Jump to content

Who will have an A licence and why?


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Certainly worth investigating for sure

If the argument is a lack of players where else to grab them than a region next to heartlands so going into part time amatuer or uni game an option plus no union side to compete with.

Edited by ShropshireBull
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Why I said if. But criteria cant be fair if clubs are banned but that very denied opportunity is held against them. Thats just a cowards franchising. 

Criteria is rarely ' fair ' , and even less seen as fair 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

If the argument is a lack of players where else to grab them than a region next to heartlands so going into part time amatuer or uni game and option plus no union side to compete with.

I imagine the easiest way is to increase participation in the heartlands but say 15% may be easier than a new area completely.

More Tag rugby games to encourage those not physically developed yet I think would help if we consider a pyramid approach were the more players you start with the more you get out the other end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I imagine the easiest way is to increase participation in the heartlands but say 15% may be easier than a new area completely.

More Tag rugby games to encourage those not physically developed yet I think would help if we consider a pyramid approach were the more players you start with the more you get out the other end.

I think fact you can incubate South Yorkshire at college level whilst having a critical mass and two clubs to link with is what makes it doable.

Theres some natural pathway entry points when people are starting a new school college uni. So out of the thousands of kids at sheffield college Doncaster and even Rotherham could you get 20 at each for a 7 week season, with RFL support I’d think so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/10/2022 at 22:42, David Dockhouse Host said:

I understand why you may think that but the fact is quite different, it's mainly because they get first draft of the best kids.

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.  

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

 

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 ?

This is the bit that is nonsense. It's how Saints, Wigan and Leeds justify rewarding themselves, patting themselves on the back as more rules are introduced that activeky prevent this happening. 

If only the others tried harder! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

It's not the fault of the big 3 this is happening. The cycle is in place now and I don't know how anyone can break it. Clubs have tried, they have invested but despite the odd good year, the odd first teamer they largely fall short of the 3.

The big 3 can quite easily be the big 4, 5 or 6 in a relatively short space of time. Using Warrington as an example, they have the money, they have the facilities, they have good local engagement and their academy teams generally do OK on the field. The only thing thats stops Warrington is Opportunity. For years they've just gone out and tried to buy success, importing new players at every opportunity. They must put youngsters off from signing for the club in the first place if they can see they would have little opportunity to try and establish themselves in the first team if they choose to sign for Wire.

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed a lot of the conversation around the IMG proposals, so no doubt this has been covered already. But, who decides who out of the B grades gets to be in Super League? And how will they make sure that they judge current Championship Bs fairly against current Super League Bs, given the latter has had the benefit of significant central funding to get their B status, while the others haven't?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

The big 3 can quite easily be the big 4, 5 or 6 in a relatively short space of time. Using Warrington as an example, they have the money, they have the facilities, they have good local engagement and their academy teams generally do OK on the field. The only thing thats stops Warrington is Opportunity. For years they've just gone out and tried to buy success, importing new players at every opportunity. They must put youngsters off from signing for the club in the first place if they can see they would have little opportunity to try and establish themselves in the first team if they choose to sign for Wire.

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.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Missed a lot of the conversation around the IMG proposals, so no doubt this has been covered already. But, who decides who out of the B grades gets to be in Super League? And how will they make sure that they judge current Championship Bs fairly against current Super League Bs, given the latter has had the benefit of significant central funding to get their B status, while the others haven't?

I think that is the biggest 'gap' in the proposals, and is easily the most controversial bit. I think it was naive of them to release this without more thought on that.

Apparently the best rated B sides make up the rest of the SL places. But then the B sides are interchangeable, and nobody knows whether that means there will be an annual reshuffle, or what.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

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.

 

I know this season wasn't good Dave, but you don't need to get excuses in for next year quite yet! 😆

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that is the biggest 'gap' in the proposals, and is easily the most controversial bit. I think it was naive of them to release this without more thought on that.

Apparently the best rated B sides make up the rest of the SL places. But then the B sides are interchangeable, and nobody knows whether that means there will be an annual reshuffle, or what.

They've talked about ranking the teams within each category.

So, it doesn't sound particularly random or overlooked.

It may also be, of course, that not all B teams want to be in the top tier, either.

  • Like 2

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, Dave T said:

I think that is the biggest 'gap' in the proposals, and is easily the most controversial bit. I think it was naive of them to release this without more thought on that.

Apparently the best rated B sides make up the rest of the SL places. But then the B sides are interchangeable, and nobody knows whether that means there will be an annual reshuffle, or what.

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They've talked about ranking the teams within each category.

So, it doesn't sound particularly random or overlooked.

It may also be, of course, that not all B teams want to be in the top tier, either.

 

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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

Yes, they've highlighted that the strongest rated B teams will make up the remaining SL clubs. They have also said that they will be assessed annually. That suggests there can be movement between divisions annually. That would appear to maintain the lack of certainty that is a challenge with P&R. 

The one problem this fixes is it stops a smaller club replacing a weak club, which could have happened this year had Wire lost another couple and Batley had one more win. 

I don't think it addresses the biggest issue. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave T said:

 

Yes, they've highlighted that the strongest rated B teams will make up the remaining SL clubs. They have also said that they will be assessed annually. That suggests there can be movement between divisions annually. That would appear to maintain the lack of certainty that is a challenge with P&R. 

The one problem this fixes is it stops a smaller club replacing a weak club, which could have happened this year had Wire lost another couple and Batley had one more win. 

I don't think it addresses the biggest issue. 

The way to avoid it will be to improve to A standard.

The whole point is to drive up standards.

This is a non issue of vanishingly tiny importance in the context of the whole game.

I'm very not on board with twisting the whole conversation to the same four or five clubs every time.

  • 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:

The way to avoid it will be to improve to A standard.

The whole point is to drive up standards.

This is a non issue of vanishingly tiny importance in the context of the whole game.

I'm very not on board with twisting the whole conversation to the same four or five clubs every time.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Indeed.

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

There is little logic to this point. 

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

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...