IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[wiganermike]

12 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

That only works if we didnt have one club buy it every year, I´d still be in favour of P and R if French clubs weren´t forced into the Champ on relegation and you had the same registration rules as SL and a salary cap at 1 million. Otherwise it hasn´t worked as every year someone has doped their way up for five years bar London who were also full time in a predominantly part time league. 

The shift from a system whereby winning the competition guarantees promotion to one where a place in the top tier is gained through improving club infrastructure to increase the size of the club should see an end to clubs essentially buying their way to the Championship title as the money would be more wisely spent on areas other than the playing roster so as to improve the club overall. Competing at the top end of the Championship will help with grading reviews no doubt but as Batley have shown in the last few seasons that doesn't require breaking the bank to achieve. The Championship was a better competition prior to the change in funding distribution and spending that came in during the Super 8s period. The removal of the necessity to win the competition in a win or bust effort should see an end to the all-conquering behemoth team each season we have been seeing at that level.

[Tubby]

33 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

It works if you have a sugar daddy that creates a completely unsustainable model and makes building success instead of buying it impossible, so no, it doesnt work under the current criteria. 

If that club can then build on that success and maintain a sustainable place in SL, then I’d say it can work. Ultimately, their opportunity is in their hands. An opportunity removed without P&R.

I agree with ginger Jon that the parachute payment makes it a little unfair, but if a club can get it together on the field promotion is possible. 

I’m not a Leigh fan. 

[Gomersall]

23 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Last promotions if I assume Leigh are : Leigh, Toulouse, Toronto, London, Hull KR. All full time and two outside UK. Clear that P and R when we cannot have majority be full time without funding just isnt working for majority of clubs unless it were salary capped. 

I thought the Championship was under an SC? Didn’t the governing body/bodies decide it would be the same as the SL clubs so in effect virtually no Championship club could spend up to it.

[idrewthehaggis]

16 hours ago, gittinsfan said:

I have read up to page 17 and  will read the full thread.A lot of people seem happy with the A clubs and the upper class B  clubs.No body seems  to give a thought to the lower clubs. But that's SL fans down to a tee.

Well it does seem in the first instance, a plan for a couple of "Big" clubs, a briefer thought about the other dozen senior one and not much else really.

But I want to see the finer details before commenting.

I want to see if this is about the RL family acting together to level up, rather than hoping for a trickle down from the elite. As that never works. 

I want to see this take RL forward in Europe, not just a few small towns beside the Pennines.

However I can not remove a haunting gut feeling this is about protecting and rigging the system even more.

Please convince me otherwise forumistas.

 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

You often criticise SL clubs and their treatment of the wider game - but some of the things you write are far more aggressive, unreasonable and offensive to SL clubs than would be accepted the other way. 

All the things you criticise others for, you demonstrate, just from a Leigh angle. 

OK point taken,

But what about what I said about the voting and clubs under SL knowing what they will recieve come '24, it could alter the way some think. 

And as I have said I fully expect Leigh to be a SL club next season, but my concern is also for the game as I see it not just for the benefit of SL clubs, so my angle is somewhat obtuse stretching beyond just thinking of my club.

PS. My aggression could be borne somewhat in my club taking a lot of flack for a long time on these pages from a lot of quarters.

Edited September 29, 2022 by Harry Stottle

[iffleyox]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Its a shame as Brum is even bigger than Leeds and there is no union team 

A Moseley season ticket holder splutters into his tea. Alright we're a bit bruised and battered, and recent relegation to level 3 is a far cry from the heights of going unbeaten for over a season and providing multiple England and Lions players, but we are still in Birmingham last time I looked. Just not, as we were in the 1970s, probably the best RU side in England.

Edited September 29, 2022 by iffleyox

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, iffleyox said:

A Moseley season ticket holder splutters into his tea.

I used to work with someone who had a season ticket to Birmingham & Solihull Bees.

[Gomersall]

16 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No but you dont have to , you can spend 1.4 million like Derek then blow everyone away. Like Toulouse next year, like Toronto before. It doesn´t make the competition healthy. 

If you want P and R from Champ you have to make it so clubs growing sensibily off the field with revenue streams can compete and not think this is pointless without being doped. We havent done that so I cant say it´s worked. 

I agree but was just pointing out that te there is a SC in the Championship albeit a ridiculously high one.

PS. are you being sponsored to use the expression doped/doping as often as possible? TIA

[iffleyox]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I used to work with someone who had a season ticket to Birmingham & Solihull Bees.

Pertemps Bees - another casualty of spending silly money.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, iffleyox said:

Pertemps Bees - another casualty of spending silly money.

They were back to being B&S when I knew him - and freefalling down the merit tables.

[iffleyox]

they disbanded their men's side the other year. Bringing this back to RL rapidly, I think they probably jumped at the chance to host Hurricanes for a year or two.

[Griff]

None of the ‘bigger’ clubs have finished bottom or been relegated since Hull FC in 1963. There’s a reason for that. This isn’t about protecting bigger clubs it’s about forcing the rest to meet the same standards, which then gives them a better chance of winning something. https://t.co/vwzJOF3Che

— Matthew Shaw (@M_Shaw1) September 29, 2022

 

Mmmm - I suppose Wigan weren't considered a 'bigger' club back in 1980.

[DOGFATHER]

There are a couple of very large elephants in the room for me. There is no mention of any central funding distribution, or the percentages there of, for each division or category.

How would a Cat B in the Championship have any chance of competing with a Cat B in SL? The Cat B in SL is handed £1.6M a season as things stand. The Cat B in the lower division gets £108k. Without attracting a Sugar Daddy, somehow they have to overcome a £1.5M funding deficit to get to the same level, without the benefit of playing in the Elite league that is more appealing to better players, more attractive to new spectators and to sponsors.

The other, (unless somebody could point to the paragraph, I have missed) Cat B clubs will be re-evaluated annually, but no mention of how frequently Cat A clubs will be re-evaluated from what I have seen. Therefore, can I assume that once Cat A has been achieved, clubs are safe forever? Apologies, if I have missed it.

[Dave T]

54 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

OK point taken,

But what about what I said about the voting and clubs under SL knowing what they will recieve come '24, it could alter the way some think. 

And as I have said I fully expect Leigh to be a SL club next season, but my concern is also for the game as I see it not just for the benefit of SL clubs, so my angle is somewhat obtuse stretching beyond just thinking of my club.

PS. My aggression could be borne somewhat in my club taking a lot of flack for a long time on these pages from a lot of quarters.

I appreciate the challenges around some of the stick Leigh get, I get it. I'm not a massive fan of 'us v them' in any walk of life, but appreciate its just a way of the world. 

I'm not really sure what point you are making with regards to voting, understanding the financial proposal is just part of the process. 

On your third para, I think there is a risk here of unfairly judging everyone else and claiming you are the only one who has a view for the benefit of the game. My consistent view is that most people are genuinely thinking about the benefits to the game (certainly round here and I believe the clubs do too). It is unfair to dismiss others as thinking of their club only, when the same thing can be levelled at you. Because Leigh have a big disadvantage when it comes to licensing.

But I do believe you genuinely feel P&R is better for the sport, and so do many others. But many also don't, and their benefit is no less genuine. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Gomersall said:

I thought the Championship was under an SC? Didn’t the governing body/bodies decide it would be the same as the SL clubs so in effect virtually no Championship club could spend up to it.

It was Mr Beaumont when we were operating the 8's who pointed out it was totally unfair to have a cap discrepancy between SL and Championship when the two factions come together in the play offs, the RFL then made the cap levels equal.

[wiganermike]

10 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

There are a couple of very large elephants in the room for me. There is no mention of any central funding distribution, or the percentages there of, for each division or category.

How would a Cat B in the Championship have any chance of competing with a Cat B in SL? The Cat B in SL is handed £1.6M a season as things stand. The Cat B in the lower division gets £108k. Without attracting a Sugar Daddy, somehow they have to overcome a £1.5M funding deficit to get to the same level, without the benefit of playing in the Elite league that is more appealing to better players, more attractive to new spectators and to sponsors.

The other, (unless somebody could point to the paragraph, I have missed) Cat B clubs will be re-evaluated annually, but no mention of how frequently Cat A clubs will be re-evaluated from what I have seen. Therefore, can I assume that once Cat A has been achieved, clubs are safe forever? Apologies, if I have missed it.

The new proposed structure would be being implemented during a different, yet to be negotiated broadcast deal so putting concrete figures on the table for clubs in respective leagues would not really be possible. There may be a proposed distribution by percentage of broadcast income plan put together that has not been publicised. The comparative strengths of playing rosters should not be a factor for clubs in different competitions. There are no published frameworks but assessment of on-field performance would (or should) be relative to the competition the club competes in, grading points gained for making the Championship playoffs would be the same as for making the SL playoffs for example. As for metrics like attendance, turnover etc then the people at IMG should be smart enough to work out that a ratio would need to be applied when comparing second tier to top tier. An average crowd of 3000 would be a great concern in SL but a strong base to build from (if promoted) in the Championship for example. The standards to be attained to be promoted are likely lower than those needed to retain a SL place.

There haven't been solid details released about the schedule of re-assessment of A grade clubs but it is likely that a mechanism exists for a failing club to be downgraded from A to B or B to C as well as for clubs being upgraded. The hope would be that such a situation never arises as it would probably involve another Bradford style collapse.

[Harry Stottle]

41 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

There are a couple of very large elephants in the room for me. There is no mention of any central funding distribution, or the percentages there of, for each division or category.

How would a Cat B in the Championship have any chance of competing with a Cat B in SL? The Cat B in SL is handed £1.6M a season as things stand. The Cat B in the lower division gets £108k. Without attracting a Sugar Daddy, somehow they have to overcome a £1.5M funding deficit to get to the same level, without the benefit of playing in the Elite league that is more appealing to better players, more attractive to new spectators and to sponsors.

The other, (unless somebody could point to the paragraph, I have missed) Cat B clubs will be re-evaluated annually, but no mention of how frequently Cat A clubs will be re-evaluated from what I have seen. Therefore, can I assume that once Cat A has been achieved, clubs are safe forever? Apologies, if I have missed it.

This exactly, untill these "little incidentals" re the intention of funding levels are disclosed then I can not see any how any club under those who will take a gamble of being chosen as an upper B category in the top 12 would be foolish to make a commitment in voting.

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

The new proposed structure would be being implemented during a different, yet to be negotiated broadcast deal so putting concrete figures on the table for clubs in respective leagues would not really be possible.

Yes quite, that is why untill clubs know what they will recieve in central funding they should wait until it is disclosed befire a vote takes place, that could sway the aye's or nay's for the IMG proposal.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

None of the ‘bigger’ clubs have finished bottom or been relegated since Hull FC in 1963. There’s a reason for that. This isn’t about protecting bigger clubs it’s about forcing the rest to meet the same standards, which then gives them a better chance of winning something. https://t.co/vwzJOF3Che

— Matthew Shaw (@M_Shaw1) September 29, 2022

 

Mmmm - I suppose Wigan weren't considered a 'bigger' club back in 1980.

Or indeed the aforementioned Hull in 77-78?

[Harry Stottle]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On your third para, I think there is a risk here of unfairly judging everyone else and claiming you are the only one who has a view for the benefit of the game

To be fair Dave, I never brought anybody else into my comment it was just about my opinion, I said

"I have said I fully expect Leigh to be a SL club next season, but my concern is also for the game as I see it not just for the benefit of SL clubs"

 

[wiganermike]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes quite, that is why untill clubs know what they will recieve in central funding they should wait until it is disclosed befire a vote takes place, that could sway the aye's or nay's for the IMG proposal.

I expect the clubs will be told something similar with regard to distributions to what they were before this current deal was negotiated i.e an amount or proportion of funds they will receive if the value of the broadcast deal is above or below a specified threshold value. Any vote will need to happen long before the next broadcast deal is done.

Whatever the figures end up being I wouldn't be surprised if the SL clubs all got the same whether A or B grade, the B grade Championship clubs all got the same amount (equal to a proportion of the SL allocation) and the C grades got what they get now or nothing.

[idrewthehaggis]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

None of the ‘bigger’ clubs have finished bottom or been relegated since Hull FC in 1963. There’s a reason for that. This isn’t about protecting bigger clubs it’s about forcing the rest to meet the same standards, which then gives them a better chance of winning something. https://t.co/vwzJOF3Che

— Matthew Shaw (@M_Shaw1) September 29, 2022

 

Mmmm - I suppose Wigan weren't considered a 'bigger' club back in 1980.

Aside from the obvious historical ignorance, such a statement is fine. Standards should also be looked at being improved.

However the finer detail is revenues. Unless there is a realistic plan to increase revenue for the supposed "B" clubs, then these plans will mean nothing.

Would for instances, the likes of St Helens be prepared to take a decade long reduced in central/TV funds or a tax on match day revenue that would be transferred to the likes of Castleford to improve their facilities or to develop regional academies?

[Griff]

12 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

However the finer detail is revenues. Unless there is a realistic plan to increase revenue for the supposed "B" clubs, then these plans will mean nothing.

Would for instances, the likes of St Helens be prepared to take a decade long reduced in central/TV funds or a tax on match day revenue that would be transferred to the likes of Castleford to improve their facilities or to develop regional academies?

Couldn't agree more.

So far, I'm way short of enough information to be able to say this is a good thing or a bad thing.

[DOGFATHER]

45 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

The new proposed structure would be being implemented during a different, yet to be negotiated broadcast deal so putting concrete figures on the table for clubs in respective leagues would not really be possible. There may be a proposed distribution by percentage of broadcast income plan put together that has not been publicised. The comparative strengths of playing rosters should not be a factor for clubs in different competitions. There are no published frameworks but assessment of on-field performance would (or should) be relative to the competition the club competes in, grading points gained for making the Championship playoffs would be the same as for making the SL playoffs for example. As for metrics like attendance, turnover etc then the people at IMG should be smart enough to work out that a ratio would need to be applied when comparing second tier to top tier. An average crowd of 3000 would be a great concern in SL but a strong base to build from (if promoted) in the Championship for example. The standards to be attained to be promoted are likely lower than those needed to retain a SL place.

There haven't been solid details released about the schedule of re-assessment of A grade clubs but it is likely that a mechanism exists for a failing club to be downgraded from A to B or B to C as well as for clubs being upgraded. The hope would be that such a situation never arises as it would probably involve another Bradford style collapse.

I completely understand that concrete figures cannot be published until a deal has been formalised in the future. But, I would have expected a mention of whether the funding gap between the tiers was likely to stay the same, or a move towards a more balanced approach was the aim, to ensure certain clubs are not disadvantaged.

We do not know what constitutes an A or B grading. However, I think it would be safe to say, it will be much easier to make improvements to things likely to be under the spotlight such as marketing, ground, training facilities, youth development, or anything else for that matter, with £1.6M a season available to throw at the problem, rather than £108k.

[Gomersall]

22 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Aside from the obvious historical ignorance, such a statement is fine. Standards should also be looked at being improved.

However the finer detail is revenues. Unless there is a realistic plan to increase revenue for the supposed "B" clubs, then these plans will mean nothing.

Would for instances, the likes of St Helens be prepared to take a decade long reduced in central/TV funds or a tax on match day revenue that would be transferred to the likes of Castleford to improve their facilities or to develop regional academies?

Sounds good in theory. Good luck getting it into practice.