IMG proposals to be presented to clubs next week?

[DI Keith Fowler]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I have heard that the plan will be voted on at a specially convened meeting on the 34th of September. 

Derek's furious apparently... that's the date his next holiday is booked in for. 

[Barley Mow]

19 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I think the point is more that if we are to have expansion clubs in the picture, we have to acknowledge that there are different factors that affect each club, and many of those factors disporportionately impact expansion clubs.

If almost all of the domestic playing talent is based in a part of the country where the cost of living is cheap, it's a very tough sell for a London club, or any other club with a higher cost-of-living (Bristol would be another example). That means that London get much poorer value from the salary cap as it stands, for no other reason than geography. Should the rules or should different exemptions be in place to reflect that? I would argue yes. 

It's not about giving clubs a "leg up" or "favouring them at the expense of.....", but about ensuring that each club is put into an environment where they can succeed. There is a big difference between equal treatment and equitable treatment. 

I fully understand your reasoning. I would have to answer 'no' to the question of whether there should be different rules or exemptions to reflect these circumstances. Your aim isn't to give clubs a "leg up" or favour them at the expense of others, but that is what it would do.

The best way to ensure each club is in an environment where they can succeed is to ensure that there aren't limits (on wages for example) that impact one club more than others in the first place - that is why I would rather scrap the cap for all rather than adjust it for some to cater for their specific circumstances.

In the terms of your conclusion on equal/equitable solutions, it seems to me that there are three scenarios with this issue:

1. Retain a cap that is the same for all - Equal treatment

2. Adjust the cap to account for circumstances - Aiming for equitable treatment

3. Remove the cap completely - Equal treatment and equitable (assuming London could afford to pay London prices and others didn't need to)

The problem with aiming to have an equitable system without it being equal as well is that it requires a judgement call - in this case, "what degree of adjustment is appropriate to make the system equitable?" There are likely to be a large range of opinions on that and one side or the other (or both) are likely to feel unfairly treated. A system that is equal and also seen to be equitable is the best option if ever possible.

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, crashmon said:

can you imagine Wakefield finally get their new stadium, then find they don't make the top level in licensing owing to some other criteria.  

Stand , not stadium 

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

I fully understand your reasoning. I would have to answer 'no' to the question of whether there should be different rules or exemptions to reflect these circumstances. Your aim isn't to give clubs a "leg up" or favour them at the expense of others, but that is what it would do.

The best way to ensure each club is in an environment where they can succeed is to ensure that there aren't limits (on wages for example) that impact one club more than others in the first place - that is why I would rather scrap the cap for all rather than adjust it for some to cater for their specific circumstances.

In the terms of your conclusion on equal/equitable solutions, it seems to me that there are three scenarios with this issue:

1. Retain a cap that is the same for all - Equal treatment

2. Adjust the cap to account for circumstances - Aiming for equitable treatment

3. Remove the cap completely - Equal treatment and equitable (assuming London could afford to pay London prices and others didn't need to)

The problem with aiming to have an equitable system without it being equal as well is that it requires a judgement call - in this case, "what degree of adjustment is appropriate to make the system equitable?" There are likely to be a large range of opinions on that and one side or the other (or both) are likely to feel unfairly treated. A system that is equal and also seen to be equitable is the best option if ever possible.

 

This image always sums it up well for me (if the spelling isn't great in the tweet!)

Super League already make judgement calls on for example Catalans and Toulouse's Salary Cap. They accepted in principle that a "London Weighting" was something that Rugby League should have; they were just woefully out in their numbers on how much.

An independent body, commercially focused, such as IMG and RL Commercial, might be able to iron out the flaws in application that have been there in previous ideas.

[Barley Mow]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

This image always sums it up well for me (if the spelling isn't great in the tweet!)

Super League already make judgement calls on for example Catalans and Toulouse's Salary Cap. They accepted in principle that a "London Weighting" was something that Rugby League should have; they were just woefully out in their numbers on how much.

An independent body, commercially focused, such as IMG and RL Commercial, might be able to iron out the flaws in application that have been there in previous ideas.

I'd still rather we removed the salary cap (or the fence in the tweet) than have teams competing subject to different rules.  

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

I'd still rather we removed the salary cap (or the fence in the tweet) than have teams competing subject to different rules.  

I can certainly see the merits of that argument - I just wanted to highlight how different rules and judgement calls weren't something RL doesn't do.

[Damien]

I fully support London having an increased salary cap, or London weighting. Even 50% only gets towards the same ball park really as teams in the North. The trouble is this really needs to be backed up by the same increase in funding or it means nothing. 

[Londonbornirishbred]

5 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

I can see league as being a fantastic chance for a big investor from the USA:)

* New league

* On the road games expanding the brand 

* Steaming of all matches + 1 FTA every week

* Central controlled merchandising 

* Draft system 

 

P 

Love your enthusiasm, but the first mention of a "merger" between Calder Clubs and your "big money US investor' will have an unwinnable battle on their hands and when the news leaks that London will be replacing one of the Hull sides, then this investor will know they've made a mistake.
 

[ATLANTISMAN]

14 hours ago, Londonbornirishbred said:

Love your enthusiasm, but the first mention of a "merger" between Calder Clubs and your "big money US investor' will have an unwinnable battle on their hands and when the news leaks that London will be replacing one of the Hull sides, then this investor will know they've made a mistake.
 

There are only 6 sustainable clubs in the M62 corridor and that includes the 2 teams in Hull:)

 

P 

[Griff]

9 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

There are only 6 sustainable clubs in the M62 corridor and that includes the 2 teams in Hull:)

 

 

As many as that?

[Gordon Street]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

As many as that?

exactly; the two teams in hull, which we are told is rugby league mad, have both faced extinction in the not too distant past. I would say there's between one and three, and one of them isn't wigan because of their stadium issues. 

[dboy]

10 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

There are only 6 sustainable clubs in the M62 corridor and that includes the 2 teams in Hull:)

 

P 

Which clubs are they?

[yipyee]

On 06/09/2022 at 16:41, PEANUT HEAD said:

So basically they have brought a company in to come up with old ideas like licensing and club mergers, which didn't work before. 

They did work though

[yipyee]

Over the course of the last year or so there have been some strange goings on in RL which make you think

Wakey finally move on a stadium upgrade

Newcastle go FT then back to PT

Toulouse saying they belong in SL but happy to play in championship

London moving stadiums to a half decent one.

Leigh going flat out to get promoted.

 

Maybe licensing with wakey ticking the only box in their way,

Newcastle told they won't get a license?

Toulouse and London guaranteed one?

Leigh know if they go up this year they will be in as the 12 will be frozen +2?

Interesting times

[Gordon Street]

8 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Over the course of the last year or so there have been some strange goings on in RL which make you think

Wakey finally move on a stadium upgrade

Newcastle go FT then back to PT

Toulouse saying they belong in SL but happy to play in championship

London moving stadiums to a half decent one.

Leigh going flat out to get promoted.

 

Maybe licensing with wakey ticking the only box in their way,

Newcastle told they won't get a license?

Toulouse and London guaranteed one?

Leigh know if they go up this year they will be in as the 12 will be frozen +2?

Interesting times

I really like that. If you are going to read between the lines; this is the way to do it. Well played sir/madam. 

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Over the course of the last year or so there have been some strange goings on in RL which make you think

Wakey finally move on a stadium upgrade

Newcastle go FT then back to PT

Toulouse saying they belong in SL but happy to play in championship

London moving stadiums to a half decent one.

Leigh going flat out to get promoted.

 

Maybe licensing with wakey ticking the only box in their way,

Newcastle told they won't get a license?

Toulouse and London guaranteed one?

Leigh know if they go up this year they will be in as the 12 will be frozen +2?

Interesting times

While obviously an improvement , Wakey's one stand wouldn't turn Belle Vue into what should be considered a SL standard stadium IMO 

Newcastle ' punted ' this year , but have found just how difficult it will be to play your way out of the Championship up to SL currently , if they'd have made the top 4 ( which I'd have thought would have been the target ) I think they would have stayed FT and tried to build again next year 

Toulouse ? Perhaps , London ? , Not so sure 

Hopefully it's a successful policy , still don't want licencing 

[David Shepherd]

20 minutes ago, yipyee said:

They did work though

Really? Not the way I remember it.  Seemed to me like it was a constant stream of nothing games that weren't worth watching, with a liberal sprinkling of financial failure at several clubs.

 

[glossop saint]

19 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

There are only 6 sustainable clubs in the M62 corridor and that includes the 2 teams in Hull:)

 

P 

What do you mean by sustainable?

[David Dockhouse Host]

Clubs still get to vote, they will vote in line with their own interests, as happens in all walks of life.

This could as it often has slow or stop any move in the overall interest's if Rugby

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Clubs still get to vote, they will vote in line with their own interests, as happens in all walks of life.

This could as it often has slow or stop any move in the overall interest's if Rugby

While they could, I am sure, there has to be some remit for IMG to push it more than normal if the clubs have basically agreed their involvement surely... Otherwise what is the point, for both sides?

surely also if the sport grows its in the best interests of all. You could be in the Championship in a better run, more media friendly, vibrant sport and be better off than in the Super League in a sport that is struggling.. 

Edited September 8, 2022 by RP London

[Cheadle Leyther]

Is the threat of licensing a ploy to persuade the clubs to have 2 divisions of 10?

[Forever Trinity]

10 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

While obviously an improvement , Wakey's one stand wouldn't turn Belle Vue into what should be considered a SL standard stadium IMO 

Newcastle ' punted ' this year , but have found just how difficult it will be to play your way out of the Championship up to SL currently , if they'd have made the top 4 ( which I'd have thought would have been the target ) I think they would have stayed FT and tried to build again next year 

Toulouse ? Perhaps , London ? , Not so sure 

Hopefully it's a successful policy , still don't want licencing 

Ok just to put you right its a brand new all singing dancing stand, the North Stand will have the terracing upgraded where needed, the West terrace is not featured yet. the 400 temporary seats at the south end my become permanent, the Changing rooms as they are now will become more community based and the new stand will have conference facilities a fan zone etc etc along with 26000 spectator seats (not including media teams directors etc) AS new hybrid pitch going down anytime now as the turf has been removed, new floodlights that are already in place and a new permanent big screen total investment circa 12 million. Considering it cost 17.5 million for Leigh Sporting Village the current investment at BV with little help over the years from the LA is a big investment, accepting the LA has provided 2 million to each of the local clubs for investment.

[M j M]

6 minutes ago, Forever Trinity said:

and the new stand will have conference facilities a fan zone etc etc along with 26000 spectator seats

Wow 

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, M j M said:

Wow 

[DI Keith Fowler]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I used to play FIFA Soccer Manager (1997) and in that game you could rebuild your stadium. I think I had a stand that was 26,000 seats in a 120,000 seater stadium (AC Milan if you were wondering). It had 3 tiered stands on the edges and a single tier stand in the corners, there was no possibility of anyone seeing anything from those seats but they always sold. 

Anyway that's in the realms of fantasy let's get back to reality with the topic of Wakefield and Castleford upgrading their grounds to modern 21st Century stadia.