IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Applying discipline, patience and money could easily turn some bad ideas from our past into good ideas today.

Hopefully! 

[Harry Stottle]

39 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They're upset because the result on field is not the sole arbiter of who is in what competition.

To feckin right, you keep harping back to Wendyball when it suits your argument but on field results matter in that game, I don't want to watch games that have no consequence of the result in respect of not mattering if you lose.

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

We are meant to be a summer sport! A long season starting in winter and finishing well into the autumn aren't really the best times to showcase summer rugby.

Always suspected this much but never been confirmed!

[hunsletgreenandgold]

6 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

HG I get that that,  But this report dosnt even have any credibility whatsoever. It might as well have said, " We are going to make changes to the game to make it stronger but havn't worked out the detail just yet, however here are a few vague ideas that we have thought about"

As I say mate you're looking for the who, what, why, where, when answers and I completely respect that to you this offers little without that level of detail attached to this announcement. I and others are just looking at this for an outline of what the previously even more vague 'changes' might eventually look like. I, like you am very much looking forward to seeing this all in detailed documentation that can be properly scrutinised in the near future. 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

To feckin right, you keep harping back to Wendyball when it suits your argument but on field results matter in that game, I don't want to watch games that have no consequence of the result in respect of not mattering if you lose.

Losing isn't without consequences, just not the consequences you want.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, JohnM said:

You mean to say that a club can be relegated? Isn't that competitive?

Yes, one club can.  Some others can't.

Isn't that uncompetitive?

[Harry Stottle]

46 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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.

So why the tirade after the final, shouldn't you just be claiming "Ah well it's just buisness after all"

And yes it has not been good watching Leigh games for that reason Tommy, but is that Leigh's fault.

[Harry Stottle]

49 minutes ago, 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. 

Wiggin and Hull FC, good point they should be category 'B's' but I bet they won't be.

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't like the current 27 with loops but I dont like 22 league games either tbh as a fan

Its only because of the World Cup its 27, it would have been 29 otherwise. I never thought you minded loops either!

There is no way clubs will accept 22, 29 to 22 is a heck of a drop which isn't going to happen in my opinion. Some of these games will be replaced by something I feel (and I hope that isn't Challenge Cup group games) This is to me is always why 14 makes sense and 26 games but it doesn't look like that is going to happen.

[crashmon]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Is your last inclusion one of those that people are saying is of fans only thinking of their own Paul?

Does London really deserve to be fastracked above some other teams?

If you want to attracted high paying sponser and TV deal you need a london based club... Just a fact

Now I'm not saying that should be Broncos or Skolars.  I'm a broncos fan, but even I think with the current broncos leadership the broncos brand is too tarnished, but you will need to go to where the money is and thats London

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

So Cat A clubs aren’t assessed annually? What if in real terms a Cat A club actually takes their eye off the ball and complacently slips into the top end of Cat B?

The RFL site states "‘Category A’ clubs will be guaranteed participation in the top tier" so they can't be assessing annually otherwise this guarantee won't be possible.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

So why the tirade after the final, shouldn't you just be claiming "Ah well it's just buisness after all"

And yes it has not been good watching Leigh games for that reason Tommy, but is that Leigh's fault.

It is the systems fault you have watched pointless dross all year Harry. As I've said, once the businesses are roughly comparable, it starts to return to being sport played out in the pitch (though I'll keep my opinions on Morgan Knowles off here!).

[Gerrumonside ref]

Dave Woods on the BBC saying the ‘Super League’ branding likely to be scrapped.

Something that represents the whole of the game likely to come instead.

As for the other details it seems a fudge between those who want franchising and those who want P and R.

Is this something they nicked as an idea from European basketball?

I’m all for not re-inventing the wheel when it comes to creating things but how successful has the model been?

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Wiggin and Hull FC, good point they should be category 'B's' but I bet they won't be.

Well right now they would surely be A. If they lost their grounds that would doubtless be reconsidered.

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The RFL site states "‘Category A’ clubs will be guaranteed participation in the top tier" so they can't be assessing annually otherwise this guarantee won't be possible.

Why's that?

[Agbrigg]

9 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

As I say mate you're looking for the who, what, why, where, when answers and I completely respect that to you this offers little without that level of detail attached to this announcement. I and others are just looking at this for an outline of what the previously even more vague 'changes' might eventually look like. I, like you am very much looking forward to seeing this all in detailed documentation that can be properly scrutinised in the near future. 

Yes, and thats when the real fun begins 

[Harry Stottle]

38 minutes ago, 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

 

 

You can only use player pathway if it is applicable to all clubs.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

You can only use player pathway if it is applicable to all clubs.

Indeed, was that mentioned today? If not it seems a glaring ommission imo.

[Harry Stottle]

36 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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?

Stop being stupid it doesn't become you.

[Harry Stottle]

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Losing isn't without consequences, just not the consequences you want.

Educate me please.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Stop being stupid it doesn't become you.

Tbf Harry you did suggest that by being called Manchester (and therefore representing place with a much larger population), despite playing in Leigh, was why they would get a higher crowd at the LSV.

I think its more complex than that. However, it is also a key pillar of the argument we see, and I know you disagree with, from people advocating for London, Birmingham and whoever else to be in the top tier just because they represent a larger population. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Educate me please.

You want them to be relegated. If they keep losing they'll lose crowd numbers and many levels of commercial interest too. Ideally, they won't keep losing.

[David Shepherd]

16 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The RFL site states "‘Category A’ clubs will be guaranteed participation in the top tier" so they can't be assessing annually otherwise this guarantee won't be possible.

Why not? They're only guaranteed participation while they're Cat A. How will they know they're still Cat A without regular assessment?

[David Shepherd]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Educate me please.

From what I've seen Harry, On-field performance will be a major factor in the grading.

[Bolton Leyther]

42 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

There aren't any "relegation places".

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

Fair enough.

What I'd read suggested relegation would remain for category B clubs but that seems not to be the case.