Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


gingerjon
 Share

Recommended Posts


Just now, MattSantos said:

I'm presuming that would form part of the reassessment.. League position.

Even if it is part of the assessment then the scenario is entirely possible to play out.  Especially with Category A teams guaranteed a continued place in the top tier.

  • Like 3

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

'Category A’ clubs will be guaranteed participation in the top tier whilst ‘Category B' clubs will be re-assessed annually with the highest-ranking clubs occupying the remaining slots in the top tier.

So you can finish above a Category A team and still get removed from the top tier.

That is not what sport is about.  There have to be consequences and rewards for on field performances.

Maybe wait until you've seen the criteria before you kick off? Jesus wept.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

I'm presuming that would form part of the reassessment.. League position.

Yup. On-field performance is a part of the grading. Not the only part but also not irrelevant.

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:

It's fantasy stuff, but it's an illustration of why allowing a company to just control everything with the sole objective of making money is flawed. 

Yes. And I didn't say we should do that. I was just reacting to the idea that a professional sport should ignore people because they want to make money.

  • 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

Just now, gingerjon said:

Yes. And I didn't say we should do that. I was just reacting to the idea that a professional sport should ignore people because they want to make money.

Yes I don't think we are disagreeing. 

My point is more aimed at those who want a dictator in charge and no governance involving the clubs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

every sport bar rugby league and union seems to have a massive prize for winning, a million pound prize for the TEAM winning the league would focus the player's minds. no need for IMG.

Through the fish-eyed lens of tear stained eyes
I can barely define the shape of this moment in time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

A: Wigan,, Saints, Wire, Leeds, Hull, Catalan

B: Toulouse (absolute no brainer from a commercial standpoint, gives us French derby and growth in France knowing they cant go down, a real chance to become a dominant force) London (massive population and now playing in a stadium that isn´t woeful but probably needs a new owner who hasn´t alienated everyone), Hull KR (Solid crowds, own ground, really improved the product and derby). Wakey (Odd one but with ground redevelopement, genuine prospects for growth here in terms of rev.)

B-: Giants (Woeful ground, no tv marketable) Cas (similar reason but actually good crowds) Newcastle (have an academy and stadium, might be worth giving it a go. York(No academy but commercially possible and modern ground to make money, not competing with FL team as of yet) Widnes, Fev and Barrow. Leigh only because derek spends. 

C : The rest of us. 

Are you seriously ranking London above Huddersfield,Castleford & Leigh ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Davo5 said:

Are you seriously ranking London above Huddersfield,Castleford & Leigh ?

Yes otherwise I wouldn´t have wrote it would I?  Because that´s what a licensing system means isn´t it? You pick your biggest potential markets and give them time to grow. Huddersfield are unteleviseable and just had their best season in years with a crowd just above Toulouse, who had the worst season possible. Second if your focus is on internationals then you need England to actually play someone which Toulouse do and Giants don´t. Leigh have nothing but a sugar daddy, that´s it. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think this is pragmatically wise for a number of reasons, not least that it's been around a while and now being usurped by women's football.

The biggest Super League crowd at the LSV next year will be when Manchester United play Chelsea.

That shouldn't be a surprise to any one, the clue is in the name of the two teams Leigh and Manchester who have the LSV as their home ground and the populations of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

That shouldn't be a surprise to any one, the clue is in the name of the two teams Leigh and Manchester who have the LSV as their home ground and the populations of them.

You aren't seriously making that comment are you Harry? Next you'll be saying London and New York!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit uninspiring.

Need more detail on how the various grades of license are decided and what funding is available to those not among the chosen few.

I hate the concept of licensing, but I'm prepared to give it a chance.

However, if it's corrupt, opaque and not applied equally to incumbents like last time, it's going to fail and fans across the lower tiers will walk away (again).

  • Like 4
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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