Jump to content

IMG Grading Unveiled


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Jeff Stein said:

Listened to the podcast. Maybe I missed something but Keighley's position appeared to be

1 IMG's proposals are unfair because there is no meritocracy judging clubs on such things as location 

2 The two London clubs, Midlands, Cornwall and Newcastle should be thrown out because they are not in the heartlands no matter how they are doing on the pitch 

But remember, that isn't tin foil hat stuff at all

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


21 minutes ago, Jeff Stein said:

Listened to the podcast. Maybe I missed something but Keighley's position appeared to be

1 IMG's proposals are unfair because there is no meritocracy judging clubs on such things as location 

2 The two London clubs, Midlands, Cornwall and Newcastle should be thrown out because they are not in the heartlands no matter how they are doing on the pitch 

As far as I remember they also included two up two down P&R as if the damage caused to one club wasn't enough.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RP London said:

And yet if the teams that are awarded super league places through this system are those already in super league, when they earned it on the pitch, there will be uproar and people crying fix!

 

BTW I also agree there should be P&R between the grade B's, and have said as much on this thread... but there is a lot of handwringing about P&R when in the next breath those that have benefited because they have performed on the pitch and got to where they were through P&R, like loads want, should be handicapped in the grading to give others a chance.. who have had 125 years to get there with P&R..... I understand many of the arguments and also say I would have some form of weighting for certain aspects but some of the dramatics seem a little overboard..

I think it's unfair to say the sport has had 125 years to get it right. In the early 90s, i feel* as though the sport was doing ok and then 2 things happened which massively changed the sporting landscape in the UK.

1. The formation of the Premier League (on the back of the pack-pass rule changing)

2. Rugby Union became professional.

Following that, we've clearly had huge changes in the commercial and technological world that impacted society and thus sport and again, gut feel only, it felt like we were on the right track with Richard Lewis in charge. Post that era, it's been awful. You could argue it's been terrible, awful, appalling, frightful; hideous, grim, ghastly, shocking, revolting, repulsive, horrid, horrendous, horrifying, repellent.

--

I like IMG and the direction that the sport is going, and in all honesty, if clubs can't get behind it and go bust, i genuinely don't care. I like them because I want 2 things to happen: 1. Proper leadership (i still feel clubs will find a way to be selfish and wheres the International impact etc etc etc, but it's a start) and 2. A simple structure that rewards performance on the pitch more than the current offering suggests.

--

*I was born in 1981, but the Bullock Stand was ace and we were selling out Wembley all the time, so it must have been good. Right?

  • Like 2

Running the Rob Burrow marathon to raise money for the My Name'5 Doddie foundation:

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/ben-dyas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Stein said:

2 The two London clubs, Midlands, Cornwall and Newcastle should be thrown out because they are not in the heartlands no matter how they are doing on the pitch 

Local game for local people.

Imagine having so little respect for the game of rugby league that you don't think people outside your little area could possible enjoy it or contribute to it.

  • Like 4

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

14 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

I think it's unfair to say the sport has had 125 years to get it right. In the early 90s, i feel* as though the sport was doing ok and then 2 things happened which massively changed the sporting landscape in the UK.

1. The formation of the Premier League (on the back of the pack-pass rule changing)

2. Rugby Union became professional.

Following that, we've clearly had huge changes in the commercial and technological world that impacted society and thus sport and again, gut feel only, it felt like we were on the right track with Richard Lewis in charge. Post that era, it's been awful. You could argue it's been terrible, awful, appalling, frightful; hideous, grim, ghastly, shocking, revolting, repulsive, horrid, horrendous, horrifying, repellent.

--

I like IMG and the direction that the sport is going, and in all honesty, if clubs can't get behind it and go bust, i genuinely don't care. I like them because I want 2 things to happen: 1. Proper leadership (i still feel clubs will find a way to be selfish and wheres the International impact etc etc etc, but it's a start) and 2. A simple structure that rewards performance on the pitch more than the current offering suggests.

--

*I was born in 1981, but the Bullock Stand was ace and we were selling out Wembley all the time, so it must have been good. Right?

Dont disagree with much of that, I was being overly simplistic but in response to a lot of overly simplistic reasoning in the style of "without p&r the sport is terrible" yet with p&r its hardly flourising etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

Typical SL supporter.

Its easy sitting there Smug calling Keighley a small club. They haven't been funded with Millions for the last 20 odd years.

You wouldn't be saying that if you were also on the outside looking in???

Think i got it right this time

To challenge your point, the majority of big clubs now (Saints, Leeds, Wigan et al) were big clubs before the SKY money came into the game. They’ve remained big clubs, not just because of SKY money, but because they have big fanbases, big commercial revenues and strong external investment.

It is SL and these big clubs who attract the big money from SKY, Ch4 etc. You only need to view the amount of times these clubs are on the TV to substantiate that point. 

So whilst I am a firm believer in sharing ‘some’ resource ie TV monies, to the smaller clubs, why should SL share money with the likes of Keighley, Dewsbury et al who are not being paid to be watched on our TV screens? If the answer is fairness or something like that, the cold reality is sport is a business, not a charity. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Do you reckon you will get old enough to receive ageism jokes?

You what

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeff Stein said:

Listened to the podcast. Maybe I missed something but Keighley's position appeared to be

The two London clubs, Midlands, Cornwall and Newcastle should be thrown out because they are not in the heartlands no matter how they are doing on the pitch 

The Keighley lads were saying that there is far more interest in the game in the north, and for clubs trying to make their way forward in the game, being in the north creates a much better "return". 

They said IIRC that in putting money into Keighley, the fanbase grew very quickly. They said that Mr. Perez in putting money into Cornwall RLFC, only got an actual response of 400 crowds which were inflated by said owner (naughty naughty) to 1,000.

I suppose David Hughes has pumped an actual fortune into London when you add it all up. AFAIK Mr. Hughes  hails originally from Oldham. AFAIK Oldham RL are returning to their home town to play at Boundary Park.

The point here would probably be that in doing so with Mr. Hughes at the helm he would make a much greater success of Oldham than he has done London........    Seemed a fair point and remember we have opened literally loads of clubs outside the M62 that all failed.  Need a new thread to list them all!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, steve oates said:

They said that Mr. Perez in putting money into Cornwall RLFC, only got an actual response of 400 crowds which were inflated by said owner (naughty naughty) to 1,000.

Interesting.

They provide any evidence for that?

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

Just now, steve oates said:

I assume they counted the crowd and then checked what was given to the papers😉

I'll take that as, "No."

  • Like 3

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

3 hours ago, Oxford said:

As far as I remember they also included two up two down P&R as if the damage caused to one club wasn't enough.

You know what coaches say when player's are injured and are unavailable, they simply say that the opportunity has risen for someone else to stake a claim, so on the promotion and relegation issue of 2 club's, it gives the opportunity for 2 club's to have a go at bettering themselves.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GeordieSaint said:

To challenge your point, the majority of big clubs now (Saints, Leeds, Wigan et al) were big clubs before the SKY money came into the game

Yes they were but can you still include a club who do not own their own stadium and are merely rent paying tenant's?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Is the answer broken time payments? I think the answer is broken time payments.

 

57 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

You what

A simple question, in response to a posters question "what happened to the game I loved" your reply is above, so what did you mean?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, steve oates said:

The Keighley lads were saying that there is far more interest in the game in the north, and for clubs trying to make their way forward in the game, being in the north creates a much better "return". 

They said IIRC that in putting money into Keighley, the fanbase grew very quickly. They said that Mr. Perez in putting money into Cornwall RLFC, only got an actual response of 400 crowds which were inflated by said owner (naughty naughty) to 1,000.

I suppose David Hughes has pumped an actual fortune into London when you add it all up. AFAIK Mr. Hughes  hails originally from Oldham. AFAIK Oldham RL are returning to their home town to play at Boundary Park.

The point here would probably be that in doing so with Mr. Hughes at the helm he would make a much greater success of Oldham than he has done London........    Seemed a fair point and remember we have opened literally loads of clubs outside the M62 that all failed.  Need a new thread to list them all!!!

That's a lot of words to try and disprove what they actually said. And of course they have put their views in action in the past by putting forward a motion to the RL Council that Skolars, Hurricanes and West Wales should be thrown out. 

BTW Hughes is from Swinton and the idea he wouldn't turn a่ heartlands club into a basket case as well is nuts

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think 2 up 2 down would work, indeed it would only entrench the teams at the very top, whilst screwing the majority of teams who are up for relegation each year (and of course the promoted teams, who would be even more likely to go straight back down). The only way that doesn't happen is if you heavily restrict the top sides to a level that the likes of Keighley think they can compete with.

The small town game thing is tosh, but I can see why it would suit the owners Keighley to believe it.

"Organic growth" is also tosh. London and the south east has as many RL clubs as parts of the "heartlands" do, yet they still aren't accepted.

The Keighley owners were addressing a single point.

For example - if in soccer,where 2 clubs from the same city are now long established clubs,with a history of success,they can draw on that history.If they were to start soccer,naming it as a regional club,ie West Midlands,it would fail to have a 'local' identity the 'locals' could identify with and may fail to capture a local audience.

They articulated that it would be better for the clubs in London to identify a local area to garner support.No soccer club,in London,is named London.

The 'organic growth' was a reference to Cornwall and Midlands Hurricanes- despite the sterling work undertaken at Coventry.

There is a shortage of community clubs thriving in Cornwall.

The Keighley  Cougars owners are as keen as the rest of us with regards to expansion.

Business people identified and permitted to make decisions about the sport should address the issue.

It seems London may be under the microscope - with the name remaining. 

Well,I suppose the other code has London Irish...

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jeff Stein said:

That's a lot of words to try and disprove what they actually said. And of course they have put their views in action in the past by putting forward a motion to the RL Council that Skolars, Hurricanes and West Wales should be thrown out. 

BTW Hughes is from Swinton and the idea he wouldn't turn a่ heartlands club into a basket case as well is nuts

They went further than that and said London and Newcastle are renowned when the they are the visiting teams for away fixtures, that the home club's usually have their lowest gates of the season, can you refute that claim?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RP London said:

And yet if the teams that are awarded super league places through this system are those already in super league, when they earned it on the pitch, there will be uproar and people crying fix!

 

BTW I also agree there should be P&R between the grade B's, and have said as much on this thread... but there is a lot of handwringing about P&R when in the next breath those that have benefited because they have performed on the pitch and got to where they were through P&R, like loads want, should be handicapped in the grading to give others a chance.. who have had 125 years to get there with P&R..... I understand many of the arguments and also say I would have some form of weighting for certain aspects but some of the dramatics seem a little overboard..

I think that statement is ridiculous about the 125 years.

There was 100 years prior to SL where every team was treat equal. Almost all teams had good and bad spells along the way.

Even the great Wigan were in League 2 [Came back up unbeaten following year] but I may be getting mixed  up with Man Utd who did same a couple of year earlier.

But during that time around 24 different teams managed to win the league and 30 different teams won/appeared in the Challenge Cup Final.

Since SL - only 4 teams have won SL and 7 have won CC [Catalan, hull and Warrington and the 4 SL winners]

Same thing every year and boring - A third of the RFL teams paid to be better than the rest.

That is good for them [and well done] but it is not good for the game.

Saints, Wigan and Leeds etc were already great teams and would have continued that way, without the money that has distanced themselves from everyone else.

That money has not made them look better  it has just made everyone else look worse.

I dont blame the teams for this - it should have been shared out equally at the start and brought everyone up together.

Saints, Wigan and Leeds would still be where they are but the leagues would be more competitive. 

This is due to the SKy money being unfairly distributed nothing else. RFLs fault

Its the same teams every year. Boring.

and the IMG plans dont help.

If IMG want to help start LEVELING UP

 

 

Edited by Derwent Parker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

You know what coaches say when player's are injured and are unavailable, they simply say that the opportunity has risen for someone else to stake a claim, so on the promotion and relegation issue of 2 club's, it gives the opportunity for 2 club's to have a go at bettering themselves.

'Arry we stand on different sides of this argument I won't discuss this further which is unlike me but I also didn't want to be rude and ignore your post.

 

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

The Keighley  Cougars owners are as keen as the rest of us with regards to expansion.

Yes. They really are as keen as some on here with regards to expansion.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 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

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

They went further than that and said London and Newcastle are renowned when the they are the visiting teams for away fixtures, that the home club's usually have their lowest gates of the season, can you refute that claim?

Shock news that clubs further away bring less supporters than a club a few miles down the road. Can't get anything past you 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jeff Stein said:

Shock news that clubs further away bring less supporters than a club a few miles down the road.

Whatever next!

  • Sad 1

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Local game for local people.

Imagine having so little respect for the game of rugby league that you don't think people outside your little area could possible enjoy it or contribute to it.

Local game for local aging people. English rugby league is in for some bad days if the interest levels among the younger generations don't change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NW10LDN said:

Local game for local aging people. English rugby league is in for some bad days if the interest levels among the younger generations don't change.

And yet when I visit clubs there are loads of kids there watching the game 

  • Like 1
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.