Jump to content

IMG proposals to be presented to clubs next week?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

So just to take this one step further, the meeting and vote is on the 28th September, that is after the SLGF and before the Championship GF, does Toulouse (relegated from SL) have a vote and if so are they still a SL club with two votes or a Championship club with one vote? And considering that there will be a Championship club in limbo i.e. still in the Championship but not yet promoted to SL how will that vote be configured?

It leaves one question, has this date been organised to cause confusion? Or has IMG just not considered it, bad news if they haven't.

Toulouse don't have a vote regardless of whichever division they are in. They are not RFL members. I sincerely hope that they publish the outcome of the vote promptly and highlight who voted which way as I believe this could be a pivotal moment in the game's history.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


15 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

It did for licensing being issued in 2009, Leigh's ground was 90% complete inspected by the RFL then rejected in favour of Wheldon Rd, Belle Vue and The Willows, just shows what a shambles it was back then.

Stadium was only one of many criteria as you well know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seen a post of Facebook from an old workmate who lives in Fev.  He wrote ‘According to Featherstone Rovers twitter feed big news tomorrow’.

Could it be that the IMG proposal is being passed to all clubs tomorrow for their consideration before the meeting on the 28th.  Or do Fev fans on here think it is something else?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Just seen a post of Facebook from an old workmate who lives in Fev.  He wrote ‘According to Featherstone Rovers twitter feed big news tomorrow’.

Could it be that the IMG proposal is being passed to all clubs tomorrow for their consideration before the meeting on the 28th.  Or do Fev fans on here think it is something else?

 

I believe its 3 contract renewals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, M j M said:

Stadium was only one of many criteria as you well know.

12 criteria (from memory), each with a different weighting.

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 comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, M j M said:

Stadium was only one of many criteria as you well know.

True , but to actually request a 90% finished stadium be removed from the application , which is what the RFL did , does not garner confidence in the process , don't you think ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good that a 2022 process - that we don't even know the details of - that is being handled by different people is now being judged, in advance, against one aspect of one club's application a decade ago.

  • Haha 3

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 comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Londonbornirishbred said:

Toulouse don't have a vote regardless of whichever division they are in. They are not RFL members. I sincerely hope that they publish the outcome of the vote promptly and highlight who voted which way as I believe this could be a pivotal moment in the game's history.

Neither are Catalans what we don’t know is whether they get a vote as members of SL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's good that a 2022 process - that we don't even know the details of - that is being handled by different people is now being judged, in advance, against one aspect of one club's application a decade ago.

It is what it is , do you think it was right to request a club to remove details of its 90% finished stadium from a licence application ? 

I await your truthful answer ? 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

It is what it is , do you think it was right to request a club to remove details of its 90% finished stadium from a licence application ? 

I await your truthful answer ? 😉

Truthful answer: honestly, could not care less. Far more interested in what is happening now rather than these dull historical grievances being dredged up time and again.

But, broadly, if a process requires things to be real then, yes, completely correct. Rules are rules. And unfinished does not mean finished.

  • Like 2

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 comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Truthful answer: honestly, could not care less. Far more interested in what is happening now rather than these dull historical grievances being dredged up time and again.

But, broadly, if a process requires things to be real then, yes, completely correct. Rules are rules. And unfinished does not mean finished.

But plans that have never materialised were allowed for others ? 

Seriously Jon , be truthful , I didn't ask if you ' cared ' , I asked if you think it was ' right ' ? 

I don't expect you to answer truthfully , nobody ever does on these things 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Truthful answer: honestly, could not care less. Far more interested in what is happening now rather than these dull historical grievances being dredged up time and again.

But, broadly, if a process requires things to be real then, yes, completely correct. Rules are rules. And unfinished does not mean finished.

I agree on your first point but to be fair to Leigh their partially finished ground was more real than Wakefield’s & Castleford’s artists impressions.

Moving forward,let’s hope IMG’s recommendations are transparent & get acted upon.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

I agree on your first point but to be fair to Leigh their partially finished ground was more real than Wakefield’s & Castleford’s artists impressions.

Wakefield and Cas were, I believe, judged on their grounds as they currently stood?

And, as has been repeated so many times (so, so, so many) the state of the ground was one section out of a dozen.

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 comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave T said:

This summary,  published on SL website doesn't suggest that Leigh's stadium was ignored.  

https://web.archive.org/web/20100120000730/http://www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=375

 

That's because we refused to remove it , I was party to the reaction on the day the request was made , I don't ever really recall Arthur Thomas being angry , but he was that day 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

That's because we refused to remove it , I was party to the reaction on the day the request was made , I don't ever really recall Arthur Thomas being angry , but he was that day 

So which is it? 

And why did they even inspect the new site? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This summary,  published on SL website doesn't suggest that Leigh's stadium was ignored.  

https://web.archive.org/web/20100120000730/http://www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=375

 

It is interesting in those summaries that the first point was stadiums , and Salford,Wakey,CAS and Celtic Crusaders all had ' plans ' for developments in the near future , 2010 in Wakey's case 😉 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

True , but to actually request a 90% finished stadium be removed from the application , which is what the RFL did , does not garner confidence in the process , don't you think ? 

The rumour I was told was that they took them to the LSV - which was the stadium we played at the following season - and they demanded to be taken to HP that we had left.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave T said:

So which is it? 

And why did they even inspect the new site? 

We refused to remove it , if they had insisted we'd have cancelled our application 

Exactly the point , they'd visited twice , the second time inside the bare structure of the main stand showing where the corporate facilities would be , all 4 stands were ' up ' at that point , we didn't play any more games at Hilton Park from that time 

Doesn't really inspire confidence in a process 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GUBRATS said:

We refused to remove it , if they had insisted we'd have cancelled our application 

Exactly the point , they'd visited twice , the second time inside the bare structure of the main stand showing where the corporate facilities would be , all 4 stands were ' up ' at that point , we didn't play any more games at Hilton Park from that time 

Doesn't really inspire confidence in a process 

So they didn't insist it was removed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

The rumour I was told was that they took them to the LSV - which was the stadium we played at the following season - and they demanded to be taken to HP that we had left.

 

Not true Sweaty , as I said , I had called into HP on the day on another matter , Alan Rowley ( our CEO at the time ) was apoplectic , they'd just received the e mail from the RFL requesting us to resubmit 

Either way , as has been put , its history , leaving the ' drift ' now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Wakefield and Cas were, I believe, judged on their grounds as they currently stood?

And, as has been repeated so many times (so, so, so many) the state of the ground was one section out of a dozen.

We’ll that shows how the whole process was weighted to protect the incumbent Superleague clubs,we can only hope the IMG proposal’s are fair,transparent & free from clubs self protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have some sympathy with criticism of the last licensing process.  It was clearly weighted in favour of existing SL teams,  it would appear to have been impossible for the likes of Leigh to overtake the likes of Cas or Wakefield who were surely at risk. 

They all got a C ranking,  but they got the nod over a club who had delivered a facility. If an SL club got the same ranking as lower division clubs despite the additional funding and years in SL,  then I think there was a fair claim that they should have lost out. 

They basically bottled licensing and refused to make difficult decisions. That,  imho is why it was seen as a failure. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This summary,  published on SL website doesn't suggest that Leigh's stadium was ignored.  

https://web.archive.org/web/20100120000730/http://www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=375

Yes, I think @gingerjon posted something about this previously which was then followed by much changing of tune than what had been said on here previously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...