Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


gingerjon
 Share

Recommended Posts


Just now, 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.

You've got to hope so, but on principle I think what I put was right.

As ever, what happens to the "B" teams" is what will define this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 9
  • Haha 1

"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

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute 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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
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...