Jump to content

IMG - Vote on Wednesday


gingerjon
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Jughead said:

Except they’ve not said any of that. They’ve gone on about being a local sport for local people. Royston Vaysey Cougars have embarrassed themselves and the sport. It’s that exact attitude we want shot off. 

When was the last time you went to 

Keighley ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


19 hours ago, Dave T said:

Perceptions around licensing are the problem, rather than corruption or bias. But there is generally an attitude in RL that if things aren't as you agree with then it is corrupt. 

And tbh, I'm not sure what we can do about that, I think these are ingrained attitudes that are unlikely to be changed. But if we think it's the right thing to do, ultimately some voices will need to be ignored. 

It's primarily the geography issue , it is impossible to be completely impartial and fair if you know where the various clubs are based 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

When is the last time you went to Keighley for a game ?

Let's not hold our  breath for an answer. It would not surprise me if Jughead supports his own club to the death (of others), and has little interest in the wider community of the Championship and L1. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MattSantos said:

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?

You were the one who said they should play RU . Try reading. So stop being deceitful and just say you don’t give a to** . Which is fine it’s just cancerous if you want to regrow the challenge cup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

You say subjective but the proposal says that the criteria will be objective. Clearly you don't believe them.

It was another forum member who posted that. So to ask the question, if a Grade B club finishes 9-10th in SL and a Grade B club is top of the Championship, what happens? Or does the Grade B team only get relegated if they finish bottom? 

What problem are actually IMG solving with their proposals? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wakefield Ram said:

It was another forum member who posted that. So to ask the question, if a Grade B club finishes 9-10th in SL and a Grade B club is top of the Championship, what happens? Or does the Grade B team only get relegated if they finish bottom? 

What problem are actually IMG solving with their proposals? 

What happens is they adjudge them based on the criteria not yet released.

They’re attempting to solve the yo-yo nature of promotion and relegation between the top and second tier, for one. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

You were the one who said they should play RU . Try reading. So stop being deceitful and just say you don’t give a to** . Which is fine it’s just cancerous if you want to regrow the challenge cup. 

I don't care, if Keighley want to go, let them.

If Fev wanted to go to RU, then let them.

Saying these statements is different to saying i want them to go. You shouldn't be so flippant with language Shropo.

I would love the Challenge Cup to be as it once was, but it probably won't. I'm going to wait and see what IMG actually propose rather than criticise and moan though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wiganermike said:

On the face of it yes that would be how it would be expected to work as the initial proposal suggests B grade clubs will exchange places should one in the Championship be graded as stronger than one in SL. In practice you would expect that your hypothetical Featherstone would have been warned at their most recent review (and possibly the one before that) that they were in danger of not meeting required standards/being surpassed by a Championship club and so were at risk of demotion. It is very unlikely that clubs will be demoted/ promoted based on the events of a single season.

It is also possible that some amendment could be made before the proposals are adopted that will allow for expansion of SL by admitting additional strong B grade clubs rather than 1 up meaning 1 must go down (rather than only expanding by adding new A grade clubs). What we will likely see is some negotiation on specifics before the structure is finalised. Using your hypothetical it would be unfair to punish Featherstone if they had continued to meet the standards they had in previous seasons in SL simply because Leigh had also achieved what was asked of them to be elevated to SL.

In a scenario where every club in SL has an A grade the proposals put forward state that any club outside would need to attain an A grade to enter SL. As I said though I wouldn't be surprised to see that slightly amended as an A grade may be too difficult in practice to attain in the Championship (though the clubs won't know that until they are given details of what constitutes the minimum standards for each grade).

All the proposals have achieved is to guarantee SL status for half a dozen of the biggest clubs and effectively end chance of promotion for a number of smaller clubs.  How that is going to drive people through the turnstiles I'm not sure. None of the proposals are new or innovative. 

The proposals look like classic management consultancy to tell the important people what they want to hear to get them onside before they go for the real money at the next stage.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jughead said:

What happens is they adjudge them based on the criteria not yet released.

They’re attempting to solve the yo-yo nature of promotion and relegation between the top and second tier, for one. 

The proposals don't really do anything to make it easier for promoted clubs to stay up. All it does is restrict the pool of clubs who can get promoted and relegated. SL players might even avoid Grade B clubs because of the greater risk of relegation. Sign for a Grade A club and you're guaranteed to stay SL. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Human Punk said:

I couldn't agree more. I was perhaps naively expecting a whole raft of exciting new ideas and proposals to take the game forward in ways I hadn't imagined, no just a stale rehash of a selection of tired old boilers from the last 20 years. Who did IMG have working on this? The intern?

They probably just had an intern read this Forum and get a copy of the old Framing the Future document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The proposals don't really do anything to make it easier for promoted clubs to stay up. All it does is restrict the pool of clubs who can get promoted and relegated. SL players might even avoid Grade B clubs because of the greater risk of relegation. Sign for a Grade A club and you're guaranteed to stay SL. 

So much the same as now, then? 

Do you think a player would chose Wakefield over, say, Cas or Toulouse over Huddersfield? How many clubs have a realistic aim of promotion to Super League presently? Do you think clubs will allow for players to simply tread water at any club, purely because they cannot get relegated? Do you think that goes on at Wigan, Leeds, Saints, Catalans etc now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

I’m an old fart and I remember those halcyon days pre SL when there was no vast gap between the two leagues as most players played for their local team and were paid win/lose money and had to work 40 hours a week as well.  Also because players wages were relatively similar across clubs it really made little sense for players to move even if their club was relegated so clubs weren’t stripped of their best players.

However, SKY money disrupted this equilibrium, especially when some players went from £300 a win to £30,000 a year.  But that was the price to pay to save the game from the financial mire it was in.

It appears that you are suggesting that - apart from the top 10 clubs  - clubs revert back to those pre SL days and players become part time as no club could afford full time status especially as I doubt a league consisting of part time clubs could negotiate a TV deal.  Is that what you want?

Unfortunately, yes - Because it didn't save the game from the financial mire it was in - it still is - It saved the few in SL.

Apart from Bradford who have dropped away from SL there are only 3 teams ever won SL in over 25 years.

Nobody apart from Leigh Thanks to Mr Beaumont - [Would like to think he got bored with Leigh and move up here for a change]

Don't know DB - seen him at our ground and on podcasts etc - but know nothing about him other that he is a godsend to Leigh.

But Leigh is the exception, nobody else can compete with the SL teams because of the large amount of CF they get over everyone else, and each year the gap is getting bigger.

Teams trying and failing to reach that high and without a DB are sometimes putting themselves at risk of Bankruptcy.

If the RFL and IMG make money i.e., get more from Sky or another source it will mainly go to SL teams and make the gap worse - so it is probably better to separate fully from the SL.

SL are Fulltime because of that 1.8M CF and nobody else gets that 1.8M CF - so nobody else can afford FT so nobody else can compete with SL - So I do believe as Fleetwood Mack said "they so go their own way"

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

1 minute ago, Colin James said:

Whatever clubs think of as yet vague ideas, I don't think it's a good look for the sport for those who think they aren't tailored for their particular circumstances to start putting out negative statements.

Don't put out vague ideas then , just implement 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Unfortunately, yes - Because it didn't save the game from the financial mire it was in - it still is - It saved the few in SL.

Apart from Bradford who have dropped away from SL there are only 3 teams ever won SL in over 25 years.

Nobody apart from Leigh Thanks to Mr Beaumont - [Would like to think he got bored with Leigh and move up here for a change]

Don't know DB - seen him at our ground and on podcasts etc - but know nothing about him other that he is a godsend to Leigh.

But Leigh is the exception, nobody else can compete with the SL teams because of the large amount of CF they get over everyone else, and each year the gap is getting bigger.

Teams trying and failing to reach that high and without a DB are sometimes putting themselves at risk of Bankruptcy.

If the RFL and IMG make money i.e., get more from Sky or another source it will mainly go to SL teams and make the gap worse - so it is probably better to separate fully from the SL.

SL are Fulltime because of that 1.8M CF and nobody else gets that 1.8M CF - so nobody else can afford FT so nobody else can compete with SL - So I do believe as Fleetwood Mack said "they so go their own way"

Its not central funding, its a share of the TV deal for the league they play in and is televised. The championship have their own TV deal.

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...