37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

[Oxford]

1) It's in the nature of "inspections" that criteria are used to rid a system of dead wood.

So, who's the deadwood?

2) It's an avowed purpose of criteria to improve therefore all members who agree to the criteria should be included in the effort to improve and the consequences of not doing so.

So, how can we get everyone to improve?

3) Criteria for inspections change over time the idea being that no one should rest on their laurels.

So, who will be asked to improve, is there anyone who won't be and why?

4) The essential overtly stated goal of criteria like this is that every member should reach the top grade.

So what will be in place to ensure that every member can achieve that grade?

Of course all this depends on the ultimate belief that the criteria are sound, do the exact job they say on the tin and produce the stated results.

And while all this is going on, how is RL doing in the media stakes and the market place?

 

 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, GeordieSaint said:

It’s not the keyword - it’s just one characteristic to a good rugby league club. 

A "potential" good Rugby League club, they have not got there yet in todays age irrespective of being in existence for nigh on 80 years, albeit Tommy found that a good attribute to have, yet other clubs of many years are criticised for not doing better than they are, seems one rule for one but it is excepted depending on who you are.

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

1) It's in the nature of "inspections" that criteria are used to rid a system of dead wood.

So, who's the deadwood?

2) It's an avowed purpose of criteria to improve therefore all members who agree to the criteria should be included in the effort to improve and the consequences of not doing so.

So, how can we get everyone to improve?

3) Criteria for inspections change over time the idea being that no one should rest on their laurels.

So, who will be asked to improve, is there anyone who won't be and why?

4) The essential overtly stated goal of criteria like this is that every member should reach the top grade.

So what will be in place to ensure that every member can achieve that grade?

Of course all this depends on the ultimate belief that the criteria are sound, do the exact job they say on the tin and produce the stated results.

And while all this is going on, how is RL doing in the media stakes and the market place?

 

I think you fundamentally misunderstand IMG's role - they're not here to improve individual teams or to decide which team improves and which doesn't, nor are they here to hold anyone's hand to lead them through improvement or to guarantee they will improve.

Their role is to put in place a structure for the overall improvement of the game at the Pro & Semi-pro levels, which in turn will allow them to improve income generation through 3rd parties (TV deals, sponsorships etc.)

No doubt once the criteria are set individual clubs will approach IMG to ask them for their guidance on how they think they can improve in order to meet a certain grade, and i'm sure IMG will provide that guidance, but ultimately it will be down to the individual clubs themselves to implement change & improvement in order to meet the criteria.

So to answer your first question regarding deadwood - for SL it will ultimately in the longer term be the clubs who can't or won't achieve an A grade license so they will find themselves out of SL and in the Championship. Similarly for the Championship, those clubs who can't or won't achieve a B grade license will find themselves in the 3rd tier of the competition.

 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I was not a marketing man by any stretch of the imagination, but I knew something about strategic area's, sales planning and Target markets Tommy, but if you are happy that both of these clubs are successful and contented with the returns they accomplish and it suits your argument so be it.

Harry I know you're far too business savvy to do this sort of mental gymnastics to make a point that is totally unrelated.

Not wanting the French teams in is a fine opinion to have. Not one I personally agree with, but fine. I don't understand why you need to hide it behind conjecture that isn't worth anything?

[Dave T]

People are being intentionally awkward when it comes to these assessments, it's really quite simple. 

The problems in the past haven't come from assessments as such, they have come from the framework around them. 

For the first round of licenses in 2009 we had:

Cat A: Wire, Hull, Leeds

Cat B: Bradford, Saints, Wigan

Cat C - everyone else

2012 had:

Cat A: Wire, Hull, Leeds, Wigan

Cat B: Bradford, Saints, Catalans, Hudds, Hull KR

Cat C - everyone else

I don't really see anyone as controversial there. For all the talk of favouritism to the likes of Wakey, Cas etc. they were rated as weak clubs, it was just that we didn't have clubs in waiting that were stronger. There was no artificial ranking of London etc. 

The categories that we had back then could have worked fine, had they not bottled the implementation and making silly guarantees to expand to 14 clubs by bringing in 2 more Grade C clubs. I mean that must go down as one of the most stupid decisions ever in a system that was about driving standards up. 

So as ever, it's about implementation, and that's the bit that has to be different this time. This is hopefully the professionalism that IMG bring with them, because tbh, the real alck of standards last time came from the RFL/SLE. But already it looks like SL will only expand when the standards are reached - which is an important differentiator already. 

 

 

 

[Spidey]

Thanks for that @Dave T I had forgotten that Saints were a B in both rounds - interesting

[steve oates]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

People are being intentionally awkward when it comes to these assessments, it's really quite simple. 

For the first round of licenses in 2009 we had:

Cat A: Wire, Hull, Leeds  Cat B: Bradford, Saints, Wigan Cat C - everyone else

2012 had: Cat A: Wire, Hull, Leeds, Wigan Cat B: Bradford, Saints, Catalans, Hudds, Hull KR

Cat C - everyone else

So as ever, it's about implementation, and that's the bit that has to be different this time. This is hopefully the professionalism that IMG bring with them...............

Thank you for looking the facts up and presenting them.  I'd have thought these category assessments may have been  useful  if there wasn't only three clubs that seem to stand out as "A"..  People have noted Wigan may not be an "A" as they play at the Soccer stadium. So these masterminds IMG have simply run over old ground covered in 2009 and 2012.

Three clubs up to scratch. So what are these geniuses IMG actually going to do now with this information?  Tell clubs to find the many Millions they would need to become a saints, a Leeds of a Warrington, or advise us to have a three club superleague??

[David Shepherd]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

People are being intentionally awkward when it comes to these assessments, it's really quite simple. 

The problems in the past haven't come from assessments as such, they have come from the framework around them. 

For the first round of licenses in 2009 we had:

Cat A: Wire, Hull, Leeds

Cat B: Bradford, Saints, Wigan

Cat C - everyone else

2012 had:

Cat A: Wire, Hull, Leeds, Wigan

Cat B: Bradford, Saints, Catalans, Hudds, Hull KR

Cat C - everyone else

I don't really see anyone as controversial there. For all the talk of favouritism to the likes of Wakey, Cas etc. they were rated as weak clubs, it was just that we didn't have clubs in waiting that were stronger. There was no artificial ranking of London etc. 

The categories that we had back then could have worked fine, had they not bottled the implementation and making silly guarantees to expand to 14 clubs by bringing in 2 more Grade C clubs. I mean that must go down as one of the most stupid decisions ever in a system that was about driving standards up. 

So as ever, it's about implementation, and that's the bit that has to be different this time. This is hopefully the professionalism that IMG bring with them, because tbh, the real alck of standards last time came from the RFL/SLE. But already it looks like SL will only expand when the standards are reached - which is an important differentiator already. 

 

 

 

Bradford as a Cat B sticks out like a sore thumb.

The assessment process can't have been that rigorous, they were in administration about 10 minutes later.

[steve oates]

1 hour ago, ShropshireBull said:

So proof of concept for Toulouse has already been established and crucially from a growth perspective, Toulouse have the ability to develop French players for England to play against in internationals that offers more TV figures and exposure than almost anything else. 

To be viable in Superleage the French clubs need to use English, Welsh and antipodean players. The internationals with France were walkovers accordingly, and certainly didn't attract any TV interest........

[Angelic Cynic]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

Thanks for that @Dave T I had forgotten that Saints were a B in both rounds - interesting

Was that a stadium issue? Good job them there Tesco was available at the time.

[Dave T]

37 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Thank you for looking the facts up and presenting them.  I'd have thought these category assessments may have been  useful  if there wasn't only three clubs that seem to stand out as "A"..  People have noted Wigan may not be an "A" as they play at the Soccer stadium. So these masterminds IMG have simply run over old ground covered in 2009 and 2012.

Three clubs up to scratch. So what are these geniuses IMG actually going to do now with this information?  Tell clubs to find the many Millions they would need to become a saints, a Leeds of a Warrington, or advise us to have a three club superleague??

I fell you have missed the point of my post. 

The point wasn't about who was categorised where, it was the fact that the system almost ignored them. To expand from 12 to 14 by adding two grade C clubs was absolutely backward and went against everything that the system was supposed to stand for. Similarly, iirc Widnes were promoted as a Grade C club. And finally, we scrapped the system before it had chance for it to bed in and drive improvements. 

Promoting Grade C clubs meant there was literally no need for clubs to drive towards being a Grade A club. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Dave T

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Bradford as a Cat B sticks out like a sore thumb.

The assessment process can't have been that rigorous, they were in administration about 10 minutes later.

There is no guarantee of financial security - and all that highlights is that many clubs are in a precarious position. Look at what is happening in Union for a great illustration of that. 

But back then Bradford were absolutely a premium club, they had crowds, player development, on field success - they went pop with really quite modest debts, that could ultimately be run up in a short period of time. 

That should be a warning to all of us. 

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There is no guarantee of financial security - and all that highlights is that many clubs are in a precarious position. Look at what is happening in Union for a great illustration of that. 

But back then Bradford were absolutely a premium club, they had crowds, player development, on field success - they went pop with really quite modest debts, that could ultimately be run up in a short period of time. 

That should be a warning to all of us. 

Bradford were an absolute powerhouse both on and off the field. At their peak they had it all with a superstar team to boot. At the time they seemed as big as any Rugby club in the World and this was at a time when salary caps in RL and RU were practically identical. 

[dkw]

30 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Bradford as a Cat B sticks out like a sore thumb.

The assessment process can't have been that rigorous, they were in administration about 10 minutes later.

Think of it like an MOT, you go and get your car checked, it passes with flying colours, that doesnt mean that car will now run for 12 months without a failure.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, dkw said:

Think of it like an MOT, you go and get your car checked, it passes with flying colours, that doesnt mean that car will now run for 12 months without a failure.

I'm not going to go back to check but I have a feeling that by 2012 it was obvious, even on here, that the system was not working as planned and a key problem was that category B to Bradford at a time when cracks in their sustainability were getting more visible and really should have been picked up by any thorough assessment.

And that was the failing in 2008 onwards. A lack of rigour and application.

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

Bradford were an absolute powerhouse both on and off the field. At their peak they had it all with a superstar team to boot. At the time they seemed as big as any Rugby club in the World and this was at a time when salary caps in RL and RU were practically identical. 

Yup - and despite all that, they were never rated an A club. And that's a really important point to remember. 

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:

Was that a stadium issue? Good job them there Tesco was available at the time.

It opened in 2011, so an impact for 2009 - maybe not for 2012, depending on when the assessments took place. My memory is a bit fuzzy to be honest

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:

Was that a stadium issue? Good job them there Tesco was available at the time.

What has Tesco got to do with anything in relation to saints new stadium ? They had nothing at all to do with the stadium build. The Tesco was built a couple of years in advance of the stadium which opened in 2012 (which was too late for the 2012 grading assessment which was done in late 2011).

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Harry I know you're far too business savvy to do this sort of mental gymnastics to make a point that is totally unrelated.

Not wanting the French teams in is a fine opinion to have. Not one I personally agree with, but fine. I don't understand why you need to hide it behind conjecture that isn't worth anything?

I see your disciples are on your like catagory again Tommy, not your fault but please be aware.

Anyway, you made the statement that in respect was nothing near what you claimed it to be and when challenged even intimated that IMG would concur it, you could have commented on my answer but chose not to, I will take that as a win on this occasion, one back, I have lost a few to you.

I am not against having French teams in, but what I am against is the preferential treatment that many think should be afforded to them, if they are deserving of it fine but all this about fastracking and locking in I think is deplorable, please tell me is the time and money that the officials, sponsers and supporters that the French teams spend carry more weight than that which other teams afford to give up? I also thought and said so on more than one occasion that it was a diabolical decision that Toulouse had to stand the travel cost of other teams, but don't forget that any of us who support any team that has gone out to play Toulouse being those that have held their hand out even our rich clubs have done so without any remorse and declined it.

So again no I am not against the French clubs, I just want everyone to be treated the same with a blank sheet at the outset and filled in accordingly, and "potential" should not be considered an attribute, realisation is what matters.

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Absolutely. Looked at dispassionately, Toulouse got more than Wakefield or Salford in season average and only 200 fewer than Huddersfield, despite being glued to the bottom of the league most season and still dealing with covid. 

They got 9000 vs Catalan in a dead rubber derby on a Thursday night (whoever made that decision should be locked in a dark room forever) and were it on a Weekend that would’ve been one of the best attended games of the main SL season. 

So proof of concept for Toulouse has already been established and crucially from a growth perspective, Toulouse have the ability to develop French players for England to play against in internationals that offers more TV figures and exposure than almost anything else. 

And finally, we’ve done this before with Catalan and despite doing it poorly it has shown it can be done. No serious business would be ignoring Toulouse and what they can bring to the sport over small towns in an already oversaturated market. 

As you say, I don’t want French teams because I don’t think we can grow the game and accept what we are,fine. It’s massively defeatist and for me actually the slow death of the sport but it’s at least honest. Trying to make a commercial case why they shouldn’t be in and that isn’t a serious argument.  

Firstly Salop, the only thing that was said about Toulouse was that they only averaged 1% from the populas numbers that are available to them - including the Catalan game - what that has got to do with aligning them with actuallities of smaller places I don't know, but again everthing else you mention is based on Potential, as I said I am not against French teams, I just don't want them being given preferential leeway.

[Oxford]

6 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

I think you fundamentally misunderstand IMG's role - they're not here to improve individual teams or to decide which team improves and which doesn't, nor are they here to hold anyone's hand to lead them through improvement or to guarantee they will improve.

Then why have a restructure then?

And if no help is to be provided which I assume is what you mean how are they any different from what went on in the past?

6 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Their role is to put in place a structure for the overall improvement of the game at the Pro & Semi-pro levels, which in turn will allow them to improve income generation through 3rd parties (TV deals, sponsorships etc.)

Why, is it assumed the game is not good enough as a spetacle and if so who by?

And where is the evidence that these efforts will improve the game or that those improvements will mean greater generation of income?

6 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

No doubt once the criteria are set individual clubs will approach IMG to ask them for their guidance on how they think they can improve in order to meet a certain grade, and i'm sure IMG will provide that guidance, but ultimately it will be down to the individual clubs themselves to implement change & improvement in order to meet the criteria.

As I stated if clubs are left to do this on their own not only has nothing changed but the whole business is a foregone conclusion which means there is little doubt about the real purpose of restructure and grading criteria.

 

6 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

So to answer your first question regarding deadwood - for SL it will ultimately in the longer term be the clubs who can't or won't achieve an A grade license so they will find themselves out of SL and in the Championship. Similarly for the Championship, those clubs who can't or won't achieve a B grade license will find themselves in the 3rd tier of the competition.

Saying that IMG or SL or both of them combined is not an answer to who is the dead wood.

Can't or won't assumes alot considering they're to recieve no help.

Your answers have convinced  me that all that is taking place is lots of clubs will be put out of business and that this part of it is little more than a disguise for dumping.

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Oxford

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I see your disciples are on your like catagory again Tommy, not your fault but please be aware.

Anyway, you made the statement that in respect was nothing near what you claimed it to be and when challenged even intimated that IMG would concur it, you could have commented on my answer but chose not to, I will take that as a win on this occasion, one back, I have lost a few to you.

I am not against having French teams in, but what I am against is the preferential treatment that many think should be afforded to them, if they are deserving of it fine but all this about fastracking and locking in I think is deplorable, please tell me is the time and money that the officials, sponsers and supporters that the French teams spend carry more weight than that which other teams afford to give up? I also thought and said so on more than one occasion that it was a diabolical decision that Toulouse had to stand the travel cost of other teams, but don't forget that any of us who support any team that has gone out to play Toulouse being those that have held their hand out even our rich clubs have done so without any remorse and declined it.

So again no I am not against the French clubs, I just want everyone to be treated the same with a blank sheet at the outset and filled in accordingly, and "potential" should not be considered an attribute, realisation is what matters.

I think the reality is Harry that not everyone's money and markets are equal, and nor are everyone's USPs. A lot of it is how you sell it and doing that well can compensate for a lot, but ultimately there still remains some crucial reality checks in place. 

Professional sport is an odd business unlike most others too! A lot of what you are selling is an "audience" - to advertisers, TV companies, sponsors. My point about percentages as I know you know is that whilst they can demonstrate strength in relatively similar markets, say Castleford and Leigh, as a statistic they really don't help when comparing larger and smaller markets. Leeds don't have to try as hard to get far more local people in (let alone people from the surrounding towns and cities) than other clubs do. Likewise, the audience in some areas is more valuable than others. In the extreme we see this with how RU or Cricket have their blue chip sponsors that often barely even involve themselves with football, because of the perceptions (and increasingly facts) about the economic makeup of their audiences. It happens in RL too, and between RL clubs.

One of the compromises I think IMG have made/will make is that location won't be a negative factor, ie you won't be marked down for having teams in your immediate vicinity. However teams that can demonstrate how they can operate in a market with fewer other competitor Rugby League Clubs will benefit positively. "Franchising lite" perhaps?

Personally I think we should treat every club on the basis of giving it the best environment possible to be the best it can be. By extension I think that looks different for different clubs. Treating everyone the same to me would mean that only a handful of clubs are actually in a productive environment, if any at all are; and I think that would be a waste of time, money and energy. I'd also consider an overarching strategy to be a part of that, so that everyone can work in some way towards a common goal.

I also think it would be wrong to discount potential out of hand. Your own club has the potential to be a club comfortably at the upper middle of the current Super League for example, particularly in terms of attendances and interest. They aren't that right now, but it would be unfair to judge them because of that. I think potential is what the sport is asking people to invest in, and like anything, some will have more than others.

Perhaps IMGs grading system, and a League full of "A Grade" clubs, will mean we do get to treat everyone the same as you would like. I genuinely hope that day comes, but getting there won't be as straightforward imo.

[Oxford]

29 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

I don´t see how this system which will benefit a wider group of clubs via new revenue generated for the RFL is less fair than teams winning based on whether they are financially doped or not. 

It is clear that this system will not benefit a wider group of clubs because it's not intended to do that it's a re-run of the big-city formula laid out some years ago and I can't imagine who IMG got this idea from, can you?

Edited November 28, 2022 by Oxford

[Angelic Cynic]

4 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

What has Tesco got to do with anything in relation to saints new stadium ? They had nothing at all to do with the stadium build. The Tesco was built a couple of years in advance of the stadium which opened in 2012 (which was too late for the 2012 grading assessment which was done in late 2011).

The new stadium was funded by planning gains that enabled Tesco and other large retailers to develop the old United Glass site, along with the club's neighbouring Knowsley Road stadium. 

 

https://www.amenity.co.uk/news-media/new-stadium-for-st-helens-rugby-league-club.html

[David Shepherd]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

There is no guarantee of financial security - and all that highlights is that many clubs are in a precarious position. Look at what is happening in Union for a great illustration of that. 

But back then Bradford were absolutely a premium club, they had crowds, player development, on field success - they went pop with really quite modest debts, that could ultimately be run up in a short period of time. 

That should be a warning to all of us. 

Not sure I buy that.  Financial failure like that rarely happens overnight.  There are usually warning signs for an extended period in the run up.  As with union, Worcester and Wasps were known basket cases for at least a year before they went pop.

Difficult to have faith in a system that couldn't spot Bradford were on the road to oblivion.  Hopefully the process will be a bit more forensic this time.

Edited November 28, 2022 by David Shepherd