Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi Dave, I am not angry and not quoting anything you have or haven't said, but on @GUBRATSgeographical concern, I think he is very correct in doing so, the same as Fev should be concerned, Leigh would be in an area under a large blanket so to speak with another 3 SL club's, Fev would be one of 3, can you really see 7 club's from such small areas making up 58.3% of the league structure, not a chance.

I will also say that if we need a pointer that geography will come into play, just reflect on how the academy licence's were awarded, if Leigh had been anywhere else other than next door to 3 club's with academies with the application and commitment, structure and £400K they offered they would have not been refused.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Geography will come into it. Of course it will be a concern for the smaller of the clubs clustered together. You simply can't have 2 or 3 clubs within a stone's throw. It just doesn't make sense. 

I think some clubs will come to the conclusion that they'll have to merge or miss out by themselves.

new rise.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Not sure if its just me (not read all 28 pages) but is this not just incentivising investment and helping to potentially bring in larger backers who can make a difference?

The Cat A teams that are exempt from relegation are more than likely going to be the clubs that (partly due to them being run well with good income streams hence being Cat A) are unlikely to be relegated anyway (bar a really bad season like Warrington have had) but if they went down they'd bounce back up as they would buy the championship title, and really what is the point in that happening if we are being honest. The teams that get Cat B are the teams that are vying for promotion and relegation most seasons anyway. What you are now saying is that if you invest you can become Cat A and therefore be safe.. so incentivising the investment. Hopefully without the barriers put in the way that seem to be there at the moment ie 1 criteria being an academy but not allowing teams that want one to have one etc. 

It seems like tinkering but IMHO its a clever/good move as long as it is quite obvious how you can get from one category to another and how a team can get promoted etc.. it has to be really clear to the supporter otherwise you will lose people. Clear and transparent is really important.

The rest has been called for on these boards for a while, less loop fixtures, more internationals etc just more sense. Rebranding too is often spoken about here so they will look at it and get, potentially, to something easier to "sell". 

I quite like it, if its clear and transparent. I like the fact they see that London is a key area for expansion, and that doesnt mean a team but could (I hope) be about grassroots with a team to follow.. I like the fact that if there are enough cat A teams they will expand the league, the exact way it should work IMHO.. that is the carrot that is needed. 

With the extra bits the GJ has pointed out around the new media and marketing this can show investors and owners that investing the money to get yourself to Cat A can bring some real rewards because they are doing the work to monetise the product. But it needs the teams/clubs to actually invest too to get the product, and their product especially, up to the standard that can maximise the exposure the IMG can get us.

Its now going to be all about the execution (as so many things are) but so far I think its a really positive step.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pulga said:

I'm not sure what the problem is. Geography will come into it. Of course it will be a concern for the smaller of the clubs clustered together. You simply can't have 2 or 3 clubs within a stone's throw. It just doesn't make sense. 

I think some clubs will come to the conclusion that they'll have to merge or miss out by themselves.

I really can't see any clubs coming to the conclusion that they'll merge, not in UK rugby league. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the grading of clubs is a good thing and if a few clubs have to merge in order to get to Cat A or more than likely Cat B then I'm all for it.

Some of our professional clubs are professional in name only as most of the top amateur clubs have more assets and better facilities than their professional counterparts.

This may be the kick up the backside that these club's need and will give them some leverage with primarily the local councils to help them identify potential sites for long term base which would allow them to gradually develop their infrastructure. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Only clubs so far i can see on the A list are Catalan,Wigan,Saints,Warrington,Leeds,and Hull K.R. loop fixtures dropped is a  good thing .Think Magic has been good for the games exposure and see no need to drop it.Can't see SKY paying the same or more under the new proposals i think they will not renew.We have to give it a chance the game is nor progressing under the present structure.Grass roots need money to help future player development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Like Moran?

Actually yes. If we dropped down a division and Moran funded a squad that our revenues alone could never support it would be exactly the same scenario. Within the rules but not exactly giving a lot of hope to the Yorks and Halifaxs of this world.

FWIW I don't think Moran has put in much money in years: his contributions have usually been transfer fees for 'bauble' players like Johns and Inglis, not propping up running costs. It's a nice luxury to have had.

  • Like 1

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

but if people are going to highlight structures as a success or failure, then it is hard to ignore the fact that the game has been on a downward trend in many areas since licensing was abandoned. 

My view is that isn't the core reason, but for many it will be. 

I think there are many other considerations as to why the game has been on a downward trend since Licencing was revoked and it has nothing to do with licensing being abandon, if SL had seen as much resurgence as the Championship has in this same period IMG would not be required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pulga said:

I'm not sure what the problem is. Geography will come into it. Of course it will be a concern for the smaller of the clubs clustered together. You simply can't have 2 or 3 clubs within a stone's throw. It just doesn't make sense. 

I think some clubs will come to the conclusion that they'll have to merge or miss out by themselves.

We'll have to wait and see for the actual criteria, but nothing I've read so far suggests that geography will be massive dealbreaker for a club, ahead of other factors. IMG are looking to improve and enhance existing strengths, not take a punt on speculative projects. 

If I were a Leigh fan, for instance, I'd be quite confident that Leigh would be ranked higher than London or Newcastle as things stand today. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think there are many other considerations as to why the game has been on a downward trend since Licencing was revoked and it has nothing to do with licensing being abandon, if SL had seen as much resurgence as the Championship has in this same period IMG would not be required.

Perhaps if super league had had funding for clubs increased 5 fold then we would have seen a few more punters, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi Dave, I am not angry and not quoting anything you have or haven't said, but on @GUBRATSgeographical concern, I think he is very correct in doing so, the same as Fev should be concerned, Leigh would be in an area under a large blanket so to speak with another 3 SL club's, Fev would be one of 3, can you really see 7 club's from such small areas making up 58.3% of the league structure, not a chance.

I will also say that if we need a pointer that geography will come into play, just reflect on how the academy licence's were awarded, if Leigh had been anywhere else other than next door to 3 club's with academies with the application and commitment, structure and £400K they offered they would have not been refused.

I think it is sensible that geography comes into play, but that works as a positive and a negative depending on the circumstances. I don't think it is something we need to be afraid of.

But what we have seen is that a ) they have tried to reaffirm that this is the British league (it is the RFL's pyramid and partnership with IMG - not Canada's or France) - if we want to expand, it has to be of benefit to the British league/game. and b ) that historically, we have always had space for clubs from a tight geographical area, so there is no reason to think this is an area of major concern. 

I think it is fair that if in future we have two equal strength clubs, say, Featherstone and Birmingham, where both are performing identically - that the kicker would be that Birmingham's geographical position. I don't think that is controversial. The controversy comes when clubs are elevated above their level due to one factor and other areas are ignored.

For example, one or two posters here would choose the likes of London and Newcastle in their current form over some other clubs, which would be crazy tbh. Hopefully this structure would tell Newcastle and London that they need to be stronger clubs before they come in. Rather than London or Batley getting a bit of a leftfield victory and finding themselves in the top tier out of the blue.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think there are many other considerations as to why the game has been on a downward trend since Licencing was revoked and it has nothing to do with licensing being abandon, if SL had seen as much resurgence as the Championship has in this same period IMG would not be required.

I agree that there are many other considerations, I acknowledged as such in my post, but when the likes of Gubrats want evidence based on cold hard things like revenue, then we can't pick and choose what we use. 

If we look at crowds, revenues and TV money, I think they are broadly de-linked from the structures in place.

You put a lot of onus on the Championship resurgence, but I do think you are swayed by what is happening at your club. And I don't criticise you for that, I often have a more positive outlook on the game being a Wire fan than some others who are disillusioned (apart from this year obviously!). I appreciate how lucky I am with the current setup at Wire. But I'm sure the likes of Bradford, Newcastle and London aren't feeling as positive about the Championship.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

Not sure if its just me, but is this not just incentivising investment and helping to potentially bring in larger backers who can make a difference? 

Yes it is "just you" dreaming as always, that what they have proposed ends with larger backers.

They have proposed that the top clubs in SL are effectively ring fenced against relegation by making them "Category A" clubs which is just a name. However if you look at the pattern of promotion and relegation the reality is it's the London's, Leigh's, Toronto's and Toulouse that act as the fall guys.

Last time a top side and their owner were relegated it was Hull Kingston Rovers, and as has been noted they came back immediately, stronger and better for the experience. "Category "A" is made up drivel, just like you making up the idea of "larger backers".

Then we have the only other proposal of note, which is cut out the loop games (and cut out thousands of pounds of revenue). That's utter nonsense. Dave Woods rightly asks how playing less games, many of them well attended derby games, be justified, as it is merely a call to cut clubs revenue significantly. It's also a cut in the number of big clashes that SKY like to show as they get the audiences.

It's only a few people on here who think third games are a nonsense, but go back to the days Leeds and Bradford slugged it out over three, four and fives games a season. IIRC. Very big audiences at home and on the ground.

My mum and Dad told me you don't get owt for nowt, and Nowt is what IMG has come up with........

Unless you can name us these "larger backers"🙄

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

We'll have to wait and see for the actual criteria, but nothing I've read so far suggests that geography will be massive dealbreaker for a club, ahead of other factors. IMG are looking to improve and enhance existing strengths, not take a punt on speculative projects. 

If I were a Leigh fan, for instance, I'd be quite confident that Leigh would be ranked higher than London or Newcastle as things stand today. 

don't really agree with the plans but I do agree with all this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But I'm sure the likes of Bradford, Newcastle and London aren't feeling as positive about the Championship.

I think most people's perception has been that the Championship has been a one-sided freakshow overall this year.

It's certainly been, one single game last weekend aside, the most predictable competition we've had this season.

  • 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

27 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Actually yes. If we dropped down a division and Moran funded a squad that our revenues alone could never support it would be exactly the same scenario. Within the rules but not exactly giving a lot of hope to the Yorks and Halifaxs of this world.

FWIW I don't think Moran has put in much money in years: his contributions have usually been transfer fees for 'bauble' players like Johns and Inglis, not propping up running costs. It's a nice luxury to have had.

The other important thing with Moran (and I'm not blindly defending him or my club as I appreciate how lucky we are) - is that on his watch, and I have to assume with some of his investment we have invested in many of the things that we want clubs to invest in. 

We want better facilities - we have done that. 

We want quality training facilities and gyms - tick.

We want quality youth structures - tick.

We want investment and effort in the community - done.

We want investment in the womens game - yup.

We want focus on marketing and matchday experience - yeah(ish) as I am still on a downer with them this year!

We also want excitement, transfer fees, competitive teams - absolutely, we have made finals, won cups, won LLS etc. 

What Moran hasn't done is build a shell of a club with a load of good players.

And tbh - all the above is the reason why I think Wire are a grade A club (I know that's a post for the other thread!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

We'll have to wait and see for the actual criteria, but nothing I've read so far suggests that geography will be massive dealbreaker for a club, ahead of other factors.

Weighted criteria, which is basically what we're told is coming, may include geography but it could easily favour "ease of travelling support and/or likelihood of strong local derbies for TV" over "are you blinking miles from the M62" ...

  • Like 1

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

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Rather than London or Batley getting a bit of a leftfield victory and finding themselves in the top tier out of the blue.

I do see what you mean, but ever since I read Underdogs I've harboured a belief that Batley have quietly been doing a lot of things right for a long time now. So, I'd never have picked them out as potential finalists at the start of the season, but equally I'm not actually genuinely surprised by where they've ended up. Not to the extent I would be if we were talking about say Dewsbury anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

If I were a Leigh fan, for instance, I'd be quite confident that Leigh would be ranked higher than London or Newcastle as things stand today. 

on what grounds?

On-field performance certainly, but could Leigh thrive without Beaumont's personal annual investment which is the same as we have with London.

Are Leigh's reserve and academy structures any better than those of Newcastle or London?

All 3 clubs are tenants so does that make them a better club than Barrow who still own their own ground and have managed to totally reinvigorate their club with some impressive community development?

I'm not talking about league positions as someone has to finish top or bottom and as we know that can hinge on many factors, squad strength or just rank bad luck with injuries to key players.

Until the grading criteria has been released is all just speculation anyway but I think finances and how clubs are funded will be reflected in the grading - clubs which generate all their income without a financial benefactor should get a higher points scoring than those who are subsidised by someone's personal fortune, as that individual could walk away at any point leaving their club in a precarious financial position 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gingerjon said:

Weighted criteria, which is basically what we're told is coming, may include geography but it could easily favour "ease of travelling support and/or likelihood of strong local derbies for TV" over "are you blinking miles from the M62" ...

If I was an outsider and read between the lines of posts here, I would have to assume that during the last round of licensing, the RFL made some really controversial decisions and made drastic changes based on geography. 

in 2009 we had:

2 x Hull teams

Wire, Saints and Wigan all within spitting distance (plus Widnes then added 3 years later).

Leeds, Bradford, Hudds all in West Yorkshire, with Wakefield and Cas just round the corner in the same council (i think).

We also had Salford along the M62. 

From a geographical expansion point of view we had London and Catalans (who were already in SL) and Crusaders were the one team added, and who had made their way through the pyramid.

The facts just don't back up the challenges around geography. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

I do see what you mean, but ever since I read Underdogs I've harboured a belief that Batley have quietly been doing a lot of things right for a long time now. So, I'd never have picked them out as potential finalists at the start of the season, but equally I'm not actually genuinely surprised by where they've ended up. Not to the extent I would be if we were talking about say Dewsbury anyway. 

I expect the number of people who predicted Batley would win promotion to SL at any stage in 2022 to be zero. Therefore I think if it were to happen, describing it as leftfield would absolutely be fair 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

on what grounds?

On-field performance certainly, but could Leigh thrive without Beaumont's personal annual investment which is the same as we have with London.

Are Leigh's reserve and academy structures any better than those of Newcastle or London?

All 3 clubs are tenants so does that make them a better club than Barrow who still own their own ground and have managed to totally reinvigorate their club with some impressive community development?

I'm not talking about league positions as someone has to finish top or bottom and as we know that can hinge on many factors, squad strength or just rank bad luck with injuries to key players.

Until the grading criteria has been released is all just speculation anyway but I think finances and how clubs are funded will be reflected in the grading - clubs which generate all their income without a financial benefactor should get a higher points scoring than those who are subsidised by someone's personal fortune, as that individual could walk away at any point leaving their club in a precarious financial position 

I'd hope all that will be a taken into account in the grading criteria. But for the three clubs mentioned, Leigh would still come out on top due to its underlying fan base. 

If each of the three had to rely solely on funds generated, London would close tomorrow, and Newcastle would sink quickly back to the bottom of L1. Leigh would still be there or thereabouts in the Championship. 

My hunch is that Derek ends up voting for this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Yes, some of the hysteria - with Rod Studd and the likes claiming that Wigan and Leeds can now pick up 0 points and be safe - is just that, hysteria. 

This is what I meant with my point in the other thread - the strong clubs should be removed from the conversation, it's how the game gets more clubs to be like them.

These changes will benefit lower clubs far more than the Wigans and Leeds of the world.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see any of the journos making comments on how all of this is going to affect current/future broadcasting deals and also how they plan to distribute central funding. Anybody seen any comments on this?

Removing loop fixtures and the magic weekend is absolutely the right thing to do, as is increasing the focus on internationals. But how do Sky feel about this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If I was an outsider and read between the lines of posts here, I would have to assume that during the last round of licensing, the RFL made some really controversial decisions and made drastic changes based on geography. 

in 2009 we had:

2 x Hull teams

Wire, Saints and Wigan all within spitting distance (plus Widnes then added 3 years later).

Leeds, Bradford, Hudds all in West Yorkshire, with Wakefield and Cas just round the corner in the same council (i think).

We also had Salford along the M62. 

From a geographical expansion point of view we had London and Catalans (who were already in SL) and Crusaders were the one team added, and who had made their way through the pyramid.

The facts just don't back up the challenges around geography. 

You did get an extra point for being X miles from another team. It's how London got *just* enough points.

But that's what I mean about it being one thing among many.

  • Like 1

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.