Jump to content

Could Leigh's promotion derail the IMG proposal's


Recommended Posts

When you say London will not last do you mean an attempt to push for a big SL side? Given that the Broncos have existed in one incarnation or other since 1980...You could also point to the state of many heartland clubs which have existed since even before 1895, and have had over 100 years to develop yet sit as semi pro teams with no real scope to grow.

The history of the game is littered with half-baked expansion attempts, but so often these failed due to the other clubs acting solely out of self-interest. I agree that its difficult to expand, but its a lot easier if the clubs don't hamstring any expansion to save a few quid.

I understand the massive issues associated with a competitive London side. But IMG have told the sport that the M62 corridor teams are not enough. Their job is to try to get money into the sport. To do that it least has to look like a national game. Another challenge for IMG which would help in all these debates is to prove the link between a London side and bringing in more cash.  If they can't then its fair enough excluding London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It is entirely possible to "grow outside of Super League" in these proposals.

When I first read it, I thought that 2, maybe 3 clubs stuck out as having massive opportunities in this system as opposed to trying to financially match a Leigh for example for promotion; York, London Broncos, and maybe Newcastle. If they can get their clubs and businesses strong enough, they are in a more prime position to kick on quicker than many others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

Don't like the sound of that previous comment "the strongest 'clubs', not teams, will be in SL"

The SL teams all having years and years of £2M per season and a full time set up during the whole of that period.

Sounds a bit dodgy to me - Just watch if they don't make all SL teams "A" and Leigh a "B" as they are a good Team. and Leigh go to finish 8th or 9th and get relegated. With all the "the strongest 'clubs'" below them

Leigh are a Superleague club though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/10/2022 at 22:34, Harry Stottle said:

No just kind of frustrated Dave, nothing personal in what I have said previously it just seems that the proposals that IMG have made may drive a wedge between those who are deemed to have and those who are on the periphery, @Jill Halfpenny fanis quite correct in questioning will it be a catastrophic situation for a relegated team this season - if that is to happen - and how will the 'B''s be categorised if there is a crossover in both the SL and Championship teams being given the same grading.

Remember we have paid absolutely zero for the alleged skills IMG are supposedly now using to somehow take the game forward. All this grading into "A"s and "B" is reminiscent of was it 2009 in when clubs got an "A" or a "B" and I think there was a "C" as well, it has all been done before, and cast aside before.

It's so easy to grade clubs simply by picking out Leeds, Hull, HKR, Wigan, Saints, Catalans Fartown and Warrington who are clubs with decent facilities and above all wealthy benevolent owners.  Given the track record of your own owner, as regards his heavy backing of investment, the LSV, and the plans for an academy, that gives us a core of 9 successful, well backed "A" grade clubs. 

Outside that are clubs like Toulouse, Castleford, Wakefield, Salford, and Featherstone, with Bradford maybe to come if investment comes in for the ground, or Widnes if a rich owner picks them up. These are less well backed clubs - so call them "grade B" if you want, but what does it matter, for the sensible way to decide who goes in Superleague with the "A"s is just compete for the places on the pitch.  If a so called "A" comes bottom maybe they have the wrong grading... 

Nothing I have seen or heard (and that's not much) from IMG makes any real sense. It's as if the game has made a stupid decision to call in supposes experts, when our club owners already in the game know exactly the issues we face, as do we on this Forum.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

Don't like the sound of that previous comment "the strongest 'clubs', not teams, will be in SL"

The SL teams all having years and years of £2M per season and a full time set up during the whole of that period.

Sounds a bit dodgy to me - Just watch if they don't make all SL teams "A" and Leigh a "B" as they are a good Team. and Leigh go to finish 8th or 9th and get relegated. With all the "the strongest 'clubs'" below them

Thats the whole point of IMG's proposals to have strong, viable clubs in order to grow the game and to move away from the current system of just being based on on-field results with yo-yo clubs continually on the verge of going bust.

The aim is to get 12 (and eventually 14+) strong Category A clubs in SL, and presumably then to have a Championship with 12-14 strong Category B clubs (who can then set their sights on a future Cat A licence and a place in SL).

A prime example of this is probably a club like Newcastle. They're in an area i'm sure IMG would call as a 'development / expansion' area and they'd love to see them become a strong Category B club in the short term (say 4-5 years) and a Cat A club in the long term (say 8-10 Yrs).

Having a strong, stable competition across SL and the lower leagues will inevitably lead to improvements in income streams (TV deals, sponsorships etc.). I understand why people may argue over the detail of how this is achieved (even though that detail is yet to be determined & made public), but surely nobody can argue about the logic of their long term plan for the sport ?

  • Like 7

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Urrrgh, keep your West Cumbrian games up there.

You are the one who mentioned reaming.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BIG issue will be the criteria used to conclude who the strongest clubs are.

Obvious and even ones will be

Stadium - capacity, facilities and corporate

Financials - Turnover, profit, historic debt, cash in bank, sustainability 

Crowds - Historic based upon division, potential based upon RL culture, populus, junior clubs/school participation

Results - what has the club won in the past x years, does winning the Championship count as much as winning SL, as that was the comp some clubs were in?

It will be difficult to compare Academy due to some clubs being refused licences, eg if Oldham/Halifax had run a FT Academy for the past 20 years would it have been better than Huddersfield or Bradford or Cas etc Do you say these are the Junior clubs under the umbrella of the senior club and how many kids from these are in the current Academy structures?

Interesting times ahead!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Anyway I hope IMG make Leigh sort out their Branding - is degsy too tight to pay for a decent Branding Agency?

Always liked the “Leigh Winos” chant,  should be able to get a good brewery on board for that one

Edited by sweaty craiq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Thats the whole point of IMG's proposals to have strong, viable clubs in order to grow the game and to move away from the current system of just being based on on-field results with yo-yo clubs continually on the verge of going bust.

The aim is to get 12 (and eventually 14+) strong Category A clubs in SL, and presumably then to have a Championship with 12-14 strong Category B clubs (who can then set their sights on a future Cat A licence and a place in SL).

A prime example of this is probably a club like Newcastle. They're in an area i'm sure IMG would call as a 'development / expansion' area and they'd love to see them become a strong Category B club in the short term (say 4-5 years) and a Cat A club in the long term (say 8-10 Yrs).

 surely nobody can argue about the logic of their long term plan for the sport ?

So let me get this right.

At a time the lifeblood of the game, the TV deal, is going to be heavily reduced, IMG are to come in and strengthen 28 clubs up to the point they can all run professionally.  This will involve clubs "growing their businesses", which I assume means growing fanbases and growing quality players.

It's a Tommy Cooper moment "Just like that😆 

As for Newcastle, the area is a rugby Union one, and their RL academy bears very little fruit, and crowds are not great. This is after 23 years...............

Now if the SL/RFL are themselves as convinced as you and other wishful thinkers why don't they start putting money IMG's way to accelerate the process? 😉

I can do Emojies as well, but they aren't a substitute for reasonable debate.🙂

It's a long term thing I agree, but a long term "wish" not plan, unless anyone can explain??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, steve oates said:

So let me get this right.

At a time the lifeblood of the game, the TV deal, is going to be heavily reduced, IMG are to come in and strengthen 28 clubs up to the point they can all run professionally.  This will involve clubs "growing their businesses", which I assume means growing fanbases and growing quality players.

It's a Tommy Cooper moment "Just like that😆 

As for Newcastle, the area is a rugby Union one, and their RL academy bears very little fruit, and crowds are not great. This is after 23 years...............

Now if the SL/RFL are themselves as convinced as you and other wishful thinkers why don't they start putting money IMG's way to accelerate the process? 😉

I can do Emojies as well, but they aren't a substitute for reasonable debate.🙂

It's a long term thing I agree, but a long term "wish" not plan, unless anyone can explain??

IMG's intentions for long term are good but the timescale for the implementation of their proposal's are just to quick, there is a lot of truth in the saying "learn to walk before you can run" I have a strong feeling that there is going to be some stumbling and tripping up with this system of the ratings the A's are all but sorted, but who is going to be in the 'B'  category and at what level will it be a 'B+', just a 'B' or a 'B-'.

The system should be started with a blank piece of paper, and individually tailored to each club, advise them as to what is their assumed rating and what they need to do to improve it and reassess it periodically and do that over 3 or 4 years, then go full on into it not in 12 months time as is proposed.

Utilise the 7 P's instead of jumping in head first.

"Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piff Poor Performance'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

and do that over 3 or 4 years, then go full on into it not in 12 months time as is proposed.

To be fair, my understanding is that the first review is completed in 2023, then you have a season of transition of some kind (no idea), before it is properly implemented in 2025.

And *after that*, it is ongoing process for each club.

So whilst it starts a year earlier than you would like, the process of each club having tailored targets related to their position in the criteria does absolutely seem to already be part of it.

  • Like 3

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

27 minutes ago, steve oates said:

So let me get this right.

At a time the lifeblood of the game, the TV deal, is going to be heavily reduced, IMG are to come in and strengthen 28 clubs up to the point they can all run professionally.  This will involve clubs "growing their businesses", which I assume means growing fanbases and growing quality players.

It's a Tommy Cooper moment "Just like that😆 

 

I think you fundamentally misunderstand IMG's role. They're not here to strengthen clubs, their proposals are to put in place the structure for the whole competition that will give clubs targets to work towards to gain certain classes of licence and strengthen themselves in the process. This then allows IMG to have greater leverage when negotiating future deals with sponsors, TV companies etc. The stronger and more stable the game the more attractive it is for bringing money into the game.

  • Like 2

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

IMG's intentions for long term are good but the timescale for the implementation of their proposal's are just to quick, there is a lot of truth in the saying "learn to walk before you can run" I have a strong feeling that there is going to be some stumbling and tripping up with this system of the ratings the A's are all but sorted, but who is going to be in the 'B'  category and at what level will it be a 'B+', just a 'B' or a 'B-'.

The system should be started with a blank piece of paper, and individually tailored to each club, advise them as to what is their assumed rating and what they need to do to improve it and reassess it periodically and do that over 3 or 4 years, then go full on into it not in 12 months time as is proposed.

Utilise the 7 P's instead of jumping in head first.

"Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piff Poor Performance'

 

As I've said Harry, the only safe thing for a club to do is forget about whether they are a strong B or not and build to being Grade A.

We'll soon learn what they are looking at to give those grading levels and clubs will have 2 years to develop themselves to the required level. Some might not be good enough, but perhaps that is the point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

IMG's intentions for long term are good but the timescale for the implementation of their proposal's are just to quick, there is a lot of truth in the saying "learn to walk before you can run" I have a strong feeling that there is going to be some stumbling and tripping up with this system of the ratings the A's are all but sorted, but who is going to be in the 'B'  category and at what level will it be a 'B+', just a 'B' or a 'B-'.

The system should be started with a blank piece of paper, and individually tailored to each club, advise them as to what is their assumed rating and what they need to do to improve it and reassess it periodically and do that over 3 or 4 years, then go full on into it not in 12 months time as is proposed.

Utilise the 7 P's instead of jumping in head first.

"Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piff Poor Performance'

 

As I read it Harry, they're pretty much going to do exactly what you propose, but in 2 years, not 12 months, as the first year's ratings are indicative only. 

The only real difference is you're proposing 2 or 3 years of indicative ratings before the system kicks in fully. 

That's not an unreasonable view, but I imagine they feel that if they let things drift much longer than 2 years wider harm could be done, and would outweigh another year of guidance. Who would that really help, given the assessments will continue once the IMG system is up and running?

If we're going do do this, we're going to have to rip the plaster off at some point, and 2 years feels about right to me. 

Edited by Toby Chopra
  • Like 2
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...