IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[ShropshireBull]

3 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

Looks like the Bulls will be in favour

https://www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/article/1674/jason-hirst-statement-on-img-proposals

This is happening then as the clubs on that margin Fev York Keighley will all think they are getting in.

[Jughead]

26 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Has any club even so much has hinted anything other than happiness?

So far I’ve only seen Featherstone release anything official (others have said Bradford and York have) so the rest is pure speculation. There hasn’t been anything particularly negative from any club but I suppose it would be jumping the gun given how few details we actually have here. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Let's wait to see the announcement on funding first, maybe some of the Championship clubs may change their minds if it is taken away.

Which brings up another question, considering any vote should be taken before the '23 season commences and there is going to be a time lag before the TV contracts are negotiated, then surely some committal has to be made how much funding will be paid, if then there is a further drop for the SL clubs tough, it should not be on a proviso.

You often criticise SL clubs and their treatment of the wider game - but some of the things you write are far more aggressive, unreasonable and offensive to SL clubs than would be accepted the other way. 

All the things you criticise others for, you demonstrate, just from a Leigh angle. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

19 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

They were planning to move to alexander stadium, its an athletics track.

I've only seen them at Bees...when are they moving ?

[Dave T]

It's always interesting that we hear that clubs vote with self-interest all the time. We are seeing another example here of clubs supporting things that they view as right. 

[Harry Stottle]

42 minutes ago, Damien said:

You are talking about the French clubs having a say. They dont, they will either have to accept what is proposed or they will be out.

I am talking about everyone if the proposals are rejected.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's always interesting that we hear that clubs vote with self-interest all the time. We are seeing another example here of clubs supporting things that they view as right. 

To an extent yes.

That said I do think these proposals have been deliberately set out in a way that:

A) makes them more attractive and open to most clubs, and

B) the alternative is basically a non-starter.

[Tubby]

17 hours ago, Just Browny said:

I don't think it is harsh at all, they have played by the rules and had an owner who has put up the money. But it has underlined to the others that just having an honest set of hard working lads won't be enough, they either have to find their own benefactor or they are stuck where they are. 

I'm not sure anyone has advocated 'having an honest set of hard working lads' should be enough, simply that on-field results trump off-field ones.

[wiganermike]

23 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

If we had the proposed system in place today, what would next season's Super League look like? Leigh in/TO out? No change at all? Featherstone in/Salford out? Leigh and Featherstone in/Wakefield and TO out?

It isn't completely clear to me when the B clubs will receive their coefficient that ranks them for the following season (t1) - will it be at the start of season t0 or at the end of season t0? Presumably at the end of season t0. Right now, we'd be eagerly waiting on IMG and the RFL to publish a list of coefficients for B clubs. To be honest, I'd prefer to watch a Championship Grand Final!

You are correct regarding the timing of the club gradings being announced. The gradings used for 2025 will be announced at the end of the 2024 season for example. It can be seen in a screen grab from a journalist on twitter that was posted about 20 pages back. There will be a season under grading in 2024 where they are used for illustrative purposes only before they begin to affect demotion/promotion of clubs so clubs will have an idea of whether going up or down is a possibility in advance of 2025.

There should still be a Championship GF to watch, it just won't have promotion to SL determined by it. In RL terms the Championship and League 1 will be more analogous to the NSW/Queensland Cup competitions, something to be won in their own right rather than just a league to try to escape from. That will certainly be the end point for the proposed structure.

[ShropshireBull]

24 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I've only seen them at Bees...when are they moving ?

Apparently next season and with licensing maybe they can make a better pitch to investors and council but athletics tracks make it impossible to build a crowd or atmosphere unless you are at full capacity. Multi use means no use in reality. 

Its a shame as Brum is even bigger than Leeds and there is no union team either so a decent club could be built but at an athletics track, I dont see it.

just no infrastructure in the sport at all. 

[Archie Gordon]

4 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

You are correct regarding the timing of the club gradings being announced. The gradings used for 2025 will be announced at the end of the 2024 season for example. It can be seen in a screen grab from a journalist on twitter that was posted about 20 pages back. There will be a season under grading in 2024 where they are used for illustrative purposes only before they begin to affect demotion/promotion of clubs so clubs will have an idea of whether going up or down is a possibility in advance of 2025.

There should still be a Championship GF to watch, it just won't have promotion to SL determined by it. In RL terms the Championship and League 1 will be more analogous to the NSW/Queensland Cup competitions, something to be won in their own right rather than just a league to try to escape from. That will certainly be the end point for the proposed structure.

Thanks for confirming when the rankings are updated. I'd been looking for that screenshot of a PPT.

I understand that P&R is off the menu now but I remain fairly unexcited by watching clubs move their coefficients up and down a little and would still rather have things decided by a big final. Oh well.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

To an extent yes.

That said I do think these proposals have been deliberately set out in a way that:

A) makes them more attractive and open to most clubs, and

B) the alternative is basically a non-starter.

We have had votes through that have ousted half a dozen clubs, we have had licensing through, we have had votes for French and Canadian teams in, we have had votes for S8, we have had votes for P&R. Many of those contradict each other. 

In reality, we have clubs and owners who vote for what they believe is right - the missing ingredient here has imo been a strong and credible leader and long term strategic direction. 

[Dave T]

36 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I've only seen them at Bees...when are they moving ?

 

9 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Apparently next season and with licensing maybe they can make a better pitch to investors and council but athletics tracks make it impossible to build a crowd or atmosphere unless you are at full capacity. Multi use means no use in reality. 

Its a shame as Brum is even bigger than Leeds and there is no union team either so a decent club could be built but at an athletics track, I dont see it.

just no infrastructure in the sport at all. 

Guys, I literally typed Birmingham as the first non-traditional RL major city that came into my head.

[Gomersall]

17 minutes ago, Tubby said:

I'm not sure anyone has advocated 'having an honest set of hard working lads' should be enough, simply that on-field results trump off-field ones.

What point are you trying to make?

[Wolford6]

52 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

Looks like the Bulls will be in favour

https://www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/article/1674/jason-hirst-statement-on-img-proposals

Of course the Bulls are in favour. According to the council, we are due to get started on turning Odsal into a major stadium with an £18million grant followed by another grant for £50million to make it a showpiece.

And the council is mustard on accountancy. It's currently spending £2million on block paving a stretch 5m-wide x 200m one way street and an associated courtyard at North Parade in the city centre. They've been doing it for about 6 weeks and it's still nowhere near finished.

 

[ShropshireBull]

9 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Thanks for confirming when the rankings are updated. I'd been looking for that screenshot of a PPT.

I understand that P&R is off the menu now but I remain fairly unexcited by watching clubs move their coefficients up and down a little and would still rather have things decided by a big final. Oh well.

That only works if we didnt have one club buy it every year, I´d still be in favour of P and R if French clubs weren´t forced into the Champ on relegation and you had the same registration rules as SL and a salary cap at 1 million. Otherwise it hasn´t worked as every year someone has doped their way up for five years bar London who were also full time in a predominantly part time league. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

24 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Apparently next season and with licensing maybe they can make a better pitch to investors and council but athletics tracks make it impossible to build a crowd or atmosphere unless you are at full capacity. Multi use means no use in reality. 

Its a shame as Brum is even bigger than Leeds and there is no union team either so a decent club could be built but at an athletics track, I dont see it.

just no infrastructure in the sport at all. 

When I watch Skolars at New River I always think how rubbish having a track is..... Even a full Sarries suffers from this too

[Tubby]

25 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

What point are you trying to make?

That those in favour of P&R, based on on-field performance, arent saying that just having a team that grafts will get you promoted, I read Just Browny's post as suggesting that Leigh have effectively ruined the idea of P&R by putting together a team that has walked the Championship and it's my contention that they have proven it works.

[ShropshireBull]

5 minutes ago, Tubby said:

That those in favour of P&R, based on on-field performance, arent saying that just having a team that grafts will get you promoted, I read Just Browny's post as suggesting that Leigh have effectively ruined the idea of P&R by putting together a team that has walked the Championship and it's my contention that they have proven it works.

It works if you have a sugar daddy that creates a completely unsustainable model and makes building success instead of buying it impossible, so no, it doesnt work under the current criteria. 

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Tubby said:

I read Just Browny's post as suggesting that Leigh have effectively ruined the idea of P&R by putting together a team that has walked the Championship and it's my contention that they have proven it works.

It works if you get a parachute payment and funding distribution that dwarfs everyone else in your division, and then you recruit a team so filled with foreigners that it couldn't even take the field in Super League.

Thankfully, it seems, such nonsense won't get you anywhere in these plans.

[wiganermike]

12 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

That only works if we didnt have one club buy it every year, I´d still be in favour of P and R if French clubs weren´t forced into the Champ on relegation and you had the same registration rules as SL and a salary cap at 1 million. Otherwise it hasn´t worked as every year someone has doped their way up for five years bar London who were also full time in a predominantly part time league. 

The shift from a system whereby winning the competition guarantees promotion to one where a place in the top tier is gained through improving club infrastructure to increase the size of the club should see an end to clubs essentially buying their way to the Championship title as the money would be more wisely spent on areas other than the playing roster so as to improve the club overall. Competing at the top end of the Championship will help with grading reviews no doubt but as Batley have shown in the last few seasons that doesn't require breaking the bank to achieve. The Championship was a better competition prior to the change in funding distribution and spending that came in during the Super 8s period. The removal of the necessity to win the competition in a win or bust effort should see an end to the all-conquering behemoth team each season we have been seeing at that level.

[ShropshireBull]

1 minute ago, wiganermike said:

The shift from a system whereby winning the competition guarantees promotion to one where a place in the top tier is gained through improving club infrastructure to increase the size of the club should see an end to clubs essentially buying their way to the Championship title as the money would be more wisely spent on areas other than the playing roster so as to improve the club overall. Competing at the top end of the Championship will help with grading reviews no doubt but as Batley have shown in the last few seasons that doesn't require breaking the bank to achieve. The Championship was a better competition prior to the change in funding distribution and spending that came in during the Super 8s period. The removal of the necessity to win the competition in a win or bust effort should see an end to the all-conquering behemoth team each season we have been seeing at that level.

Last promotions if I assume Leigh are : Leigh, Toulouse, Toronto, London, Hull KR. All full time and two outside UK. Clear that P and R when we cannot have majority be full time without funding just isnt working for majority of clubs unless it were salary capped. 

[Tubby]

33 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

It works if you have a sugar daddy that creates a completely unsustainable model and makes building success instead of buying it impossible, so no, it doesnt work under the current criteria. 

If that club can then build on that success and maintain a sustainable place in SL, then I’d say it can work. Ultimately, their opportunity is in their hands. An opportunity removed without P&R.

I agree with ginger Jon that the parachute payment makes it a little unfair, but if a club can get it together on the field promotion is possible. 

I’m not a Leigh fan. 

[Gomersall]

23 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Last promotions if I assume Leigh are : Leigh, Toulouse, Toronto, London, Hull KR. All full time and two outside UK. Clear that P and R when we cannot have majority be full time without funding just isnt working for majority of clubs unless it were salary capped. 

I thought the Championship was under an SC? Didn’t the governing body/bodies decide it would be the same as the SL clubs so in effect virtually no Championship club could spend up to it.

[idrewthehaggis]

16 hours ago, gittinsfan said:

I have read up to page 17 and  will read the full thread.A lot of people seem happy with the A clubs and the upper class B  clubs.No body seems  to give a thought to the lower clubs. But that's SL fans down to a tee.

Well it does seem in the first instance, a plan for a couple of "Big" clubs, a briefer thought about the other dozen senior one and not much else really.

But I want to see the finer details before commenting.

I want to see if this is about the RL family acting together to level up, rather than hoping for a trickle down from the elite. As that never works. 

I want to see this take RL forward in Europe, not just a few small towns beside the Pennines.

However I can not remove a haunting gut feeling this is about protecting and rigging the system even more.

Please convince me otherwise forumistas.