IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[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.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Damien

[ShropshireBull]

16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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

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

[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! 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Barley Mow

[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?

[ShropshireBull]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

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

Great but the fact they don´t know but other clubs do is the problem. 

[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.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Big Picture

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

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

I took that as read H and didn't think it needed repeating it is so obvious? If Leigh renamed themselves Manchester Centurions would the affects be similar? Are you now a fan of designated target areas?

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Great but the fact they don´t know but other clubs do is the problem. 

They don't know now, but I suspect as we move forwards we'll see things change.

[Bolton Leyther]

21 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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

There could feasibly be a situation where a category A club ends the season in the relegation places yet a category B club which has outperformed the category A club and finished in a non-relegation place is relegated instead.

If the primary determining factor for relegation in that scenario is the category of the business and not sporting performance, there is a very clear impact on the competitive nature of the competition.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

8 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

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. 

 

Well no, not really. I'm seeing this today for exactly what it is - proposals. I'm getting the impression you assumed today's announcement was going to be the fully fleshed documentation, including the finer details - it was never going to be that. But what I can say with some confidence is that these proposals aren't just pie in the sky objectives that will never be met - to me they read as the start of a journey to move RL into stronger more competitive and prosperous future. It's in nobodies interests for this to fail or fall by the wayside. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Bolton Leyther said:

There could feasibly be a situation where a category A club ends the season in the relegation places yet a category B club which has outperformed the category A club and finished in a non-relegation place is relegated instead.

If the primary determining factor for relegation in that scenario is the category of the business and not sporting performance, there is a very clear impact on the competitive nature of the competition.

There aren't any "relegation places".

Everyone is being encouraged to be Grade A as soon as possible.

[Damien]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

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.

This is something I have alluded to in other threads and it is badly needed. I have been critical of the way the sport has put all its eggs in one basket and loaded everything towards the Grand Final and a late Challenge Cup final. The sport did used to have much more of a rhythm with more peaks, whether that was cup tournaments or proper mid-season internationals and hopefully we are getting back to that.