Jump to content

Promotion Criteria Publicised


Recommended Posts

Just now, Tommygilf said:

And with Covid and RLs history with drawings taken as fact that may be enough to tick that box.

I am entertaining moderate levels of hope that this is being rigged in London's favour.

I do like promotion via biased franchising. It is so choice.

  • Like 5

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lucky the existing SL members aren't being measured .

Only Rugby League would kick out Toronto for financial reasons and replace them with Bradford!

This bit especially is a cracker: “The clubs felt that with a good coach and good existing squad and with that level of funding, a club could come into Super League and be competitive. “Clea

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, del capo said:

Widnes seem to be out as they have not finished in the top 6 in the last 2 years.

What is Fev's market capacity with only 13000 living there ?

Just read the full application release.  Looks like the real RL /SL bigwigs ( Karen apart ) are steering well clear of this decision making process. Wonder why ?

They qualify through being in SL in 2018

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I am entertaining moderate levels of hope that this is being rigged in London's favour.

I do like promotion via biased franchising. It is so choice.

To be honest whomever wins I think it is likely to be suggested the criteria was rigged in their favour!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

To be honest whomever wins I think it is likely to be suggested the criteria was rigged in their favour!

The criteria and assessment are an odd mix of solid questions and flim flam. I've done this before now - you move things about a bit so the one you want comes out on top via your impartial assessment. I don't know if London are there preferred option but, given what the criteria could have said, it's clear they're not on the 'you can't come in' list yet.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Man of Kent said:

2018 and that will be the stand behind the goal completed last year.

Proof enough for the RFL assessment board then.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

As well as market size you also have attendances, and some of the community engagement stuff will pick up some other measures there. 

I'd be surprised if they are interested in the numbers to the nth degree, I expect they will be used as indicators as to whether certain clubs can demonstrate potential and which of those are over-indexing in certain areas etc. It's probably the best we can do right now.

Yeah its good those are being measured too, though I do think there needs to be an element of relativity attached to those.

I wonder how the ownership and management will be assessed. Bar a bit of equality and diversity stuff it seems a bit vague as to what they are actually measuring there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

The criteria and assessment are an odd mix of solid questions and flim flam. I've done this before now - you move things about a bit so the one you want comes out on top via your impartial assessment. I don't know if London are there preferred option but, given what the criteria could have said, it's clear they're not on the 'you can't come in' list yet.

Quite. There is a lot of subjectivity attached as well which I know is impossible to remove entirely, but doesn't have too much strict criteria for it either. I said in another post it will be interesting to see how they reach a decision. Will each club be ranked in each criteria? Will some criteria be afforded more importance than others?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Not really. It's 4k capacity and that won't cut it without an upgrade. Could they get one arranged in time for next year? I doubt it.

Looks like between Leigh, Toulouse or Widnes to me. 

They do say "planned upgrades" and given the previous experience London have proven capacity to do that midseason.

I'd add York to your list too. Halifax certainly look the weakest of the 8

Link to post
Share on other sites

Put them all in and go back to the good old days of the stones bitter championship with about 20 teams in the league! Regal trophy, lancashire cup, challenge cup and premiership play off cup. Everyone will be happy then. 

Edited by barnyia
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah its good those are being measured too, though I do think there needs to be an element of relativity attached to those.

I wonder how the ownership and management will be assessed. Bar a bit of equality and diversity stuff it seems a bit vague as to what they are actually measuring there. 

I think it is clear that despite trying to put some clear measurable KPI's in there, it is all suitably vague to allow for subjectivity, which again is all fine imho. Ultimately, there will be a handful of bids that will need to be compared to each other, and this should allow that. 

On ownership and management there are various ways this can be structured, but ultimately it is up to each club to articulate the strengths of their setup and backing, and that probably can't be too specific a requirement - but an individual stakeholder would be less desirable than an ownership group for example, which would come out under this.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, barnyia said:

Go back to the good old days of the stones bitter championship with about 20 teams in the league! Regal trophy, lancashire cup, challenge cup and premiership play off cup. Everyone will be happy then. 

Great input.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Matt Shaw, Widnes and Fax are out. Widnes through not applying (sensible) and Fax through not meeting average crowd numbers (as a fax fan I'd expect him to be right with that). Bradford plan to be at Odsal not Dewsbury next season also. Leaves us with 6

Bradford, Fev, Leigh, London, Toulouse, York

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

According to Matt Shaw, Widnes and Fax are out. Widnes through not applying (sensible) and Fax through not meeting average crowd numbers (as a fax fan I'd expect him to be right with that). Bradford plan to be at Odsal not Dewsbury next season also. Leaves us with 6

Bradford, Fev, Leigh, London, Toulouse, York

Leigh or Toulouse. And I suspect it will be Leigh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think it is clear that despite trying to put some clear measurable KPI's in there, it is all suitably vague to allow for subjectivity, which again is all fine imho. Ultimately, there will be a handful of bids that will need to be compared to each other, and this should allow that. 

On ownership and management there are various ways this can be structured, but ultimately it is up to each club to articulate the strengths of their setup and backing, and that probably can't be too specific a requirement - but an individual stakeholder would be less desirable than an ownership group for example, which would come out under this.

Yeah I agree with that to be fair. I also agree that the ownership group vs single owner debate may come to the fore, and particularly hurt Leigh more than an equivalent such as London or York

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah I agree with that to be fair. I also agree that the ownership group vs single owner debate may come to the fore, and particularly hurt Leigh more than an equivalent such as London or York

London are possibly the most owner-reliant (if such a phrase exists) club in RL, aren't they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

According to Matt Shaw, Widnes and Fax are out. Widnes through not applying (sensible) and Fax through not meeting average crowd numbers (as a fax fan I'd expect him to be right with that). Bradford plan to be at Odsal not Dewsbury next season also. Leaves us with 6

Bradford, Fev, Leigh, London, Toulouse, York

That plan so far is much like mine to become rich - just hope and an announcement that they would like to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah I agree with that to be fair. I also agree that the ownership group vs single owner debate may come to the fore, and particularly hurt Leigh more than an equivalent such as London or York

It would hurt sadly London too without David we are in the pooh (Unless he has a legacy masterplan which would not surprise me he is such a great bloke he would probably think of that:)

 

Paul

Edited by ATLANTISMAN
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

That’s definitely wrong, then. It was 2018 that they were relegated. 

Correct. My fault. They finished bottom 2 years on the run but survived first time round in the jeopardy play offs. before going under.

Probably not the best point on their CV.

Bradford  just scrape in  on that point as finishing 6th in 2019

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leyther_Matt said:

London are possibly the most owner-reliant (if such a phrase exists) club in RL, aren't they?

Yes, but that owner has been around for a seriously long time (15 years?) and never wavered from supporting the team, unlike others shall we say.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...