”, which I am guessing would be a terrible thing: what next, women voting? It doesn’t concern me or keep me awake at night. I have hopefully expressed myself sufficiently clearly by now: there is a great deal to know and understand about this happening so close to the award of places for 25. There is a great deal we do not know, and anybody in their right mind would want to look into whether there is anything actually to worry about (if not, then we can all go on with our lives), or whether it is as simple as Salford portray it and there is nothing to see here. However, if there is a fundamental problem with their financials which throws into question their future, then it would be insane not to look closely at the integrity of the process that was followed, in the 3 areas I have spelt out. Because this was a process which resulted in another club being denied entry into SL for 25. I will follow this story with keen interest, and genuinely hope it is non story. I do have misgivings, which I make no secret of, around asking IMG to do some of the things that they have done as part of this process, based on my own experience, so there is a large element of confirmation bias in my take. I readily admit that. l think Toby’s measured position is the one I think best addresses this issue.

It’s so peculiar that a club could seemingly score enough by every other matrix than actually having any money and be given a ticket to SL. When we have seen clubs go bust time and time again. Though perhaps the answer is that when providing answers to the “financial stability” element of what seems to be universally described as IMG’s criteria they presented a rosier picture than they should have done. Tomorrow’s should be an interesting meeting.

I am not sure why you keep labouring a point I didn’t make. It really isn’t that complex. We have put in place a system in which a club has run into instant financial difficulties after being awarded a place in SL which was not decided on the field. That is a major issue. Hence the key questions… What does that say about the system? What does that say about how it was implemented? What did Salford know and what did Salford say?

1. So the test is rubbish. A club could literally run out of money the next day and still get a good score. Or by historical do you mean you look at the past to extrapolate into the future? 2. And IMG played no part in asking questions or carried out any analysis/made any judgment. 3. I beg your pardon entirely. If you mean that nobody looked ant any projections or took a view as to asets/liabilities and their effect on future trading, then IMG are only at fault for the test being possibly the most useless financial robustness test in human history. The IMG designed system has got off to a terrific start!

I hope the facts will out, and I hope all of our clubs thrive. So far, this outcome confirms a specific misgiving I have around IMG being asked to do what they were asked to do, and it is really that line that I am most interested in. It may be that these are great tests, perfectly applied, Salford may have been entirely full and frank, and it’s a non story. I hope that’s the case. But if any single one of those things is not true then the game needs to get a grip on it.

I have no idea what that is.

Really? Which specific bit? It merely makes the point that they were awarded certain scores under the system that was adopted, which isn’t the main point anyone that I have seen is debating. Again, can those criteria be deemed to be fit for purpose, when Salford may well fall apart within weeks of being awarded a place. Were they applied properly? Did Salford give full and correct information? If I were Toulouse I would be looking very closely at this, because at one step removed it seems like they may have been excluded on spurious grounds, or worse, if Salford knew or should have known this train was coming down the track towards them. By the way, I loved watching Salford last year, and would be delighted to watch them in SL next year. I fully appreciate that it is there but for the grace of God/a rich benefactor for all sporting clubs. My points are simple enough - were these rubbish tests? Were they applied properly? Were Salford asked the right questions? Were Salford honest/open in their answers? These seem to be questions absolutely fundamental to the direction of travel for this system. I am not prejudging any answers, save that my experience of seeing IMG in action over the last 10 years is that they are good at what they know best, and that is broadcasting and sponsorship.