37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

They did it last time Dave , by letting CAS,Wakey,Salford and Saints in with substandard stadia 

It wasn't a stadium comp, as you know. 

[Oxford]

10 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

The game itself is a good product, the standard of some of the clubs playing it isn't a great advert for the game. Some clubs are very marketable some as they are right now just aren't.

I have a feeling that the standards argument is a front for dumping some clubs.

When we talk marketing I thought everyone was aware how many poor products and umarketable things end up selling like hot cakes because they were well marketed.

I think the ideas you posted there are those from within the game.

[Oxford]

10 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

Then you have misunderstood my argument. The categorisations, including A, aren't permanent but need to be continuously accredited, just like Ofsted in fact.

You accuse people of "buying into" this as if we are all a part of some conspiracy. In fact I have looked at the proposals that have been made public and, so far, see them as being a reasonable approach to taking the game forward. Naturally, I reserve the right to change my mind if and when other facts come to light.

Those who prefer to stick with what we have in the hope that things will somehow improve are also perfectly entitled to their opinions.

BSJ I've not understood your argument.

I made no accusation just made an observation that buying into something doesn't necessarily make it right.

You're not the first to suggest that by arguing against these suggestions I'm trying to keep things as they are.

 

[GUBRATS]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

It wasn't a stadium comp, as you know. 

No it wasn't , but it was a significant part of it , will it be part of it again ? , Should it be ? , And if it is , will clubs again be given time to achieve it ? 

Which will undermine the whole thing 

[Tommygilf]

15 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Surely they should be compared to their own starting point , not other clubs , so if they don't improve their own performance , then they become at risk ,isn't that what constant improvement and assessment means ?

Grade A is Grade A.

That point and the expectations of it will shift over time - at one point Odsal was state of the art, it no longer is at all for example. Or it may be that averaging 10k attendees isn't deemed worthy of Grade A in 6 years time on its own if lots of clubs have reached that point.

As I said, the advantage of being strongly in the A category (or B for that matter) is that you have a decent buffer in place before you drop to B (or C). That's a reward for what work you have already put in, but most will want to maintain their score; hence continual improvement.

[steve oates]

17 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

A shot yes , but no chance whatsoever of staying in SL , and that's with P and R , start grading and it's not even worth bothering 

So all IMG has done is announced some licenses after which some posters pointed out this was done some years ago by the game and it failed. Yet somehow this is being interpreted as a brave new world for the professional game. It doesn’t add us a single new player, it doesn’t add a single new investor, and it doesn’t add a single new fan. 

 If there is something that can be structurally done to improved matters it has to be the promotion and relegation problem where the promoted clubs are given a real disadvantage that isn’t at all fair. This issue was noted by Lenegan some years back and he suggested P & R should happen every other year. 

This probably won’t add many new fans and players, but it may encourage the odd investor or two to back a championship club, without having to lose the £Millions Mr. Beaumont has had to stand over the years, which begs the question does this current system put potential investors (without the dogged determinaiton Beaumont  has) off putting their money in??

[dkw]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Grade A is Grade A.

That point and the expectations of it will shift over time - at one point Odsal was state of the art, it no longer is at all for example. Or it may be that averaging 10k attendees isn't deemed worthy of Grade A in 6 years time on its own if lots of clubs have reached that point.

As I said, the advantage of being strongly in the A category (or B for that matter) is that you have a decent buffer in place before you drop to B (or C). That's a reward for what work you have already put in, but most will want to maintain their score; hence continual improvement.

I would hope the criteria is also reviewed at least as often as the clubs are.

[Oxford]

Of course, the problem has been talking in a vacuum for the most part.

I suspect the origin of this whole idea and the reasons for it being brought into place.

I would like a few things like wider world connections to be included in the criteria. (helping spread the word)

Category A is not logically an A and if Cat A is what you're already doing why change? I also think that means the criteria for this seem well in advance of IMG's involvement.

I don't think this will answer the issues truly needed and will simply satisfy those already disposed to the idea.

 

 

 

[Harry Stottle]

On 26/11/2022 at 10:05, Adelaide Tiger said:

What I meant by ‘bun fight’ was that some clubs such as Leigh, Fev, Toulouse can try to outspend each other to gain promotion.  Nothing wrong with that as long as the clubs do it in a sustainable manner.

However, supporters of Leigh and Fev on this board have misgivings/anger/mistrust of IMG’s proposals because these clubs plus Toulouse are in that ‘grey area’ of clubs that are a cut above other Championship clubs both in operational and financial terms but are fearful that they may miss out in the initial make up of SL in the new proposal.  Again I understand why supporters feel like that.

IMHO it appears - due to the vote - that other clubs in the Championship and League 1 do not want to compete against Leigh, Fev or Toulouse by gambling their future on a one off promotion bid a la Newcastle.  Therefore the Board/owners of those clubs see a slow, strategic growth plan as the better option.  You could argue that those clubs used the vote because of jealousy towards Leigh, Fev and Toulouse but that was the outcome.

Well thought out and very well put AT.

Now to the criteria, the list to be announced  that needs to be acheived that will grade all of the teams into each respective catagory.

The crux of it all and starting position is going to be the required 'points' to obtain an 'A' classification, now if the criteria was to be set by some independent body that has no knowledge of our game but based purely on what what a professional club in the UK should look like and have in 2023/24 I doubt very much that any of our clubs would be anywhere near acheiving an 'A' grade based on  things such as, turnover, operating profit, minimum average crowds, ground ownership, stadium suitability, development pathways etc etc, nearer to the truth will be that the criterion will be set and adjusted to the 4 or 5 clubs that are already pencilled in to be 'A' listers. Under that we will have the 'B's and the 'C's, the 'B's is really going to be a contentious area, there are those that SL/IMG wants in that list but others they most probably don't so again in my opinion there will be a great deal of fudging with the criterion based on what individual clubs can acheive to obtain the required number of points of which division they will play in.

I can see the reasoning behind your 'jealousy' theory, but I think that when the criteria along with the grading of clubs is announced it will be an area of great contention, much more than last time in '09 when it was just a licence to obtain, and considering this 37/42 was just a vote for a 'proposal' to go ahead, I would not be at all surprised if a number of clubs would be reversing that when there is actually something to vote on.

[Harry Stottle]

23 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Or that Leigh sealed the IMG vote by showing other clubs even if you put all the building blocks in place you would be wasting your time when someone drops a million plus onto a squad. We’ve had Toronto, Toulouse then Leigh. 

Most of us would rather see a thriving part time second tier where it’s very competitive and every club feels that if they are doing the right things they have a shot in the playoffs to go to SL. 

This is the most open it’s been in years and that’s largely down to Toulouse keeping their powder dry (for now). 

 

Oh I agree it would be great to see a very competitive Championship, but the only way to acheive that Salop is to drop the standards of the comp, if this coming season for example you wanted to see a competitive comp then a low value salery cap would have to introduced based on the spending capability of the poorest club, basically everyone who desires a competitive Championship is calling for is for the poorest clubs to set the standards that all the others have to adhere to.

[Harry Stottle]

20 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Yes.

But say the pass mark for a grade A is 70/100. If St Helens are already on 85, they have a lot of room to fall back on before they are in squeaky bum time. It is in their interests to keep that buffer however.

Saints will fall I to that Catagorie Tommy as will another 3 or 4 clubs, the criteria will be based on they already have, not what they are expected to obtain.

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Saints will fall I to that Catagorie Tommy as will another 3 or 4 clubs, the criteria will be based on they already have, not what they are expected to obtain.

Like you I expect there to be some already Grade A teams. Leeds, Wigan, Warrington and Saints are the English examples that come to mind. 

That said even within that grouping there is differentiators. Wigan might lose marks for not having primacy of their home ground. St Helens and Warrington aren't growth or particularly target markets, Leeds and Wigan's crowds have been worryingly stagnant or declining over the past decade or so.

Everyone has room to improve, some just have more room than others. Such is life no?

And these standards will be under review. If suddenly all 12 teams in SL are averaging 10k minimum attendances, Warrington and Saints for example aren't that special for that anymore. It should drive standards upwards across the board.

[GUBRATS]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Oh I agree it would be great to see a very competitive Championship, but the only way to acheive that Salop is to drop the standards of the comp, if this coming season for example you wanted to see a competitive comp then a low value salery cap would have to introduced based on the spending capability of the poorest club, basically everyone who desires a competitive Championship is calling for is for the poorest clubs to set the standards that all the others have to adhere to.

Remember the 2003 RFL cap for NL1 ( Championship ) of £250 K , something similar to that is the only way to have a truly competitive Championship , something that went out of the window when a certain Welsh club entered the lower tiers , how would our Canadian or French cousins cope with that ? 

Edited November 27, 2022 by GUBRATS

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

It wasn't a stadium comp, as you know. 

That's true Dave, but it did prompt those who set the criteria to make a special dispensation to Cas, Wakefield and Salford that although they did not meet the required standards they had a a few short years to acheive the required level or else suffer consequences, Salford did react and acheive it, but nearly 14 years later one of the others is just doing something about it, and the other is full of good intentions but still done bhugger all in all that time, is it any wonder that those at HQ are treated with the contempt they deserve.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Like you I expect there to be some already Grade A teams. Leeds, Wigan, Warrington and Saints are the English examples that come to mind. 

That said even within that grouping there is differentiators. Wigan might lose marks for not having primacy of their home ground. St Helens and Warrington aren't growth or particularly target markets, Leeds and Wigan's crowds have been worryingly stagnant or declining over the past decade or so.

Everyone has room to improve, some just have more room than others. Such is life no?

And these standards will be under review. If suddenly all 12 teams in SL are averaging 10k minimum attendances, Warrington and Saints for example aren't that special for that anymore. It should drive standards upwards across the board.

" Growth or ' target markets ' " 

So it will be location again 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

That's true Dave, but it did prompt those who set the criteria to make a special dispensation to Cas, Wakefield and Salford that although they did not meet the required standards they had a a few short years to acheive the required level or else suffer consequences, Salford did react and acheive it, but nearly 14 years later one of the others is just doing something about it, and the other is full of good intentions but still done bhugger all in all that time, is it any wonder that those at HQ are treated with the contempt they deserve.

And Saints Harry , still at Knowsley rd at that time 

[Davo5]

45 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Oh I agree it would be great to see a very competitive Championship, but the only way to acheive that Salop is to drop the standards of the comp, if this coming season for example you wanted to see a competitive comp then a low value salery cap would have to introduced based on the spending capability of the poorest club, basically everyone who desires a competitive Championship is calling for is for the poorest clubs to set the standards that all the others have to adhere to.

Or maybe they simply want a comp free of parachute payments & the grossly unfair & uneven central funding arrangements of the last several years.

[Harry Stottle]

26 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Like you I expect there to be some already Grade A teams. Leeds, Wigan, Warrington and Saints are the English examples that come to mind. 

That said even within that grouping there is differentiators. Wigan might lose marks for not having primacy of their home ground. St Helens and Warrington aren't growth or particularly target markets, Leeds and Wigan's crowds have been worryingly stagnant or declining over the past decade or so.

Everyone has room to improve, some just have more room than others. Such is life no?

And these standards will be under review. If suddenly all 12 teams in SL are averaging 10k minimum attendances, Warrington and Saints for example aren't that special for that anymore. It should drive standards upwards across the board.

I only hope that whatever the list of criteria that they come up with that total transparency is published in the number of 'points' obtainable for each category and also for each club in how and why they have obtained the scores they have acheived, we the mere fans can then see how aour own clubs are doing and also the other clubs.

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Or maybe they simply want a comp free of parachute payments & the grossly unfair & uneven central funding arrangements of the last several years.

However you put it Dav, the standards would drop alarmingly, so much so that you could have a few Hornets player's turning out for Haven or Worky.

[Oxford]

No, the process shouldn't in any way be predetermined, that is unless you wish to protect those achieving from either progressing and working on developmet as well. Otherwise they neither have to do anything nor are they in any danger from consequences.

Every club should be striving to improve themselves no matter what and Harry Stottle's point about achievable goals and time frames come to that is vital. Every side should have goals set by this process otherwise they're already perfect which is nonsense.

If A is the top ( perfect? or oustanding) it should be made into an aim not a given.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I only hope that whatever the list of criteria that they come up with that total transparency is published in the number of 'points' obtainable for each category and also for each club in how and why they have obtained the scores they have acheived, we the mere fans can then see how aour own clubs are doing and also the other clubs.

Totally agree H

[Davo5]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

However you put it Dav, the standards would drop alarmingly, so much so that you could have a few Hornets player's turning out for Haven or Worky.

But the overall standards wouldn’t drop alarmingly you simply wouldn’t get 1 or 2 teams filling their squads with expensive imports,blowing everyone away & killing the comp.

Last time I looked there were several ex Wath Brow players turning out for Haven,Town & others including Leeds,isn’t that what should be happening & if we have a healthy competitive Championship maybe more of those talented amateur players will make the step up.

[Adelaide Tiger]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well thought out and very well put AT.

Now to the criteria, the list to be announced  that needs to be acheived that will grade all of the teams into each respective catagory.

The crux of it all and starting position is going to be the required 'points' to obtain an 'A' classification, now if the criteria was to be set by some independent body that has no knowledge of our game but based purely on what what a professional club in the UK should look like and have in 2023/24 I doubt very much that any of our clubs would be anywhere near acheiving an 'A' grade based on  things such as, turnover, operating profit, minimum average crowds, ground ownership, stadium suitability, development pathways etc etc, nearer to the truth will be that the criterion will be set and adjusted to the 4 or 5 clubs that are already pencilled in to be 'A' listers. Under that we will have the 'B's and the 'C's, the 'B's is really going to be a contentious area, there are those that SL/IMG wants in that list but others they most probably don't so again in my opinion there will be a great deal of fudging with the criterion based on what individual clubs can acheive to obtain the required number of points of which division they will play in.

I can see the reasoning behind your 'jealousy' theory, but I think that when the criteria along with the grading of clubs is announced it will be an area of great contention, much more than last time in '09 when it was just a licence to obtain, and considering this 37/42 was just a vote for a 'proposal' to go ahead, I would not be at all surprised if a number of clubs would be reversing that when there is actually something to vote on.

The criteria should be challenging and not simply designed to award 5 or 6 clubs with an A grade.  I have no problem if criteria is so exacting that maybe only 1 or 2 clubs achieve A grade status.

The big issue as you point out is clubs awarded B grades.  IIRC during the previous licensing process clubs were awarded grades such as B+, B or B-.  This grading may have been subjective and done to skew the decision towards more favourable clubs.  But I believe that there is a simple process to overcome this.

A matrix should be created listing individual criteria with each criteria given a value out of an overall total of 100.  For example, let’s say Turnover is given a score up to 10.  A club with a turnover of £10m gets 10 points down to a club with a turnover of £1m gets 1 point.  And so on throughout all the criteria.  So each club is awarded an overall score and not a grade.

Let’s say that a score of 70 or above gets an A grade.  Then it is a simple process of then adding clubs in descending order of score achieved until the league has its full complement of clubs.

The above process if done correctly and transparently should give comfort to all clubs and not lead to clubs reversing their support. 
 

EDIT - Harry, in between starting my reply and finishing it after I had walked the dog I have just noticed that you fave a similar response not so long ago.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Adelaide Tiger

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

The criteria should be challenging and not simply designed to award 5 or 6 clubs with an A grade.  I have no problem if criteria is so exacting that maybe only 1 or 2 clubs achieve A grade status.

The big issue as you point out is clubs awarded B grades.  IIRC during the previous licensing process clubs were awarded grades such as B+, B or B-.  This grading may have been subjective and done to skew the decision towards more favourable clubs.  But I believe that there is a simple process to overcome this.

A matrix should be created listing individual criteria with each criteria given a value out of an overall total of 100.  For example, let’s say Turnover is given a score up to 10.  A club with a turnover of £10m gets 10 points down to a club with a turnover of £1m gets 1 point.  And so on throughout all the criteria.  So each club is awarded an overall score and not a grade.

Let’s say that a score of 70 or above gets an A grade.  Then it is a simple process of then adding clubs in descending order of score achieved until the league has its full complement of clubs.

The above process if done correctly and transparently should give comfort to all clubs and not lead to clubs reversing their support. 
 

EDIT - Harry, in between starting my reply and finishing it after I had walked the dog I have just noticed that you fave a similar response not so long ago.

Do you include a ' location ' score as we saw last time ? 

Edited November 27, 2022 by GUBRATS

[GUBRATS]

48 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

But the overall standards wouldn’t drop alarmingly you simply wouldn’t get 1 or 2 teams filling their squads with expensive imports,blowing everyone away & killing the comp.

Last time I looked there were several ex Wath Brow players turning out for Haven,Town & others including Leeds,isn’t that what should be happening & if we have a healthy competitive Championship maybe more of those talented amateur players will make the step up.

Toulouse ? , Toronto ? , Celtic Crusaders ?