Jump to content

Who will have an A licence and why?


yipyee

Recommended Posts

Just now, Dave T said:

It isn't a non-issue though, as long as you have B clubs in SL. 

It isn't vanishing, it's not like we are getting more and more big clubs. 

Hopefully this will address that, but this proposal effectively leaves annual P&R on the table for the foreseeable future. 

It is vanishingly small. It'll directly impact about as many clubs as you can count on the fingers of one hand.

Out of 37.

They can sort themselves out to become As or lobby their favourite click bait scribblers to moan about the unfairness until the RFL changes course.

We don't need to keep indulging them.

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


7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

There's definitely been discussions of rankings within tiers, and specific mention of "strong Bs" as a sort of subcategory. 

It still hasn't been nailed down though, and as Dave and others have said there's no explanation yet of how teams in different divisions are going to be fairly ranked against each other. 

There will have to be some sort of way to have an adjusted analysis to see whether teams are underperforming or overperforming relative to their division, rather than just against each other, which would clearly favour existing superleague teams. 

Sometimes it's obvious - London in 2014 or Widnes in 2018 were spiralling down fast, and it was affecting them both on and off the pitch. There were obvious contenders to make more of a superleague place than the declining club. But other years its not so obvious, so clear and measurable criteria are going to be vital if this is going to work. 

I also think they still need to look at protecting a promoted B club for a year when they go up. Make them a B* as it were. Because there's no point making the huge call that, say, Leigh have better fundamentals to be SL over, say, Salford, but then exposing Leigh to all the massive disadvantages new clubs face in 'year 1'.

So there's lots to still nail down. 

But overall I'm not too fussed that they didn't have all this detail at their fingertips last week - that meeting was all about laying out the broad plan and seeing if it would fly in principle, and seek feedback. 

And bar the odd whinge from the likes of Keighley and online moaners, most clubs across the tiers have cautiously said they're willing to hear more. 

That wasn't a given: look at what's just happened in cricket. Strauss released his bold new plan and pretty much the entire game rejected it, and now he either has to go back to the drawing board entirely, or it's a massive row. 

We're in a better place than that I hope. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

It is vanishingly small. It'll directly impact about as many clubs as you can count on the fingers of one hand.

Out of 37.

They can sort themselves out to become As or lobby their favourite click bait scribblers to moan about the unfairness until the RFL changes course.

We don't need to keep indulging them.

But that is no more than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying you don't want to discuss it. The easy thing is for you to ignore it. 

But IMG have left this on the table. The biggest error with the last licensing change was that we left P&R on the table. It undermined it all and this becomes even more pronounced as it becomes an annual review instead of every 3 years last time. 

And it doesn't just affect a small number of teams, even ignoring the fact that the number of B teams is likely to outnumber A teams, the makeup and success of the top tier affects the whole game. It's relevant to the success of SL who is in SL. 

If it was all so irrelevant, we'd just carry on as we are and leave the yo yo teams to themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

But that is no more than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying you don't want to discuss it. The easy thing is for you to ignore it. 

No, I don't want discussion about the same middle section of teams to lead the discussion. That's quite different.

IMG have no more left how category B teams will be ranked on the table than they've left any other aspect of the very broad, outline framework that was presented.

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

Just now, gingerjon said:

No, I don't want discussion about the same middle section of teams to lead the discussion. That's quite different.

IMG have no more left how category B teams will be ranked on the table than they've left any other aspect of the very broad, outline framework that was presented.

Whether we like it or not, the whole strategy is about them.  This is about how we turn under-performing clubs into big clubs. 

This is all about how we get more clubs performing at the level of Wigan, Leeds and Saints. Accepting that these best clubs are A's actively takes them out of the conversation. 

And remember, this is just the structure discussion, there are loads other topics and things happening, but structure isn't really about Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Hull, Catalans - I think it's pretty much a given where they will sit in grading. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whether we like it or not, the whole strategy is about them.  This is about how we turn under-performing clubs into big clubs. 

Indeed.

And wondering how they're going to rank the B teams will ensure they stay nice and mediocre.

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

Just now, Dave T said:

There is little logic to this point. 

The drive should not be focused on "what can X do to be a top ranking B and thus be in the top tier ahead of a lower ranked B"?

As I say, that way continued, indulgent mediocrity lies.

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 minute ago, gingerjon said:

The drive should not be focused on "what can X do to be a top ranking B and thus be in the top tier ahead of a lower ranked B"?

As I say, that way continued, indulgent mediocrity lies.

I'm not aware of anyone thinking like that. 

I'm sure all clubs are aiming to be the best versions they can be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I'm not aware of anyone thinking like that. 

I'm sure all clubs are aiming to be the best versions they can be. 

Good for them.

The only way to guarantee a top tier place is to be category A.

Anything other than that and they will have no guarantees of a top tier place.

I'm not sure how much simpler it needs to be than that.

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 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Good for them.

The only way to guarantee a top tier place is to be category A.

Anything other than that and they will have no guarantees of a top tier place.

I'm not sure how much simpler it needs to be than that.

I think something has got lost in translation here, or you are just a bit grumpy this morning. Because this discussion isn't making sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave T said:

I think something has got lost in translation here, or you are just a bit grumpy this morning. Because this discussion isn't making sense. 

Probably both so I'll repeat it very simply.

The only way to guarantee a top tier place is to be category A.

I think we all understand this point.

They have said there will be some ranking of category B and this will be clearly done.

I think we all understand this point.

Now, in terms of being in the top tier being a really high category B is, at some point, not going to be good enough and, related, remaining a category B team leaves you open to being moved down anyway because another category B team may inch ahead of you on just enough criteria or another team becomes category A.

Thus, the only thing a team that wants to be in the top tier should really be focused on is achieving category A status.

Thus, being blunt, amid the whole raft of what is in the proposals, exactly how category B teams will be ranked in relation to top tier status is a short term concern of not many clubs.

  • Like 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 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Probably both so I'll repeat it very simply.

The only way to guarantee a top tier place is to be category A.

I think we all understand this point.

They have said there will be some ranking of category B and this will be clearly done.

I think we all understand this point.

Now, in terms of being in the top tier being a really high category B is, at some point, not going to be good enough and, related, remaining a category B team leaves you open to being moved down anyway because another category B team may inch ahead of you on just enough criteria or another team becomes category A.

Thus, the only thing a team that wants to be in the top tier should really be focused on is achieving category A status.

Thus, being blunt, amid the whole raft of what is in the proposals, exactly how category B teams will be ranked in relation to top tier status is a short term concern of not many clubs.

I think you have slightly more faith in the process than me tbh. I think Grade B clubs will be around for a whole yet - and I accept that we don't know the criteria and they can be set and manipulated however we want, but if we think about a base Grade A club looking like Hull, Wire and Catalans, I don't see another 6 clubs growing to that level in the next 5 to 10 years or so. Maybe Toulouse.

I hope I'm wrong, and I do think there's potentially a version of the future that sees clubs get their act together, but I think the whole Grade B debate will affect c10 clubs for a long time yet. 

I'm not sure I like it personally, but I do think a less fluid closed shop was the braver choice, that we appear to have bottled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave T said:

I think you have slightly more faith in the process than me tbh.

At the minute, aside from one comically bad survey, I've not seen anything to make me think they don't know what they're doing.

When that changes I may very well come at it from a different perspective.

Overall though, the focus on "the only way to guarantee being in the top tier is to be category A" has to be relentless. And I'm okay with that.

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

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

At the minute, aside from one comically bad survey, I've not seen anything to make me think they don't know what they're doing.

When that changes I may very well come at it from a different perspective.

Overall though, the focus on "the only way to guarantee being in the top tier is to be category A" has to be relentless. And I'm okay with that.

Sorry, when I say faith in the process, I don't mean the IMG part, I mean the outcomes of 12+ strong Grade A clubs in a relatively short period of time. I agree with you on being single minded on that, but I struggle to see it short term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Probably both so I'll repeat it very simply.

The only way to guarantee a top tier place is to be category A.

I think we all understand this point.

They have said there will be some ranking of category B and this will be clearly done.

I think we all understand this point.

Now, in terms of being in the top tier being a really high category B is, at some point, not going to be good enough and, related, remaining a category B team leaves you open to being moved down anyway because another category B team may inch ahead of you on just enough criteria or another team becomes category A.

Thus, the only thing a team that wants to be in the top tier should really be focused on is achieving category A status.

Thus, being blunt, amid the whole raft of what is in the proposals, exactly how category B teams will be ranked in relation to top tier status is a short term concern of not many clubs.

But given a decision has been made on how many clubs will be in SL before clubs have been assessed, the comparative rating of the B rated clubs becomes pretty fundamental.

The likely B clubs in this season's Championship will know what they need to do to become graded A. Leigh need an academy, everyone else needs to be full time, London need some sense of a permanent home, all could do with higher average attendances.

But there's only so much that can be done, while in the Championship. Which is why the second part of my question was how will these be judged against clubs, that have been in SL for years, but are still only graded a B?

You mentioned in another post that some clubs wouldn't want a place in SL. Hopefully somebody has actually asked them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

But there's only so much that can be done, while in the Championship.

We don't know what the criteria are so we don't know how restrictive being in the Championship will be to achieving category A status. On this point, I don't think any comparison with how the licencing criteria before were phrased and marked is useful. This is a whole new process.

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

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

We don't know what the criteria are so we don't know how restrictive being in the Championship will be to achieving category A status. On this point, I don't think any comparison with how the licencing criteria before were phrased and marked is useful. This is a whole new process.

Will IMG be judging clubs against the criteria that they set out? Or will that be the RFL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that calculating a coefficient for a club rather than just putting them in a category is fundamentally flawed and will lead to a completely unnecessary focus on small annual changes in the ranking of B clubs and probably also cause problems in the perceived fairness of - if/when it happens - the elevation of a B club into an A. 

Categories, yes; coefficients, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Will IMG be judging clubs against the criteria that they set out? Or will that be the RFL?

No idea.

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

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

There's no such thing as a Draft - every junior has a choice of who they sign for if made multiple offers. The fact that many of the top players choose the top 3 clubs is largely down to what those clubs can offer that many of the other clubs don't, can't or wont.

There are multiple reasons, money, coaching, facilities, opportunity etc. so the real question should be why don't all clubs offer the same to try and entice the best youngsters ?

So if academy / youth development is made part of the A Licence criteria this will force clubs to improve in this area.  

I know there's no draft, but essentially this is what happens, top 3 get the best pick.

I don't want to repeat what's already been said if I can help it but many other clubs do offer those things and still cannot convince the best to join them.

Big 3 are more likely to win, big 3 have more kudos, big 3 can show conversion to first team, big 3 not in a chance of going down so can risk kids easier etc. Many reasons why best youth chose them.

To say improve coaching and facilities and players will then chose them is incorrect, if it was that easy the other teams would have done it as the benefits are obvious.

I understand on the surface it may appear that simple but it isn't.

The fact that this has been the same for more than a decade is proof the current system is almost impossible to change. It can only be done by the teams at the top being replaced by others, which means playing more money than other clubs etc.

Simply put the current system favours the top 3, this isn't blaming them, many get defensive, it is how it works though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think this is a bit of a false narrative. 

Have Wire actively stopped quality players playing for the first team? Or is it that the players we have are not as good as Wigan, Saints and Leeds, because we get 4th choice? Because I don't see a list of players who we have gone on elsewhere and done well. 

So if you don't have the quality, they don't break through into the first team, and you buy in. But then apparently good kids don't join you, because they think they won't get in. But if you do put them in your team is weaker and you become less attractive.

Because as things stand - literally the only difference Wire can make if we follow the logic through, is to start playing young kids no matter their standard. I'm not sure that is a great plan.

 

Thewliss has great potential and has already preformed well in numerous games - but you went out and bought the worst FB in the NRL in Dufty. Similar for Wrench at centre but you tried to re-sign Wardle.

Just 2 examples where you have academy players who have shown enough to suggest they can play regular 1st team rugby but Wire have chosen to buy in instead of letting them establish themselves first to see if they'll really make it.

And before you no doubt make the comment of 'we'll play Dufty at 6', its exactly the same outcome in that he's now stopping Dean from getting his chance. 

  • Like 2

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Thewliss has great potential and has already preformed well in numerous games - but you went out and bought the worst FB in the NRL in Dufty. Similar for Wrench at centre but you tried to re-sign Wardle.

Just 2 examples where you have academy players who have shown enough to suggest they can play regular 1st team rugby but Wire have chosen to buy in instead of letting them establish themselves first to see if they'll really make it.

And before you no doubt make the comment of 'we'll play Dufty at 6', its exactly the same outcome in that he's now stopping Dean from getting his chance. 

I don't think the emergence of the young lads this year, coinciding with our 11th place is a great advertisement for your theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think the emergence of the young lads this year, coinciding with our 11th place is a great advertisement for your theory. 

On the contrary, some of your better performing players this year were your own academy lads opposed to all your underperforming big money signings.

Wire are pretty much guaranteed to get an A Licence so with no relegation to worry about this would be the perfect opportunity to change their model from a buying club to a promote from within first club. If they accept they'll be unlikely to be serious challengers for the next 3-5 years or so while they build then they'll reap the rewards further down the track. Lets face it they've tried to buy their way to SL success and failed so there's obviously some merit in the theory that success comes from having a successful academy and opportunity system in place.

  • Like 1

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, iffleyox said:

so what you're saying is, when it comes to getting an A Licence, next year is Warrington's year? 

What could possibly go wrong??

No, what I said is, the next eight years belong to all four....In perpetuity!

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.