Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


gingerjon
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

Not sure if its just me, but is this not just incentivising investment and helping to potentially bring in larger backers who can make a difference? 

Yes it is "just you" dreaming as always, that what they have proposed ends with larger backers.

They have proposed that the top clubs in SL are effectively ring fenced against relegation by making them "Category A" clubs which is just a name. However if you look at the pattern of promotion and relegation the reality is it's the London's, Leigh's, Toronto's and Toulouse that act as the fall guys.

Last time a top side and their owner were relegated it was Hull Kingston Rovers, and as has been noted they came back immediately, stronger and better for the experience. "Category "A" is made up drivel, just like you making up the idea of "larger backers".

Then we have the only other proposal of note, which is cut out the loop games (and cut out thousands of pounds of revenue). That's utter nonsense. Dave Woods rightly asks how playing less games, many of them well attended derby games, be justified, as it is merely a call to cut clubs revenue significantly. It's also a cut in the number of big clashes that SKY like to show as they get the audiences.

It's only a few people on here who think third games are a nonsense, but go back to the days Leeds and Bradford slugged it out over three, four and fives games a season. IIRC. Very big audiences at home and on the ground.

My mum and Dad told me you don't get owt for nowt, and Nowt is what IMG has come up with........

Unless you can name us these "larger backers"🙄

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

We'll have to wait and see for the actual criteria, but nothing I've read so far suggests that geography will be massive dealbreaker for a club, ahead of other factors. IMG are looking to improve and enhance existing strengths, not take a punt on speculative projects. 

If I were a Leigh fan, for instance, I'd be quite confident that Leigh would be ranked higher than London or Newcastle as things stand today. 

don't really agree with the plans but I do agree with all this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But I'm sure the likes of Bradford, Newcastle and London aren't feeling as positive about the Championship.

I think most people's perception has been that the Championship has been a one-sided freakshow overall this year.

It's certainly been, one single game last weekend aside, the most predictable competition we've had this season.

  • Like 2

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

27 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Actually yes. If we dropped down a division and Moran funded a squad that our revenues alone could never support it would be exactly the same scenario. Within the rules but not exactly giving a lot of hope to the Yorks and Halifaxs of this world.

FWIW I don't think Moran has put in much money in years: his contributions have usually been transfer fees for 'bauble' players like Johns and Inglis, not propping up running costs. It's a nice luxury to have had.

The other important thing with Moran (and I'm not blindly defending him or my club as I appreciate how lucky we are) - is that on his watch, and I have to assume with some of his investment we have invested in many of the things that we want clubs to invest in. 

We want better facilities - we have done that. 

We want quality training facilities and gyms - tick.

We want quality youth structures - tick.

We want investment and effort in the community - done.

We want investment in the womens game - yup.

We want focus on marketing and matchday experience - yeah(ish) as I am still on a downer with them this year!

We also want excitement, transfer fees, competitive teams - absolutely, we have made finals, won cups, won LLS etc. 

What Moran hasn't done is build a shell of a club with a load of good players.

And tbh - all the above is the reason why I think Wire are a grade A club (I know that's a post for the other thread!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

We'll have to wait and see for the actual criteria, but nothing I've read so far suggests that geography will be massive dealbreaker for a club, ahead of other factors.

Weighted criteria, which is basically what we're told is coming, may include geography but it could easily favour "ease of travelling support and/or likelihood of strong local derbies for TV" over "are you blinking miles from the M62" ...

  • Like 1

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

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Rather than London or Batley getting a bit of a leftfield victory and finding themselves in the top tier out of the blue.

I do see what you mean, but ever since I read Underdogs I've harboured a belief that Batley have quietly been doing a lot of things right for a long time now. So, I'd never have picked them out as potential finalists at the start of the season, but equally I'm not actually genuinely surprised by where they've ended up. Not to the extent I would be if we were talking about say Dewsbury anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

If I were a Leigh fan, for instance, I'd be quite confident that Leigh would be ranked higher than London or Newcastle as things stand today. 

on what grounds?

On-field performance certainly, but could Leigh thrive without Beaumont's personal annual investment which is the same as we have with London.

Are Leigh's reserve and academy structures any better than those of Newcastle or London?

All 3 clubs are tenants so does that make them a better club than Barrow who still own their own ground and have managed to totally reinvigorate their club with some impressive community development?

I'm not talking about league positions as someone has to finish top or bottom and as we know that can hinge on many factors, squad strength or just rank bad luck with injuries to key players.

Until the grading criteria has been released is all just speculation anyway but I think finances and how clubs are funded will be reflected in the grading - clubs which generate all their income without a financial benefactor should get a higher points scoring than those who are subsidised by someone's personal fortune, as that individual could walk away at any point leaving their club in a precarious financial position 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gingerjon said:

Weighted criteria, which is basically what we're told is coming, may include geography but it could easily favour "ease of travelling support and/or likelihood of strong local derbies for TV" over "are you blinking miles from the M62" ...

If I was an outsider and read between the lines of posts here, I would have to assume that during the last round of licensing, the RFL made some really controversial decisions and made drastic changes based on geography. 

in 2009 we had:

2 x Hull teams

Wire, Saints and Wigan all within spitting distance (plus Widnes then added 3 years later).

Leeds, Bradford, Hudds all in West Yorkshire, with Wakefield and Cas just round the corner in the same council (i think).

We also had Salford along the M62. 

From a geographical expansion point of view we had London and Catalans (who were already in SL) and Crusaders were the one team added, and who had made their way through the pyramid.

The facts just don't back up the challenges around geography. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

I do see what you mean, but ever since I read Underdogs I've harboured a belief that Batley have quietly been doing a lot of things right for a long time now. So, I'd never have picked them out as potential finalists at the start of the season, but equally I'm not actually genuinely surprised by where they've ended up. Not to the extent I would be if we were talking about say Dewsbury anyway. 

I expect the number of people who predicted Batley would win promotion to SL at any stage in 2022 to be zero. Therefore I think if it were to happen, describing it as leftfield would absolutely be fair 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Death to the Rah Rah's said:

on what grounds?

On-field performance certainly, but could Leigh thrive without Beaumont's personal annual investment which is the same as we have with London.

Are Leigh's reserve and academy structures any better than those of Newcastle or London?

All 3 clubs are tenants so does that make them a better club than Barrow who still own their own ground and have managed to totally reinvigorate their club with some impressive community development?

I'm not talking about league positions as someone has to finish top or bottom and as we know that can hinge on many factors, squad strength or just rank bad luck with injuries to key players.

Until the grading criteria has been released is all just speculation anyway but I think finances and how clubs are funded will be reflected in the grading - clubs which generate all their income without a financial benefactor should get a higher points scoring than those who are subsidised by someone's personal fortune, as that individual could walk away at any point leaving their club in a precarious financial position 

I'd hope all that will be a taken into account in the grading criteria. But for the three clubs mentioned, Leigh would still come out on top due to its underlying fan base. 

If each of the three had to rely solely on funds generated, London would close tomorrow, and Newcastle would sink quickly back to the bottom of L1. Leigh would still be there or thereabouts in the Championship. 

My hunch is that Derek ends up voting for this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Yes, some of the hysteria - with Rod Studd and the likes claiming that Wigan and Leeds can now pick up 0 points and be safe - is just that, hysteria. 

This is what I meant with my point in the other thread - the strong clubs should be removed from the conversation, it's how the game gets more clubs to be like them.

These changes will benefit lower clubs far more than the Wigans and Leeds of the world.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see any of the journos making comments on how all of this is going to affect current/future broadcasting deals and also how they plan to distribute central funding. Anybody seen any comments on this?

Removing loop fixtures and the magic weekend is absolutely the right thing to do, as is increasing the focus on internationals. But how do Sky feel about this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If I was an outsider and read between the lines of posts here, I would have to assume that during the last round of licensing, the RFL made some really controversial decisions and made drastic changes based on geography. 

in 2009 we had:

2 x Hull teams

Wire, Saints and Wigan all within spitting distance (plus Widnes then added 3 years later).

Leeds, Bradford, Hudds all in West Yorkshire, with Wakefield and Cas just round the corner in the same council (i think).

We also had Salford along the M62. 

From a geographical expansion point of view we had London and Catalans (who were already in SL) and Crusaders were the one team added, and who had made their way through the pyramid.

The facts just don't back up the challenges around geography. 

You did get an extra point for being X miles from another team. It's how London got *just* enough points.

But that's what I mean about it being one thing among many.

  • Like 1

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

1 minute ago, Nothus said:

I can't see any of the journos making comments on how all of this is going to affect current/future broadcasting deals and also how they plan to distribute central funding. Anybody seen any comments on this?

Removing loop fixtures and the magic weekend is absolutely the right thing to do, as is increasing the focus on internationals. But how do Sky feel about this?

The only reference appears to be that the consultation involved broadcasters too. But I raised a similar point somewhere else (maybe this thread) - that we have 12m left on the current deal, we have to have a compelling story for a new or existing partner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Pulga said:

I'm not sure what the problem is. Geography will come into it.

Geography is the problem.  I can't think of an advantage for two potless clubs based a hundred miles - or even fifty miles - apart "merging".  There are very few mergers.   One entity takes over the other.  If the entity being taken over has no assets, whether tangible or intangible, what's the motivation ?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

You did get an extra point for being X miles from another team. It's how London got *just* enough points.

But that's what I mean about it being one thing among many.

Exactly - and whilst I hated the criteria being so prescriptive (in the name of transparency) - some acknowledgement of geographical position is perfectly sensible.

But clubs weren't burnt and shafted based on geography. 

The more controversial change was in 1995 when we removed SIX Northern clubs from the top division and replaced them with London and Paris. If I was arguing about being shafted due to geography, I'd be using this point!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  Only clubs so far i can see on the A list are Catalan,Wigan,Saints,Warrington,Leeds,and Hull K.R. loop fixtures dropped is a  good thing .Think Magic has been good for the games exposure and see no need to drop it.Can't see SKY paying the same or more under the new proposals i think they will not renew.We have to give it a chance the game is nor progressing under the present structure.Grass roots need money to help future player development.

You don’t think Hull FC are worthy of Cat. A?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  Only clubs so far i can see on the A list are Catalan,Wigan,Saints,Warrington,Leeds,and Hull K.R. loop fixtures dropped is a  good thing .Think Magic has been good for the games exposure and see no need to drop it.Can't see SKY paying the same or more under the new proposals i think they will not renew.We have to give it a chance the game is nor progressing under the present structure.Grass roots need money to help future player development.

I think you’ve got KR instead of FC there 😂😂

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Your lot only tagged onto it because of a Kiwi 13 years with bis 'All Golds' after those in the UK did the trail blazing.

Just as well they did, really.

  • Like 1

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

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Worries me that our journos don’t know basic facts about our games history

Don't make me check things. I don't want to have to go and check things.

Edited by gingerjon
  • Haha 1

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

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...