Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The cynic in me would suggest they are trying to weed out the weak from the strong in that respect.

If you are a B, have support and the potential to have the funds to build, I suspect your place in super league will be supported in this system.

I think it could go either way. There is a big risk of perhaps adding the odd club to the Cat A group, but ending up with a huge gap (on and off field) to the remaining Cat B's.

Edited by Barley Mow
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That's because the overall business (ie Super League Europe) needs its strongest assets in to keep its own aims and objectives. It isn't in a position to lose a Leeds, Wigan, Wire, Saints etc.

Which is all very well. But the decision to exempt them from the consequences of failure, while the consequences remain applicable to the remaining clubs, results in a negative impact on the integrity and  competitiveness of the competition, the existence of which you seem to be denying. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 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. 

Maybe it won't be every season, maybe it will be based on improvements taking place (for example Cas actually building a ground). You can't just keep saying "we will do this" now, other clubs can overtake you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This isn't sport Harry, its business.

Ah right now I understand, all these different emotions I have expierenced in a lifetime being involved in this 'buisness' have just been figments of the imagination, A little like your spat on these pages after the Grand Final Tommy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bolton Leyther said:

Which is all very well. But the decision to exempt them from the consequences of failure, while the consequences remain applicable to the remaining clubs, results in a negative impact on the integrity and  competitiveness of the competition, the existence of which you seem to be denying. 

The Bs can't just be relegated because of results either, so the integrity isn't affected in that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Ah right now I understand, all these different emotions I have expierenced in a lifetime being involved in this 'buisness' have just been figments of the imagination, A little like your spat on these pages after the Grand Final Tommy?

Saints and Leeds are comparable. Arguably Leigh are close to that bracket too, certainly more so than most.

As you have seen this year H, thumping teams who have no hope of beating you isn't fun for anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Well I hope you are right, because if I had paid an organisation and then got handed something like this, I would have told them where to shove their invoice. 

For instance cat AB or C . Not one single suggestion as to their respective merit. In other words they come up with this plan and then say, you decide what they mean, who qualifies, appeals proceeded etc etc etc.  

It's just garbage 

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They're upset because the result on field is not the sole arbiter of who is in what competition. That is a fundamental distinction from the initial post I replied to about what "sport" is.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jughead said:

Can an A become a B? There’s nothing on that in this release. 

Good point, I'm not sure. Perhaps that will make A more difficult to achieve.

I suppose the clubs who don't own their own grounds or haven't got long leases would be most vulnerable to this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 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. 

Yes, this is the difference. 

They are not saying "This is what YOU should do", they are saying "This is what WE should do". 

That is an important difference. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Can an A become a B? There’s nothing on that in this release. 

 

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Good point, I'm not sure. Perhaps that will make A more difficult to achieve.

I suppose the clubs who don't own their own grounds or haven't got long leases would be most vulnerable to this. 

I thought I read this was an annual assessment, which suggests they can change. 

In fact they have to be able to change, otherwise Bradford would still be an A! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I think it could go either way. There is a big risk of perhaps adding the odd club to the Cat A group, but ending up with a huge gap (on and off field) to the remaining Cat B's.

I think again perhaps that is the aim? Medium term at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

 

I thought I read this was an annual assessment, which suggests they can change. 

In fact they have to be able to change, otherwise Bradford would still be an A! 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I think again perhaps that is the aim? Medium term at least.

The suggestion was that the aim is to pull as many clubs as possible up to Cat A (and they don't seem to be looking beyond medium term).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They're upset because the result on field is not the sole arbiter of who is in what competition. That is a fundamental distinction from the initial post I replied to about what "sport" is.

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.

  • Like 5

"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

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 😆

Edited by Dave T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...