Oldham..,

[sheddingswasus]

2 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

The most immediate problem with going to 16 will be persuading the 12 existing clubs to take a 33% cut in their share of central funding, how do you propose doing that?

Whilst this is off topic, make their commercial teams do what they are employed to and go out and earn money for the club, attract more fans etc. the game will never grow by lazily accepting the sky purse. 

Oldham's commercial team are doing these things now. The club has also engaged with the community clubs and they are now feeling part of the towns pyramid of RL again

[The Art of Hand and Foot]

15 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Whilst I agree that scores should be appearing in local newspapers this really is schoolboy stuff, and as much blame should fall on the club as the RFL. In fact, writing pieces for local media outlets should be happening as has been discussed on the board before. However this still will cost money. How many new paying fans does that need to attract to make it worthwhile (not necessarily how it should be looked at in my opinion but how it will be looked at)? 

And this still doesn't answer the vast majority of my initial questions. A column in a newspaper won't be a game changer for a 2nd tier sports league.

It's all part of an overall promotional strategy. Newspaper columns alone won't be a game changer but they add to electronic media which adds to physical media which adds to word of mouth. The general rule is that you need at least 3 modes, preferably 5,  of promotional activity happening in a given time period.

[fighting irish]

12 minutes ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

It's all part of an overall promotional strategy. Newspaper columns alone won't be a game changer but they add to electronic media which adds to physical media which adds to word of mouth. The general rule is that you need at least 3 modes, preferably 5,  of promotional activity happening in a given time period.

What is IMG/RFL Commercial's role in this?

I'm not saying they should be doing all this for the clubs but they could show the clubs what needs to be done and (perhaps) how to do it.

I've called (for ages) for a policy of sharing of information and expertise throughout the league because we do have examples of good practice amongst the clubs, but it seems while they see each other as deadly enemies rather than fellow voyagers, on the good ship RL, the idea of helping other clubs to succeed seems anathema to the strugglers. 

Edited August 20, 2024 by fighting irish

[glossop saint]

9 minutes ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

It's all part of an overall promotional strategy. Newspaper columns alone won't be a game changer but they add to electronic media which adds to physical media which adds to word of mouth. The general rule is that you need at least 3 modes, preferably 5,  of promotional activity happening in a given time period.

I agree completely. That is also for me why you need (a strong) London, Catalans, maybe Toulouse in the sport. Creating a stronger image of the sport.

Having said that the question I was asking originally was how do you go about strengthening the 2nd tier? Does this come at the expense of other areas? And can clubs help themselves in this respect, as Oldham seem to be doing, so full respect to them.

[Roughyed Rats]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Thanks RR for the reply.  I was aware that the Boards plan was pre IMG.  My comment was based on whether people think that the potential position that Oldham may be in in 5 years time - which obviously would negate the two years to date - may get them near the 15 point mark.

Your question (answered) was also whether P&R offered us a better chance. It will be around 4-5 years before Oldham could realistically achieve 15 points. P&R would have offered that potential sooner, in say 2-3 years.

[fighting irish]

4 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I agree completely. That is also for me why you need (a strong) London, Catalans, maybe Toulouse in the sport. Creating a stronger image of the sport.

Having said that the question I was asking originally was how do you go about strengthening the 2nd tier? Does this come at the expense of other areas? And can clubs help themselves in this respect, as Oldham seem to be doing, so full respect to them.

Perhaps Oldham could write the ''Idiots guide to promoting a RL club......'' ?

Although having said that, a different title might be better.

[Click]

16 hours ago, Trojan Horse said:

Exactly the same investment of every other club. Equally nothing. 
 

Though I do believe they receive a leg up head start on the img criteria through location which is sensually a head start on many other clubs. You could argue this is an investment into expansion. Unfair perhaps on many teams, personally this should be abolished as you can’t really move a clubs stadium and location so I’m surprised points are allocated or penalised accordingly. 
 

I personally think the the championship and league 1 can be so much more and I think there’s teams who have a much higher ceiling for potential that aren’t what you would call expansion clubs. 
 

To link this with Oldham. These are a club building in the right way and are actually in a better state than London it seems presently. In contrast London floundering and crying with pity articles and press releases whilst a club like Oldham are really buying into improving themselves. 
 

Clubs like Oldham, York etc listed I really do think could improve a lot over this next few years but I do think the structure and investment into the championship needs a serious look to enable that. 

That's one way to tell everyone you haven't read the criteria without telling everyone you haven't read the criteria.

[Click]

2 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

A lot of common sense there personally with France just my opinion Carcassonne would be better.

London very very important  

You're not allowed to say this anymore, seeing how you keep wanting to move London's only RL team to Kent.

[fighting irish]

2 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Your question (answered) was also whether P&R offered us a better chance. It will be around 4-5 years before Oldham could realistically achieve 15 points. P&R would have offered that potential sooner, in say 2-3 years.

As it is, the IMG system has removed the almost irresistible gravitational pull of squandering your hard earned gains on some barnacle encrusted, aging ''dreadnought from down-under'' in a high risk, long odds gamble, to short circuit the process. 

[OriginalMrC]

15 hours ago, Trojan Horse said:

Because I can do both and don’t need to conform to what you want me to do. 
 

Not having a dig at all. I just think there’s more future potential in other clubs Oldham inclusive. 

I'm not asking you to conform to anything. Seems a very odd thing to start having a pop at expansion clubs in a thread where people are congratulating Oldham on a job well done. You carry on if it makes you feel better

[Roughyed Rats]

8 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

As it is, the IMG system has removed the almost irresistible gravitational pull of squandering your hard earned gains on some barnacle encrusted, aging ''dreadnought from down-under'' in a high risk, long odds gamble, to short circuit the process. 

It has. However, the law of unintended consequences means that good owners / clubs looking to do the right thing are adversely affected. Personally, I'm glad the club are continuing to with their original plans and much of the activity that doesn't get rewarded / score points on a spreadsheet. IMG won't be around in the long term but doing the right things will have a longer term legacy.

[glossop saint]

15 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

It has. However, the law of unintended consequences means that good owners / clubs looking to do the right thing are adversely affected. Personally, I'm glad the club are continuing to with their original plans and much of the activity that doesn't get rewarded / score points on a spreadsheet. IMG won't be around in the long term but doing the right things will have a longer term legacy.

To be fair, the scoring system does often reward that activity. Not directly, which is a change I would make to the scoring, but it does help build crowds, build financial income, awareness/following of the club. And hopefully, albeit more long term, help build the quality of players avaliable to the club to challenge on the pitch. Despite your last sentence IMG are actually rewarding many things which will have a longer term legacy.

[Roughyed Rats]

16 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

To be fair, the scoring system does often reward that activity. Not directly, which is a change I would make to the scoring, but it does help build crowds, build financial income, awareness/following of the club. And hopefully, albeit more long term, help build the quality of players avaliable to the club to challenge on the pitch. Despite your last sentence IMG are actually rewarding many things which will have a longer term legacy.

Point taken but it makes no sense not to reward directly. Don't disagree with the overall principle. It's just been very poorly executed. For example, the only 'community' scoring is for catchment area (completely out of the club's control) and foundation turnover. That's 2.5 points and 12.5% of the overall score. I'm sorry but in my opinion that's a nonsense.

[Wakefield Ram]

24 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Point taken but it makes no sense not to reward directly. Don't disagree with the overall principle. It's just been very poorly executed. For example, the only 'community' scoring is for catchment area (completely out of the club's control) and foundation turnover. That's 2.5 points and 12.5% of the overall score. I'm sorry but in my opinion that's a nonsense.

This is the weakness in any scoring system. The weightings are arbitrary but have big impacts. 

[glossop saint]

49 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Point taken but it makes no sense not to reward directly. Don't disagree with the overall principle. It's just been very poorly executed. For example, the only 'community' scoring is for catchment area (completely out of the club's control) and foundation turnover. That's 2.5 points and 12.5% of the overall score. I'm sorry but in my opinion that's a nonsense.

I agree to a certain extent but not sure how you'd do it. Number of development officers? Number of junior teams within catchment area? Number of rugby balls given out to local primary schools? I'm surprised they haven't found a better way of scoring it but maybe they think that it will pay off in the long term with improvements in other areas. I certainly hope and think it will for Oldham.

[JM2010]

2 hours ago, glossop saint said:

I agree completely. That is also for me why you need (a strong) London, Catalans, maybe Toulouse in the sport. Creating a stronger image of the sport.

Having said that the question I was asking originally was how do you go about strengthening the 2nd tier? Does this come at the expense of other areas? And can clubs help themselves in this respect, as Oldham seem to be doing, so full respect to them.

I think if clubs like Oldham can keep strengthening and pushing for a higher grading then hopefully the knock on effect of this would be a stronger championship. As the more ambitious clubs outside of SL look to get stronger then that should create bigger clubs with bigger attendances and give the Championship a higher profile

[Trojan Horse]

4 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

I'm not asking you to conform to anything. Seems a very odd thing to start having a pop at expansion clubs in a thread where people are congratulating Oldham on a job well done. You carry on if it makes you feel better

It was more a comparison than a pop in teams that will most likely be competing with Oldham for SL over next few seasons. Thank you for your permission. 

[Click]

12 minutes ago, Trojan Horse said:

It was more a comparison than a pop in teams that will most likely be competing with Oldham for SL over next few seasons. Thank you for your permission. 

Care to elaborate on your statement regarding teams like London getting benefits from the criteria due to location?

[Wakefield Ram]

3 hours ago, JM2010 said:

I think if clubs like Oldham can keep strengthening and pushing for a higher grading then hopefully the knock on effect of this would be a stronger championship. As the more ambitious clubs outside of SL look to get stronger then that should create bigger clubs with bigger attendances and give the Championship a higher profile

SL clubs will only want to allow in a different club if

1. They are likely to bring more away fans than the team being demoted

2. They won't increase travel costs 

Martyn Sadler wrote an article where privately some SL Chairmen had said they'd rather Catalans were not in SL. 

Out of the Championship clubs only Bradford look like they'd have a chance of meeting the criteria. 

Edited August 20, 2024 by Wakefield Ram

[sheddingswasus]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Out of the Championship clubs only Bradford look like they'd have a chance of meeting the criteria

Oldham would. 

[Fevrover]

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

SL clubs will only want to allow in a different club if

1. They are likely to bring more away fans than the team being demoted

2. They won't increase travel costs 

Martyn Sadler wrote an article where privately some SL Chairmen had said they'd rather Catalans were not in SL. 

Out of the Championship clubs only Bradford look like they'd have a chance of meeting the criteria. 

Apart from Wakefield, Bradford get some big crowds . 

[north yorks trinity]

13 hours ago, glossop saint said:

Whilst I agree that scores should be appearing in local newspapers this really is schoolboy stuff, and as much blame should fall on the club as the RFL. In fact, writing pieces for local media outlets should be happening as has been discussed on the board before. However this still will cost money. How many new paying fans does that need to attract to make it worthwhile (not necessarily how it should be looked at in my opinion but how it will be looked at)? 

And this still doesn't answer the vast majority of my initial questions. A column in a newspaper won't be a game changer for a 2nd tier sports league.

The truth is I don't know the answer to your questions but it does seem that anything below SL is much more neglected than it used to be and I think even a bit of effort would make it feel less so. 

A column in a newspaper may not be a game changer but it would remind a few people of the existence of the championship. Similarly if the BBC sport website could find a way to have a round up of the matches in the Championship with its own headline it would increase visibility which I think would be valuable. 

[Trojan Horse]

8 hours ago, Click said:

Care to elaborate on your statement regarding teams like London getting benefits from the criteria due to location?

I believe that clubs get points based on location or proximity of other rugby clubs from discussions last year. Something clubs can’t address and it hinders some clubs and benefits others is imagine. 
 

I suspect with London’s population and the fact Cas/Trinity/Fev are in the same local authority it will be hard for any of those 3 clubs to ever get more than 0.5 points where others will always get 1.5 points or 1 point. This is a leg up in one respect for some clubs. It’s also very unfair as it’s not something that the club itself can even influence.

With London having 10 million or so population they would likely always get 1-1.5 points id guess whereas others 0.5. 

In contrast i think Wakefield 370k or so split by 3 means those clubs start behind the 8 ball and have to make up other areas they can influence. 
 

Edited August 20, 2024 by Trojan Horse

[Click]

8 hours ago, Trojan Horse said:

I believe that clubs get points based on location or proximity of other rugby clubs from discussions last year. Something clubs can’t address and it hinders some clubs and benefits others is imagine. 
 

I suspect with London’s population and the fact Cas/Trinity/Fev are in the same local authority it will be hard for any of those 3 clubs to ever get more than 0.5 points where others will always get 1.5 points or 1 point. This is a leg up in one respect for some clubs. It’s also very unfair as it’s not something that the club itself can even influence.

With London having 10 million or so population they would likely always get 1-1.5 points id guess whereas others 0.5. 

In contrast i think Wakefield 370k or so split by 3 means those clubs start behind the 8 ball and have to make up other areas they can influence. 
 

You should probably look into the thread that has almost reached 300 pages. It has been well talked about in there that London does not get full points for catchment/location. 

So please tell me again how London is benefitting from this?

[sheddingswasus]

Guys, this is about Oldham. These arguments should be in the img thread.