David Shepherd

Really surprised at that. With them owning their own facilities, I'd have hoped they'd see the potential revenues (and scores) they could generate by sweating that asset.

The IMG bod on Sky last night indicated it would be earlier than the current end of season dash that the promoted and relegated clubs have.

Yeah, mock grades at the end of this year. Proper grades towards the end of 24, ready for the start of the 25 season.

It could happen to HKR or any other club if x number of teams do it better than HKR or any other club. That's a good thing, because it means that the value of the entire competition has increased.

Have you even read the proposal?

But nowhere does it indicate that the top 12 teams are incumbents.

I'd argue that the exact opposite will happen. There is a clear path to the top. It's not easy and nor should it be. Moreover, the metrics proposed ensure that it adds value to the sport as a whole, rather than just the ego of a Campbell or a Beaumont. (or a me if I ever win the euromillions).

I think you're missing the point. If you grow your revenues, you don't need to rely on the Sky money. IMG aren't daft, the market value of niche sports like ours in declining in TV land. The linear broadcasters just aren't generating the revenue to sustain it anymore.

A rich fan piling money in is not sustainable. Hopefully now that Degsy has got Leigh to the promised land, he can turn his financial muscle towards making the club self sustaining. He won't be around forever and for Leigh's sake should be looking to set the club up for the future.

I see it the opposite way. There's a real incentive to invest in the championship and improve the quality and appeal of the competition. It's the only way you're going to score on the majority of the proposed metrics.

Are you certain that B5 and B6 (for example) are incumbents? Nowhere is this indicated.

On recent performance, Fev, TOXII, Halifax, Widnes, Batley. Some Bulls fans think it's 1999 and there are still foam hands and bullmania hats festooned among their massive crowds.

Seriously?

"50% of the marks are already rigged and non central rev is a red herring because so much still comes from the opposition" Erm, yes you did.

Don't forget that the grading happens every year. An "A" club finishing bottom (probably more than once) could be tipped into "B" territory if they suffer other calamities like falling crowd numbers.

By the current metrics, the 12 in SL are the best in the game. I've no issue to there being a slight advantage in being in that division, they've contributed their bit to the major income stream that the sport has. The obstacles to championship teams are not insurmountable. They just require hard work, as it should. I've no idea why any Bulls fans would fancy it. You'd only score well on catchment, your performance has been poor, you've got a shocking financial track record and your stadium is #### poor. Perhaps that's why you're so against these quite sensible proposals.

As I've said before, I'll believe when there's 30 seconds of the grand final left and we're 2 scores clear.

On field performance is only a maximum of 5 of the 20 available points. There's still more detail to come, but it's been hinted that winning a competition (league, cup, sundeck cup) gets you bonus points. I'd imagine that to score the maximum of 5, you'd need to at a minimum get to the SL playoffs and/or win the cup. If there's a bonus point for winning the championship, it's not inconceivable that the team that does could score more than the bottom team in SL.

Without wishing to turn this into a Rovers centric thread, their non central income is significant. There aren't many days in the year when the main asset isn't generating revenue. Wakefield have got one new and one tarted up stand, which is a welcome improvement. 1/2 of it will still be ramshackle with no plans for improvement, overall I see the two stadiums as similar in terms of overall quality (also bear in mind that Fev haven't touched their £2m yet). In all the categories there are clear metrics than can be improved. It's up to the clubs to work hard to achieve them. As with traditional P&R, it's not meant to be easy.

Non central revenue is about so much more than away fans. Are clubs maximising their potential revenue from their home audience? (no). Can that be improved (Yes - see Hull KR). Are you renting your facilities to other organisations? Are you hosting amateur finals? Are you using your corporate facilities for weddings, conferences, meetings, live music, other sporting events (on tv) etc? Are there any other assets you can sweat on non matchdays? Those clubs that just host a game of Rugby every other week for 3/4 of the year are never going to generate the extra revenue that growth requires.

I'd be amazed if Featherstone voted against.

I don't see it that way. OK the performance metric is weighted to the SL teams. However it's heavily hinted that winning a league gets you bonus points, likewise the challenge and sundeck cups. Non central revenue is a very interesting one and heavily favours those clubs that increase the quality of matchdays and the resulting ancillary revenues. Also those clubs that own their facility and can sweat the asset on the 350 or so days of the year when there's no Rugby being played. There are plenty of non SL clubs that could and should be focussing in on that.

IMG bod on Sky last night said end of this season for the mock gradings and no later than affected P&R teams get to find out their fate currently, going forward.

Performance can hardly be described as spectacular, Geography is good (but only worth 2 points), stadium will let them down, it not being theirs which limits non-rugby use and income. Weren't they struggling to raise the funds to repay debt recently? Not sure they're as cashed up as you think. I see them as a middling "B" for now but with plenty to work on with a good potential to move up.