IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[Dave T]

Just now, Jughead said:

Ah, I didn’t read it as all clubs to be assessed, just those who are a B but there should be some kind of assessment point. 

Tbh I've read a lot, and can't recall what was fact and what was opinion, so it may not be the case. I'd expect Cat A's to get a quick assessment to confirm there has been no material change. 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

They just have a different preference to you. Yours isnt right and theirs wrong. 

It is business now but we have relegation decided by on-field performance. 

Exactly, and IMG have recommended we get rid of that aspect. 

I accept it is a different preference. I don't watch LUFC because I really like being in a chance of winning trophies or even a love of competitive football, per se.

If I wanted that purity of sport unsullied by the grubbiness of finances, and I know lots of people have taken this option in recent years, I'd go watch a team at a much lower level for my "fix". 

[Moove]

6 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

But how can you build with the axe over your head every season. What sponsorship deals long term or long term plan can be made with that, it´s absurd. 

Surely Wakefield are showing that can be done now despite being under constant threat of relegation? With a Cat B license they'd have better protection assuming they'd be one of the top scoring Cat B holders.

Unless the criteria is going to change drastically from season to season then clubs in that sort of situation are going to have a bit more security even without the guarantee of a Cat A.

Presumably the aim is also to help such clubs attract further investment knowing what they'd need to do to reach a Cat A and cement their position in the top division?

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Exactly, and IMG have recommended we get rid of that aspect. 

I accept it is a different preference. I don't watch LUFC because I really like being in a chance of winning trophies or even a love of competitive football, per se.

If I wanted that purity of sport unsullied by the grubbiness of finances, and I know lots of people have taken this option in recent years, I'd go watch a team at a much lower level for my "fix". 

Again, none of this is relevant to you claiming this is not sport. 

Whenever you claim RL is not sport, you deserve challenging on it, because it is factually wrong. 

But it's not an interesting conversation, and it'll be along again in a few weeks anyway, so will leave there

[Agbrigg]

1 minute ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Whilst this particular aspect of what IMG have done very much comes across as a consultancy firm coming in and stacking up a load of recommendations and saying 'now off you pop to fix it all' - this relationship is somewhat different. It's a 12 year strategical partnership - both the RFL/SL and IMG recognise this has to be a longer process, possibly with slight iterations as the years go by. But I do believe this is the right approach when trying to enact long term change. I'd be concerned as you are if this was just handed over to the RFL/SL to flesh out the finer details. 

You are presuming that though. No details or facts to how it will be fleshed out. I will say it again, this so called  report is so badly constructed and vague doesn't contain anything factual. Even you are making presumptions so that should be ring alarm bells. 

 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I don't mind if a well thought out strategy on business performance is the criteria to be in the top tier (franchising).

I also don't mind if performance on the pitch is the criteria to be in the top tier (P&R).

But to mix the two up at the same time as in this model doesn't feel fair to me.  It ringfences some teams from the consequences of poor on-field performances and not others. 

Business may not be fair, but sport is supposed to be.

The reality is they are trying to blend the two.

I wouldn't mind the franchising option, but on a very basic level I don't think there is the capital or interest to support that in Europe at the moment.

As such we are now looking at licensing. Bs could be changed for more competitive Bs outside the comp, but otherwise they are exempt from Relegation too. Hopefully that encourages investment in those clubs to put a genuine distance between themselves and the hunting pack.

[Dave T]

I'll be stunned if there is a regular exchange of clubs in the top tier in the B category. 

The argument for getting rid of P&R is to provide certainty and long term planning to avoid catastrophic impacts of relegation. Chopping and changing Grade B clubs doesn't change that. 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Again, none of this is relevant to you claiming this is not sport. 

Whenever you claim RL is not sport, you deserve challenging on it, because it is factually wrong. 

Curtly saying "none of this is relevant" repeatedly to someone trying to engage with you doesn't make you sound clever here Dave.

If you have nothing to add I will leave it there.

[JohnM]

59 minutes ago, Bolton Leyther said:

Why even maintain the pretence it's competitive sport?

It's not a pretence. It IS competitive sport. There are winners .and there are losers. The best teams win. The worst teams lose. Same as always.

[Damien]

I think the Challege Cup being moved to earlier in the season to May (hopefully the end of May so early rounds not too early in the season or pre-season) is a great move and really needed. That gives a good 4 months of space between that and the Grand Final and allows a better spread of events.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Curtly saying "none of this is relevant" repeatedly to someone trying to engage with you doesn't make you sound clever here Dave.

If you have nothing to add I will leave it there.

My challenge is to you saying "This is not sport". Again.

I'm not the one trying to sound clever here. 

[Harry Stottle]

40 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

My statement was about how the most visible Super League in a rugby league town might not actually be rugby's Super League.

Your statement said 

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

I was merely pointing out that the LSV is home to both teams, and giving my reasons why I think you were correct.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

It's not a pretence. It IS competitive sport. There are winners .and there are losers. The best teams win. The worst teams lose. Same as always.

Two teams playing in the same league.  One is guaranteed to be in it next year, the other isn't.  How is that competitive?

There may be winners and losers but it isn't about the teams and the results.

[Barley Mow]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

...I'm not the one trying to sound clever here. 

I can't believe anyone would ever accuse you of being clever Dave! 

[yipyee]

Licensing back yessssssssssssss

We can finally put the P&R failed project behind us along with the middle 8s nonsense.

Interestingly this is an approach I commented on here with a while ago. Although mine was to give A a 3 year licence, B a 2 year and C 1 year so each club could build / be reviewed appropriately.

What one would expect now is Cat A levels would be increased each time we have several clubs over achieving.

I would guess these would be similar to the past as in:

Attendance

Ground

commercial activity / success

Player pathway (academy)

On field performance

 

 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We are only getting to 14 teams when we have 12+ Grade A teams. On the plan that is 20??

Sure, I meant longer term. But for now, with the removal of loop fixtures and MW, surely it's 22 reg season games + CC + Play offs - so you'd still think there will be plenty of side fulfilling 26+ games a season. Which is more inline with how many the NRL clubs play. 

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Moove said:

Surely Wakefield are showing that can be done now despite being under constant threat of relegation? With a Cat B license they'd have better protection assuming they'd be one of the top scoring Cat B holders.

Unless the criteria is going to change drastically from season to season then clubs in that sort of situation are going to have a bit more security even without the guarantee of a Cat A.

Presumably the aim is also to help such clubs attract further investment knowing what they'd need to do to reach a Cat A and cement their position in the top division?

Having only a small link to the goings on at Trin, I think Wakefield have only gotten going because there is a very real fear that just "not getting relegated" wasn't going to be enough going forward. That certainly has helped move things along with the likes of the Council funding/backing for example. 

I don't think the Bs will see radical changes annually, but there is likely to be a period in which certain improvements need to be made/worked towards.

[The storm]

I like everything they have said

It makes total and absolute sense

[yipyee]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Two teams playing in the same league.  One is guaranteed to be in it next year, the other isn't.  How is that competitive?

There may be winners and losers but it isn't about the teams and the results.

The point is to win, not to avoid bottom place.

No one gets relegated from horse races or tennis comps etc..

Yet the next tournament everyone re-enters to get as deep into the contest as possible.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

But it´s still zero certanty to build, trying to grow revenue with no certainty just creasts the liklihood it happens. 

I don't think we will see annual changes to the makeup of Super League, and I suspect the B licences will have some improvement targets associated with them

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Sure, I meant longer term. But for now, with the removal of loop fixtures and MW, surely it's 22 reg season games + CC + Play offs - so you'd still think there will be plenty of side fulfilling 26+ games a season. Which is more inline with how many the NRL clubs play. 

I suppose the question is, is 23 guaranteed rounds enough for clubs?

[Jughead]

Just now, yipyee said:

Licensing back yessssssssssssss

We can finally put the P&R failed project behind us along with the middle 8s nonsense.

Interestingly this is an approach I commented on here with a while ago. Although mine was to give A a 3 year licence, B a 2 year and C 1 year so each club could build / be reviewed appropriately.

What one would expect now is Cat A levels would be increased each time we have several clubs over achieving.

I would guess these would be similar to the past as in:

Attendance

Ground

commercial activity / success

Player pathway (academy)

On field performance

 

 

Can you fairly judge most of the Championship sides likely to be a B against the current Super League clubs likely to be a B when the Super League clubs have an academy and most of the Championship sides don’t? Will they open academy licences to more teams?

[Harry Stottle]

45 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Your comment was that Manchester United will get more people to the LSV because they are "Manchester", whereas Leigh Centurions are "Leigh".

Surely you haven't done a most spectacular avant face and want to advocate teams rebranding to larger "city names".

In referance to Leigh and Manchester I also used the word population for the respective attendances, why have you missed that out?

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think the Challege Cup being moved to earlier in the season to May (hopefully the end of May so early rounds not too early in the season or pre-season) is a great move and really needed. That gives a good 4 months of space between that and the Grand Final and allows a better spread of events.

They mentioned the "rhythm of the season" and big events, and this being moved seems to be a key part of that. Take it Wembley is still a given.

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

urgh, how uninspiring..

Just what else did you expect IMG to come up with anyway?  It's not as if they have a lot to work with after all.