IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[MattSantos]

Just now, Jughead said:

It’s not. If your argument is “they don’t do it in football or cricket or whatever sport” it’s not really applicable or relevant to rugby league, is it?

Well it is. If we are an outlier, it either means we're ace or ######. I think we're ###### at structuring the basics.

I can't imagine the super powerful Roosters telling FOX that they're only playing their home games on a Friday because they earn more money. Forget the TV contract and QLD teams playing 1st etc, we want that slot.

Champions League clubs are not able to dictate to the Prem when they play on a weekend as tey have TV obligations.

RL folk are so small minded. We want to play on a Friday because we earn x grand more than a Sunday. Clubs should play when they're told* for the betterment of what the strategy of the sport is and then upskill themselves** to pivot to a more flexible approach. This stuff isn't hard.

*Clubs should be absolutely engaged with the powers that be in making these decisions and common sense should prevail ie. Hull away to Saints on a Friday night doesn't work for fans, but the decision should not be owned by self serving clubs 

**IMG should be able to help here, through centralised approaches, even direct consultancy.

[MattSantos]

Just now, Hemi4561 said:

Perhaps those that those that you wish to nobly sacrifice themselves for the good of you and your three mates stand sniggering on the shore decide to stick a harpoon through your guts and persuade the huskies to eat you alive. That's life.

Your issue is that you don't want all to play the game, only those that won't threaten your cosy little hegemony 

 

Are you drunk; in a library?

[Jughead]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

Well it is. If we are an outlier, it either means we're ace or ######. I think we're ###### at structuring the basics.

I can't imagine the super powerful Roosters telling FOX that they're only playing their home games on a Friday because they earn more money. Forget the TV contract and QLD teams playing 1st etc, we want that slot.

Champions League clubs are not able to dictate to the Prem when they play on a weekend as tey have TV obligations.

RL folk are so small minded. We want to play on a Friday because we earn x grand more than a Sunday. Clubs should play when they're told* for the betterment of what the strategy of the sport is and then upskill themselves** to pivot to a more flexible approach. This stuff isn't hard.

*Clubs should be absolutely engaged with the powers that be in making these decisions and common sense should prevail ie. Hull away to Saints on a Friday night doesn't work for fans, but the decision should not be owned by self serving clubs 

**IMG should be able to help here, through centralised approaches, even direct consultancy.

You’re just ranting here. It’s not relevant what other sports do and is an odd argument about Sydney Roosters, when their TV contract is significantly different to ours and most, if not all, NRL games are televised. 

If a club has the evidence that their non-televised home games produce more revenue on a certain day than others, we can’t force them to play on other days to suit, well nobody at all. 

[MattSantos]

1 minute ago, Jughead said:

You’re just ranting here. It’s not relevant what other sports do and is an odd argument about Sydney Roosters, when their TV contract is significantly different to ours and most, if not all, NRL games are televised. 

If a club has the evidence that their non-televised home games produce more revenue on a certain day than others, we can’t force them to play on other days to suit, well nobody at all. 

Other sports are absolutely relevant. If we don't look to other sports for best/worst practices, then what are we doing? All NRL games are televised. All Prem League games are televised (outside of the UK*) All NFL games are televsised. We should be looking to these leagues as best in practice and if you're saying that this isn't relevant, then you're a poo poo brain.

The original post by the fella was to suggest all of our 'Superleague' games should be televised. I agree. I also think that a strong, fixed structure enables this. This should/ would increase a TV deal and therefore mitigate against any losses.

2 more things that are wider points other than this specific one.

1. Clubs should never be able to dictate anything

2. I worry about the folk in charge if we are so fixed in how we approach things. 

*The football clubs in the UK would love to get away from the Saturday 3pm rule. But they can't dictate anything of these things, so they don't

[Hemi4561]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

I have every sympathy with what happened nigh on 30 years ago. However, it has little relevance to the process now and everyone involved at that time is now gone. Moaning about that is not going to get Keighley anywhere.

I am not moaning about it as you say that was then

However to respond to MattSantos and you about the "past", it is man's greatest teaching aid. 

Burning of huge amounts of fossil fuel to advance,  creating nuclear weapons, wonder drugs like Thalidomide, all were striving for a better future and seemed like a good idea at the time. History, the past tells us that they may not have been a good idea

[Jughead]

2 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Other sports are absolutely relevant. If we don't look to other sports for best/worst practices, then what are we doing? All NRL games are televised. All Prem League games are televised (outside of the UK*) All NFL games are televsised. We should be looking to these leagues as best in practice and if you're saying that this isn't relevant, then you're a poo poo brain.

The original post by the fella was to suggest all of our 'Superleague' games should be televised. I agree. I also think that a strong, fixed structure enables this. This should/ would increase a TV deal and therefore mitigate against any losses.

2 more things that are wider points other than this specific one.

1. Clubs should never be able to dictate anything

2. I worry about the folk in charge if we are so fixed in how we approach things. 

*The football clubs in the UK would love to get away from the Saturday 3pm rule. But they can't dictate anything of these things, so they don't

Insults amongst rants too. 

Televising all games sounds nice in principle, I’m not sure it’s even remotely close to being a thing in Rugby League in the UK. 

Forcing clubs to abandon the day they play non-televised home games to play on another day to suit someone (I’m not sure who here) is daft. I would imagine most clubs investigate what days are the most financially lucrative for such games and they play on those days to maximise those revenue streams (Saints certainly do). 

[MattSantos]

Just now, Jughead said:

Insults amongst rants too. 

Televising all games sounds nice in principle, I’m not sure it’s even remotely close to being a thing in Rugby League in the UK. 

Forcing clubs to abandon the day they play non-televised home games to play on another day to suit someone (I’m not sure who here) is daft. I would imagine most clubs investigate what days are the most financially lucrative for such games and they play on those days to maximise those revenue streams (Saints certainly do). 

Poo poo brain too strong?

No one is advocating a non-televised game to be shifted / forced into a structure. 

[JohnM]

6 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

I am not moaning about it as you say that was then

However to respond to MattSantos and you about the "past", it is man's greatest teaching aid. 

Burning of huge amounts of fossil fuel to advance,  creating nuclear weapons, wonder drugs like Thalidomide, all were striving for a better future and seemed like a good idea at the time. History, the past tells us that they may not have been a good idea

"The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there."

Anyway, fire, the wheel, immunisation, the printed word, the AED and myriad things are all good ideas 

Keighley or any one else for that matter is free to agree or disagree with , and speak out for or against, the outcome of IMGs work.

One has to assume, though, that those in disagreement are expressing their views publicly to keep fans informed not to sway opinion, having discussed their issues  through the proper channels.

[JohnM]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

But they clearly dont believe if they do all those things they will be let in. Will they be allowed an academy? Will their geographical position be held against them? Does IMG want people to vote on accepting categories without seeing the criteria on which they are based and who gets to judge?

The immediate announcement of we want to grow CC but then here’s two legs for SL teams but only four teams outside will get to play them and it guarantees there will be no upsets , just to benefit the chosen 12 is a classic example of say one thing,do another.

Keighley clearly dont believe this will be fair and why should they?

here’s two legs for SL teams 

Is that a fact?

 

 

 

[MattSantos]

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

But they clearly dont believe if they do all those things they will be let in. Will they be allowed an academy? Will their geographical position be held against them? Does IMG want people to vote on accepting categories without seeing the criteria on which they are based and who gets to judge?

The immediate announcement of we want to grow CC but then here’s two legs for SL teams but only four teams outside will get to play them and it guarantees there will be no upsets , just to benefit the chosen 12 is a classic example of say one thing,do another.

Keighley clearly dont believe this will be fair and why should they?

And that is their prerogative and to follow on, we don't know the answer to those questions, yet.

I don't believe IMG do want people to vote without the detail as that would be silly. They aren't silly.

On the CC announcement, i think it's testing the waters and i'd be surprised to see it confirmed. 

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

The immediate announcement of we want to grow CC but then here’s two legs for SL teams

There's been an announcement about that, has there?

[gingerjon]

33 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Champions League clubs are not able to dictate to the Prem when they play on a weekend as tey have TV obligations.

They literally are. It's in the rules.

[MattSantos]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They literally are. It's in the rules.

Interesting. I've tried looking, can you show me?

[MattSantos]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

Interesting. I've tried looking, can you show me?

I've just read an article that suggests that BT Sport can still select a club to play at 12:30 even though they played Wednesday night. Common sense and a clear partnership in play suggests that they don't, but they can

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

I've just read an article that suggests that BT Sport can still select a club to play at 12:30 even though they played Wednesday night. Common sense and a clear partnership in play suggests that they don't, but they can

Which is the kind of relationships RL’s leading clubs should have with the independent governance hopefully.

[Archie Gordon]

Whilst the 2-leg CC proposal is just an idea, I don't think it's a leap to suggest that IMG's priors are that almost everything should revolve around the A clubs. 

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Interesting. I've tried looking, can you show me?

https://www.premierleague.com/news/60370

Fixtures are changed to accommodate progression in Europe and/or progression in other domestic competitions.

They wouldn't change a Saturday game based on Wednesday but a team that played on Thursday is allowed to move the game to Sunday.

[Gerrumonside ref]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/60370

Fixtures are changed to accommodate progression in Europe and/or progression in other domestic competitions.

They wouldn't change a Saturday game based on Wednesday but a team that played on Thursday is allowed to move the game to Sunday.

My point on this would be that even with the movement of games, we see in press conferences complaints over the fixtures that accommodate TV in U.K. football.

That suggests to me that even the biggest Premier League clubs are in a relationship whereby they don’t entirely dictate terms.

Whereas maybe in RL the clubs have been almost too powerful.

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Gerrumonside ref

[Derwent Parker]

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

Why is your suggestion better than 

Top tier gets £1.5m

2nd tier gets £1.1m

3rd tier gets £0.75m

Obviously the numbers can be whatever, I just used yours, but we've always split funding by division, why is your suggestion better? 

Well - It isn't my idea to change to grading.

All teams who reach grade "A" are guaranteed SL place and therefore guaranteed the 1.6M/1.8M [or whatever actual number is}

So why not do the same for "B" teams who achieve the grading let them get guaranteed the same. Then at least we would get all the "B" teams on a level playing field.

Fev, for example been great all year and lost one important game so have done well on field, have good crowds and nice ground but will be a "B" in Championship on less money than a couple or more "B" teams lingering around bottom of SL on potentially 3 times as much CF - I know that is this year and does not apply yet, just an example.

And do the same for "C" teams who do not reach the "B" grading - but give them something to aim for.

It is too difficult to get out league 1 when you are only getting 20k unless you find a sugar daddy like DB and if you are lucky to find one it is frowned upon as been stated on here many times - "Trying to buy your way out of league" etc

I know those numbers won't work into 24M but was just an idea they could be 1.5M, 1M, and .5M - it's difficult enough achieving the grades without trying to do it with no money.

Plus no one knows the rules yet - there may be only 6 "A"s and 6 "B"s to start with

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

My point on this would be that even with the movement of games, we see in press conferences complaints over the fixtures that accommodate TV in U.K. football.

That suggests to me that even the biggest Premier League clubs are in a relationship whereby they don’t entirely dictate terms.

Whereas maybe in RL the clubs have been almost too powerful.

 

Even football clubs have to do what the broadcasters tell them to do. But there are still occasions when the clubs have an ability to stop that - not many but some.

[Gerrumonside ref]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Even football clubs have to do what the broadcasters tell them to do. But there are still occasions when the clubs have an ability to stop that - not many but some.

Yes I agree.

[Tommygilf]

23 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/60370

Fixtures are changed to accommodate progression in Europe and/or progression in other domestic competitions.

They wouldn't change a Saturday game based on Wednesday but a team that played on Thursday is allowed to move the game to Sunday.

Or if you are Liverpool, you can have your Saturday Kick off moved to 7.45 pm because you have a Champions League game the following Tuesday?!?

[wiganermike]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

But they clearly dont believe if they do all those things they will be let in. Will they be allowed an academy? Will their geographical position be held against them? Does IMG want people to vote on accepting categories without seeing the criteria on which they are based and who gets to judge?

The immediate announcement of we want to grow CC but then here’s two legs for SL teams but only four teams outside will get to play them and it guarantees there will be no upsets , just to benefit the chosen 12 is a classic example of say one thing,do another.

Keighley clearly dont believe this will be fair and why should they?

On your first paragraph, those could be valid concerns that Keighley or any club currently have given the rules around allocation of elite academies now and the poor way in which the Licensing process was run. However there is already a publicly announced follow up meeting for the clubs in the calendar prior to the requirement to vote. That is the time and place that already exists for concerned parties to raise those and other issues they have and to have them addressed.

What Keighley have done is had a public rant criticising the way things have been done in the past in their opinion, despite one complaint 'creating a celebrity and glamour that was not authentic' being pretty much what the Keighley club did when they launched Cougarmania. They may not think they would have much chance of growing the club to be granted a top flight place under the proposed system (they haven't managed that too well under P&R either though barring one season immediately prior to SL being founded. Batley finished second behind Keighley that season but you never hear them complaining about it).

If I applied for a job I didn't think I quite qualified for I would still have to put the same effort in as for any other to try to overcome that. I might well still not get it anyway but I'd have some chance, however if I stated in my application or at interview that those making the decision were creating a false image for the organisation and were prejudiced towards me as employing me wouldn't tick a box for diversity I'd be pretty sure I had shot myself in the foot application wise. That is pretty much what Keighley have done with their statement.

On the second paragraph, yes that is a nonsense idea and if adopted it would last one season at the most. It won't be adopted though as it is nonsense. It most likely is put forward to make another proposal such as (hypothetically) SL clubs entering the cup a round earlier look better by comparison to make that more sensible proposal more likely to be adopted.

On the final sentence Keighley's issues are clearly not all around this proposed structure alone but as mentioned previously there are much better avenues open to them in which they can raise their issues. If memory serves didn't they want to have the expansion clubs in League 1 kicked out a few years ago? Whatever their concerns they have not done their club any favours reacting in the way they have.

Edited September 30, 2022 by wiganermike
separated the opening paragraph to improve readability

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Or if you are Liverpool, you can have your Saturday Kick off moved to 7.45 pm because you have a Champions League game the following Tuesday?!?

Now, now. I'm sure Herr Klopp was only thinking about player welfare.

[Tubby]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

The 6 bottom teams were relegated, the only handpicking was London and Paris. 

P&R was still in place, with some minimum standards. 

Clubs are not complaining about being graded, they are complaining about P&R going, yet that stayed. 

So teams were relegated from 5th and 6th from the bottom and two teams who weren't the best in the leage below were promoted over teams that finished above them (in London's case)?  That isn't P&R by any reasonable definition.  If caveats can be added, then it isn't transparent.