DI Keith Fowler

Reading the business plan there's no pretence that this money isn't primarily to solve a cashflow issue which is refreshingly honest in a sense. However, what is also important to note is that this was always the long term intention, albeit circumstances have dictated it's very much now or never. The thrust of it seems to be that they need this liquidity to survive but once they survive they have a robust plan to grow revenue through a re-negotiated stadium agreement amongst other things. But that can't happen if they go bump in two months time so they need this now. Another aspect to this is the favour of the council. Salford being a basketcase owned by a string of wealthy/not so wealthy businessmen with no purpose other than to put a team on the pitch doesn't enamour the council. But a thriving community asset with a strong co-operative base is another feather in the cap of the council and their socialism on a local level aspirations. It's no coincidence that they ran a story in Tribune they're courting this audience. I doubt if this plan wasn't in the offing whether they'd be so keen to buy the remainder of the stadium and save Salford from being forced out by richer cuckoo clubs.

Full employment has been achieved in the Keighley sector, now to increase the productivity quota comrade.

Think it's been approved now? They don't sound particularly wealthy but it would take very little for them to leapfrog the Broncos as it stands.

Absolutely, its just a slow and painful decline. The involvement of IMG and London becoming a target area for growth should have re-invigorated the club, but you can't have any faith in the current ownership to capitalise on this.

I'd be quite keen to go in on this, I've always had a soft spot for Salford and lived there for a while. However, I'm concerned by the suggestion that this is to cover running costs in a last roll of the dice rather than a considered attempt to become a wholly fan owned democratic club. I'll wait and see in the next few weeks what emerges.

Widnes Summer Bash/Third Shirt. Nice enough.

From what I'm reading on this statement they were asking whether Leigh would have been denied promotion on the basis of gradings. I don't know how they could have answered that question it's pretty theoretical because everyone's decisions and actions would be different under a different system. It's a if my auntie had... situation.

You can respect that, they've got a different opinion, they've got other ideas, but they're putting the game first and being respectful and pulling in the right direction.

Pulling it back to the more general rise of AI stories, it's a fantastic marketing campaign for all these companies promising the world to other companies managed by dum dums who want to get rid of staff.

The point though is to encourage them into spending on infrastructure which then turns into long term growth. It ought to be a virtuous circle, the more they spend on stadia, marketing and fan engagement the more money they pull in and the more they can spend on field. Right now clubs just spend on field in the short term and see little/no growth in their business. This is forcing them into long term sensible decisions to become robust clubs with strong foundations rather than flash in the pan because they assembled a good team one year.

As was noted above, it's 0.25 points out of 20 for winning the GF. On your reading that means in more years than not, 0.25 points will be enough to put a high Championship team above a low SL team. Or to put it another way, there's less than 0.25 points to pick between in the gradings of the bottom half of SL and the top half of the Championship and this 0.25 points is the only real variable. In which case they may as well have thrown out the notion of ranking grade Bs and just made the B criteria the minimum criteria and then promote whoever wins the Championship.

What Hetherington is describing in his quotes is effectively P&R as we have it now. So either IMG have completely reneged on their entire system and gone against all the documentation they themselves have put out, or Hetherington for whatever reason has an inaccurate view of the system he's just voted in. If I had to wildly speculate I would say someone at the RFL/RL commercial didn't understand the proposals and in answering queries from the clubs has led them a merry dance.

As you yourself have said, he's got it wrong because that isn't the system that's been voted in. Is he misinterpreting things or has he been misinformed is the crux of it, have you got a link to the article?

It probably is this, there's a bit of resentment because a lot of teams played the game and sorted their grounds while others made promises and didn't.

Is it contrived though? We'd be doing a group stage round robin for the teams in Lancashire, the teams in Yorkshire and then probably A.N. Other for the remainder. You could even award the old Lancashire and Yorkshire cup trophies for the winner of each little league to give it a bit of precedent.

I don't mind the group stage idea. It seems mad to me that we can't contrive a way each year for a Leeds-Bradford and Warrington-Widnes match. Even what might be one of three matches between SL teams will probably feel a bit different and less like a loop fixture.

Yes there was talk of an expanded Challenge Cup with a group stage to make up for the lost home games. Not seen anything confirmed though on that.

All Bs are not considered equal and in that instance they won't swap. The article isn't right and has caused endless confusion. You can imagine it as everyone is kicked out of SL and has to re-apply based on their gradings. All the A's go in first. Then the highest ranked B's until we get to 12 teams. The idea of there being incumbent clubs isn't right it's just whoever has the highest score irregardless of where they finished in the league the year before.

I appreciate that but the issue is all documents pre and post that meeting say the same thing. Everything that they've gone into a print on they've been consistent on (up until the announced changes last month regarding weightings etc.). What has happened is there's a misinterpretation that has spread through some clubs and some journos. Matt may well stand by his story but all it means is he got it wrong back then, probably because he'd spoken to a club Chairman who was himself wrong.

Absolutely, between the clubs and reporters they've gotten themselves into a jumble, but it doesn't mean the plans have changed. There'd be no point in a grading system that just promoted whoever wins the Championship. Edit: This is what IMG went into print with at the time, Reimagining Rugby League, it's quite explicit but somehow people have gotten themselves muddled up that it was something different being said.

I've imagined it as months of IMG sitting with clubs, holding their hands and having conversations on the level of Homer when he needs a heart bypass... "Homer, I'm afraid you'll have to undergo a coronary bypass operation. Say it in English, Doc. You're going to need open-heart surgery. Spare me your medical mumbo jumbo. We're going to cut you open and tinker with your ticker. Could you dumb it down a shade?"

Bluntly they've not understood what was was being said by IMG. They were told that promotion and relegation (via the gradings) will always occur (when it occurs) between category B clubs. That is to say category B clubs are not replacing category A clubs and anyone less than a B isn't eligible full stop. This hasn't changed it just seems Featherstone couldn't get their heads around it and have assumed it's B clubs moving up and down via on the field positions (which would be pointless as it's just the system we have now with minimum criteria).

Quite frustratingly they've not done the Classic shirt which was actually sold without a sponsor on it!

I think people appreciate there's improvements made but it's still 5 dead in the 10 years since. So 50% of the time a horse dies. You've got to appreciate to the average person how mad that sounds.

It absolutely wasn't, can you provide some evidence please. The only thing that has changed is some of the weightings and categories. From when they announced it to now it has always been the clubs with the highest B gradings making up the remaining Super League places. That's why we've had months of debate on "what if the bottom two in SL have more points than the top two in the Championship" or "what if a category A team finishes bottom" etc.