Jump to content

37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 😁  )

  • Like 1

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Oxford
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Oxford
  • Like 1

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

You could argue that those clubs used the vote because of jealousy towards Leigh, Fev and Toulouse but that was the outcome.

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). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rugbyleaguesupporter said:

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.

This is the nub  of market place and myth.

It is not an objective reality that certain things provide entertainment value and other don't. However this is coomon currency in sports arguments and debates. It ease of scoring was a hindrance things like basketball would have no fans. We're not talking skills involved there for those who feel defensive about this notion.

Also comparing the entertainment level of the sport TGG with intrinsically boring " Sir used to be England coach" something or other's suggestion not mine I have to say. Personally I think even his terminal concept of yawn was far too generous.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're looking for why grading is coming in, look at Kings Lynn Town on BBC1 now. A ground essentially like Castleford's, except they are a 6th Division non-league team who went bust just over a decade ago.

The sport needs to focus on strengthening its position and infrastructure, not just the rat race of fear of getting relegated. We are not football, we're not even close.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

If we're looking for why grading is coming in, look at Kings Lynn Town on BBC1 now. A ground essentially like Castleford's, except they are a 6th Division non-league team who went bust just over a decade ago.

The sport needs to focus on strengthening its position and infrastructure, not just the rat race of fear of getting relegated. We are not football, we're not even close.

Quite a fun ground it looks like. I’m getting Proustian flashbacks to every lower league ground I went to in the 1980s.

Which is entirely your point.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Taffy Tiger said:

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.

While there are Cat B clubs are in Super League, it will never be a closed shop.

If we ever get to a point where we have 14 Cat A clubs, then the game will be in incredible shape.

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...