Exiled Wiganer

Have you actually had any contact with them in the real world?

I am not privy to those debates, but given that there is a straight line cause and effect between buying good players and winning, how can considering the ability to pay those players be considered to be “off field”? I suspect we are ad idem on this.

I assume IMG have been paid. I assume IMG’s job included an assessment of the clubs’ suitability to be in SL. I assume they have been paid in accordance with their contractual terms, because I have seen no sign that they are downing tools or walking away. I assume IMG either award or recommend grades, with letters such as A, B and C, with A being better than B and so on. I assume Salford were awarded their grade based to some extent on financial representations and analysis. If any of this is wrong, then that would affect the extent to which the points I made in my longer post above continue to stand. (Personally, I would not employ IMG to carry out a financial audit, by the way. But others may disagree.)

We haven’t paid anyone before to assess teams. A forward looking test should have highlighted that Salford were a very risky proposition. What was required was a level of informed judgement. IMG know nothing about how to do this, but we paid them anyway. They can count social media hits, and do know how to work sponsors and broadcasters. In a way blaming them is futile - it’s like blaming a plumber because they made a rubbish job of mending your roof.

IMG can do deals with sponsors and broadcasters. They are not financial experts. It is no wonder their tests appear rubbish, and have been rubbishly applied.

I don’t really see where the “alternatively” comes from there. Do you mean that yes, the tests were brilliant, properly applied, that Salford gave full and honest disclosure, and were properly scrutinised, and they still ended up a better proposition than Toulouse? If so, then clearly there would be nothing to see here.

“On 22/11/2024 at 00:02, Hopie said: Ruddy hell, a lot of posts hoping this is worse than it looks. Club rivalries should be about hoping other teams lose the match, not that the people working their lose their jobs.” I posted this on the Salford on the verge of going bust weeks after being confirmed in SL by IMG. It seems more pertinent here. But, but, but they are such experts… I don’t get that sense at all. What bothers me is that we have supposedly selected 12 teams for next season on an objective basis with finance supposedly a key criterion, only to find out weeks later that there are massive structural issues around Salford’s finances. So: - do they really need a handout to reach the starting line, in which case they are clearly in a terrible position cash wise? (Seemingly yes.) - were the criteria so c—p that it didn’t matter whether anyone is on the verge of insolvency? (Probably not, but IMG have no financial expertise so maybe.) - assuming that IMG’s financial criteria would assess a club’s finances, did IMG do its job? (It certainly doesn’t look like it, unless Salford were selective with the truth.) - what did Salford say to IMG? (See above. Though even here, anyone who knew anything about league - and I am not assuming the IMG person knows anything at all - would look at Salford’s historic finances, and lack of a backer and take a long hard look at them.) - when did Salford know what? (There is possibly a get out of jail card for both IMG and Salford, but given that this is a very long running saga, I would be astonished if they hadn’t the faintest notion.) Unless I missed it, you weren’t concerned about people at Toulouse losing out on Super League jobs. Because unless there are satisfactory answers to all of those questions, Toulouse should be in the 12. If I were a Super League boss, I would be very concerned indeed by the ramifications for the whole IMG edifice, and would be looking into the merits of a claim by Toulouse against SL (the RFL?) and/or IMG. They have nothing to(u) lo(u)se after all.

I don’t get that sense at all. What bothers me is that we have supposedly selected 12 teams for next season on an objective basis with finance supposedly a key criterion, only to find out weeks later that there are massive structural issues around Salford’s finances. So: - do they really need a handout to reach the starting line, in which case they are clearly in a terrible position cash wise? (Seemingly yes.) - were the criteria so c—p that it didn’t matter whether anyone is on the verge of insolvency? (Probably not, but IMG have no financial expertise so maybe.) - assuming that IMG’s financial criteria would assess a club’s finances, did IMG do its job? (It certainly doesn’t look like it, unless Salford were selective with the truth.) - what did Salford say to IMG? (See above. Though even here, anyone who knew anything about league - and I am not assuming the IMG person knows anything at all - would look at Salford’s historic finances, and lack of a backer and take a long hard look at them.) - when did Salford know what? (There is possibly a get out of jail card for both IMG and Salford, but given that this is a very long running saga, I would be astonished if they hadn’t the faintest notion.) Unless I missed it, you weren’t concerned about people at Toulouse losing out on Super League jobs. Because unless there are satisfactory answers to all of those questions, Toulouse should be in the 12. If I were a Super League boss, I would be very concerned indeed by the ramifications for the whole IMG edifice, and would be looking into the merits of a claim by Toulouse against SL (the RFL?) and/or IMG. They have nothing to(u) lo(u)se after all.

Age partnership may not own FC but they would be an ideal sponsor for Old Faithful.

This is not an unusual or surprising outcome. They don’t have a Danson etc and so can’t pay their debts. Anyone looking closely at this from a financial standing perspective would have dug deeply enough into their position to be able to predict this. This isn’t Enron (though it sounds like it is run like it), it is simply a rugby club with very few moving pieces. I do have sympathy for the IMG intern, though, as they had a lot of excel spreadsheets to fill, and a lot of social media posts to count, so missing a house built entirely of straw was easily done.

While Bevan may not be a great example for England for other reasons, had he played for Catalans, I would be a strong advocate of his being available for them. It is fair to observe that in this respect other sports have zero qualms and get no stick for it.

Ken was a fine player. At home we had a picture of him scoring under the posts at, I think, the SCG. He was part of the scene in an era where we could still compete with the Aussies on a regular basis. He ran a pub in our village, where I recall going on various dates in my teens, with somewhat mixed results. (Have just checked and it was a 10 all draw.)

I will take some time to prove my point later on. You appear completely deranged, lashing out madly.

We are playing more games overall, even if the Kangaroos are playing fewer than in some years. Samoa, PNG, Tonga, Fiji and Cooks get at least 3 games each in front of good crowds, at a historically high standard. And the bulk of their players come from the NRL.

Helping France ought to be a very high priority for the game up here. We need to send the IMG intern on a trip to the Côte d’Azur. Our goal should be to move heaven If the concern is around quality of opposition, we could play a French plus guests team. See if we could add Field and Vaughan etc (plus even the best Welsh players?) to a mostly French selection. We have a very long history of Other Nations selections. Of course, finance is an issue. But the prize is so great if we can move the French/NH opposition to england up a notch.

It was off the top of my head somewhat, and I would be interested in seeing yours. You will see that mine went from the early 80s. Might Knocker, Schofield and Sterling make the cut? If not, the better player must have been something. Last year, my auntie - whose season ticket I am about to renew - picked her favourite 13 of Wigan players she had seen. She started going to games in 1932 so had a lot to choose from.

My all time off the top of my head favourite Hull FC team: Kemble Eastwood Schofield Leuluai Horne (if he’s good enough for GB on the wing…) Topliss Sterling Skerrett Swain Crooks Crane Knocker Smith They have had so many greats.

“Work in progress” - I hope my (unborn as yet) grandchildren are around to see Belle Vue meeting the Framing the Future targets.

I am really puzzled by your refusal to consider actual facts. I also wonder whether it is a subtle joke to start with “it’s a message board” as a reason to discount my reasoning and then end 2 sentences later with “is just strawman stuff” as a further reason. If so, you may be Oscar Wilde reincarnated.

I think you are making up an argument. It is simply maths that we have more high quality games than in the “good old days” when the Kangaroos played more matches. Unless you are angry for me using maths. I thought part of people’s anger was around the NRL re writing history. In that case, may I suggest you take a look at how much high level international activity we have this year, in 25 and 26 compared with the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s and the first few years this decade (of course COVID means we draw a line through at least 1 year). There is more of it and it is more varied. Played to a large extent by NRL players. I happen to agree with what you want to happen 100%. I want more and more internationals, mid season and in the autumn. I want Williams to finish with 60 plus caps. But I do not understand why that fervent wish needs to be based on either “NRL hates internationals” or “we used to have the Kangaroos playing every week in front of packed crowds”.

If each of NZ, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, England, PNG, Cooks and the Kangaroos play 3 autumn games (as happened last year) we get far more high quality internationals (12) than in the years the Kangaroos, NZ and England were the only quality show in town (when we might get 5 in a usual autumn). I see no reason that there can’t be mid season tests for all the nations other than Australia. Which I think would be an ideal next step. I haven’t seen any arguments around non Australian teams playing detracting from SoO - could you point me in the right direction to see that?

Great news about Samoa’s enthusiasm. I honestly believe that when the history of our glorious game comes to be written Taumalolo will have his own page in it.

If so, the intern deserves to get the new Call of Duty 6 as a reward.

1 We are a sport not a pastime. 2 We can add: the salary cap is already something of a solvency test, we just take the cap out and leave the test. 3 It’ll never happen. 4 And, most importantly, I don’t want to distract from the general tone of celebration and excitement across the game at this news.

By my reckoning, we now have Cats, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Leeds, FC and HKR who would be able to flex the salary cap considerably. Or indeed ditch it. Personally, I would ditch it provided that the owners can show they will remain solvent. The sense I have is that the Giants, Cas, Wakefield and Leigh have wealthy but not super wealthy backers and Salford are hand to mouth. So, a majority of next year’s top flight could stretch their financial muscle. And we get to enjoy the results…