Jump to content

The IMG Gradings Thread - Post all your IMG Gradings related questions or comments here


Recommended Posts


2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

If things are working then they will then find themselves falling behind clubs who are smarter than that.

(But, as I say, one of the things the exercise has done is show just how weak the game is, and how small our biggest clubs actually are.)

If you didn't already know that , you've not been paying attention 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dboy said:

Fortunately. WMDC have reminded them that they can't use the £2M for that purpose.

Hi dBoy , where has this been said please . Do you have a link ?

 

This was the specific requirements for use of £2M when funds were initially relased (quote from WMDC)

'The funding plan will support all three clubs to meet the current, and potential future, Rugby Football League (RFL) conditions on stadium facilities as well as improving community use at the sites'

It may have changed since , but if not then stadium improvements of any kind would fit into this category

Edited by Taffy Tiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

If you didn't already know that , you've not been paying attention 

I did know that. I've said it for a long time.

I've also said the game needs to wake up and address that or it will contract further and further.

If you didn't already know that, you've not been paying attention.

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, Hopie said:

That's easy to say.  You can't criticise this part of the plan because its part of a bigger plan that we haven't told you about yet, nor have we proven this poor choice is integral to that plan. 

Also I criticise it for not doing something I want it to do, some one says its not supposed to do that, but doesn't actually say what it is for. There is no real discussion here, just arguing/negativity.

It buys them time , while they figure how to get out of the deal they've signed 😂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi dBoy , where has this been said please . Do you have a link ?

It was firstly covered by WMDC when they and the clubs' announced the support and it was covered by one of the journo websites, as a follow-up piece to Grattan's panicky ramblings.

Wakefield Council will give £6m to city's Rugby League clubs - but there's a catch - YorkshireLive (examinerlive.co.uk)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dboy said:

It was firstly covered by WMDC when they and the clubs' announced the support and it was covered by one of the journo websites, as a follow-up piece to Grattan's panicky ramblings.

Wakefield Council will give £6m to city's Rugby League clubs - but there's a catch - YorkshireLive (examinerlive.co.uk)

 

Hi dBoy , but this proves my point doesn't it . Quotes taken from above link

 

It is hoped the money can go towards bringing Wakefield’s Belle Vue, Castleford’s Wheldon Road and Featherstone’s Post Office Road grounds up to Super League standards...........

....the funding plan will allow all three clubs to meet Rugby Football League conditions for stadium facilities.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi dBoy , but this proves my point doesn't it . Quotes taken from above link

 

It is hoped the money can go towards bringing Wakefield’s Belle Vue, Castleford’s Wheldon Road and Featherstone’s Post Office Road grounds up to Super League standards...........

....the funding plan will allow all three clubs to meet Rugby Football League conditions for stadium facilities.

No, any stadium-related spending of the funds has to be for community provision.

Moving seats from the main stand and putting them in the Prince's Street stand does bot meet the criteria.

There's no-way WMDC will release such a draw-down request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dboy said:

No, any stadium-related spending of the funds has to be for community provision.

Moving seats from the main stand and putting them in the Prince's Street stand does bot meet the criteria.

There's no-way WMDC will release such a draw-down request.

'It is hoped the money can go towards bringing Wakefield’s Belle Vue, Castleford’s Wheldon Road and Featherstone’s Post Office Road grounds up to Super League standards.

In return the clubs have to demonstrate to the council that they are doing work in the community to improve public health and encouraging young people into the sport.'

 

Cas have already demonstrated to council the requirements for use of money to improve stadium . These can also be seen in the IMG grading for community etc. Cas's work in the community is excellent. 

Hopefully none of this will be required anyway as PP comes up for a decision in January .

However , the club has said that it will need around £ 80k for the temporary upgrade WR . If this is the case , then maybe Cas won't need to use WMDC cash . That said , there is absolutely no reason why the £2M couldn't be used in full if necessary , as all of the requirements originally set out by WMDC for use of money in such a way , have already been met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WMDC money cannot be used in they Grattan suggested. Suit yourself whether you believe me on that point.

The Cas planning application will go in in January AT THE EARLIEST.

As it stands, there is a live objection to the build from the Environment Agency - the current storm season is doing nothing to change anyone's mind on that.

Then you have to worry about actually getting the funding agreed with Axiom.

That's all before you can even think about starting the build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dboy said:

The WMDC money cannot be used in they Grattan suggested. Suit yourself whether you believe me on that point.

The Cas planning application will go in in January AT THE EARLIEST.

As it stands, there is a live objection to the build from the Environment Agency - the current storm season is doing nothing to change anyone's mind on that.

Then you have to worry about actually getting the funding agreed with Axiom.

That's all before you can even think about starting the build.

agree , which is why Plan B has been mooted . In all honesty neither of us know if WMDC would grant the use of the £2M . I just use the article you gave as a point of reference . I read it as us having met the requirements for specific use mentioned in the article to improve Stadium . I know that Cas have always said that the £2M would be put towards the money from Axiom when PP was granted . Wakefield have also used the £2M towards the build of their new stand as well.

 

However , I fully accept that the extra facilities in their new stand will count towards community use requirements set out by WMDC . Maybe this is why Cas can use it in conjunction with Axiom cash to improve WR if PP granted , but may not be allowed to use it for Plan B .

 

That said , it would seem a little harsh if Cas weren't allowed to use it , if it ultimately could be shown that Plan B brings stadium to SL standard and would ultimitaley benefit the community as a result .

 

I guess this is all down to interpretation , and you may well be right at the end of the day .

 

I would also agree that there is no way now that Plan A (PP given and WR upgraded) could be put into place before 2025 season . In all honesty 2026 could be a push . However , as mentioned in previous post , if £80k is full cost to bring WR temporarily up to SL standard then WMDC money won't be an issue either way hopefully. 

 

Thanks again for the reply

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi dBoy , where has this been said please . Do you have a link ?

 

This was the specific requirements for use of £2M when funds were initially relased (quote from WMDC)

'The funding plan will support all three clubs to meet the current, and potential future, Rugby Football League (RFL) conditions on stadium facilities as well as improving community use at the sites'

It may have changed since , but if not then stadium improvements of any kind would fit into this category

That's how I remember it , it was " it cannot be used for player fees or wages , but must be infrastructure " 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

I did know that. I've said it for a long time.

I've also said the game needs to wake up and address that or it will contract further and further.

If you didn't already know that, you've not been paying attention.

Will the new structure address it ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

agree , which is why Plan B has been mooted . In all honesty neither of us know if WMDC would grant the use of the £2M . I just use the article you gave as a point of reference . I read it as us having met the requirements for specific use mentioned in the article to improve Stadium . I know that Cas have always said that the £2M would be put towards the money from Axiom when PP was granted . Wakefield have also used the £2M towards the build of their new stand as well.

 

 

That's not correct.

Wakefield haven't yet drawn down the £2m (or certainly not all of it), as that's for the Community Hub building (currently the Rollin Shack/changing room building).

Only when the new stand is open, can focus switch to that building and only then can the £2m be drawn down.

I'm sure some of the new stand facilities will have ultimately benefitted from the WMDC funds, as there will be "bleed-over" e.g. changing facilities for the amateur/community provision can be counted that way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I did know that. I've said it for a long time.

I've also said the game needs to wake up and address that or it will contract further and further.

If you didn't already know that, you've not been paying attention.

It's been contracting really since the introduction of SL and summer rugby.  From what I've been reading the supply of amateurs coming through is also drying up.  The cause of this IMO is the egregious licencing.  We are now feeling the effects of the loss of interest in the game this caused.  God knows what can be done to rectify the problem.  But the IMG proposals aint it.

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TrueBull said:

IMG get paid as a % of all upgraded and new commercial income and broadcasting contracts they bring in. So the criteria will be based partly (or wholly) on making that happen - through the product on the field but more importantly how to sell it to audiences. When it came out , I must admit I thought it was designed for big city clubs. And the last week hasn’t changed my mind

Are you saying it is rigged that way to include Big City Clubs? 

But which Cities do you mean, apart from Leeds I can't think of one that is fit for purpose as of 2025 to be in SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Are you saying it is rigged that way to include Big City Clubs? 

But which Cities do you mean, apart from Leeds I can't think of one that is fit for purpose as of 2025 to be in SL.

Perpignan (not huge but a city) and Toulouse Are probably the 2nd and 3rd biggest cities?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

The French don't differentiate between town and city do they?

The UK differentiation is downright nonsensical and arbitrary to be fair. St Davids is a City with a population of around 2k but Reading is not despite 350k people living there. City status in the UK these days is nothing but a political tool and nothing to do with population/cathedrals/universities etc. If we had the same rules as Italy(anything above 50k pop, only Leigh and Cas from this years SL wouldn't be Cities and neither would be far away from attaining it either).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TrueBull said:

IMG get paid as a % of all upgraded and new commercial income and broadcasting contracts they bring in. So the criteria will be based partly (or wholly) on making that happen - through the product on the field but more importantly how to sell it to audiences. When it came out , I must admit I thought it was designed for big city clubs. And the last week hasn’t changed my mind

Designed for big city clubs? IMG insists Londons a massive target for growth, RFL have all the demographic of cross london ticket sales about challenge cup & London internationals, yet they use the catchment area of ‘Merton’ in the catchment score calculation. London’s other scores are fair reflection, but way catchment has been used for them is laughable.

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.