What makes your club Grade A?

[David Shepherd]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

In reality, I don't think the Grade A clubs will be controversial or a surprise.  They are our strongest clubs. 

Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Hull, Wire, Catalans

That's a decent starter of a league, and if we had 6 more clubs of that strength we would be doing well. Sure, we can talk about Wigan giving way to a wedding at their stadium, Wire being rubbish on the field, and Hull's liking for rolling over and having their belly tickled, but they are the strongest clubs. 

Grade B's will be where the debates happen. 

I'd have Wigan and Hull as "B" Neither own a stadium or are primary tenants in one and that must limit their non-rugby income. Saints, Leeds, Wire, Catalan definite "A".

[Plan of Attack]

2 hours ago, moorside roughyed said:

A grade "A" club has its own ground. That's Wigan, Hull fc and Salford out. Batley, Dewsbury and Keighley in. 

And Barrow!

 

[Tommygilf]

34 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Thanks but that doesn’t say much about Leigh being an A, more about Cas & Wakey being a B. An A is possibly a place in SL for life. I’m not sure Leigh should be given that opportunity yet (neither should Cas or Wakey)

As I said they're all strong Bs 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

I'd have Wigan and Hull as "B" Neither own a stadium or are primary tenants in one and that must limit their non-rugby income. Saints, Leeds, Wire, Catalan definite "A".

I don't really care who owns their home or who rents. If renting a stadium is so problematic, they will find themselves hampered. 

In reality, we just need to look at the outputs. 

If a club is developing players, pulling in fans, getting sponsors, winning games - that is what is important, not who owns the ground. 

[yipyee]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

Leigh folded their academy in the past because they said it was a waste of time and they couldn't stop kids going to the bigger clubs. Why do you expect it to be different this time?

Kids will go to Saints and Wigan because they promote youth from within. Leigh never have and used the academy to tick a box whilst buying in journeymen.

If Leigh promoted youth from within then more kids would see it as a viable option and not as a plan b

[yipyee]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

The trouble with of these is they heavily favour the status quo. The revenue of any existing SL club will be substantially more than those outside. Some clubs have been denied academies too that would disadvantage them if it was a major factor. I would say attendances are important too and attendances at somewhere like Cas such be considered a plus compared to say Doncaster getting a tick because they play in a nice stadium.

I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong but I do feel it can't just be a case of basing this on criteria that existing SL clubs are bound to excel in. We've been down that road before.

Leigh must be spending a SL salary cap with current squad.

[yipyee]

21 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

I'd have Wigan and Hull as "B" Neither own a stadium or are primary tenants in one and that must limit their non-rugby income. Saints, Leeds, Wire, Catalan definite "A".

Might limit their matchday income however thats offset as they don't have maintenance costs etc..

Wigan must sell well more merchandise than say Leigh

[moorside roughyed]

15 minutes ago, Plan of Attack said:

And Barrow!

 

Oh yes, Barrow. 

[yipyee]

2 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Class A - Wire Saints Leeds.

1 Fit for purpose stadium with RL the primary tenant if not owner . Excellent floodlights, broadcasting and media facilities, toilets and catering to a high standard, on site and well lit parking

2. Financials - any losses to be covered by capitalising loans.

3. Must run and be awarded cat1 academies and reserves

4. Gates - min 60% capacity or 6500

 

 

Catalan also tick your boxes

[David Shepherd]

2 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Might limit their matchday income however thats offset as they don't have maintenance costs etc..

Wigan must sell well more merchandise than say Leigh

True, but they also have to do what the football club tell them when arranging fixtures and have even had to re-arrange a fixture because of a wedding on-site.

That shouldn't happen in a top flight, professional sport. 

[Anita Bath]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't really care who owns their home or who rents. If renting a stadium is so problematic, they will find themselves hampered. 

In reality, we just need to look at the outputs. 

If a club is developing players, pulling in fans, getting sponsors, winning games - that is what is important, not who owns the ground. 

What would the ‘winning games’ criteria be?  There is a bottom, as well as top, of any league so somebody has to do the losing. The existing system already has winning games as a criteria….if you dont win enough you get relegated. We dont need a franchise system for that. And the proposals are aimed at removing that criteria.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

True, but they also have to do what the football club tell them when arranging fixtures and have even had to re-arrange a fixture because of a wedding on-site.

That shouldn't happen in a top flight, professional sport. 

In an ideal world yes, but doesn't such issues also impact our Cup and Grand Finals?

[yipyee]

2 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

True, but they also have to do what the football club tell them when arranging fixtures and have even had to re-arrange a fixture because of a wedding on-site.

That shouldn't happen in a top flight, professional sport. 

True but then again the middle 8s created mayhem in scheduling. 

To be fair the wedding wasn't football or another sport telling them to move a fixture and didn't the game go ahead with just the stand closed?

[Spidey]

25 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

As I said they're all strong Bs 

So not an A then?

[Tommygilf]

14 minutes ago, Spidey said:

So not an A then?

I did say close to an A

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

We’ve got a load of hipster burger vans down the south end of the ground, and commissioned some new graffiti for our community portakabin 

 

[SalfordSlim]

3 hours ago, moorside roughyed said:

A grade "A" club has its own ground. That's Wigan, Hull fc and Salford out. Batley, Dewsbury and Keighley in. 

Hang on aren't you a Wire fan? Your username doesn't seem to tally...

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Seeing as though Grade As are the only one's guaranteed to be in Super League and Grade A is reportedly going to be at a very high bar, it would seem the majority of clubs will be at Grade B or lower. Whilst we don't know the firm criteria yet, we can at least have a discussion about what each club can do.

So, what changes at your club to make it Grade A? 

Unless they've already ' graded ' everybody , how would they know they won't have too many A grade clubs now ? 

[Stuff Smith]

5 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

So, what changes at your club to make it Grade A? 

Miracle. Actually, miracles (plural).

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

In reality, I don't think the Grade A clubs will be controversial or a surprise.  They are our strongest clubs. 

Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Hull, Wire, Catalans

That's a decent starter of a league, and if we had 6 more clubs of that strength we would be doing well. Sure, we can talk about Wigan giving way to a wedding at their stadium, Wire being rubbish on the field, and Hull's liking for rolling over and having their belly tickled, but they are the strongest clubs. 

Grade B's will be where the debates happen. 

IYO , so you've already done what they've done , you've already graded everybody 

Just like last time 

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Unless they've already ' graded ' everybody , how would they know they won't have too many A grade clubs now ? 

That would be a great position to be in. As is its blatantly obvious to all that we don't and the fact that we don't is part of the reason the sport is going down this path.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Anita Bath said:

What would the ‘winning games’ criteria be?  There is a bottom, as well as top, of any league so somebody has to do the losing. The existing system already has winning games as a criteria….if you dont win enough you get relegated. We dont need a franchise system for that. And the proposals are aimed at removing that criteria.

Winning games in this context means not being a basket case at the bottom every year because your club is incapable of putting a decent team out. How many games you win is a matter for your board and fans. 

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Winning games in this context means not being a basket case at the bottom every year because your club is incapable of putting a decent team out. How many games you win is a matter for your board and fans. 

But it won't be will it ? , It will be a matter for somebody else 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

IYO , so you've already done what they've done , you've already graded everybody 

Just like last time 

Well yes in my opinion. It's a fan discussion forum, with a specific thread about gradings. 

My point is that there shouldn't need to be too much discussion about the Wigan's, Leeds' and Hull's of this world. The decisions are around that middle ground where club merits are far closer. 

If we did a survey of RL fans who their 12 would be, I expect 90%+ would name the 6 I have in their top tier. The debate would be who make up the other 6 places. 

Arguing about whether Wigan own their ground, or Hull have a long lease is a waste of time. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

But it won't be will it ? , It will be a matter for somebody else 

That depends on criteria. If we are doing licensing/franchising/grading - call it what you will, then it really does have to be about creating strong clubs. It wasnt last time, we basically protected every existing club and guaranteed two new clubs could be promoted irrespective of the strength of them.