Jump to content

Could Leigh's promotion derail the IMG proposal's


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

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.

Beat me to it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Your Logo, Website, general look and feel of any marketing, tone of voice.

But mainly your logo is utterly dreadful and amateurish.

My tongue in cheek post that you didnt get at all was rebranding as 'Leigh Winos' from Centurions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/10/2022 at 16:00, Tommygilf said:

Jokes aside, the only way to guarantee being in Super League is to not be a Grade B at all, be Grade A. That is a sensible aspirational approach imo.

yes, agreed - never-the-less I would have thought that the criteria for grade A is at a very high bar. Otherwise why bother if it can take just a year or two to achieve.  Thus on my assumption their would be not many grade A based on the off field criteria, although I did note in the proposals they say both on and off field (just to ensure we don't forget.)

So on my assumption we should have quite a few grade B's for a few years in SL.

Surely it would not be a great approach if grade A is easily achieved, i.e. in a year or two - it would be clear as far as I'm concerned that the criteria would have been "fudged" if we are trying to get grade A's so quickly from where they stand today. As if it isn't much different than how we stand today then the whole grading structure would be meaningless to the future.

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

I'll reserve judgement until I see more details on the criteria and process of selection, but I'm leaving towards this not being a good direction. I think the mistrust caused by the last farce that was licensing (through lack of transparency in the selection process) caused huge division in the game that we're still having issues with to this day.

 

If there annual reviews of licenses, isn't that just the same as yearly promotion and relegation anyway? 

 

I don't see why they just didn't do the sensible thing of starting the Championship season earlier, finishing it before the end of the SL season and giving the promoted clubs first dibs on new signings. Worked for Widnes in 2002 and they've never done it again since!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

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.

That's all very well Tommy if we learn there are going to be different 'B' gradings has you have already subconsciously done so by saying "a strong 'B' grade" so let's say presently in SL there are 6 'A's that is that bit sorted, now we have 6 remaining SL clubs and a number of Championship clubs that will presumably be better than the remainder of the semi-pro clubs in the Championship and L1.

I honestly think that IMG have not been flexible enough in their choice of gradings it should have been a ladder system of say 5 steps from base to the top level, each individual club could then work through their personal 'promotion' programme to be reassessed and regarded each and every season if they attain the next level.

I think with the present way that IMG have suggested it will lead to a lot of consternation about who has got what and why other clubs haven't.

Unless I was the CEO of a gaurenteed 'A' rating I would not be voting for and signing anything off that was not clearly and concisely spelt out with all the i's dotted and t's crossed with a simplistic and intelligible explanation of how the gradings are awarded and a visual pathway of improvement.

You may be very correct with your last sentance, but everyone needs to know where they stand.

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

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I'll reserve judgement until I see more details on the criteria and process of selection, but I'm leaving towards this not being a good direction. I think the mistrust caused by the last farce that was licensing (through lack of transparency in the selection process) caused huge division in the game that we're still having issues with to this day.

 

Transparency.How the Game would benefit from much much more. 

Supporters are the backbone of the Game. However we seem to be presented with another new plan, without much details and thus ability to fairly critique it.

Sadly I just can not stop thinking it is a stitch up by half a dozen clubs. However if I ignore my bad gut feelings, what so about these A and B gradings.

I agree Harry and Wellsy, we really could do with some openness about what the real criteria will be.

Then it makes me make some assumptions on who the A clubs will be and how those B boys will force an upgrade.

Wakefield and Cas need new facilities, Salford needs an academy, Bradford needs a pray and everyone south of Newcastle  needs  more supporters.

Is the assumption such changes will come solely from each club? I really struggle with that and worry this is an invitation for boom and bust.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, redjonn said:

yes, agreed - never-the-less I would have thought that the criteria for grade A is at a very high bar. Otherwise why bother if it can take just a year or two to achieve.  Thus on my assumption their would be not many grade A based on the off field criteria, although I did note in the proposals they say both on and off field (just to ensure we don't forget.)

So on my assumption we should have quite a few grade B's for a few years in SL.

Surely it would not be a great approach if grade A is easily achieved, i.e. in a year or two - it would be clear as far as I'm concerned that the criteria would have been "fudged" if we are trying to get grade A's so quickly from where they stand today. As if it isn't much different than how we stand today then the whole grading structure would be meaningless to the future.

As I understand it, by this time next year, everyone will have been given a grade as a guideline. By this time in two years, grades will be given and then applied. 

Some Bs will inevitably be closer to Grade A than others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

As I understand it, by this time next year, everyone will have been given a grade as a guideline. By this time in two years, grades will be given and then applied. 

Some Bs will inevitably be closer to Grade A than others. 

B plus kids?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

As I understand it, by this time next year, everyone will have been given a grade as a guideline. By this time in two years, grades will be given and then applied. 

Some Bs will inevitably be closer to Grade A than others. 

By what out of what has been disclosed for you to come to that conclusion has given you the impression that will be the case.

I basically covered the same in my previous post to you but it seems you have dismissed answering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/10/2022 at 21:48, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Everything will be in the proposals Dave. What would concern me would be they decide that those in the initial intake in 2024 are given X years grace to inbed the system as has already been mentioned by some on here. Should that happen and the "wrong" club goes down then how strong will they be after X years in the championship. Just a thought.

So which club would be the wrong club to go down, Wigan warrington leeds saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

By what out of what has been disclosed for you to come to that conclusion has given you the impression that will be the case.

I basically covered the same in my previous post to you but it seems you have dismissed answering it.

Apologies Harry, I had put the response this is replying to before I had seen your post.

I see it as such. Put it like this, Clubs will be scored, across multiple factors, out of X (lets say 100 to make it easy). Say above 80 is an A, above 50 is a B, and below that a C. Just like with academic grades, a score of 75 would be seen as a "Strong B" whereas 55 wouldn't. They would however both be B's, indicating they are within a similar ballpark, but at different levels within that currently.

In terms of being outside what one would assume are the clubs that are closest to being A Graded, what else are they supposed to do? IMG are proposing a model in which if you can build a club up, you can play at the appropriate level with no arbitrary bottleneck based on 1 promotion spot or operating with a hand tied behind your back and relegation being a near certainty. 

If I were an owner of a club likely to be a Grade B outside of Super League, I'd see this as a great way to build and strengthen my club knowing that it can be rewarded for doing so. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PEANUT HEAD said:

So which club would be the wrong club to go down, Wigan warrington leeds saints.

This system is basically an admission that Super League (and Rugby League by extension) isn't strong enough to cope with the risk of losing 3 or 4 clubs from its top flight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2022 at 14:56, Harry Stottle said:

I think with the present way that IMG have suggested it will lead to a lot of consternation about who has got what and why other clubs haven't. Unless I was the CEO of a guarnteed 'A' rating I would not be voting for and signing anything off that was not clearly and concisely spelt out

 
Harry, I can excuse other posters, but haven't you been around long enough to remember the licensing process last time??  These were the results.................and what has happened since then...........
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2011 " A " grades Hull, Wigan, Leeds, Warrington, and since 2011 "A" grades, Saints (achieved by new ground) Catalans (achieved by ground and commercial improvement) and Hull.K.R. (achieved by ground and commercial improvement).
 
"B" grades Huddersfield (over reliant on Ken Davey) Castleford (poor ground) Salford (poor revenue streams, may be a "C" if they move)
 
"C" Grades Castleford (poor ground and revenue streams) Wakey (poor stadium, poor commercial set up)
 
London - Poor location, poor revenues, poor player production, dependent on one man........ 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
We are up to eight "A" clubs now with the probability that an academy may make Leigh an "A" club as well. So we may be looking at 9 "A" clubs in a 12 club league. 
 
Tommy say's "I'd see this as a great way to build and strengthen my club knowing that it can be rewarded for doing so". Well fair enough but under licensing Cas can only get there with a new ground, Huddersfield can only get there with more private support beyond Davey, Wakey may get there with the ground improvements if they then get better commercial income through it.
 
We didn't need IMG for the grading process as it's already there. I assume only that "A" grade clubs will be exempt from relegation?.....
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/10/2022 at 16:48, tuutaisrambo said:

Gonna be a lot of Grade B clubs I think.......the problem will be growing as a B club outside the top division when all the B clubs in the top division enjoy all the benefits of SL.

It's gonna be a boring spectacle without the risk of relegation but that's what the game wants.

I'd be happy enough with a national pro game with 12 teams the size of Leeds and Wigan.......we've probably got about 6 cat A clubs......getting another 6 to that level will be the hard part...... IMG probably want London and Toulouse in there......maybe a Welsh and Scottish club eventually too.

We can then have a competitive semi pro game below it for the rest of us peasants.

 

Any system that involves location as criteria is wrong IMO 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Any system that involves location as criteria is wrong IMO 

It may be that location is part of IMG's plans in not only spreading SL into new areas or favouring clubs they deem to be in specific area's like London, but also cropping area's from being over saturated with SL clubs, i.e. Leigh and or one of the Wakefield area club's, meaning Fev would never get in SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2022 at 10:40, redjonn said:

yes, agreed - never-the-less I would have thought that the criteria for grade A is at a very high bar. Otherwise why bother if it can take just a year or two to achieve.  Thus on my assumption their would be not many grade A based on the off field criteria, although I did note in the proposals they say both on and off field (just to ensure we don't forget.)

So on my assumption we should have quite a few grade B's for a few years in SL.

Surely it would not be a great approach if grade A is easily achieved, i.e. in a year or two - it would be clear as far as I'm concerned that the criteria would have been "fudged" if we are trying to get grade A's so quickly from where they stand today. As if it isn't much different than how we stand today then the whole grading structure would be meaningless to the future.

If you are going to ' licence or franchise ' then on field should carry no weight whatsoever 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2022 at 19:41, Tommygilf said:

Apologies Harry, I had put the response this is replying to before I had seen your post.

I see it as such. Put it like this, Clubs will be scored, across multiple factors, out of X (lets say 100 to make it easy). Say above 80 is an A, above 50 is a B, and below that a C. Just like with academic grades, a score of 75 would be seen as a "Strong B" whereas 55 wouldn't. They would however both be B's, indicating they are within a similar ballpark, but at different levels within that currently.

In terms of being outside what one would assume are the clubs that are closest to being A Graded, what else are they supposed to do? IMG are proposing a model in which if you can build a club up, you can play at the appropriate level with no arbitrary bottleneck based on 1 promotion spot or operating with a hand tied behind your back and relegation being a near certainty. 

If I were an owner of a club likely to be a Grade B outside of Super League, I'd see this as a great way to build and strengthen my club knowing that it can be rewarded for doing so. 

Fine , but will your primary income stream ( fans ) be happy to finance it ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It may be that location is part of IMG's plans in not only spreading SL into new areas or favouring clubs they deem to be in specific area's like London, but also cropping area's from being over saturated with SL clubs, i.e. Leigh and or one of the Wakefield area club's, meaning Fev would never get in SL.

Then it's wrong , also the opinion of the CAS fans residing in the room next to us last week in Turkey 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Then it's wrong , also the opinion of the CAS fans residing in the room next to us last week in Turkey 

Totally agree it's wrong, but I think that IMG are playing games with how they have drip fed a proposal and leaving so much open to speculation it should have been handed over as a comprehensive document to be read, scrutinised and deliberated by all the clubs, it seems to me there is something radical in there IMG do not wish to disclose.

Saying that, nothing at all should be agreed upon until the value of the next TV contract is disclosed and the RFL/SL's intentions regarding funding is revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

 I think that IMG are playing games with how they have drip fed a proposal and leaving so much open to speculation it should have been handed over as a comprehensive document to be read, scrutinised and deliberated by all the clubs, it seems to me there is something radical in there IMG do not wish to disclose.

All IMG are doing is acting as facilitators for a process that will see clubs having to thrash out the arrangements for the future, and the new (hopefully) TV deal. It seems to me you may be worried as a Leigh fan that you may get dumped on yet again. For me Beaumont, the modern ground and the Wigan Derbies make Leigh a must. Calm down dear 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, steve oates said:

All IMG are doing is acting as facilitators for a process that will see clubs having to thrash out the arrangements for the future, and the new (hopefully) TV deal. It seems to me you may be worried as a Leigh fan that you may get dumped on yet again. For me Beaumont, the modern ground and the Wigan Derbies make Leigh a must. Calm down dear 😉 

No you read me all wrong Petal, if you have ever read anything I have ever said with regards the games structure, I have a fear that many clubs could fold and be lost forever, it seems to me that to many supporters of SL clubs would not be bothered about any culling if it was to take place, I still have a feeling that Leneghan will want to promote his idea that SL clubs should keep all the TV contract monies within SL and to hell with the rest.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Any system that involves location as criteria is wrong IMO 

Last time out when clubs were "chosen" under licensing, London (then called Harlequins) were seen as a well backed expansion club and in the grading comments, they were congratulated for the development of a number of London players headed by Tony Clubb and Louis McCarthy Scarsbrook. Can't argue with that.

Those days are gone simple as, and have also gone for Newcastle. Gateshead did very well in Superleague but didn't do any more than one season in SL because the process drained their Aussie owners pockets. I am sure that "expansionists" or "dreamers" will think this is a chance for London and Gateshead to give us "Expansion" again but this dead horse does not deserve yet another flogging...

So your right.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

No you read me all wrong Petal, if you have ever read anything I have ever said with regards the games structure, I have a fear that many clubs could fold and be lost forever, it seems to me that to many supporters of SL clubs would not be bothered about any culling if it was to take place, I still have a feeling that Leneghan will want to promote his idea that SL clubs should keep all the TV contract monies within SL and to hell with the rest.

If Superleague is what brings in the TV contract then Superleague needs all the money, especially if it's a low paying contract. We have been around long enough to have watched the game over the very many post 1996 seasons when the lower divisions got nothing from TV, and I don't remember any of our established historic championship clubs dropping like flies, or going to hell.

We hit on a massive contract in recent years in which the RFL/Nigel Wood was able to fund Superleague effectively and have money over to give to the Championship, so they could be part of a big promotion play off system.

Lenegan argued correctly that the big play off system took all the limelight away from Superleague.  Wasn't the biggest  game of the season  Wakefield.v.Bradford??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

If Superleague is what brings in the TV contract then Superleague needs all the money, especially if it's a low paying contract. We have been around long enough to have watched the game over the very many post 1996 seasons when the lower divisions got nothing from TV, and I don't remember any of our established historic championship clubs dropping like flies, or going to hell.

We hit on a massive contract in recent years in which the RFL/Nigel Wood was able to fund Superleague effectively and have money over to give to the Championship, so they could be part of a big promotion play off system.

Lenegan argued correctly that the big play off system took all the limelight away from Superleague.  Wasn't the biggest  game of the season  Wakefield.v.Bradford??

So in a nutshell Steve, in your opinion as long as SL clubs are OK that is all that matters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So in a nutshell Steve, in your opinion as long as SL clubs are OK that is all that matters?

You seemed fine when your own club was receiving several 100k more than other Championship clubs.

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...