IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Nothus said:

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

I don't care about the rest of the criteria.

The implication is clear.  If you are Category A then you are guaranteed a place in the top tier.  So finishing bottom of the table means that you will still be there next year.  Category B participation is re-assessed annually.

So... Category B team finishes second last, Category A finishes last.  Category B team loses its place in the top tier, Category A team keeps it.

I can't think of any criteria that makes this fair.

There can be many systems - P&R, Licencing etc. and there are merits of each but teams playing in the same league, and competing for the same points each game playing under two separate rules for staying up at the end of the year just seems plain wrong to me.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Removal of Magic is one that surprises me, unless they’re removing Magic being made up of a loop fixture so that instead, clubs “lose” a home year each year to Magic. 

Is that explicitly called out? 

[Dave T]

It all feels sensible to me. 

Things I like:

1. Expansion strategy

2. Identified growth targets as France, women's and London

3. No hard numbers for too division and silly commitments to promotion that conflict with grading like last time. 

4. Focus on branding, matchdays as events, and key calendar dates and peaks throughout the year. 

He good to see more detail, but a lot of this seems sensible. 

[Jughead]

Just now, Dave T said:

Is that explicitly called out? 

https://mobile.twitter.com/jdgsport/status/1575112810391969793

[Davo5]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

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. 

Pretty sure it said clubs will judged on their performance on & off the pitch to,London finished 4th bottom in the Championship playing in front of 300 fans & with a commercial dept that is virtually anonymous.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I don't care about the rest of the criteria.

The implication is clear.  If you are Category A then you are guaranteed a place in the top tier.  So finishing bottom of the table means that you will still be there next year.  Category B participation is re-assessed annually.

So... Category B team finishes second last, Category A finishes last.  Category B team loses its place in the top tier, Category A team keeps it.

I can't think of any criteria that makes this fair.

There can be many systems - P&R, Licencing etc. and there are merits of each but teams playing in the same league, and competing for the same points each game playing under two separate rules for staying up at the end of the year just seems plain wrong to me.

It is a technical possibility that a B could win Super League and then fail the reassessment and drop down.

The chances of that are slim. If the Bs make the grade, they should be in, if not, then they won't.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I don't care about the rest of the criteria.

The implication is clear.  If you are Category A then you are guaranteed a place in the top tier.  So finishing bottom of the table means that you will still be there next year.  Category B participation is re-assessed annually.

So... Category B team finishes second last, Category A finishes last.  Category B team loses its place in the top tier, Category A team keeps it.

I can't think of any criteria that makes this fair.

There can be many systems - P&R, Licencing etc. and there are merits of each but teams playing in the same league, and competing for the same points each game playing under two separate rules for staying up at the end of the year just seems plain wrong to me.

A bit of detail that isn't war, is around how a club would be demoted. I feel a fairer system would be if a club weakens, they should be put 'on notice'. Otherwise, we could have P&R that is even more unpredictable than the current one. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

It all feels sensible to me. 

Things I like:

1. Expansion strategy

2. Identified growth targets as France, women's and London

3. No hard numbers for too division and silly commitments to promotion that conflict with grading like last time. 

4. Focus on branding, matchdays as events, and key calendar dates and peaks throughout the year. 

He good to see more detail, but a lot of this seems sensible. 

Also like that for say Wakefield or Cas who are almost certainly going to be Grade B, there is the possibility of attracting investment into infrastructure etc (as with licensing) to strengthen their position.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jdgsport/status/1575112810391969793

I wonder if Magic becomes an international triple header event in summer. 

[Tommygilf]

 

the Image in this is very indicative of the roadmap.

[whatmichaelsays]

And they were doing so well until that bit....

[Live after death]

I would imagine the A clubs will be the creme de la creme, Leeds Saints Wigan warrington Catalans. As they tick all the boxes and then some. Maybe then Both hull clubs as well. B’s will be clubs with lits yo improve crowds, stadium, on field performance, player development, strategic growth.

likes of Salford Huddersfield lack crowds, Cas lack ground and are competing  with 2 other Wakefield met clubs, Wakefield one new stand whilst the rest if the ground crumbles provably won’t save them. 
 

Leigh and Toulouse comfortable B’s so will be rubbing their hands.

Fev they wont want 2 never mind 3 Wakefield met teams

London no crowds, Bradford as beens never will be’s again. See Widnes, Halifax

the likes of York Newcastle Sheffield even Doncaster are strong candidates for future franchises.

[Moove]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I don't care about the rest of the criteria.

The implication is clear.  If you are Category A then you are guaranteed a place in the top tier.  So finishing bottom of the table means that you will still be there next year.  Category B participation is re-assessed annually.

So... Category B team finishes second last, Category A finishes last.  Category B team loses its place in the top tier, Category A team keeps it.

I can't think of any criteria that makes this fair.

There can be many systems - P&R, Licencing etc. and there are merits of each but teams playing in the same league, and competing for the same points each game playing under two separate rules for staying up at the end of the year just seems plain wrong to me.

It sounds like that's a short term thing. Just reading they're aiming to have a top division where all clubs are grade A's, so presumably the idea is that enough B's will make the step up in a shortish period then others will only be admitted as the pot grows. Dangles a carrot for those who don't already have their house in order I guess.

[Ackroman]

1 minute ago, whatmichaelsays said:

And they were doing so well until that last paragraph.....

divvying up the bill like a tight arrris at a Christmas Do. We can't help ourselves

[Barley Mow]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

A bit of detail that isn't war, is around how a club would be demoted. I feel a fairer system would be if a club weakens, they should be put 'on notice'. Otherwise, we could have P&R that is even more unpredictable than the current one. 

A Cat B team won't be able to decide how to recruit (or even who to retain) until the decision is made on their division for the following year. With on-field performance part of the assessment, that decision couldn't be made until after the end of the season, leaving them at a huge disadvantage in recruiting.

[Jughead]

Shame about the Magic Weekend. I’m a massive advocate for it and it was something I felt IMG would have liked and done better. Not sure it makes the Challenge Cup any more enticing now it’s gone. 

[David Shepherd]

Having now seen some of the reporting, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Certainly prepared to give it a chance.

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Will it be any different to last time Tommy? I think this is just a different way of doing exactly the same again.

For you, and indeed everyone else, have a read of James Gordon's thread.

[Live after death]

9 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I doubt it, which is why I expect teams like Leigh, Fev , Keighley and a boat load of others to vote this down because they have seen this story before. I similarly expect Newcastle and London to vote for it because they can see they would get in.

Well Leigh will be in anyway, Keighley probably fancy their chances for a franchise so Fev may be against.

[Ackroman]

1 minute ago, Jughead said:

Shame about the Magic Weekend. I’m a massive advocate for it and it was something I felt IMG would have liked and done better. Not sure it makes the Challenge Cup any more enticing now it’s gone. 

Magic weekend  - challenge cup quarters

[paulwalker71]

Everything will depend on the criteria for A, B and C 

I'm optimistic, but we need more detail

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It all feels sensible to me. 

Things I like:

1. Expansion strategy

2. Identified growth targets as France, women's and London

3. No hard numbers for too division and silly commitments to promotion that conflict with grading like last time. 

4. Focus on branding, matchdays as events, and key calendar dates and peaks throughout the year. 

He good to see more detail, but a lot of this seems sensible. 

Cautiously positive, I think.

The permanently open door as opposed to three-year closed drawbridge is a big plus.

[Jughead]

Just now, Ackroman said:

Magic weekend  - challenge cup quarters

Awful idea, as it’s been since it was very first mooted. Not knowing who is playing or when they’re playing as close as four weeks from the event is a truly shocking idea. 

[fighting irish]

I've got to read this (and think it through) before I can make detailed comment and come to any conclusions.

I'm already excited by the idea that clubs (B & C) could invest their way into the A grade list.

This is surely similar to the system in Australia.

Clubs are selected/promoted to the NRL by a detailed set of criteria.

With sufficient change and growth clubs can find their way into the top tier.

A system like this makes the path visible (with medium term growth) up the ladder, without the dog eat dog catastrophic damage done by yo-yo promotion and relegation.

[bromleybulldog]

5 minutes ago, Live after death said:

I would imagine the A clubs will be the creme de la creme, Leeds Saints Wigan warrington Catalans. As they tick all the boxes and then some. Maybe then Both hull clubs as well. B’s will be clubs with lits yo improve crowds, stadium, on field performance, player development, strategic growth.

likes of Salford Huddersfield lack crowds, Cas lack ground and are competing  with 2 other Wakefield met clubs, Wakefield one new stand whilst the rest if the ground crumbles provably won’t save them. 
 

Leigh and Toulouse comfortable B’s so will be rubbing their hands.

Fev they wont want 2 never mind 3 Wakefield met teams

London no crowds, Bradford as beens never will be’s again. See Widnes, Halifax

the likes of York Newcastle Sheffield even Doncaster are strong candidates for future franchises.

Someone should get in touch with Batley and tell them not to bother turning up on Sunday then.