Jump to content

Promotion Criteria Publicised


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

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 properly think of that:)

 

Paul

In London's case its to their credit I think paradoxically. Hughes has been involved for so long and with such commitment he's an equivalent to Ken Davy or Hetherington/Caddick in grandee status. That he has also stuck with the club through 2 relegations and kept them full time and with an academy isn't going to harm his case either.

  • Like 3
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

3 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

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

To be fair they don't have to. With the terracing at the end of Dewsbury being sorted that ground now has a capacity of 5100.

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

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.

He wavered after we were humped 70-0 by Goon in the CC semi at LSV - a performance and result that still give me nightmares. But other than that, rock steady. A stalwart.

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

He wavered after we were humped 70-0 by Goon in the CC semi at LSV - a performance and result that still give me nightmares. But other than that, rock steady. A stalwart.

Exactly. Certainly not a midseason walkaway threat risk.

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

In London's case its to their credit I think paradoxically. Hughes has been involved for so long and with such commitment he's an equivalent to Ken Davy or Hetherington/Caddick in grandee status. That he has also stuck with the club through 2 relegations and kept them full time and with an academy isn't going to harm his case either.

I agree - I think this is why it is difficult to have set black and white criteria - clearly having a wealthy ownership group would be beneficial, but an individual owner with substantial history of investment is certainly higher on the list than an unproven ownership team. 

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

I agree - I think this is why it is difficult to have set black and white criteria - clearly having a wealthy ownership group would be beneficial, but an individual owner with substantial history of investment is certainly higher on the list than an unproven ownership team. 

Yeah I agree, but will also be unsurprised when fans of x team complain as a result!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

I can't help but think this is set up for Bradford.

I think you can make an argument it is "set up" for anybody pretty much tbf. And the line about the weighting of each criteria being at the panel's discretion adds to that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in rugby league would we set a minimum criteria of 2000 spectators for its flagship competition !!

Open the door to clubs who have had serious financial issues in the recent past, only weeks after excluding a club with attendances 5 x the set criteria amount who have had similar financial issues. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think you can make an argument it is "set up" for anybody pretty much tbf. And the line about the weighting of each criteria being at the panel's discretion adds to that!

I just mean to anybody with sense there really is only 3 contenders which makes me wonder why others are been kept in. It has to be Leigh, Fev, or Toulouse. Bradford should have been very quickly by saying you had to play in a stadium in your own town/city last season. London have had plenty of chances so now its another teams chance.

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

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

 

36 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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?

Use a weighted critera matrix...

After giving a score say to the criteria, each item should be 'weighted' This give a number which gives an objective result.

Obviously you could ignore the result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I agree - I think this is why it is difficult to have set black and white criteria - clearly having a wealthy ownership group would be beneficial, but an individual owner with substantial history of investment is certainly higher on the list than an unproven ownership team. 

I think this committee will just go by the quality of the responses.  Although there is no clear weighting, I would just answer exactly what they are asking for and speak to them for guidance.  I doubt clubs will be turned away for additional information.

i also believe all clubs will be given a fair shake.  The committee seems to have a financial bias other than Dave Rotherham, so proof, backed up with evidence will be essential.  Dealing with Elstone and SL CEOs would’ve been akin to giving a group of chimps a recipe, a table full of eggs, flour and milk and asking them to bake a cake.

A good note is that clubs can submit anything else which they deem is relevant.  Again, a phone call can clarify if this is acceptable or not.  For instance, I doubt many French are Our League members due to language issues and that their own clubs often put on YouTube/Facebook etc games.

Edit:  having looked through the criteria, a very large amount is evidence based.  Documents produced which are current and already in operation should trump brand new docs produced solely for the submission. If these are submitted, they should be given a token score and the docs in operation, with proof, max points.  Falsifying any single item should mean disqualification.

Edited by Lowdesert
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

To me it looks like if it's set up for anyone it's Toulouse. There are things in there that I could see being used to rule out Leigh and Fev, and it's difficult to see any of the other applications being taken seriously.

Have Leigh history of payments issues in 2018? I know there was a discrepancy but not sure the shortfall was explained.

E5"......... ‘Club has not paid its players late in 2018, 2019 or 2020’
 

  • 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...