London (Merged Threads)

[wiganermike]

6 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Apologies, I thought you had suggested that they would use 2021-22-23 for the indicative grades as well because only 11 clubs completed the 2020 season.

They could of course use 2020-21-22, but essentially only data for two years for the majority of the clubs.

I would expect 2020 not to be used as most clubs didn't have a 2020 season and those that did didn't have crowds for the majority of it so to include it would skew things too much.

[Barley Mow]

16 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

I would expect 2020 not to be used as most clubs didn't have a 2020 season and those that did didn't have crowds for the majority of it so to include it would skew things too much.

Which is why I thought you meant the same three year period being used now and for the first operative gradings.

I now assume you meant only two years worth of data might be used for the indicative grades.

[wiganermike]

1 minute ago, Barley Mow said:

Which is why I thought you meant the same three year period being used now and for the first operative gradings.

I now assume you meant only two years worth of data might be used for the indicative grades.

Yes I think that the indicative scores will be calculated using 2021 and 2022 seasons only. I suppose we will only know for sure when the scores are published assuming some clarification is provided when they are made public.

[gazza77]

So London won't be completely full time in SL. Presumably it is allowed then...

 

 

[OriginalMrC]

I don't think it matters if a player is part time or full time. It's all about having the best players available. Saying that I think the Broncos will struggle without significant signings for next year. 

[dealwithit]

London need additions. But they won’t lose the likes of Parata just because he needs to be a FT player. He has a successful project management company. The broncos have said they’ll accommodate players as best they can. Living in London, it would be no surprise for some of their squad to earn far more from non-SL income. 

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

I don't think it matters if a player is part time or full time. It's all about having the best players available. Saying that I think the Broncos will struggle without significant signings for next year. 

This is exactly it, some of those part time players that London will keep are way better than some of the full time players that would be available to them.

[dealwithit]

I’ve had another look through the scoring and I have Toulouse ahead of Wakey, Cas and Salford. 

[Griff]

6 hours ago, dealwithit said:

London need additions. But they won’t lose the likes of Parata just because he needs to be a FT player. He has a successful project management company. The broncos have said they’ll accommodate players as best they can. Living in London, it would be no surprise for some of their squad to earn far more from non-SL income. 

I hope Parata has an understanding employer.

 

[latchford albion]

11 minutes ago, Griff said:

I hope Parata has an understanding employer.

 

https://www.parataproperty.co.uk/team-2

[Dovster]

15 hours ago, Dovster said:

I'm sure Sky will disagree.

I'm am sorry that you are confused Griff.

My point is that SKY pay money and expect a Competitive League.

You made the point that on field is not as important now. IMO SKY wouldn't be happy with teams being part time and not being competitive.

If other posters are correct and it is going to be very difficult for London to stay in SL (even if they don't finish bottom) due to the IMG rules, then I can't blame London, just the sysem.

[The Blues Ox]

London have probably more chance of been competitive keeping their part time players than they have if they were to only sign the full time players that are available.

[The 4 of Us]

1 hour ago, Dovster said:

I'm am sorry that you are confused Griff.

My point is that SKY pay money and expect a Competitive League.

You made the point that on field is not as important now. IMO SKY wouldn't be happy with teams being part time and not being competitive.

If other posters are correct and it is going to be very difficult for London to stay in SL (even if they don't finish bottom) due to the IMG rules, then I can't blame London, just the sysem.

There is a big difference between a team being “part-time” and a team with some part-time players.

Riddle me this. If the best player in the world turns up to Broncos next Friday and says, I’d love to play for you for free as I don’t need the money, but I can only train Tuesday and Thursday and play matches as I have other commitments I need to look after.

1. Do you say no thank you because that would make us part-time.

2. Would Sky object? 

Edited October 21, 2023 by The 4 of Us

[Toby Chopra]

21 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

London have probably more chance of been competitive keeping their part time players than they have if they were to only sign the full time players that are available.

I'd say that's true.

I'm not sure how competitive it will make them, but it could be even worse if they dropped all the part time players and cobbled together one made up of full-time cast offs.

[Spidey]

9 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

There is a big difference between a team being “part-time” and a team with some part-time players.

Riddle me this. If the best player in the world turns up to Broncos next Friday and says, I’d love to play for you for free as I don’t need the money, but I can only train Tuesday and Thursday and player match as I have other commitments I need to look after.

1. Do you say no thank you because that would make us part-time.

2. Would Sky object? 

Widnes tried a mix a few years back. They had a ridiculous situation where the playing group was split into three and didn’t all train at the same time. This contributed to coach’s departure

It can work if the bulk of the training is on one group. If you start splitting up the team it’s a recipe for disaster 

[The 4 of Us]

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Widnes tried a mix a few years back. They had a ridiculous situation where the playing group was split into three and didn’t all train at the same time. This contributed to coach’s departure

It can work if the bulk of the training is on one group. If you start splitting up the team it’s a recipe for disaster 

Absolutely. Don’t disagree and it may not work with London. Just over egging the point that part-time players doesn’t necessarily mean part-time operation. Succesful is something else. 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Dovster said:

I'm am sorry that you are confused Griff.

My point is that SKY pay money and expect a Competitive League.

You made the point that on field is not as important now. IMO SKY wouldn't be happy with teams being part time and not being competitive.

If other posters are correct and it is going to be very difficult for London to stay in SL (even if they don't finish bottom) due to the IMG rules, then I can't blame London, just the sysem.

Thanks for explaining.

We've had weak teams in SL before and, so far as I'm aware, Sky haven't complained.

But, obviously, none of us know what goes on behind closed doors.

[GeordieSaint]

I wish London all the best but this a great example of the need for minimum standards. 

[Dovster]

2 hours ago, The 4 of Us said:

There is a big difference between a team being “part-time” and a team with some part-time players.

Riddle me this. If the best player in the world turns up to Broncos next Friday and says, I’d love to play for you for free as I don’t need the money, but I can only train Tuesday and Thursday and play matches as I have other commitments I need to look after.

1. Do you say no thank you because that would make us part-time.

2. Would Sky object? 

I would say it is fantasy to think the best player in the world is only training 2 days a week.

However IMO to play at the top in any sport takes total commitment and SL is no different. It is a team game and you need to practise long and hard to bond, talk about the opposition and take the necessary recovery time after hard games etc etc. 

I don't think that this could be achieved by apart time player.

[The 4 of Us]

May be or may be not but wasn’t the point whether having a or several part-time player ms as part of any otherwise full time operation, made it the team part-time?

[The Blues Ox]

19 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I wish London all the best but this a great example of the need for minimum standards. 

Don't hate the player........

[glossop saint]

3 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Don't hate the player........

Quite right. As soon as we get a system in place that means that we get those clubs with the best profile, facilities, finances etc in place the better. 

[Griff]

The practicalities of switching from part time to full time can't be underestimated.

You can't just sack the part time squad, wheel in some random full timers and expect them to gel.  And then fall back on your original part timers when the full timers get relegated.  You need some continuity.  If that means retaining some part time players for the time being, so be it.

There are plenty of part time players out there to whom it makes no financial sense to switch to full time because they have good jobs outside the game.

London's plan may not keep them up.   But it's their plan and their decision to make.

[wiganermike]

21 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I wish London all the best but this a great example of the need for minimum standards. 

London will be going into next season knowing that due to the change from conventional P&R to the IMG system it is unlikely that there is much they could achieve that would see them retain their place in SL. It therefore makes sense for them to retain most of the successful Championship squad in readiness for their likely return to the Championship in 2025. The alternative involves replacing the part time squad with a new one only to have to replace that with a new part time squad in 2025. London can't really be blamed for taking the approach they have to next year. If they do return to the Championship then any money not spent in 2024 can be put into building the club in the Championship with an aim to regaining a SL spot in the next few years (at which time it is more likely to be sustainable as it will have been earned under the grading system). If London do unexpectedly do so well that they are graded in the top 12 and stay in SL then they can look to go FT then as their place will be more secure than it is likely to be next year.

It is the change in systems and its likely effect on London that has forced their hand on this. Given the particular circumstances they are doing the sensible thing.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

13 minutes ago, Griff said:

The practicalities of switching from part time to full time can't be underestimated.

You can't just sack the part time squad, wheel in some random full timers and expect them to gel.  And then fall back on your original part timers when the full timers get relegated.  You need some continuity.  If that means retaining some part time players for the time being, so be it.

There are plenty of part time players out there to whom it makes no financial sense to switch to full time because they have good jobs outside the game.

London's plan may not keep them up.   But it's their plan and their decision to make.

This is my view. It might not work, but let's face it any plan is unlikely to work. It's not like they're not going to be recruiting a load of new full time players, of course they are. But given they were expecting to be in the Championship and had already offered part-time contracts to many in the squad, I think it's much better that they've honoured those than sacked off a load of the team who got them promoted. Even if many end up being squad players next season, to me it sounds like a club doing the right thing by its playing group.

Culture eats strategy for breakfast, and I can't see this as anything other than a good, pragmatic move.