37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

[Roughyed Rats]

56 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

To repeat: it's not.

But the teams who have got to within it mattering all meet the criteria.

EFL and the PL criteria is very similar in basis (almost identical apart from the numbers) to the existing RFL criteria currently in place and is not subject to licensing or grading. 

For example, in recent seasons Oldham RL have had to move out of town in order to play in the Championship. As per the RFL / IMG original press release, 'on the field promotion and relegation between the bottom two divisions will continue as at present' which is exactly the same as in football. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Roughyed Rats

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Football has rigid standards-based P&R at all levels of the pyramid. There is no automatic promotion anywhere. Your fantasy of a small team - genuinely small, not Bournemouth small - playing in the Premier League is just that, a fantasy.

Just within five miles of my front door are two teams who, on the field, finished in a promotion spot in their league. (This is very far down the pyramid). One chose not to take promotion - in fact, had to then take relegation as their ground failed a grading assessment - and the other did take promotion but now has to play their first team home games at another ground ten miles away. In both cases, they will have to sort out ground issues before being able to play at home in the division their on-field results would have promoted them to.

That will most probably be a condition in IMG's list of criteria, if your ground is not fit for purpose you will be denied entry to SL, do you agree?

[gingerjon]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That will most probably be a condition in IMG's list of criteria, if your ground is not fit for purpose you will be denied entry to SL, do you agree?

Do I agree that it will be in the criteria? Yes.

Do I agree with it being in the criteria? Also, yes.

[Tommygilf]

54 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

To repeat: it's not.

But the teams who have got to within it mattering all meet the criteria.

Exactly, Bournemouth or Wolverhampton or Wigan or Bradford City represents a minimal difference in standards (across 4 Leagues). The same span of clubs in RL would present vastly different results, this is the core issue.

[Angelic Cynic]

16 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I'm sorry, but you're measuring different things. That doesn't undermine my argument.

The first Premier League TV deal was £60m/season. It is now £1.2bn/season. But what's equally important is that in the Championship total revenues are now £700m per season, in the 2nd tier!! Championship average attendances are 26k, higher than Italy's Serie A, and the same level as the PL average in its first season. It's demonstrably clear that the PL's exponential growth has also driven lower-tier revenue and audience, and that the sport has created value throughout the pyramid. 

If you're looking at debt, consider this: The net debt across the PL is now £4bn. But Chelsea alone was recently bought for that, and there are 20 clubs in the league. The assets far outweigh any debt, because value has been created. What matters is the aggregate net worth of the businesses in the league. This has grown exponentially. There's nothing wrong with debt, if you can afford to service it and its purpose is to enable asset value growth. That's why we have mortgages. This is the prize we sell to potential rugby league investors, with a sport starting from a low base having huge potential to grow as a multiple of present value. 

If you're looking at talent rather than money, re: your England point, then again the data is against you. England males are the most consistently competitive they have ever been since the game spread internationally. As are the women. Having the most revenue enables you to attract the best talent globally, which alongside the greater resources available for investment in development pathways means that any local talent that does rise to the top against such competition is better than it would otherwise be. Otherwise the club would just buy a better foreigner, because they have no real price barrier. I doubt many of England's Italia '90 squad would make a PL side. 

 

 

I am fairly sure those rugby league followers who pointed out that promotion and relegation continued,and continues,in soccer,because of on-field performances, were instructed NOTto compare and contrast the sports.

However,I concur,soccer has done very well by having huge amounts of money thrown at it.FIFA and the club owning despotic states are hugely popular around the globe.

Many former Premier League clubs are now in dire straits.2 of the original Premier League 'Big 5' Everton and Tottenham, have hardly enjoyed success since the 1990's,and only one of those 2 clubs have properly improved their stadium.

The Academies are mainly foreign youngsters - paid for and brought in;thereby breaking the original plan.The females are fill time professionals that recently won the Euros for the national side - against non - full time professionals. 

The agents,for these highly paid players take out of the sport far more than the paying supporter puts in over the turnstile.Television pays for it all.

It ain't sustainable.Some really historic,historical, and successful clubs are on the verge of serious trouble.One with an acclaimed Academy,the other in the second city.

Nothing is spent on grassroots.Participation figures are down.Cost of hiring pitches from the councils are exhorbitant.

Still,pretty coloured plastic seats in the stadia.All is well.

What with all those councils, and MP's who,over recent decades,really show an interest in sport,and young people,I sleep easy knowing the future,and sport, is safe in England.  

Those councils and MP's who willingly support the stadia construction,for Commonwealth and Olympics Games,and then cost the taxpayer and have to give the stadia to grasping soccer clubs like Man City,now wealthy,and West Ham,owned by Porn Kings and who pay Brady 2 million pounds a year.

We can learn a lot by soccer and its money.....Inspirational for the youngsters.

Great legacy.

Now,what about Rochdale Hornets,Hunslet and Oldham and IMG...?

[Saint Toppy]

49 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That will most probably be a condition in IMG's list of criteria, if your ground is not fit for purpose you will be denied entry to SL, do you agree?

They've never indicted that any club will be denied. What they've hinted at is that if things like your ground don't meet a certain criteria then you won't be able to achieve a certain license grade. So a team with a poor ground like Cas for instance will still be able to play in SL but its unlikely they'll be able to achieve an A grade license and get protection from SL relegation.

What in reality this would me for a club like Cas is that they could quite easily get relegated even if they don't finish at or near the bottom of SL if they find themselves as the lowest placed B grade license team in SL come the end of the season.

[Adelaide Tiger]

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

So they achieved category B status then?

No.

What those 5 teams achieved was to cajole/woo/kid/seduce/persuade/flatter an adequate number of clubs to vote for them.  There was no criteria whatsoever involved in determining which club should lose their place in the Football League and which club should replace them.  Therefore a less stable club, less well run club could be voted in.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

You're just trying childish point scoring now , you correctly posted that the setting up and success of the Premier League was based upon them monetising their product , this was done by agreeing different kick off times to the traditional 3pm on Saturday , everything else has followed on from that , and the other divisions have followed suit , if all of a sudden they reverted back to all kicking off at the same time every week much of the money would disappear

Feel free to keep picking out bits of people's posts to try to appear superior 

Bye 

Disagreeing with you, and demonstrating why I think so, is not childish. This is a discussion forum. Grow a thicker skin. 

Football's success is not because they adjusted a few kick-off times, not that I see the relevance. The only point of discussing the football example at all was to demonstrate how the growth of a top league can aid the growth of clubs and competitions outside of it, rather than have an inherently negative impact on them (the point otherwise being made). 

[Toby Chopra]

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

It is interesting how often pithy phrases replace argument and evidence.

It reminds me of the Lottery "It Could Be You!" advert, and  then maths and reality interfere.

Pot. Kettle. Black. 

35 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

They've never indicted that any club will be denied. What they've hinted at is that if things like your ground don't meet a certain criteria then you won't be able to achieve a certain license grade. So a team with a poor ground like Cas for instance will still be able to play in SL but its unlikely they'll be able to achieve an A grade license and get protection from SL relegation.

What in reality this would me for a club like Cas is that they could quite easily get relegated even if they don't finish at or near the bottom of SL if they find themselves as the lowest placed B grade license team in SL come the end of the season.

Spot on. Superleague already has stadium standards for entry, and frankly they should be tightened so we don't get travesties like Trailfinders used in the top flight again. But pretty much all the possible promotion candidates have a ground fit for Superleague (although I don't know the reality of Barrow's). 

So no one's being denied promotion due to their ground under the IMG proposals. 

However, if a promoted club wants Cat A status and protection from relegation, then that's a completely different stadium conversation entirely, and rightly so. 

A lot of folk aren't getting this distinction, or are intentionally conflating the two questions. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Toby Chopra

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

47 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

I am fairly sure those rugby league followers who pointed out that promotion and relegation continued,and continues,in soccer,because of on-field performances, were instructed NOTto compare and contrast the sports.

However,I concur,soccer has done very well by having huge amounts of money thrown at it.FIFA and the club owning despotic states are hugely popular around the globe.

Many former Premier League clubs are now in dire straits.2 of the original Premier League 'Big 5' Everton and Tottenham, have hardly enjoyed success since the 1990's,and only one of those 2 clubs have properly improved their stadium.

The Academies are mainly foreign youngsters - paid for and brought in;thereby breaking the original plan.The females are fill time professionals that recently won the Euros for the national side - against non - full time professionals. 

The agents,for these highly paid players take out of the sport far more than the paying supporter puts in over the turnstile.Television pays for it all.

It ain't sustainable.Some really historic,historical, and successful clubs are on the verge of serious trouble.One with an acclaimed Academy,the other in the second city.

Nothing is spent on grassroots.Participation figures are down.Cost of hiring pitches from the councils are exhorbitant.

Still,pretty coloured plastic seats in the stadia.All is well.

What with all those councils, and MP's who,over recent decades,really show an interest in sport,and young people,I sleep easy knowing the future,and sport, is safe in England.  

Those councils and MP's who willingly support the stadia construction,for Commonwealth and Olympics Games,and then cost the taxpayer and have to give the stadia to grasping soccer clubs like Man City,now wealthy,and West Ham,owned by Porn Kings and who pay Brady 2 million pounds a year.

We can learn a lot by soccer and its money.....Inspirational for the youngsters.

Great legacy.

Now,what about Rochdale Hornets,Hunslet and Oldham and IMG...?

Your original post critiquing my view that the Premier League had been beneficial for football at all levels contained similar emotional, anecdotal points. I responded with detail on audience figures, actual national player performance results, numbers on the growth in revenues outside of the Premier League and levels of debt versus asset values in the Premier League. You recycle the same prior opinion in response, unevidenced again. Do you see the difference?

I prefer my data, and I prefer my optimism for the future. Using both are how rugby league can get things done. 

 

[Adelaide Tiger]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Football has rigid standards-based P&R at all levels of the pyramid. There is no automatic promotion anywhere. Your fantasy of a small team - genuinely small, not Bournemouth small - playing in the Premier League is just that, a fantasy.

Just within five miles of my front door are two teams who, on the field, finished in a promotion spot in their league. (This is very far down the pyramid). One chose not to take promotion - in fact, had to then take relegation as their ground failed a grading assessment - and the other did take promotion but now has to play their first team home games at another ground ten miles away. In both cases, they will have to sort out ground issues before being able to play at home in the division their on-field results would have promoted them to.

GJ.  Some people have short or selective memories or type stuff without bothering to do a quick search.

When Fulham were promoted to the PL in 2001 the stadium did not meet PL requirements so after an initial year of dispensation the PL then forced Fulham to play every home fixture the following season at Loftus Road (QPR) until the stadium was deemed acceptable.

[Oxford]

28 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

No.

What those 5 teams achieved was to cajole/woo/kid/seduce/persuade/flatter an adequate number of clubs to vote for them.  There was no criteria whatsoever involved in determining which club should lose their place in the Football League and which club should replace them.  Therefore a less stable club, less well run club could be voted in.

Irony AT?

[Jemmo]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Glad to hear it , as I said it is a while since I've been , is ' Club Doncaster ' just the dons or are the two other clubs involved ? , Are the profits equally split or are they ' pro rata ' to attendances of the individual clubs ? 

Club Doncaster own us, The Rovers and The Belles.

I think it's fair to assume The Rovers get the bigger slice, because football

[Oxford]

30 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Pot. Kettle. Black. 

Well Toby that could well be true. I did confuse you with someone who wanted to discuss things, sorry!

Edited January 6, 2023 by Oxford

[Adelaide Tiger]

4 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Irony AT?

Well you got me then.  Hope it is the highlight of your day

[Oxford]

Just now, Adelaide Tiger said:

Well you got me then.  Hope it is the highlight of your day

I wasn't trying to get anyone AT I leave that sort of thing to others.

I was also making a point about categories that however sensible they sound and clear they are to everyone  once people are involved there's almost nothing on the planet that can be trusted. Not unlike your football analogy.

[Anita Bath]

3 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

In practice football operated a type of ‘closed shop’ as the officials of teams finishing in the bottom four of the old Fourth Division would lobby their pals to gain re-election through what would be termed ‘the old pals act’.  Surely you are not advocating such a system for RL are you?

From the time when the Fourth Division was created in 1958 until automatic promotion was introduced in 1986/87 only FIVE clubs were elected from the non-league ranks. These were Peterborough 1960, Cambridge Utd 1970, Hereford 1972, Wimbledon 1977 and Wigan in 1978.  So FIVE clubs in THIRTY years.  Not a great example of plenty of teams entering the system is it.

If the RL/SL had such a record then people would be up in arms about it.

P.S. What is also interesting is that 2 outposts, Barrow 1972 and Workington 1977, lost their status as voting clubs didn’t want the expense or travelling time in going to those places ….. sound familiar?

So at least you agree the shop was not closed as previously claimed on here

 You seem to have conveniently forgotten Oxford United in your 30 year history…and the 4 clubs in 9 years in the 1970s

Interesting….no reasons were required for how clubs voted….so where does your claim that it was the expense of travel come from?

And what were the reasons given for getting rid of Bradford Park Avenue and Southport…obviously not travel costs.

Travel costs obviously didnt apply to Gillinghams election.

[Adelaide Tiger]

9 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I wasn't trying to get anyone AT I leave that sort of thing to others.

I was also making a point about categories that however sensible they sound and clear they are to everyone  once people are involved there's almost nothing on the planet that can be trusted. Not unlike your football analogy.

No problem at all and certainly no offence taken. 

And I agree with your second paragraph.

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Football has rigid standards-based P&R at all levels of the pyramid. There is no automatic promotion anywhere. Your fantasy of a small team - genuinely small, not Bournemouth small - playing in the Premier League is just that, a fantasy.

Just within five miles of my front door are two teams who, on the field, finished in a promotion spot in their league. (This is very far down the pyramid). One chose not to take promotion - in fact, had to then take relegation as their ground failed a grading assessment - and the other did take promotion but now has to play their first team home games at another ground ten miles away. In both cases, they will have to sort out ground issues before being able to play at home in the division their on-field results would have promoted them to.

Have you ever heard of Horwich RMI ? 

So I'm fully aware of non League football teams moving up divisions and not having facilities 

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Have you ever heard of Horwich RMI ? 

So I give an example of a club who, because of rigid standards-based, non-automatic P&R, have had to move to another town to play their football and you follow it up with an example of a club who, because of rigid standards-based (etc) had to move to another town to play their football?

[Adelaide Tiger]

19 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

So at least you agree the shop was not closed as previously claimed on here

 You seem to have conveniently forgotten Oxford United in your 30 year history…and the 4 clubs in 9 years in the 1970s

Interesting….no reasons were required for how clubs voted….so where does your claim that it was the expense of travel come from?

And what were the reasons given for getting rid of Bradford Park Avenue and Southport…obviously not travel costs.

Travel costs obviously didnt apply to Gillinghams election.

AB, I assume you did a bit of research to check my post of all teams that gained admittance to the Football League between 1958 and 1987 and you found that Oxford were admitted in 1962.

However, you will find out that Oxford were only admitted AFTER Accrington Stanley resigned from the League.  Therefore Oxford did not gain election through the usual voting process against the four bottom placed teams.

Also if you reread my post you will see that I did name the 4 clubs that got elected in the 1970’s.

As for my comment about Barrow and Workington losing their place.  My comments were based on an article in a football magazine article I read many years ago about the lack of a professional club in the area after Carlisle were relegated.  I should have torn the article out of the magazine in case I needed it for later years.

 

[GUBRATS]

17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So I give an example of a club who, because of rigid standards-based, non-automatic P&R, have had to move to another town to play their football and you follow it up with an example of a club who, because of rigid standards-based (etc) had to move to another town to play their football?

I was just pointing out that I am aware of the issues some clubs have , if they hadn't moved to Leigh they might still exist , and the LSV would not exist , but using clubs literally hundreds of positions down the sporting ladder , even in football with essentially thousands of clubs isn't really relevant to the argument IMO , yes you'll argue our clubs are compressed into 3 small tiers from essentially ' pocket money ' to full time , but it doesn't work IMO 

[Oxford]

This thread is so far off the beaten track I'm starting to lose the point of why it's here at all!

If IMG show any interest in the admittance of Oxford into a boring football comp., they'd need sacking on the spot.

Has everyone turned into show me the money Harrison?

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Oxford

[The Ghost of 99]

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

They've never indicted that any club will be denied. What they've hinted at is that if things like your ground don't meet a certain criteria then you won't be able to achieve a certain license grade. So a team with a poor ground like Cas for instance will still be able to play in SL but its unlikely they'll be able to achieve an A grade license and get protection from SL relegation.

What in reality this would me for a club like Cas is that they could quite easily get relegated even if they don't finish at or near the bottom of SL if they find themselves as the lowest placed B grade license team in SL come the end of the season.

On the other hand Cas are pretty stable financially and own the ground so those would be big plus points against loss makers/secondary stadium users who should be marked down as appropriate.

I just think there's going to be a large number of Bs of all sorts and wouldn't expect Cas to be at the bottom of them. If it's done properly the As should be pretty much restricted to Leeds, St Helens, Warrington and maybe Catalan.

[JohnM]

6 minutes ago, The Ghost of 99 said:

On the other hand Cas are pretty stable financially and own the ground so those would be big plus points against loss makers/secondary stadium users who should be marked down as appropriate.

I just think there's going to be a large number of Bs of all sorts and wouldn't expect Cas to be at the bottom of them. If it's done properly the As should be pretty much restricted to Leeds, St Helens, Warrington and maybe Catalan.

Should?  Has that been decided by those with the authority to do so?