Exiled Wiganer
-
Posts
10,083 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Exiled Wiganer
-
-
1 hour ago, RigbyLuger said:
No, I just have more faith in IMG, without thinking they are perfect, compared to owners with decades of self interest governing decisions.
I don't say they're blameless, but are blamed by many for things they haven't done.
You wrote that the only people who blame IMG are… and I take issue with that.
Aside from that, as I have made clear I hope, I share your confidence that not only are they very good at what they are good at, their proposal is not only the best but only way the game will ever move the game forward.
-
10 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:
The only people who think badly of IMG are those who have no idea how important they are in the wider sports broadcasting world, and how they know better anyway.
Err, maybe. I know very well what IMG can achieve, having seen it first hand. They are absolutely world leaders in securing broadcasting deals, and their overall strategy for driving long term sustainable growth is 100% correct and indeed the ONLY way froward for the game.
I have made a reasoned argument around the process, highlighting that we don’t know enough to understand what lead us to the Salford debacle. And see no reason to conclude that they are 100% without fault.
We live in such a polarised world now, that people like you see no shades of grey: you’re either an acolyte or ignorant. I would argue that something has gone very wrong with the design and the application of the selection process, and that we all deserve to understand far more about what went on, before concluding IMG are entirely blameless.
It is possible both to be a supporter of using them to do what they do well, and be uneasy about everyone’s contributions to this fiasco: which may, by the looks of it be repeated in 26. That isn’t “thinking badly”, it’s justifiable concern.
-
5 minutes ago, Click said:
Oh right, it is IMG's fault for not being able to convince all of of those club owners who are well known for embracing lasting change to follow their recommendations.
And, that is quite the statement "Indeed, given the weekly traducing of the game they have inflicted upon the competition IMG will be tasked with selling to the world"
It’s a cracking sentence. My point being that IMG’s failure to protect its client from themselves will make their own job very much more difficult. Unless you have seen all of the papers I mention, you are as in the dark as I am, as to how hard they fought for this issue, how the recommendations were presented to the clubs and what took place at the debate around the scoring system. By all means conclude that the fault lies 100% with the clubs. You may be right. Or not.
If you want help drafting elegant emails, by the way, then I am at your disposal.
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Click said:
That is kind of the point of "advisors" they can only give advise
Or, with the good ones, to persuade their clients not to do stupid things.
I would love to see the minutes of that meeting, the grading report which was prepared and the minutes of the clubs’ deliberations. Indeed, given the weekly traducing of the game they have inflicted upon the competition IMG will be tasked with selling to the world, as those papers and discussions have directly lead to where we are today with Salford. Like many others, I will be fascinated to see what the game does to do next time round.
-
One thing that makes Lam a coach worth employing is his overseas player address book. It seems to be full of numbers of players who will thrive in SL. That centre makes them very watchable indeed. And to think supporters of a small, unfashionable club like Leigh get that treat. It’s the against the odds uplifting tale the nation needs after the Salt Path lot went all Greggggg Wallace.
For HKR, there was always a risk they would run out of steam. Collectively, they look to be tailing off. Which is no surprise after what they have asked of that group of players already this year.
-
1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:
IMG recommended and had it agreed that a financial irregularity would see an automatic grading demotion (ie B to C for Salford), which would in most cases relegate a club as you wish.
The clubs voted to change that in 2024 to reduce the penalty.
Phew! Those advisers are worth every penny!
-
On 11/07/2025 at 14:49, redjonn said:
I have no idea of the rules.
Never-the-less it would seem to me foolish not to be able to deselect a club irrespective of league standing or IMG grading points. Of course it would need to be because the said club was making a mockery or majorary damaging the brand of the competition. If Salford are not that said club then the administration rules would be a joke in my opinion.
It would indeed be foolish for the rules to have been designed in such a way as to allow a zombie club to carry on, especially as everything they got points for was paid for by money they did not have.
To be clear, though, if that arises it is entirely the clubs’ fault and nothing to do with IMG.
-
19 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:
NW does as hes told now
As indeed does Trump, by his
Putin.
-
1
-
-
Keighran was really good at 6 last year, and will be fine again. Being at home after an eternity away will make a massive positive difference for us. The season starts tomorrow.
-
So, it turns out that if Dodd is given a chance, Dodd will thrive down under.
-
18 hours ago, Worzel said:
Yeah I don’t think you can say it changed the result and there was no need for Mags to go off on one, refereeing mistakes get made in every game, I just think it’s black and white that it was a penalty and find it weird that some Wigan fans would tell us that black is indeed white.
And some Rovers fans would kick our heads in if given the opportunity.
It was a shocking decision. But we would have hit the ball back at some point and only needed one break to win the game. If Cas could have stopped Field they would have at least ended up level at full time. -
Ok first glance I didn’t see any names that looked out of place in there, which shows that we have a good depth of talent at the moment. Sam Walters’ injury came at a bad time. Great to see Ashton and Welsh named, as they are inked into our strongest 13.
-
11 hours ago, Jonty58 said:
Not sure if he would be that great at the Dolphins, he was starting to get found out as a player with some limitations at the end of his time at Canberra from memory.
NRL = GODS!!!
-
Am looking forward to this. Our performances tend to dip this time of year - which may be a consequence of training patterns - but we are still string side. It’ll be great to see Havard and Thompson back together. Wigan can certainly win this, but it would not surprise me to see Trinity take us. They often beat us at their place, have an excellent coach and a strong side. Should be a cracker.
-
1 hour ago, daz39 said:
It isn't, if we stay at the JSS, we will lose our club completely, by moving to Fax we almost guarantee SL status, it's a risk for losing some of our fans but i'd rather lose a few hundred fans than my club.
Though of course you will then be a Halifax team, rather than a Huddersfield one. It’s good to know Sheffield didn’t die in vain.
-
6 hours ago, up the robins said:
The biggest plus side for Huddersfield is that they will run there own stadium with potential to bring in extra revenue and make the club more sustainable, which I believe is the long term hope of mr Davy.
The crowds will come if they make the whole stadium experience feel like a real night out, Hull kr have made Craven park the place to get on a Friday night with a selection of different bars and street food vendors.
Might it possibly be the case that being the place to be in that part of the world is not a massive hurdle to clear?
-
1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:
Re London, neither of those options are Superleague viable so it doesn't matter what it looks like.
In general, a club would want its average crowd at 80-ish% of capacity, so there's room for growth, with the biggest games selling out quickly with a scramble for tickets creating a buzz.
If you're leaving fans locked out every week, your stadium isn't big enough. That's why many football teams have expanded capacity in recent years.
Other than Hudds, I don't feel stadium size is a huge issue in the current Superleague.
Which might be because 2 of the clubs are looking to or have downsized their grounds.
They look better, and likely give a more enjoyable experience for the people who are there but… smaller grounds reflect a club’s relative failure rather than being brilliant news.
-
2 hours ago, Damien said:
There's no point playing in a 25k ground either if you struggle to fill 20% of it.
8k is fine and I daresay Huddersfield will be far more profitable and sustainable in such a stadium. I'm also sure it will be built in such a way to faciliate expansion should demand ever allow.
As for Wakefield they are planning to develop the stadium further and increase capacity. They have already made many improvements. Thats a pretty good model to follow if clubs can and certainly isn't negative.
We used to aspire for clubs to be getting 5 figure crowds. For years we had average crowds of 10k or thereabouts. We now have clubs looking to down size so that their maximum capacity is lower than that. I do not see that as a sign of progress for the game, or the competition.
I can see that it suits those clubs unable to grow their support, and that, say, the 7k today looked good on the BBC in a way that the same figure would have looked rubbish at Wigan. I can also see that you stand far more chance of growing crowds if newbies come along and find the atmosphere to be buzzing, rather than feeling empty.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Damien said:
While the Dewsbury stadium is too small for SL, and probably not what we should be aiming for as a comp, it certainly showed what many have said over the years i.e that a more suitably sized stadium would be much better for Huddersfield.
The 8k stadium that Ken Davy is fighting for would be pretty much perfect for what they need in SL.
Is this now the direction of travel - the Wakefield model - where we aim to shrink grounds until they are eventually small enough for SL teams? I can see why the Giants want to do this, but we have gone from a Framing the Future in which we aspired to have a top division with at least 10k capacities to being delighted that we can find grounds small enough for them under Framing the Future 2…
-
12 hours ago, daz39 said:
Absolutely gutted, we gave everything today, players and fans so to lose it with 9 seconds left....it was up there with Tottenham 22 for me, bloody Wigan again!!!
Thought we were superb today in every department and completely outplayed Wigan, who, in my eyes got some very favourable calls their way, most notably the 2 forward passes late on, the 2nd one he ran 3 steps and still nearly didn't catch up with the ball BUT ultimately we failed to make that last tackle and it cost us.
Thought the atmosphere was great today and was commented on many times by Sky apparently, shows what a difference a smaller ground makes as we sing like that in the JSS but it just doesn't carry, it's made a lot of us realise our exit from the DogDome can't come soon enough.
I agree with much of that, but, while the Giants’ pack was dominant, I thought Wigan’s halves and backs generally were better throughout. The atmosphere did come across well sound wise, but I hope you will have a ground which has 4 sides because unsurprisingly the empty end made it look like we were playing in a park.
I am amazed the Giants have only 1 win. They must be by some distance the best side to be in that position in the SL’s history. The wins are certain to come.
-
4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:
Well his facial features to me always looks as though he is going to burst out crying, so good job they got the win.
? He has a lovely smile, which he does a lot. I have never seen him cry at a defeat. I can see why people relentlessly Wigan, especially Leigh people, but this seems a bizarre road to go down.
-
4 hours ago, Just Browny said:
Absolutely fine pal (your alerts must be playing up; took you fully 3 minutes to respond to my post). A source of massive relief to me that Ive never seen Ben Currie or Joe Philbin win a close game and then attribute it to the club's intrinsic brilliance and magic. It's conceited beyond belief.
I thought he was replying to a question about what he did to improve his players, and he was modestly deflecting the point towards its being a collective endeavour. But I may have been listening through cherry and white ears.
-
16 minutes ago, Toon22 said:
See Salford fans are trying raise money to become a fan owed club.
Rumors this would cost 2 million to buy, but the debt is around 3 million. Plus?
How would fans raise this money and whst would be a competitive playing budget next season in championship?
Are you sure Salford will be in the championship? I thought the scoring system gave them a good chance of still being a zombie SL club next year?
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Damien said:
Some great average attendances here. It's obvious why Penriths crowds are where they are, and will rebound when they return home, but Gold Coast and in particular Souths, Cronulla and St George need to be doing much better.
There should be questions asked of clubs that are getting less than 15k and what their strategy is to get towards 20k. That is now the kind of level the NRL is at.
Souths moving to Allianz should see them boost to around 20k again. More pressure needs to be put on Cronulla and the stadium mess of their own making. How their own stadium wasnt prioritised more and better future proofed in their own redevelopment is beyond me. St George should really be thinking about relocating to Wollongong permanently and going for 1 or 2 big games in Sydney at Allianz. Dont even bother with Jubilee Oval.
Interestingly, they have adopted a very different approach from Super League as far as Vegas is concerned. If I understood the Super League “record crowds” announced, Wigan’s home attendance for that game was 50 odd k. Which might look good, but it masks somewhat the true picture of how 2025 is actually panning out.
Salford financial issues(again…)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted · Edited by Exiled Wiganer
I understand it’s hard to judge depth with one eye closed. I am arguing this:
- Salford have massively dragged the game down this year
- they were the authors of their own misfortune
- we had a chance to stop this happening: we reached this point because the game devised an assessment process, that process was applied; the results of that process were reviewed by the decision making body and they were given a licence. That process failed to stop Salford being given a licence. It looks, from comments in the last few pages, that they may be in SL again next year under the same process. A zombie club destroying the credibility of the game
- without seeing who wrote what, what advice was given, how decisions were made and how the game is going to deal with this for 26, we are all in the dark.
I would not, absent that information, entirely exonerate IMG from not having contributed to the position we currently find ourselves in.
It is possible for failure to have many fathers.