Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Madrileño said:

Thanks for your input. Do you think Wigan agrees with you? Or Leeds? Or St Helens?

Do you think they like being told what they can or can't do, by clubs like Royston Keighley?

"2 up 2 down in every league in every season" one of the most amateurish things I have ever heard 😆

How many get relegated from your hockey league? - or do you only have enough teams for one league?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


7 hours ago, wiganermike said:

When assessing the grade B clubs then I would expect ratios to be applied to the metrics being assessed to account for the competition in which a particular club is competing. It would be unreasonable to expect a club in the Championship to be able to attract the same size of crowds or to generate the same amount of turnover as a club of comparable size competing in the higher profile SL. As an example an average attendance of 3000 would be of great concern for a SL club, an average crowd of 3000 in the Championship however would be a strong base from which to build if promoted. I would expect the required targets to attain to gain promotion would be lower than those needed to be met in order to avoid being demoted.

I hope you are right. 

I think the major concern for clubs and fans outside of SL, is down to how many of these proposed changes have been previously tried, and due to a historic lack of transparency, rightly or wrongly, there has been a feeling of bias and corruption in the decision making process which has led to a certain level of skepticism. 

Personally, I do not think clubs should be involved at all in the process, or allowed a vote on such matters. I realise of course, not everyone shares my point of view. To me, giving clubs a vote on such matters, is only inviting self interest in to procedings. The game has employed a firm of experts to do a job, so trust them and let them do what they think is right for the game as a whole, without influence. 

It is a bit like going to the hospital when you're seriously unwell and telling the surgeon how to operate and what to do to fix your symptoms. At the end of the day, it is pretty foolish to think you know better than an experienced and highly trained specialist. 

If you cannot trust them to know more than you, find someone else that you can. The clubs have had there chance to fix the problems, and that is why the game in hanging by a thread.

Edited by DOGFATHER
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

I hope you are right. 

I think the major concern for clubs and fans outside of SL, is down to how many of these proposed changes have been previously tried, and due to a historic lack of transparency, rightly or wrongly, there has been a feeling of bias and corruption in the decision making process which has led to a certain level of skepticism. 

Personally, I do not think clubs should be involved at all in the process, or allowed a vote on such matters. I realise of course, not everyone shares my point of view. To me, giving clubs a vote on such matters, is only inviting self interest in to procedings. The game has employed a firm of experts to do a job, so trust them and let them do what they think is right for the game as a whole, without influence. 

It is a bit like going to the hospital when you're seriously unwell and telling the surgeon how to operate and what to do to fix your symptoms. At the end of the day, it is pretty foolish to think you know better than an experienced and highly trained specialist. 

If you cannot trust them to know more than you, find someone else that you can. The clubs have had there chance to fix the problems, and that is why the game in hanging by a thread.

Personally, I wouldn't want a surgeon operating on me without my giving the go ahead.

I'd listen to their diagnosis and the options and then decide whether to go ahead. I think it's the same for the clubs with these proposals.

Edited by Barley Mow
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barley Mow said:

Personally, I wouldn't want a surgeon operating on me without my giving the go ahead.

I'd listen to their diagnosis and the options and then decide whether to go ahead. I think it's the same for the club's with these proposals.

Indeed. We don't hire a builder to just "improve our home". 

It is right that existing stakeholders have their say, even if we don't like what they say. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dave T said:

Expansion, favouritism, flexible rules for one, but not the other. This has to stop.

The above is an utterly depressing line. I don't think I have ever seen anyone in the game bluntly say expansion has to stop. 

Little fish rarely want the size of the pond to be increased. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

But if we think it's the right thing to do, ultimately some voices will need to be ignored. 

In your latest post you say that stakeholders should be heard. Are you saying that the should be automatically ignored anyway as you know you really don't want to hear their views. This is the reason some people use words like rigged,  biased, stitch up, etc.

IMG in a series of meetings, along with a set of carefully selected focus groups, come to the "right" conclusions that they know will please those that commissioned them in the first place. They then select tick box criteria based on the ability of the chosen ones to fulfil those criteria, and that the unclean will not be able to fulfil. 

Conspiracy theory? Sounds a bit like Lindsey and Murdoch to me, no wonder Keighley don't like, deja vu

Rugby league family? More like Cain and Abel. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Roy Haggerty said:

Little fish rarely want the size of the pond to be increased. 

Intelligent little fish do want the pond to be bigger, it increases their chances of survival, which, in turn increases the chances of their being more bigger fish. However the weakest of the big fish don't want this to happen as they will face more competion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Personally, I wouldn't want a surgeon operating on me without my giving the go ahead.

I'd listen to their diagnosis and the options and then decide whether to go ahead. I think it's the same for the clubs with these proposals.

Personally, I wouldn't want a surgeon operating on me without my giving the go ahead.

Be aware that you may not have that option, depending on the circumstances of say, cardiac arrest or other life-threatening condition. Others, rightfully concerned about your survival, may have to take the decision for you.

Edited by JohnM

"Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution."

Albert Einstein   (Fat chance on THIS forum)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

In your latest post you say that stakeholders should be heard. Are you saying that the should be automatically ignored anyway as you know you really don't want to hear their views. This is the reason some people use words like rigged,  biased, stitch up, etc.

IMG in a series of meetings, along with a set of carefully selected focus groups, come to the "right" conclusions that they know will please those that commissioned them in the first place. They then select tick box criteria based on the ability of the chosen ones to fulfil those criteria, and that the unclean will not be able to fulfil. 

Conspiracy theory? Sounds a bit like Lindsey and Murdoch to me, no wonder Keighley don't like, deja vu

Rugby league family? More like Cain and Abel. 

 

 

 

No, that's not what I mean. 

Stakeholders should absolutely be heard and listened to. That doesn't mean we will do everything they want, indeed we can't do everything that everyone wants. 

We've had a consultation, and there is now a period for feedback, but if the majority feel this is the way to go, Keighley will ultimately need to be ignored. They can have their say, as much as I disagree, but not everyone will get their way. 

Some stakeholders will hate this, we won't convince them of any benefits in a million years, so let's not waste too much energy on that. 

But I don't prescribe to the way of thinking of doing stuff without a mandate. We need to get enough stakeholders to buy into the vision. But ultimately not everyone will, and that's OK. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

In your latest post you say that stakeholders should be heard. Are you saying that the should be automatically ignored anyway as you know you really don't want to hear their views. This is the reason some people use words like rigged,  biased, stitch up, etc.

IMG in a series of meetings, along with a set of carefully selected focus groups, come to the "right" conclusions that they know will please those that commissioned them in the first place. They then select tick box criteria based on the ability of the chosen ones to fulfil those criteria, and that the unclean will not be able to fulfil. 

Conspiracy theory? Sounds a bit like Lindsey and Murdoch to me, no wonder Keighley don't like, deja vu

Rugby league family? More like Cain and Abel. 

The reason for the use of such words is usually because the users are not getting their own way. There is absolutely NO bar to anyone like Keighley having their say, and absolutely no bar to them investing and improving within the current system.

  • Like 1

"Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution."

Albert Einstein   (Fat chance on THIS forum)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Personally, I wouldn't want a surgeon operating on me without my giving the go ahead.

Be aware that you may not have that option, depending on the circumstances of say, cardiac arrest or other life-threatening condition. Others, rightfully concerned about your survival, may have to take the decision for you.

True. In our analogy however all of the clubs are conscious and able to assess their situation and that of the game as a whole and decide whether they like the surgery being advised or whether they would like a second opinion.

We may however disagree with the decision some reach, one way or the other - I suppose we relate that to people who may refuse surgery for, for example, religious reasons - we may consider it misguided, but from their point of view it is the only sensible decision.

Edited by Barley Mow
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JohnM said:

The reason for the use of such words is usually because the users are not getting their own way. There is absolutely NO bar to anyone like Keighley having their say, and absolutely no bar to them investing and improving within the current system.

Which is what they have done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Henson Park Old Firm said:

My idea that IMG could incorporate....

 

1. all super league games televised on free/pay TV (they can start with that!)

2. All rounds have allocated days ( like the NRL) for example 6 games a week. 1 Thursday night game, 2 on Friday night games, 2 on Saturday  games 1 night 1 afternoon, 1 on Sunday Afternoon game

 

 

I used to bang this drum years ago. An absolute easy thing to do and one that clubs shouldnt have a say in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

Which is what they have done. 

Good for them. Next....

"Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution."

Albert Einstein   (Fat chance on THIS forum)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JohnM said:

The reason for the use of such words is usually because the users are not getting their own way. There is absolutely NO bar to anyone like Keighley having their say, and absolutely no bar to them investing and improving within the current system.

Until we know what the new system then why would you invest to get blocked in two years. Keighley smell a rat and I dont blame them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Until we know what the new system then why would you invest to get blocked in two years. Keighley smell a rat and I dont blame them.

No rats to smell here. 

"Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution."

Albert Einstein   (Fat chance on THIS forum)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

I used to bang this drum years ago. An absolute easy thing to do and one that clubs shouldnt have a say in.

Of course clubs should have a say in it. If revenue is significantly different from hosting non-televised home games on a Sunday compared to a Friday night, for example, you can’t force teams to play on certain days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Until we know what the new system then why would you invest to get blocked in two years. Keighley smell a rat and I dont blame them.

I don't understand this view at all.  

They're a potentially decent championship side & club that should continue investing in the team & club infrastructure as well as the community. If they have aspirations for the elite league, then they can build solid foundations for that. If they don't then crack on as you are. Win-Win.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jughead said:

Of course clubs should have a say in it. If revenue is significantly different from hosting non-televised home games on a Sunday compared to a Friday night, for example, you can’t force teams to play on certain days. 

Tell me a sport where clubs make this decision and not the league?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

No, that's not what I mean. 

Stakeholders should absolutely be heard and listened to. That doesn't mean we will do everything they want, indeed we can't do everything that everyone wants. 

We've had a consultation, and there is now a period for feedback, but if the majority feel this is the way to go, Keighley will ultimately need to be ignored. They can have their say, as much as I disagree, but not everyone will get their way. 

Some stakeholders will hate this, we won't convince them of any benefits in a million years, so let's not waste too much energy on that. 

But I don't prescribe to the way of thinking of doing stuff without a mandate. We need to get enough stakeholders to buy into the vision. But ultimately not everyone will, and that's OK. 

How do you convince some of your stakeholders that they should go out onto the pack ice and freeze to death because you think it is in the best interests of you and three of your mates? It  certainly isn't in theirs. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As. Edie Brickell famously sang, "What I am is what I am
You're what you are or what?
What I am is what I am
You're what you are, or what?"

"Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution."

Albert Einstein   (Fat chance on THIS forum)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

So the claim is just wrong then. 

6 other Northern clubs were relegated from the top flight upon SL's creation. But that wasn't licensing. 

Nor was it based on competion on the field, so a bit of an anomaly in this particular discussion.  It was more akin to licencing thatn P&R, wouldn't you agree?

  • Like 1
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...