redjonn

On promotion its what the Keighley duo said. They asked that specific question and got that answer confirmed. Thats what they said and as I repeated in my comment as to what they had said they had confirmed. I took it as them telling the truth as to what was said in the meeting.

yep, I was trying to differentiate between the big city and a smaller populous of a Town as distinct from its charter status or historical Cathedral status or recent city status bids success. Hence Warrington used as an example of a Town as don't know if their bid was successful.

maybe, although must admit why is digital advertising so important. I know Leeds have it but it didn't prevent them being relatively highly successful with their commercial revenues prior to having it. Surely why should that at this stage be so important as I guess anything in the grading is important otherwise why put it in. I don't see that as a tin foil hat stuff comment. Nor having a view that their is a pre-ordained outcome that IMG and RFL are looking for and hence that has influenced some of the criteria. Whether you want to call me a tin hat loon for thinking they may have a point, I do think it was very poor comment to say that if you don't approve the our IMG grading approach then you have given up the sport. Their are alternatives or their are adjustments that could and maybe should be made to the current proposals.

It was a Town comment, not small Town comment. I don't see any issue with having a club like Warrington which is basically a Town club (I am not considering any technical and historical aspects that may determine whether a place is a Town or City). Particularly given the potential to attract commercial sponsorship/revenues because of the business environment of the Town. In fact looking mid to long term I would think that Warrington should be in over a St Helens given their much better economic circumstances and resultant wealthier demographics. I use that as an example just to note that local or area economy isn't a factor in grading. I guess Keighley think that if they has had the advantage of some of the SL clubs then they would be able to compete and maybe do better that a number of lower SL clubs. Whether as a Sport that's what is wanted then maybe not, they should be explicit. In fact they should be explicit in what they see as the goal. Give the ideal target as to which clubs should be in the top league that would in their eyes best command the greatest revenues for increasing the financials of the sport.

I thought the Keighley chaps made some good points. Maybe because I am sceptical of the IMG proposals so far announced. I like to believe I listened intently to their specific queries and opinions. I tried not to box them into a category, tried not to allow my own bias to be interpretative nor allow any attribution bias twist any of their specific points. They raised their concerns plus provided a top level alternative approach. Yes they questions of how expansion has been done to-date plus outlined a view of London and its local boroughs that should be listened too. They also made a point about what they called organic growth - that is provide funding for a geographical local lead to work to create more clubs in Cornwall and have a local based league to create growth from. They mentioned the same for other area's. As distinct from selecting a single club in an area as previously done with success. etc etc etc. They of course made the point about RL being mainly a "town" and small locality sport that we shouldn't be embarrassed about and which if we embraced could be a USP. I note though that some commentators in this thread seem to twist what was specifically said, I guess to dismiss them as anti something. As distinct from answering their specific points that they rightly have. I also noted the specific point about the analogy of the winning team in a play-off would not be promoted, whilst the losing team would if it had a small percentage point higher in grading. That being confirmed by IMG spokesperson.

chuckle...

Anyway I think leeds have more issues than hooker/dummy half duties. On that though its about balance as what's best with your half backs you have. Leeming, Sezer, Austin don't gel that well. I still don't think leeds have a strong set of props plus they tend to play with a soft/passive defence with some jumping out the line when patience keeping yer shape is more needed. Against saints they played a more aggressive defence and looked better for it. Apart from Hanley they don't have good winger options. Centre winger combinations are not their yet, although newman back will help one side. If myler gets injured and Hanley drops back that will make issue worse.

O'connor does scoot occasionally. Leeming overdoses it at times and sometimes just runs into a wall. Obviously Leeming has the better overall game given his experience. Then again he does give penalties away with his arm stuck in the attacker. Don't know if it's deliberate in trying to show down ptb or a technique issue. Nevertheless it happens a lot.

As some of the discussion has shown their is a degree of subjectivity as to how certain criteria will be applied. We ain't seen the detail but if it isn't clearly and transparently defined then in reality it will be subjective. By whom for me would be a question, a single person or a committee. At least with initially just deciding whom is in and whom out,,, or just leaving it to P&R as now, that is whom finishes bottom is replaced by the lower league club it isn't subjective, except for the initial decision. For me the system will cause some dissent on an ongoing basis as their will be a subjective element - maybe each year when a club is not promoted together with negative media coverage. I suspect in that case it will affect some Championship league fans enthusiasm for the sport and maybe wider RL interested fans.

How do you think he has undermined him? When asked in pre-match interview with Jenna he was clearly disappointed and somewhat irritated in saying you will have to speak to Gary - that is it was out of his hands. OK I can see Leeming when upon recovering from his injury was not always starting, but he was always on the bench if not starting. I guess at some point you have to accept that situation. I am sure if Leeming had rebounded from his injury to be what he was he would have always been starting, Although I could see why you would play O'Connor first because of his more simple and solid defensive qualities until opposition tired and Leeming could exploit tiring team. He never took me as a leader on the pitch but then you would need to be in the camp to know his qualities. Obviously best to have him stay as he would always be in the team, starting or on bench. Whatever reason he wants to go sooner than later and thats the case I guess have no option. I would assume he must have something lined up to do it now.

to add, nothing wrong at keeping to the basics, namely Rugby League Premiership, although I'm not sure RLP exactly rolls off the tongue, for some reason it sounds like something that one may medically suffer from. So no shortening... I'm not for anything left field,

True... but one can be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

Premier or Premiership does give an elite sounding name, plus soccer have further reinforced that as the elite level brand.

its a little conundrum in that our sport is Rugby League. We are not the dominant sport where just having a name such as Premier League is recognised instantly and initially as Soccer top league. Hence why we probably need to have our sports name in the title/brand so that the sport is recognised and we don't have the monies to change perceptions. e,g, Rugby Premier League, Netball Superleague, etc Personally I think Netball get it right - The Netball Super League is the United Kingdom's top level, elite netball competition featuring ten teams from England, Scotland and Wales. Their brand name being Netball Superleague (Super League as one word). Unfortunately its hard to fit Rugby League with another league word, even if we make it one word Superleague. Actually the best league title in UK Rugby League is not our premier league - that is the Rugby League Championship... RLC Unless less we take the approach of the Aussies and have NRL but unfortunately we are not just a national league.

That last paragraph may well take us off on a not totally unrelated tangent...

On your 2nd paragraph, its possible they have used their experience from other sports such as European Basketball League. The key to me is knowing clearly what the Strategic intent is. I'm guessing at the moment its purely about sustaining or strengthening RL as it is now. Then broadening its outlook. Maybe though they are looking ahead to a day when it is a European elite league. Anyway until we see more detail we can enjoy our speculation and questioning. Particularly as I am sure all of us on here want to see RL prosper here or elsewhere and are happy to hear others views and opinions which may or maybe not turn out to be better than our own thoughts.

chuckle

I apologise for going back to an earlier post but your comment in bold resonated. Whats in bold I don't think any can disagree with. Whether the IMG proposals will ultimately achieve that we wait and see. For sure its trying to push clubs to improve in key area's and we hope it achieves. Having said that and to an extent it reminds me of the successful business I worked in upon having consultants in with similar approach - that is scorecard to improvement. It in essence created an industry in itself within the business of a focus on the scorecard metrics as a goal in itself. Ultimately it was allowed to wither on the vine with a refocus on the basics, namely A big investment in our marketing capabilities including an improved data and analytic focus. Leading to improvements in our products and where and how we sold them plus our customer focus and relationship management. At least IMG from what I gather are providing the marketing, data and analytics expertise from which the sport may prosper from. I can also see how some of the grading metrics may lead to improvement in the product the sport and clubs offer. Leading to what the clubs do in providing a more compelling spectacle on the pitch which helps in bringing in revenue. That is having club coaches encouraged to provide a more exciting brand of rugby. For me that is the essential foundational ingredient from which we can build and without we won't attract much additional interest.

yep agreed, that in the current situation its minimal. Although they may have a better location rating than a SL team in a heavily concentrated area depending upon the detail of how its actually measured. Plus as I've said earlier the rating marks are minimal but then again at a later date the rating could be adjusted to suit particular strategic goal.

Taking account of your 2nd paragraph: Then surely If location is important and by extension concentration of clubs in a relatively narrow geographical area then grading points should also be deducted based on existing concentration of clubs in that narrow area, e,g. as I've commented before for and just as an example those like Saints, Warrington, Widnes and maybe Salford all being so close.

Nope not confused and in my business before I retired we focused our hard nosed business decisions on what we ourselves could control. Of course we may have made strategic decisions that meant we focused on new area's at the expense of other area's and hence where investment focus was. That didn't mean we gave business improvement metrics to the other area's that they could not control - that would just be a disincentive. What's the problem of the the sport as a whole of having a strategic intent clearly spelt out plus a club improvement grading system that was totally within that clubs control. Its not a major issue and I am just responding to your reply.

maybe and I don't think anyone is overly focused on it but merely making a point. That is it just seems odd that you want to incentivise clubs to improve but have things they can not control whether its a few or many marks - particularly as grading marks can always be adjusted to suit a transparent or hidden goal. I could understand if you had a club grading system purely focused on what clubs can control, plus an RFL metric that controlled final decisions when clubs had equal grading and to suit strategic goal. Of course that would bring other debating issues but at least then you are explicit in what your strategic intent is whether that be initially sustainability in existing footprint or subsequent geographical expansion. With the current situation it isn't a major factor but that doesn't mean its odd to have metrics aimed at club improvements that a club can not control, as distinct from the sport as a whole via its administrators leadership.

If you want to push clubs to improve in what ever area then surely you can not penalise or reward for things that the club can not control. For example location aspects - a club no matter how successful can not control this. To take it to an extreme if economic investment was equally shared over many many decades across the country and hence the "North" was economically wealthier I suspect we wouldn't have any major issues sustaining the sport even in its so called heartlands. To add I am not saying we should not be looking to expand our footprint. If IMG want to use the grading to push for expansion into wider area's they should be transparent and explicit as to why to want marks for location. If so then they should put more significant marks where clubs are not concentrated or significant reduction in marks for where clubs are concentrated in small geographical areas. such as Saints, Warrington, Widnes, etc Although as said earlier I don't think clubs should be marked on location as they can not control this.

mostly ok but what I didn't like is the whinging comment, can others not have a different opinion and comment on concerns without being called out as whinging. Otherwise no problems with the top level comments he gives, as distinct from any analysis.

Maybe but for me what was worse was being in bottom half of table but in the play offs. In comparison middle 8 was a better concept and in enabling possible promotion created potential for investment into championship. That investment didn't come but it was an attempt to create the possibility. I didn't agree with number of clubs in the middle 8s but to repeat what was worse was the 8 clubs into play offs.