Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

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.

No but you dont have to , you can spend 1.4 million like Derek then blow everyone away. Like Toulouse next year, like Toronto before. It doesn´t make the competition healthy. 

If you want P and R from Champ you have to make it so clubs growing sensibily off the field with revenue streams can compete and not think this is pointless without being doped. We havent done that so I cant say it´s worked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Dave T said:

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. 

OK point taken,

But what about what I said about the voting and clubs under SL knowing what they will recieve come '24, it could alter the way some think. 

And as I have said I fully expect Leigh to be a SL club next season, but my concern is also for the game as I see it not just for the benefit of SL clubs, so my angle is somewhat obtuse stretching beyond just thinking of my club.

PS. My aggression could be borne somewhat in my club taking a lot of flack for a long time on these pages from a lot of quarters.

Edited by Harry Stottle
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Its a shame as Brum is even bigger than Leeds and there is no union team 

A Moseley season ticket holder splutters into his tea. Alright we're a bit bruised and battered, and recent relegation to level 3 is a far cry from the heights of going unbeaten for over a season and providing multiple England and Lions players, but we are still in Birmingham last time I looked. Just not, as we were in the 1970s, probably the best RU side in England.

Edited by iffleyox
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iffleyox said:

A Moseley season ticket holder splutters into his tea.

I used to work with someone who had a season ticket to Birmingham & Solihull Bees.

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

16 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No but you dont have to , you can spend 1.4 million like Derek then blow everyone away. Like Toulouse next year, like Toronto before. It doesn´t make the competition healthy. 

If you want P and R from Champ you have to make it so clubs growing sensibily off the field with revenue streams can compete and not think this is pointless without being doped. We havent done that so I cant say it´s worked. 

I agree but was just pointing out that te there is a SC in the Championship albeit a ridiculously high one.

PS. are you being sponsored to use the expression doped/doping as often as possible? TIA

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iffleyox said:

Pertemps Bees - another casualty of spending silly money.

They were back to being B&S when I knew him - and freefalling down the merit tables.

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

None of the ‘bigger’ clubs have finished bottom or been relegated since Hull FC in 1963. There’s a reason for that. This isn’t about protecting bigger clubs it’s about forcing the rest to meet the same standards, which then gives them a better chance of winning something. https://t.co/vwzJOF3Che

— Matthew Shaw (@M_Shaw1) September 29, 2022

 

Mmmm - I suppose Wigan weren't considered a 'bigger' club back in 1980.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

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

They are just useless, on Enfield with their roll in stands where you can get right behind the goal. The rest, no council should be building them unless it´s a specialised centre. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

I agree but was just pointing out that te there is a SC in the Championship albeit a ridiculously high one.

PS. are you being sponsored to use the expression doped/doping as often as possible? TIA

Would kind of be like having a rent cap at 6000 a month, practically worthless. No but that is what spending money far beyond your natural ability to generate rev is called, financial doping and does link with all the negative effects that come with it. The others have to either dope as well and risk their (clubs) health or give up. Debilitates the sport. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of very large elephants in the room for me. There is no mention of any central funding distribution, or the percentages there of, for each division or category.

How would a Cat B in the Championship have any chance of competing with a Cat B in SL? The Cat B in SL is handed £1.6M a season as things stand. The Cat B in the lower division gets £108k. Without attracting a Sugar Daddy, somehow they have to overcome a £1.5M funding deficit to get to the same level, without the benefit of playing in the Elite league that is more appealing to better players, more attractive to new spectators and to sponsors.

The other, (unless somebody could point to the paragraph, I have missed) Cat B clubs will be re-evaluated annually, but no mention of how frequently Cat A clubs will be re-evaluated from what I have seen. Therefore, can I assume that once Cat A has been achieved, clubs are safe forever? Apologies, if I have missed it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

A Moseley season ticket holder splutters into his tea. Alright we're a bit bruised and battered, and recent relegation to level 3 is a far cry from the heights of going unbeaten for over a season and providing multiple England and Lions players, but we are still in Birmingham last time I looked. Just not, as we were in the 1970s, probably the best RU side in England.

No tbf you get 1000 at tier 3 so potential would be there if they had one normal ground or appropriate. Similar to Plymouth I feel. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

OK point taken,

But what about what I said about the voting and clubs under SL knowing what they will recieve come '24, it could alter the way some think. 

And as I have said I fully expect Leigh to be a SL club next season, but my concern is also for the game as I see it not just for the benefit of SL clubs, so my angle is somewhat obtuse stretching beyond just thinking of my club.

PS. My aggression could be borne somewhat in my club taking a lot of flack for a long time on these pages from a lot of quarters.

I appreciate the challenges around some of the stick Leigh get, I get it. I'm not a massive fan of 'us v them' in any walk of life, but appreciate its just a way of the world. 

I'm not really sure what point you are making with regards to voting, understanding the financial proposal is just part of the process. 

On your third para, I think there is a risk here of unfairly judging everyone else and claiming you are the only one who has a view for the benefit of the game. My consistent view is that most people are genuinely thinking about the benefits to the game (certainly round here and I believe the clubs do too). It is unfair to dismiss others as thinking of their club only, when the same thing can be levelled at you. Because Leigh have a big disadvantage when it comes to licensing.

But I do believe you genuinely feel P&R is better for the sport, and so do many others. But many also don't, and their benefit is no less genuine. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gomersall said:

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.

It was Mr Beaumont when we were operating the 8's who pointed out it was totally unfair to have a cap discrepancy between SL and Championship when the two factions come together in the play offs, the RFL then made the cap levels equal.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

There are a couple of very large elephants in the room for me. There is no mention of any central funding distribution, or the percentages there of, for each division or category.

How would a Cat B in the Championship have any chance of competing with a Cat B in SL? The Cat B in SL is handed £1.6M a season as things stand. The Cat B in the lower division gets £108k. Without attracting a Sugar Daddy, somehow they have to overcome a £1.5M funding deficit to get to the same level, without the benefit of playing in the Elite league that is more appealing to better players, more attractive to new spectators and to sponsors.

The other, (unless somebody could point to the paragraph, I have missed) Cat B clubs will be re-evaluated annually, but no mention of how frequently Cat A clubs will be re-evaluated from what I have seen. Therefore, can I assume that once Cat A has been achieved, clubs are safe forever? Apologies, if I have missed it.

The new proposed structure would be being implemented during a different, yet to be negotiated broadcast deal so putting concrete figures on the table for clubs in respective leagues would not really be possible. There may be a proposed distribution by percentage of broadcast income plan put together that has not been publicised. The comparative strengths of playing rosters should not be a factor for clubs in different competitions. There are no published frameworks but assessment of on-field performance would (or should) be relative to the competition the club competes in, grading points gained for making the Championship playoffs would be the same as for making the SL playoffs for example. As for metrics like attendance, turnover etc then the people at IMG should be smart enough to work out that a ratio would need to be applied when comparing second tier to top tier. An average crowd of 3000 would be a great concern in SL but a strong base to build from (if promoted) in the Championship for example. The standards to be attained to be promoted are likely lower than those needed to retain a SL place.

There haven't been solid details released about the schedule of re-assessment of A grade clubs but it is likely that a mechanism exists for a failing club to be downgraded from A to B or B to C as well as for clubs being upgraded. The hope would be that such a situation never arises as it would probably involve another Bradford style collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

There are a couple of very large elephants in the room for me. There is no mention of any central funding distribution, or the percentages there of, for each division or category.

How would a Cat B in the Championship have any chance of competing with a Cat B in SL? The Cat B in SL is handed £1.6M a season as things stand. The Cat B in the lower division gets £108k. Without attracting a Sugar Daddy, somehow they have to overcome a £1.5M funding deficit to get to the same level, without the benefit of playing in the Elite league that is more appealing to better players, more attractive to new spectators and to sponsors.

The other, (unless somebody could point to the paragraph, I have missed) Cat B clubs will be re-evaluated annually, but no mention of how frequently Cat A clubs will be re-evaluated from what I have seen. Therefore, can I assume that once Cat A has been achieved, clubs are safe forever? Apologies, if I have missed it.

This exactly, untill these "little incidentals" re the intention of funding levels are disclosed then I can not see any how any club under those who will take a gamble of being chosen as an upper B category in the top 12 would be foolish to make a commitment in voting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

The new proposed structure would be being implemented during a different, yet to be negotiated broadcast deal so putting concrete figures on the table for clubs in respective leagues would not really be possible.

Yes quite, that is why untill clubs know what they will recieve in central funding they should wait until it is disclosed befire a vote takes place, that could sway the aye's or nay's for the IMG proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Griff said:

None of the ‘bigger’ clubs have finished bottom or been relegated since Hull FC in 1963. There’s a reason for that. This isn’t about protecting bigger clubs it’s about forcing the rest to meet the same standards, which then gives them a better chance of winning something. https://t.co/vwzJOF3Che

— Matthew Shaw (@M_Shaw1) September 29, 2022

 

Mmmm - I suppose Wigan weren't considered a 'bigger' club back in 1980.

Or indeed the aforementioned Hull in 77-78?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On your third para, I think there is a risk here of unfairly judging everyone else and claiming you are the only one who has a view for the benefit of the game

To be fair Dave, I never brought anybody else into my comment it was just about my opinion, I said

"I have said I fully expect Leigh to be a SL club next season, but my concern is also for the game as I see it not just for the benefit of SL clubs"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes quite, that is why untill clubs know what they will recieve in central funding they should wait until it is disclosed befire a vote takes place, that could sway the aye's or nay's for the IMG proposal.

I expect the clubs will be told something similar with regard to distributions to what they were before this current deal was negotiated i.e an amount or proportion of funds they will receive if the value of the broadcast deal is above or below a specified threshold value. Any vote will need to happen long before the next broadcast deal is done.

Whatever the figures end up being I wouldn't be surprised if the SL clubs all got the same whether A or B grade, the B grade Championship clubs all got the same amount (equal to a proportion of the SL allocation) and the C grades got what they get now or nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Griff said:

None of the ‘bigger’ clubs have finished bottom or been relegated since Hull FC in 1963. There’s a reason for that. This isn’t about protecting bigger clubs it’s about forcing the rest to meet the same standards, which then gives them a better chance of winning something. https://t.co/vwzJOF3Che

— Matthew Shaw (@M_Shaw1) September 29, 2022

 

Mmmm - I suppose Wigan weren't considered a 'bigger' club back in 1980.

Aside from the obvious historical ignorance, such a statement is fine. Standards should also be looked at being improved.

However the finer detail is revenues. Unless there is a realistic plan to increase revenue for the supposed "B" clubs, then these plans will mean nothing.

Would for instances, the likes of St Helens be prepared to take a decade long reduced in central/TV funds or a tax on match day revenue that would be transferred to the likes of Castleford to improve their facilities or to develop regional academies?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

However the finer detail is revenues. Unless there is a realistic plan to increase revenue for the supposed "B" clubs, then these plans will mean nothing.

Would for instances, the likes of St Helens be prepared to take a decade long reduced in central/TV funds or a tax on match day revenue that would be transferred to the likes of Castleford to improve their facilities or to develop regional academies?

Couldn't agree more.

So far, I'm way short of enough information to be able to say this is a good thing or a bad thing.

  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

The new proposed structure would be being implemented during a different, yet to be negotiated broadcast deal so putting concrete figures on the table for clubs in respective leagues would not really be possible. There may be a proposed distribution by percentage of broadcast income plan put together that has not been publicised. The comparative strengths of playing rosters should not be a factor for clubs in different competitions. There are no published frameworks but assessment of on-field performance would (or should) be relative to the competition the club competes in, grading points gained for making the Championship playoffs would be the same as for making the SL playoffs for example. As for metrics like attendance, turnover etc then the people at IMG should be smart enough to work out that a ratio would need to be applied when comparing second tier to top tier. An average crowd of 3000 would be a great concern in SL but a strong base to build from (if promoted) in the Championship for example. The standards to be attained to be promoted are likely lower than those needed to retain a SL place.

There haven't been solid details released about the schedule of re-assessment of A grade clubs but it is likely that a mechanism exists for a failing club to be downgraded from A to B or B to C as well as for clubs being upgraded. The hope would be that such a situation never arises as it would probably involve another Bradford style collapse.

I completely understand that concrete figures cannot be published until a deal has been formalised in the future. But, I would have expected a mention of whether the funding gap between the tiers was likely to stay the same, or a move towards a more balanced approach was the aim, to ensure certain clubs are not disadvantaged.

We do not know what constitutes an A or B grading. However, I think it would be safe to say, it will be much easier to make improvements to things likely to be under the spotlight such as marketing, ground, training facilities, youth development, or anything else for that matter, with £1.6M a season available to throw at the problem, rather than £108k.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Aside from the obvious historical ignorance, such a statement is fine. Standards should also be looked at being improved.

However the finer detail is revenues. Unless there is a realistic plan to increase revenue for the supposed "B" clubs, then these plans will mean nothing.

Would for instances, the likes of St Helens be prepared to take a decade long reduced in central/TV funds or a tax on match day revenue that would be transferred to the likes of Castleford to improve their facilities or to develop regional academies?

Sounds good in theory. Good luck getting it into practice.

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...