Toby Chopra
-
Posts
2,653 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Toby Chopra
-
-
3 minutes ago, Ragingbull said:
Keighley owners at is again.
Apparently they are insulted at being ranked 30 out of 35 so have issued the most pathetic statement.
Absolute tin pot of a club.
It's just winding up the grievance machine again that so many clubs seem to thrive on, rather than adding anything substantial to the debate. It matters not.
Ultimately, if the sport backtracks on its plan at the first sign of complaint about an entirely predictable set of gradings then it would deserve everything that came to it.
But I'm confident it wont.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Gates1 said:
Indicative doesn't mean it won't have an impact. The impact on fans, employees, investors or any players the club (may wish to sign ,or renew contracts with could be significant). The difference between 12th and 13th is the most significant placing too. A club are been told that unless they improve more than other clubs they aren't in SL, that's significant.
If no other club submitted incorrect data, which was corrected by appeal against the score than fine, but if they did Cas have been treated differently, due to an error by the RFL.
This year's PROVISIONAL gradings are not next year's actual gradings, which will have a whole new set of data in them. If there's a mistake this year it can be rectified, that's part of the reason of having a dry run. Any club, player or agent worth its salt will be able to work out where they will likely end up next year, it won't have the distorting effect you suggest.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:
But perhaps they should be!
No "perhaps" about it!
-
30 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:
Yes, I think dynamic licencing describes it quite well. If they stick with a 12 team SL, as things settle down (probably between Wakefield and Toulouse) and the incumbency advantages really kick in, it will become less and less "dynamic".
True, but that's kind of the idea.
The aim is to keep a stable group of the (all round) strongest clubs with which to grow the competition. They will only be replaced if that start to spiral downwards in performance, crowds and finance, which has happened before and is still quite possible for some.
Obviously this is a radical departure which some fans will bemoan, but an entirely predictable one that only a small number of clubs actually voted against because most know they're not anywhere near SL ready.
-
19 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:
Not sure Cutting investment will help Londins cause at all.
TBH if London just want to go up, pocket the SL funding with a view to being in the Champ next year, then fine, the whole point of the restructure is for a longer term view.
There was always going to be a few anomalies in this transition year.
I doubt there's going to be much pocketing of money. It's not as if it's that much in the grand scale of things, and they'll need to spend it all just to make the start line, even if they keep a part time core.
Plus why would DH spend his own money first? He'll spend whatever comes in and come the end of 2024 he'll decide if he wants to carry on subsidising the club.
-
22 minutes ago, redjonn said:
so where would you put them... they have a cat B, so are yous saying they should be above say... widnes or York...
The criteria has been applied and they know what area's need improving. Plus having been promoted to SL and having won the championship GF and hence by virtue of being in SL they will have higher scores in some categories without any effort for the next years classification.
Personally I don't mind the IMG grading approach if its just used as a guide for where clubs need to improve, but not for promotion or relegation.
We don't have promotion and relegation any more, I think a lot of people are still stuck in that mindset.
We have what I'd call "dynamic licensing" which is a rolling process of licensing with longer licenses the better you score.
This is what the clubs voted for.
-
25 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:
My guess is that the vast majority won't want to reveal their detailed figures.
Then they can't complain about where they come in the rankings. Transparency starts with the clubs themselves if they have an issue.
-
3
-
-
35 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
The London score seems perfectly in line with the state of the club.
yep
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Dave T said:
Are London just better off giving their spot back to Wakey now? I assume they wouldn't be able to step up to make the top 12 in 12m?
This is basically relegating them now isn't it?
In a word, yes!
This is a transitional year - moving from P&R to grading mainly using 3-year average - London's unexpected promotion has thrown up this quirk, and they will almost certainly go down. But truth is they aren't fit for SL.
People on here losing their **** about it, but was entirely predictable and even justified, given what the new system is meant to promote.
-
7
-
-
33 minutes ago, Leonard said:
They have no choice really do they. So 20 odd thrashings and the product a joke.
Well done IMG. You have made a mockery of the top tier of the game next season.
It's nothing to do with IMG that London aren't fit for SL next season, that's just looking to shift the blame. Even if we had P&R next year London would be in the same boat. All credit to what they achieved in the playoffs this year, but they're a million miles off being Superleague ready, just like the last time, and the time before...
-
3
-
-
31 minutes ago, Leonard said:
Seriously - how is Sheffield above London on any metric?
Just wow.
Bigger crowds, primary stadium tenant, not loss making, same catchment score...it's not impossible over the three year horizon
-
3
-
-
28 minutes ago, Damien said:
I don't want to knock any club but Salford the 8th strongest club? Really?
Then if you look at say Leigh they seem to be stronger on practically every measure yet are 12th,
It all seems terribly flawed to me once you get outside those A clubs.
It's the three year average issue (or two years if this one has excluded 2020, I don't know) It'll look better this time next year once the transitional year is over...hopefully!
-
26 minutes ago, BD20Cougar said:
Seems about right towards the top but becomes an absolute mess the further down you go. Highlights being a Newcastle Thunder that may not even make the startline for 2024 being above the likes of fax and Batley, and London's comically low score.
I have nothing against Doncaster but I'd be interested to see the breakdown of how they managed to sneak into category B having been in league 1 for most of the last decade. Also wasn't expecting much for my own club and we're presumably still being hurt by our league position from 2019 when we had a points deduction.
Donny's crowds, finances and stadium are better than some Championships clubs, and they've always been near top of L1 so the deficit on performance isn't too huge to the bottom of Championship. It's not the most headscratching of the gradings for me.
-
3
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, phiggins said:
So looking at the gradings, if Cas are correct in what they say about being incorrectly docked half a point, if this was the system to determine the 12 SL teams for next season, Leigh would be relegated off the back of a Challenge cup win, a Super League play off place, and average crowds over 7,000. Whilst Wakefield stay up with London ranked 24th.
This does feel like something that is well intentioned, but ultimately counter productive.
That's the quirk of the transitional period, but we shouldn't read too much into that. Leigh will have had another season in Superleague by then, so their ranking will be fine.
If London win the Challenge Cup next year next year and make the playoffs and are still relegated, then we can query it then. But the difference between them and Leigh on arrival in SL is stark.
-
2
-
-
59 minutes ago, Dave T said:
Obviously depends how it's done, but either of us. And I mean primary financial benefits rather than some of the secondary ebenfits which I do think are sound.
Ultimately if this was the way of getting broadcast quality coverage to facilitate better highlights and video refs, fine, but that isn't bringing us money or increased visibility which are crucial for us.
It is also pittance in the scheme of things for Sky.
I'd say better quality game footage might help visibility by improving our online offering, which is awful currently, but agree with all the rest.
I suppose the idea is that with all this extra content IMG can drive interest in the game through its various media and marketing companies, resulting in better broadcasting and commercial deals in three years time.
We live in hope!
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Dave T said:
I understand the model, I just don't think it's an attractive model tbh.
For them or us?
-
2 minutes ago, HawkMan said:
Perhaps a SL only Sky channel? That actually would be worst case scenario. All games shown live , staggered start times, heaven ? But a PPV channel that you can have with or without the rest of Sky. Result? Only RL diehards get it, and the game disappears from general view.
At least one SL game a week on the main channels serves a purpose for Sky, it delivers adequate numbers for Action/Arena on Thursday or Friday night without which their overall offering would look a bit thin. I reckon they need at least two live events at any one time. Football+1
The second game is a bit less crucial for them, it's sometimes shunted around into an irregular weekend slot or onto Mix, as they have darts in the winter and plenty of cricket in the summer.
So if they were going to go hard on PPV, I'd hope the 'Game of the Week' would still be on a main channel.
-
1 hour ago, Dave T said:
This is what's a bit weird, they have the coverage, it ain't gonna make much for them on PPV, it feels like they'd be better off having more content for their channels. On Sky Sports at the moment it ain't unusual for them to just be showing SSN on their Main Event channel.
I suppose that given they've already paid for the rights, and committed to film the games, they have to maximize their returns. Showing games 3-6 on the broadcast channels isn't going to get them many/any more subscribers whereas putting them on Sky PPV means at least enough extra revenue to cover the extra production costs. Even 5k viewers would do it.
What we get out of that is less clear, I'd hope some sort of profit share, but that probably would have been announced if so.
At bare minimum, we'll have all game at broadcast quality which is needed for proper YouTube and other socials offerings, and video ref. Plus each club's ultra fans will be able to watch all their games, although that might cannibalise...(gulp, I'm going to say it)...aways fans, somewhat.
-
21 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:
London have probably more chance of been competitive keeping their part time players than they have if they were to only sign the full time players that are available.
I'd say that's true.
I'm not sure how competitive it will make them, but it could be even worse if they dropped all the part time players and cobbled together one made up of full-time cast offs.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, dealwithit said:
Well that contradicts comms from IMG. Do you have an article or press release you could share?
The link at the bottom of this article has a graphic under 'rankings' which shows the 12 highest scores will be in Superleague, not A's plus P&R amongst the B's.
To my knowledge IMG never said anything different, it's just that some journalists and club officials misinterpreted the proposals early on. But IMG clarified in meetings what the intention was.
-
3
-
-
15 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:
This intrigues me massively tbh, IMG as made no bones about how important London are to the growth of the game, but Under their system their relegated no matter what london do, so do IMG stick with their system that they’ve told the RL world is the saviour of the sport or do they keep London in no matter what, but whichever they decide will have consequences prob more so if they go against everything they stand for with Their grading system.
I think you're overstating a bit how important IMG think London are. Yes they said it's a strategic market, but what sport in their right mind would say they're not interested in London. They also said London had to be competitive in SL and to have learned from the mistakes of the past, and that it was a long term project.
If London 2024 is anything like the last few seasons they had in Superleague - poor team, low crowds, shambolic administration, all hanging on the owner not walking away - then I don't think IMG will be doing anything out of the ordinary to protect that.
They want a London club that's built to last.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, dealwithit said:
No that’s not how it’s working. They’re not ranking every single club in order. They’re giving A, B and C grades. If you’re grade A you’ll be in SL. If you’re grade B and you finish bottom of SL you could be relegated if the championship winner is graded B too.
That's what people originally assumed, but it was clarified it is being done on overall grading score. A's plus the top scoring B's will make up Superleague, regardless of where they finish. That's why some of the Championship clubs voted against.
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, Damien said:
That sounds like plenty of fans have been pushing the club to keep it going. Good on all those that have been pushing behind the scenes to save their club.
This really should have been part of the first statement rather than just the fait accompli that it was.
I do feel there's a massive conflict of interest here.
Kurdi has decided that he can't/won't throw the necessary resources at Thunder to make them a success at the top level. Fair enough, we've seen how much that really costs and it's in the millions.
But having decided that, it feels like he wants to kill the club off entirely lest it canibalises in any way his main rugby businesses - the Falcons - which we know are in terrible financial straights.
This can't be allowed to happen. There's room for a rugby league club in Newcastle (or Gateshead) at some sort of level, and now Kurdi's given up on that it should be for rugby league people to decide how that happens.
-
11
-
-
9 hours ago, Damien said:
Early bird 2024 season ticket offer. Some pretty great offers considering the price of stuff in London, only £199 for adults and £35 for u18s:
On the face of it it's a great offer, but I'd like to know exactly how many games will be at Wimbledon first. I'm not interested in going to Ebbsfleet.
-
1
-
The IMG Gradings Thread - Post all your IMG Gradings related questions or comments here
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
I expect Leigh's fandom and financials average will improve when 2021 rolls off and is replaced by 2024, and assuming they don't finish bottom the competition points will too. That should be enough to offset the CC win dropping out.