37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal

[dkw]

53 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Hasn't it been stated that it looks like only 4 clubs will get Cat A status?

Id suggest that is not as many as people thought I think we can safely say 3 of those will be Leeds Wigan and Saints, Id say that if they aren't Cat A then nobody should be.

But ATM its pure speculation and we don't know what the actual criteria is so Im not sure what you mean but "if the criteria had seemed more achievable"?

Unless Ive missed where they have specified it?

I would be amazed if being Cat A means any club is totally exempt from oversight, there will still be criteria and things those Cat A clubs will need to do to keep that category, and it will be an ongoing check.

[Roughyed Rats]

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

I would be amazed if being Cat A means any club is totally exempt from oversight, there will still be criteria and things those Cat A clubs will need to do to keep that category, and it will be an ongoing check.

That would be far too much like commonsense  As a game, you just know we'll find a way to shoot ourselves in the foot.

[dkw]

2 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

That would be far too much like commonsense  As a game, you just know we'll find a way to shoot ourselves in the foot.

I realised as soon as I wrote it I was being hopelessly optimistic 

[Tubby]

50 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

They've also yo yo'd between SL and Championship

 

To be clear this is not me having a dig at Leigh I think they've done some great stuff on and off the field and they deserve their place in SL next year.

 

I'm not saying clubs can't improve under P&R but how many times in recent years has the promoted side gone straight back down? 

And in all fairness, I'm not here to defend Leigh, they're not my team.  But I do believe there should be some hope for the clubs outside SL of making it to the top and I worry that this new idea is simply another form of protectionism.  I'm not saying for a minute that it definitely is, but any system that has subjective assessment is open to abuse.

Maybe, for the first time in some years, RL is moving in the right direction and the direction of the sport won't be decided by those in the most advantageous position at the time.  Only time will tell.

[Oxford]

21 minutes ago, dkw said:

I realised as soon as I wrote it I was being hopelessly optimistic

That's one of the qualifications for being  a TGG fan, isn't it?

[Chrispmartha]

38 minutes ago, Oxford said:

That has been said somewhere.

No one should be guaranteed Cat A status but there you have the essential piece of information; 4 or 3 is of little importance, but no matter who it is, why are there no requirements on them? If there are none then they are not moving forward any more than those teams below them in status.

Has anyone seen something anywhere that shows how Cat B & C can achieve A ? Has this been put forward as part of the package? Is it just assumed that clubs get a list of what needs doing and then left to their own devices?

Clubs left to their own devices, and all that entails,from top to bottom has been one of the main reasons RL has not gained ground or developed more.

 

 

 

 

 

So no one should get a cat A to start with?

There should be requirements for Cat A clubs to keep Cat A status absolutely.

[Chrispmartha]

57 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

If your aspirations are to be a full-time professional sport, the comparison is anything but futile......in fact it's the only real one you can make.

Define 'working' or what you consider to be your success criteria. 

Crowds increasing, player pool increasing, clubs revenue increasing,  TV revenue increasing, sponsorship revenue increasing, player recognition and wages increasing…

[Oxford]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

So no one should get a cat A to start with?

There should be requirements for Cat A clubs to keep Cat A status absolutely.

I'm not altogether sure whether they should recieve it initially.

Requirements should be asked of everyone involved, no one should expect to rest on what they've already done.

I am not too happy that off field endeavours will determine relegation and no one should be exempt without help, means and wherewithall being clear, transparent and provided.

[Saint Toppy]

2 hours ago, Fevrover said:

And what's the benefit of Saints winning SL year after year ? 

It shows the other clubs the level of consistency they need to achieve every year to win back to back SL titles (or in Wire's case any SL title   )

[Saint Toppy]

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

First of all I did answer that status question.

It's not just about moving the game forward, it's about not just ensuring those that already benefit simply carry on benefitting. I think the restructure is meant to do this latter job.

If the IMG process had addressed marketing and media first I'd have been far happier. It seemed to me that the restructuring was about making top SL clubs happy rather than furthering the game.

Whenever there's a discussion about change there's a lot of myths that support it, among these are views on the game that not everyone agrees with but carry more weight around the game.

I am convinced that the endgame of the restucturing is about getting rid of certain clubs under the guise of improving standards.

Part of the problem of all this has been to tell which is IMG, which is top SL clubs and which is media rumour, conjecture and nonsense.

 

 

The improve marketing first they need to improve the product they are trying to market

On your 2nd point regarding their endgame, in a way yes it is about getting rid of cubs. But not in some sinister way of "we don't like them so they're out", its a way of forcing out of the top flight the clubs that are holding the game back, those that can't or won't improve to a level to match the top clubs.

When the criteria are set everyone will know what they have to achieve to get a certain grade of license. Its then down to the clubs themselves to make that decision as to whether they can realistically do what they need to do in order to get that grade and put in the resources needed to achieve it.

As an example, if one of the requirements of getting an A grade license is having a modern stadium with a certain minimum ground capacity then a club like Cas will have to decide whether its realistic for them to be able to build a new stadium to meet this requirement. If it isn't then they're going to have to be straight with their fans and tell them they don't believe they can achieve an A license.

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

That has been said somewhere.

No one should be guaranteed Cat A status but there you have the essential piece of information; 4 or 3 is of little importance, but no matter who it is, why are there no requirements on them? If there are none then they are not moving forward any more than those teams below them in status.

Has anyone seen something anywhere that shows how Cat B & C can achieve A ? Has this been put forward as part of the package? Is it just assumed that clubs get a list of what needs doing and then left to their own devices?

Clubs left to their own devices, and all that entails,from top to bottom has been one of the main reasons RL has not gained ground or developed more.

 

I don't think its been said anywhere from the RFL to IMG that anyone is guaranteed anything. What they have stated is they will set the bar for each grade at a level that will push clubs to improve. Given they've also said these will be a rolling programme or assessments then nobody is safe. Those already with the top grade will have to work just as hard to keep it year after year. As with most of these continuous improvement systems, once you get to a certain number achieving that level you can start to raise the bar further, which then pushes all those clubs again.

If we do ever get to a point where they have say 12 or 14 A grade license clubs then its highly likely they'll raise the bar to a level where half of those may lose their A license status and drop to a B grade again.

IMG won't be holding anyone's hand in getting to a particular grade, and nor should they. They set the targets and its the clubs themselves that need to do whatever they need to do in order to meet them.

[Oxford]

22 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

The improve marketing first they need to improve the product they are trying to market

This is one of the myths that I refered to earlier.

I am confused by the suggestion that the product isn't good enough, though not by the idea it can't be improved.

If fans of the game, or posters, pundits and Journos believe it is not a good enough product: why are they fans?, Why would they support a sport they don't think of as quality?, and Why would they post about it or wish to change it?

The reason I watch RL, post about RL and spend my disposable income on RL is it is TGG. It is the quality product and it is the market place that's the problem not the product.

 

Edited November 26, 2022 by Oxford

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

This is one of the myths that I refered to ealier.

I am confused by the suggestion that the product isn't good enough, though not by the idea it can't be improved.

If fans of the game, or posters, pundits and Journos believe it is not a good enough product: why are they fans?, Why would they support a sport they don't think of as quality?, and Why would they post about it or wish to change it?

The reason I watch RL, post about RL and spend my disposable income on RL is it is TGG. It is the quality product and it is the market place that's the problem not the product.

 

I agree, however there is an increasing number of fans giving it ‘the games gone’ rhetoric which is backed up by attendances slipping.

ironically when we do get new eyes on the game (like in the WC) they are generally very positive 

[Oxford]

41 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I agree, however there is an increasing number of fans giving it ‘the games gone’ rhetoric which is backed up by attendances slipping.

ironically when we do get new eyes on the game (like in the WC) they are generally very positive 

Spot on that Chris but the new eyes are the market place and the goal. We, as RL, could be a sport without peer ( I think we are) but the market place doesn't. What are the reasons for that? Will people flock in because we restructure? Or do they need to be convinced about what they're missing?

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Spot on that Chris but the new eyes are the market place and the goal. We, as RL, could be a sport without peer ( I think we are) but the market place doesn't. What are the reasons for that? Will people flock in because we restructure? Or do they need to be convinced about what they're missing?

We’re never going to be a dominant sport in this country, but we need to maximise what we have!

To be honest the international game is far more important than the restructuring but the two could feed into each other 

[Oxford]

19 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

We’re never going to be a dominant sport in this country, but we need to maximise what we have!

To be honest the international game is far more important than the restructuring but the two could feed into each other 

Part of the problem Chris is it's not that RL is or is not a dominant sport it's how we can achieve growth and what areas truly need addressing to get there.

The idea we could never be one shows we're a sport with a huge inferiority complex. There are good reasons for that but that shouldn't make us lack ambition.

You're spot on again that the International side of the sport is part of the marketing answer and addressing the lack of commitment to that key area is one thing IMG are working on.

I want to thank you and the other people who replied for a great discussion, though.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Oxford

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

I think there is a balance to this. I think rugby league is great, but I also think there are areas we can improve. 

I also think rugby (both codes) will always be behind football in entertainment value as simply it's harder to score goals in football than points in rugby. Therefore inferior teams have higher chance of winning/ keeping score tight.

You can also kick the ball long in football and achieve success, unlike often in rugby (harder to go end to end passing backwards) 

The game on its ###### posters and comments are irritating, add little and corrosive, but I think it's right to say the product isn't always the best 

[GUBRATS]

15 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Comparing RL to Football in the UK is futile they simply aren't comparable.

 

Do you think the current system is working?

Comparing RL in the UK to RL in Australia is futile but some do it all the time , they co pare it to loads of other sports in the US as well 

All futile 

[GUBRATS]

14 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

The improve marketing first they need to improve the product they are trying to market

On your 2nd point regarding their endgame, in a way yes it is about getting rid of cubs. But not in some sinister way of "we don't like them so they're out", its a way of forcing out of the top flight the clubs that are holding the game back, those that can't or won't improve to a level to match the top clubs.

When the criteria are set everyone will know what they have to achieve to get a certain grade of license. Its then down to the clubs themselves to make that decision as to whether they can realistically do what they need to do in order to get that grade and put in the resources needed to achieve it.

As an example, if one of the requirements of getting an A grade license is having a modern stadium with a certain minimum ground capacity then a club like Cas will have to decide whether its realistic for them to be able to build a new stadium to meet this requirement. If it isn't then they're going to have to be straight with their fans and tell them they don't believe they can achieve an A license.

And then be given another 20 years to achieve it 

[GUBRATS]

14 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

I don't think its been said anywhere from the RFL to IMG that anyone is guaranteed anything. What they have stated is they will set the bar for each grade at a level that will push clubs to improve. Given they've also said these will be a rolling programme or assessments then nobody is safe. Those already with the top grade will have to work just as hard to keep it year after year. As with most of these continuous improvement systems, once you get to a certain number achieving that level you can start to raise the bar further, which then pushes all those clubs again.

If we do ever get to a point where they have say 12 or 14 A grade license clubs then its highly likely they'll raise the bar to a level where half of those may lose their A license status and drop to a B grade again.

IMG won't be holding anyone's hand in getting to a particular grade, and nor should they. They set the targets and its the clubs themselves that need to do whatever they need to do in order to meet them.

So if it constant improvement , if Saints don't ' constantly improve ' they will lose their licence ? 

 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

8 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

I think there is a balance to this. I think rugby league is great, but I also think there are areas we can improve. 

I also think rugby (both codes) will always be behind football in entertainment value as simply it's harder to score goals in football than points in rugby. Therefore inferior teams have higher chance of winning/ keeping score tight.

You can also kick the ball long in football and achieve success, unlike often in rugby (harder to go end to end passing backwards) 

The game on its ###### posters and comments are irritating, add little and corrosive, but I think it's right to say the product isn't always the best 

You suggesting we allo forward passes then RLS?

[Adelaide Tiger]

4 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

The ' bun fight ' is what we go to watch , no bun fight , what are we watching ?

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.

[Roughyed Rats]

20 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Crowds increasing, player pool increasing, clubs revenue increasing,  TV revenue increasing, sponsorship revenue increasing, player recognition and wages increasing…

Just like football then

[Taffy Tiger]

Do we honestly think that , barring relegation this year , or the loss of financial input from their CEO's in the future , that Wigan, Saints, Warrington, Leeds, Hull, Catalans or Huddersfield won't be Cat A , and consequently guaranteed a place at the top table , when eventually the league goes to 14  and closes shop . Of course they will , whether we like it or not , there just isn't enough money in the game at the moment for the RFL/IMG to be able to afford to lose them. This means that they will be Cat A , or a high enough Cat B to ensure that they will never leave the top flight , unless the above stated were to happen . Huddersfield wouldn't be any where near a Cat A or even a top Cat B , without the financial input from Ken Davey , who despite all of his efforts and millions of pounds invested in the club , still can't get average crowds of much more than 5,000 , and would soon drop down the table if he were to withdraw his financial support , but at the end of the day RL needs him , and all of the other investors . It would mean that if Derek Beaumont continues to invest millions in Leigh, or any other club not mentioned in the list above , suddenly gets a new owner willing to invest millions , then they will also be in the top flight when it goes to a closed shop of 14 teams , and if , in some unlikely event , RL suddenly becomes a sport that all millionaires wish to invest in , then the 14 team top flight closed shop , would soon expand to accommodate them all . In the meantime the clubs with big investors are in , and the others must make it on other criteria.

[Tommygilf]

8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

So if it constant improvement , if Saints don't ' constantly improve ' they will lose their licence ? 

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.