IMG - Vote on Wednesday

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

So long as the Bs are graded fairly, this should be fine.

YOU HAVE A TERRACE WITHOUT A ROOF AND YOU DARE TO SAY YOU ARE CATEGORY A.

This is going to be brilliant.

[Derwent]

4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Shared gate revenue in the play-offs.

That's the case below SL but I believe SL use a different system (or at least they did, might have changed though). For SL play offs the surplus revenue from all play off games goes into a pool - i.e. home team can keep bar and hospitality revenue and deduct costs of staging the game (staff costs etc) but any profit from ticket sales goes into the pool. Even the GF receipts (after staging costs) go into the pool. Then the final pool is paid out pro-rata to the 6 teams who made the play offs. It used to be pro rata'd so that each progression gained you 10% more of the pool - i.e. Winners 35%, Runners Up 25%, Losing semi-finalists 15% each and Losing 1st round 5% each.

[Nothus]

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Also imagine if they didn´t include the two french teams on the eve of a world cup and basically shutting the door to growing clubs in france with France 2025 round the corner. Just worst of all world here. 

Calm down. They said there is a cap, but not what the cap number is. It might be irrelevant.

[ShropshireBull]

29 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Who are your Grade A clubs?

Who are your Grade B? (And your strong grade B clubs at that)

Grade C?

A: Wigan,, Saints, Wire, Leeds, Hull, Catalan

B: Toulouse (absolute no brainer from a commercial standpoint, gives us French derby and growth in France knowing they cant go down, a real chance to become a dominant force) London (massive population and now playing in a stadium that isn´t woeful but probably needs a new owner who hasn´t alienated everyone), Hull KR (Solid crowds, own ground, really improved the product and derby). Wakey (Odd one but with ground redevelopement, genuine prospects for growth here in terms of rev.)

B-: Giants (Woeful ground, no tv marketable) Cas (similar reason but actually good crowds) Newcastle (have an academy and stadium, might be worth giving it a go. York(No academy but commercially possible and modern ground to make money, not competing with FL team as of yet) Widnes, Fev and Barrow. Leigh only because derek spends. Salford 

C : The rest of us. 

Edited September 28, 2022 by ShropshireBull

[gingerjon]

There are still, obviously, a whole tonne of questions to be answered but I like that they've not given a structure and are, instead, waiting to see how many clubs they have at each level and will then, presumably, work backwards from that.

I also like that, after the structure, there is that whole paragraph about streaming, commercial etc that, probably, is a lot more important longer term, but that no one is going to be talking about.

[ShropshireBull]

1 minute ago, Nothus said:

Calm down. They said there is a cap, but not what the cap number is. It might be irrelevant.

Feels like that kind of comment just to get it through. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Derwent said:

It used to be pro rata'd so that each progression gained you 10% more of the pool - i.e. Winners 35%, Runners Up 25%, Losing semi-finalists 15% each and Losing 1st round 5% each.

But then someone lost the RFL abacus?

(Thanks for the explanation. Very helpful to know.)

[Jughead]

Lack of a lot of detail at this stage, which is completely understandable. 

The format was never going to be the driver for change, as we’ve attempted before numerous times. Getting the basics right is key and a criteria based participation sounds, in theory, like a half decent idea. Of course, there’s a bad taste for many regarding our last poorly executed attempt at licensing but I’m willing to see what they suggest. 

Will the full findings of the surveys and clubs opinions be released in more detail?

[ShropshireBull]

13 minutes ago, Moove said:

https://www.totalrl.com/img-reveals-plans-for-rugby-league-involving-new-super-league-licensing-system/

Two tier licensing. Follow up meeting in October. Limit on non-UK clubs. No set number of teams in SL.

No players are getting signed before October then. If they dont tell clubs how many will be in SL then I dont think they get the votes. 

[jacobus]

Ken might yet get his way...

 

Quote

• Participation of clubs outside of the UK to be capped and with additional standards to support domestic growth.

 

[Nothus]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

Feels like that kind of comment just to get it through. 

I suspect it's more likely to be there to stop something like the Toronto debacle from happening again.

[ATLANTISMAN]

Needs a total re-brand though thats for sure.

Also i predict some serious American money on the horizon and a deal with the NFL.

 

P

[gingerjon]

 

 

[Chris22]

I'm a little cautious of grading clubs. Once upon a time, Bradford would be Grade A. I assume these can change.

Ultimately, we'll probably adopt licensing again. It won't last 10 years and we'll do something different.

And maybe one day, the penny will drop and we will realise that changing our structure doesn't actually have any impact at all on the size or reach of the sport. Maybe we'll deal with more pressing issues like the international game and increasing participation.

Or, more realistically, we won't.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

No players are getting signed before October then. If they dont tell clubs how many will be in SL then I dont think they get the votes. 

There is no change for next season.

[ShropshireBull]

So how many votes do they need? Because we know Fev will vote against and most clubs who will be considered too close to an existing SL club even if they do everything right whilst serial offenders got away with it. If the criteria against involves being too close to an existing club I hope they vote it down. If Keighley or Fev do everything right they should be allowed in. 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Why would we take on a loss making operation like rugby union?

It's a good question. 

But if their backers and say Sky came to the table with a huge TV deal to join the games and create a super division that included the bigger Union clubs plus Wigan, Saints, Leeds etc. there could be a way of making short term money. 

[ShropshireBull]

27 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

There is no change for next season.

Yes but there is F all to play for if Licensing is in 2024 is there? I am spending money to reach SL but if you know you wont get a license why would you bother ? 

Edited September 28, 2022 by ShropshireBull

[Harry Stottle]

53 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

2 x 10 would be a disaster might as well go to 14 now.

 

My prediction

* 14 teams 

* Toulouse stay in

* Winners of Championship up obviously 

* London Broncos back in 

P 

Is your last inclusion one of those that people are saying is of fans only thinking of their own Paul?

Does London really deserve to be fastracked above some other teams?

[Dunbar]

On 26/09/2022 at 14:17, Dunbar said:

I don't like these proposals at all.

I don't know what they are, I just don't like them.

'Category A’ clubs will be guaranteed participation in the top tier whilst ‘Category B' clubs will be re-assessed annually with the highest-ranking clubs occupying the remaining slots in the top tier.

So you can finish above a Category A team and still get removed from the top tier.

That is not what sport is about.  There have to be consequences and rewards for on field performances.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Dave T said:

It's a good question. 

But if their backers and say Sky came to the table with a huge TV deal to join the games and create a super division that included the bigger Union clubs plus Wigan, Saints, Leeds etc. there could be a way of making short term money. 

Yeah.

Nah.

[Harry Stottle]

47 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

IMG are really going to lock London out because they finish 11th in a championship? Nope.

So why not?

[MattSantos]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

'Category A’ clubs will be guaranteed participation in the top tier whilst ‘Category B' clubs will be re-assessed annually with the highest-ranking clubs occupying the remaining slots in the top tier.

So you can finish above a Category A team and still get removed from the top tier.

That is not what sport is about.  There have to be consequences and rewards for on field performances.

I'm presuming that would form part of the reassessment.. League position.

[ShropshireBull]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

'Category A’ clubs will be guaranteed participation in the top tier whilst ‘Category B' clubs will be re-assessed annually with the highest-ranking clubs occupying the remaining slots in the top tier.

So you can finish above a Category A team and still get removed from the top tier.

That is not what sport is about.  There have to be consequences and rewards for on field performances.

Yeah didnt think about this, also means that players will sign for Cat A clubs purely because they know that money is 100% guaranteed rain or shine. So cat b clubs get worst players because they cant grow with protection so are always struggling.  This feels like the worst elements of franchising without the up swing. 

Edited September 28, 2022 by ShropshireBull

[ShropshireBull]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So why not?

Because if you can get London bk to what they were before 4-5k crowds. They offer significantly more in commercial opportunites than the vast majority of our clubs, including Leigh. 

Edited September 28, 2022 by ShropshireBull