Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


gingerjon
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Interesting. I've tried looking, can you show me?

https://www.premierleague.com/news/60370

Fixtures are changed to accommodate progression in Europe and/or progression in other domestic competitions.

They wouldn't change a Saturday game based on Wednesday but a team that played on Thursday is allowed to move the game to Sunday.

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


8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/60370

Fixtures are changed to accommodate progression in Europe and/or progression in other domestic competitions.

They wouldn't change a Saturday game based on Wednesday but a team that played on Thursday is allowed to move the game to Sunday.

My point on this would be that even with the movement of games, we see in press conferences complaints over the fixtures that accommodate TV in U.K. football.

That suggests to me that even the biggest Premier League clubs are in a relationship whereby they don’t entirely dictate terms.

Whereas maybe in RL the clubs have been almost too powerful.

 

Edited by Gerrumonside ref
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

Why is your suggestion better than 

Top tier gets £1.5m

2nd tier gets £1.1m

3rd tier gets £0.75m

Obviously the numbers can be whatever, I just used yours, but we've always split funding by division, why is your suggestion better? 

Well - It isn't my idea to change to grading.

All teams who reach grade "A" are guaranteed SL place and therefore guaranteed the 1.6M/1.8M [or whatever actual number is}

So why not do the same for "B" teams who achieve the grading let them get guaranteed the same. Then at least we would get all the "B" teams on a level playing field.

Fev, for example been great all year and lost one important game so have done well on field, have good crowds and nice ground but will be a "B" in Championship on less money than a couple or more "B" teams lingering around bottom of SL on potentially 3 times as much CF - I know that is this year and does not apply yet, just an example.

And do the same for "C" teams who do not reach the "B" grading - but give them something to aim for.

It is too difficult to get out league 1 when you are only getting 20k unless you find a sugar daddy like DB and if you are lucky to find one it is frowned upon as been stated on here many times - "Trying to buy your way out of league" etc

I know those numbers won't work into 24M but was just an idea they could be 1.5M, 1M, and .5M - it's difficult enough achieving the grades without trying to do it with no money.

Plus no one knows the rules yet - there may be only 6 "A"s and 6 "B"s to start with

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

My point on this would be that even with the movement of games, we see in press conferences complaints over the fixtures that accommodate TV in U.K. football.

That suggests to me that even the biggest Premier League clubs are in a relationship whereby they don’t entirely dictate terms.

Whereas maybe in RL the clubs have been almost too powerful.

 

Even football clubs have to do what the broadcasters tell them to do. But there are still occasions when the clubs have an ability to stop that - not many but some.

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

23 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/60370

Fixtures are changed to accommodate progression in Europe and/or progression in other domestic competitions.

They wouldn't change a Saturday game based on Wednesday but a team that played on Thursday is allowed to move the game to Sunday.

Or if you are Liverpool, you can have your Saturday Kick off moved to 7.45 pm because you have a Champions League game the following Tuesday?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

But they clearly dont believe if they do all those things they will be let in. Will they be allowed an academy? Will their geographical position be held against them? Does IMG want people to vote on accepting categories without seeing the criteria on which they are based and who gets to judge?

The immediate announcement of we want to grow CC but then here’s two legs for SL teams but only four teams outside will get to play them and it guarantees there will be no upsets , just to benefit the chosen 12 is a classic example of say one thing,do another.

Keighley clearly dont believe this will be fair and why should they?

On your first paragraph, those could be valid concerns that Keighley or any club currently have given the rules around allocation of elite academies now and the poor way in which the Licensing process was run. However there is already a publicly announced follow up meeting for the clubs in the calendar prior to the requirement to vote. That is the time and place that already exists for concerned parties to raise those and other issues they have and to have them addressed.

What Keighley have done is had a public rant criticising the way things have been done in the past in their opinion, despite one complaint 'creating a celebrity and glamour that was not authentic' being pretty much what the Keighley club did when they launched Cougarmania. They may not think they would have much chance of growing the club to be granted a top flight place under the proposed system (they haven't managed that too well under P&R either though barring one season immediately prior to SL being founded. Batley finished second behind Keighley that season but you never hear them complaining about it).

If I applied for a job I didn't think I quite qualified for I would still have to put the same effort in as for any other to try to overcome that. I might well still not get it anyway but I'd have some chance, however if I stated in my application or at interview that those making the decision were creating a false image for the organisation and were prejudiced towards me as employing me wouldn't tick a box for diversity I'd be pretty sure I had shot myself in the foot application wise. That is pretty much what Keighley have done with their statement.

On the second paragraph, yes that is a nonsense idea and if adopted it would last one season at the most. It won't be adopted though as it is nonsense. It most likely is put forward to make another proposal such as (hypothetically) SL clubs entering the cup a round earlier look better by comparison to make that more sensible proposal more likely to be adopted.

On the final sentence Keighley's issues are clearly not all around this proposed structure alone but as mentioned previously there are much better avenues open to them in which they can raise their issues. If memory serves didn't they want to have the expansion clubs in League 1 kicked out a few years ago? Whatever their concerns they have not done their club any favours reacting in the way they have.

Edited by wiganermike
separated the opening paragraph to improve readability
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Or if you are Liverpool, you can have your Saturday Kick off moved to 7.45 pm because you have a Champions League game the following Tuesday?!?

Now, now. I'm sure Herr Klopp was only thinking about player welfare.

  • 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

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

The 6 bottom teams were relegated, the only handpicking was London and Paris. 

P&R was still in place, with some minimum standards. 

Clubs are not complaining about being graded, they are complaining about P&R going, yet that stayed. 

So teams were relegated from 5th and 6th from the bottom and two teams who weren't the best in the leage below were promoted over teams that finished above them (in London's case)?  That isn't P&R by any reasonable definition.  If caveats can be added, then it isn't transparent.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JF1 said:

Not much reference to cat C teams.

I get the impression that if they ignore us,we'll just shrug our shoulders and walk away.

DP,if you think we'll receive £750k,I admire your optimism. Be lucky if it's £75k

 

It did say L1 will still be guaranteed funding.  [Might be just one of those new shiny 50p pieces that they are issuing with KING Charles lll on?] but i did read that

Being Older and hopefully a little bit wiser i can remember before Super league - There were always a couple of great teams and a couple of perennial bad teams,

But there was no vast gap between leagues and teams as there is now. and teams could improve and move up and down leagues over a couple of seasons without bankrupting themselves.

And it was 4 up and 4 down - 16 in each league [approx.] - 30 games and 4 new faces every year [or 12 new faces if you moved] - more entertaining, more variety and with a few exceptions anybody could beat anybody.

There were not as many blowout scores as you see today, matches were always closer which is more entertaining.

The SKY money has been great for a few but bad for the game overall [IMHO]

When it first came in it should have been divvied out equally [ or as close to equal as poss] then we could have brought everybody up together and not just a few.

This is also a reason why the Challenge cup is dead. Because the teams were closer the top teams were brought in earlier which gave more teams chance to play top teams and giant killing chances. plus, a chance to get a bit of cash for amateur teams and the lower teams, but the top teams are only brought in at last minute now.

It's too late now - the chosen few on best part of 2M per season and the bottom on 20K per season - they are unplayable. The money and unfair distribution of it has ruined the game and the gap needs to be closed if possible, that is what i was suggesting.

Best thing that could have happened [IMHO} was for IMG to take the 2 Frenchie's and the top 8 Brits and give them all the Sky money and lock everybody else out of SL and let us all go back to a system of 2 leagues of 14 again.

We will have the challenge cup back [no SL teams] and everybody on equal [o] Sky money.

If someone comes in to cover matches like sky - them great but everyone gets same amount

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

On your first paragraph, those could be valid concerns that Keighley or any club currently have given the rules around allocation of elite academies now and the poor way in which the Licensing process was run. However there is already a publicly announced follow up meeting for the clubs in the calendar prior to the requirement to vote. That is the time and place that already exists for concerned parties to raise those and other issues they have and to have them addressed. What Keighley have done is had a public rant criticising the way things have been done in the past in their opinion, despite one complaint 'creating a celebrity and glamour that was not authentic' being pretty much what the Keighley club did when they launched Cougarmania. They may not think they would have much chance of growing the club to be granted a top flight place under the proposed system (they haven't managed that too well under P&R either though barring one season immediately prior to SL being founded. Batley finished second behind Keighley that season but you never hear them complaining about it). If I applied for a job I didn't think I quite qualified for I would still have to put the same effort in as for any other to try to overcome that. I might well still not get it anyway but I'd have some chance, however if I stated in my application or at interview that those making the decision were creating a false image for the organisation and were prejudiced towards me as employing me wouldn't tick a box for diversity I'd be pretty sure I had shot myself in the foot application wise. That is pretty much what Keighley have done with their statement.

On the second paragraph, yes that is a nonsense idea and if adopted it would last one season at the most. It won't be adopted though as it is nonsense. It most likely is put forward to make another proposal such as (hypothetically) SL clubs entering the cup a round earlier look better by comparison to make that more sensible proposal more likely to be adopted.

On the final sentence Keighley's issues are clearly not all around this proposed structure alone but as mentioned previously there are much better avenues open to them in which they can raise their issues. If memory serves didn't they want to have the expansion clubs in League 1 kicked out a few years ago? Whatever their concerns they have not done their club any favours reacting in the way they have.

Mate need to paragraph this a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

Telling me keighley have the right to disagree is a meaningless statement . We were obviously talking about Keighley thinking this is rigged and you saying you don’t think so.

The rfl get to decide who gets academies using geographic considerations but academy will go towards criteria (don’t be so dense to pretend it won’t)

So theres no reason for Keighley to trust this process then is there?

That's up to them. If they have a view and can convince others, then fine. If the vote goes against them they have alternatives: accept the result or quit.

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."

JohnM - 17/01/2023

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

My point on this would be that even with the movement of games, we see in press conferences complaints over the fixtures that accommodate TV in U.K. football.

That suggests to me that even the biggest Premier League clubs are in a relationship whereby they don’t entirely dictate terms.

Whereas maybe in RL the clubs have been almost too powerful.

 

This essentially

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

On your first paragraph, those could be valid concerns that Keighley or any club currently have given the rules around allocation of elite academies now and the poor way in which the Licensing process was run. However there is already a publicly announced follow up meeting for the clubs in the calendar prior to the requirement to vote. That is the time and place that already exists for concerned parties to raise those and other issues they have and to have them addressed. What Keighley have done is had a public rant criticising the way things have been done in the past in their opinion, despite one complaint 'creating a celebrity and glamour that was not authentic' being pretty much what the Keighley club did when they launched Cougarmania. They may not think they would have much chance of growing the club to be granted a top flight place under the proposed system (they haven't managed that too well under P&R either though barring one season immediately prior to SL being founded. Batley finished second behind Keighley that season but you never hear them complaining about it). If I applied for a job I didn't think I quite qualified for I would still have to put the same effort in as for any other to try to overcome that. I might well still not get it anyway but I'd have some chance, however if I stated in my application or at interview that those making the decision were creating a false image for the organisation and were prejudiced towards me as employing me wouldn't tick a box for diversity I'd be pretty sure I had shot myself in the foot application wise. That is pretty much what Keighley have done with their statement.

On the second paragraph, yes that is a nonsense idea and if adopted it would last one season at the most. It won't be adopted though as it is nonsense. It most likely is put forward to make another proposal such as (hypothetically) SL clubs entering the cup a round earlier look better by comparison to make that more sensible proposal more likely to be adopted.

On the final sentence Keighley's issues are clearly not all around this proposed structure alone but as mentioned previously there are much better avenues open to them in which they can raise their issues. If memory serves didn't they want to have the expansion clubs in League 1 kicked out a few years ago? Whatever their concerns they have not done their club any favours reacting in the way they have.

Ok read it now. If you did a job application under one criteria, aced it and then the criteria was changed so it perfectly matches soneone but you,you’d be furious. Second you can go for another job but Keighley arent going to start playing union are they so it doesn’t work?

If it's proper for other clubs to come out publicly with their stance then it’s just as legitimate for Keighley to come out with theirs. They haven’t done to well under p and r because all their support melted away when people knew it didn’t matter what they did they were barred from the top. Imagine the frustration just as you got everything in place again you are going to get shafted...again

Next season they will probably pull in more than Fev and perhaps more than Bulls, so we should want them to believe in the process as the game needs a strong team in Bradford postcode and it probably can’t ever be the Bulls at the dump.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

Telling me keighley have the right to disagree is a meaningless statement . We were obviously talking about Keighley thinking this is rigged and you saying you don’t think so.

The rfl get to decide who gets academies using geographic considerations but academy will go towards criteria (don’t be so dense to pretend it won’t)

So theres no reason for Keighley to trust this process then is there?

The academy thing is a farce - brought in before IMG.

I must be mega dense, of Osmium qualities if you will, as i don't know what the criteria are yet.

 

My genuine thoughts on Keighley (and indeed my own club) is that if there are clear and achievable targets to become an A license and play in the elite comp, then great. The clubs can do what they want. If they want to empower themselves to go after that target, then great, i hope the elite comp -1 is funded enough for it to be a worthwhile comp. If my club, Keighley or whomever don't want to get after it, then they should call it a day and go amateur.

If the criteria is not clear and not achievable for all, then yes, it stinks and i'll be done with the sport at a club level at the very least so won't care.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Ok read it now. If you did a job application under one criteria, aced it and then the criteria was changed so it perfectly matches soneone but you,you’d be furious. Second you can go for another job but Keighley arent going to start playing union are they so it doesn’t work?

If it's proper for other clubs to come out publicly with their stance then it’s just as legitimate for Keighley to come out with theirs. They haven’t done to well under p and r because all their support melted away when people knew it didn’t matter what they did they were barred from the top. Imagine the frustration just as you got everything in place again you are going to get shafted...again

Next season they will probably pull in more than Fev and perhaps more than Bulls, so we should want them to believe in the process as the game needs a strong team in Bradford postcode and it probably can’t ever be the Bulls at the dump.

You applied for that job in 1996. Get over it, look at where Gareth Southgate is now compared to then.

Come on Keighley, do an advert and get over it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

You applied for that job in 1996. Get over it, look at where Gareth Southgate is now compared to then.

Come on Keighley, do an advert and get over it.

So they can apply to play another sport can they. Also they have got over it by building great momentum and are primed for a playoff run but none of that will matter if they get cheated again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

So they can apply to play another sport can they. Also they have got over it by building great momentum and are primed for a playoff run but none of that will matter if they get cheated again. 

Aye. They could go play RU. Good luck to em.

ooh she's fit. I'll not talk to her as she might cheat on me. I don't know anything about her yet, but no. I'll stay here and have a crank.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

Aye. They could go play RU. Good luck to em.

Isnt it easier to say that then coming up with half arsed analogies that are as strong as a paper bag?

I think Keighley should publicly push back so IMG dont get to say everyone else in onboard. You cant regrow the CC by continuing to alienate those outside SL and especially not a club who will probably be averaging higher crowds than all bar Toulouse and Barrow next year. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the talk of academies. In soccer the real goal of academies is not to produce players for your own team, but to produce players you can sell on to others. If they produce one player a year that they can sell for a few million job done and the club is in profit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Isnt it easier to say that then coming up with half arsed analogies that are as strong as a paper bag?

I think Keighley should publicly push back so IMG dont get to say everyone else in onboard. You cant regrow the CC by continuing to alienate those outside SL and especially not a club who will probably be averaging higher crowds than all bar Toulouse and Barrow next year. 

Keighley have not been a Championship club for how long? 6/7 years? You were last decent when, 20 years ago? I'm not sure the folk in IMG are upset; i would wager some of the wife's Malteser cake being made in front of my impatient eyes that they'd be happy.

I love the optimism around attendances for a bottom half team next year, so it's a shame you want them to pack in based on stuff you don't know yet.

I'm off for a run in the rain, chat later?

  • Haha 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...