Les Tonks Sidestep

Further proof that the players really do need protecting from themselves.

I'm sure when the 'head injuries' claim finally gets heard a punishment of a slap on the wrist for someone completely ignoring the game's HIA protocols will do wonders to help mitigate any sanctions imposed on the ruling body......

An ambitious, exciting appointment.... Mick Gledhill, October 2024

It's the same on the home page....

I think the RFL has its work cut out to educate some of those involved in the game.

That's some acqusation......

Given IMG are the supposed experts brought in to oversee the gradings there's a whole load of of the criteria that are just plainly garbage. In terms of stadium criteria, it's not a measure of stadia quality but a simple (pretty useless) on/off switch. There is absolutely no way that Wheldon Road is better than either the Eco-Power or the DCBL despite it scoring 1.5 to their 0.5pts.

Maybe the more pertinent question is why did so called 'experts in the field' come up with a system that obviously needed changes from day one? No one is really arguing about this year. It's year 2 onwards when it will be virtually impossible for any club outside SL to outscore those already inside.

Worth remembering that Des Johnson was banned from the game for 8 years for breaching salary cap rules. Aston's punishment for putting a player's 'life' at risk seems particularly lenient......

I assume it's the same bizarre take as linked to above?

Not good news....

Companies House information updated today to show PH now as a Director and Stephen Clough no longer a Director. Interestingly it shows that MC has ceased to be a person 'with significant control' but there is no update to neither who now is nor to any changes in shareholdings......

That's precisely why the rules are innplace: to protect the players from themselves. Given the ongoing cases re head injuries I really can't understand why anyone involved in the game would want someone committing such a breach of the regulations to effectively be let off.

Very surprised at those turnover figures given Barrow's.

Hang on, I thought IMG were experts at this digital lark?

Good grief.....

Was it Mr Sadler? In my view the correct punishment should have been a reprimand for the club and for Aston himself, with a warning about the dire consequences for any repeat infringement. I hope that this decision can be overturned, ideally if the case goes to the Sport Resolutions arbitration service. https://www.totalrl.com/rfl-non-intervention-uneasy-decision-and-lack-of-email-trail-revelation-in-mark-aston-investigation/

It is if you use criteria that provide sufficient demarcation to show (and reward) steady improvements. Unfortunately too many are effectively on/off switches or have too wide a bands for them to be useful measures of progress. There's precious little in the 'Facilities' pillar to reward improving the lot of the 'normal' fan being very heavily biased towards corporate/media.

He tried that at the tribunal...... didn't work.

0.5? "In order to score 1.5 the club’s stadium facilities must reach Super League minimum standards. If these standards are not met the club will score 0.5." It really isn't a criterion to enable measurement of improvement but a switch. If, as many feel, the scoring was deliberately chosen to be biased I suspect this was to try and stop old, antiquated grounds being anywhere near scoring highly. Unfortunately one club with such a stadium has found a way round and a second is reportedly going to meet the full 9 requirements (although too late for this year) in the next week or so.

Here you go: Medical Standards

According to the handbook you can only score 0.5 or 1.5 for facilities - there's no incremental scoring between meeting zero or 8 of the 9 standards (In order to score 1.5 the club’s stadium facilities must reach Super League minimum standards. If these standards are not met the club will score 0.5) Their tenancy status hasn't changed and they definitely didn't have a screen or led advertising in 2023 that has since disappeared.

And it's interesting that Bradford's score for 'stadium' has dropped by 0.1128 which can only really be due to over statement of utilisation in the mocks.

And for central funding purposes the IMG points table now appears to be more important than the league table.

The Bulls' breakdown. https://www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/article/2774/bulls-confirm-img-grading I'm intrigued by their score of 0.7811 (significantly down from 0.894 in the indicative gradings) for stadium. They'll presumably get 0.5 for facilities and I would have thought, 0.25 for primacy of tenure, leaving just 0.0311 for utilisation? That equates (assuming the Odsal capacity is 26100 as stated in Wiki) to an average attendance of ca800, somewhat lower than the 3760 suggested by the indicative grading? I've also seen a claim that they have a big screen (which they obviously didn't have last year) so if that's included rather than tenancy they'd be claiming a 3 year average crowd of around 4000, although that would then make their indicative utilisation score 0.394, equivalent to an average crowd of just shy of 10300..... Any explanation welcomed.