2024 attendance thread

[dboy]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They already get them because they are either doing well, or by being in a big market means they don't have to do as well. Easy peasy really? Why would the sport want to make it hard for itself?

I don't want a "tried really hard" award.

You want to give a club extra points for being in a large catchment, even when they fail to make any inroads into that catchment?

If you're justifying this pillar as "points for market potential", then you have to take points away when clubs don't break into that potential.

Are you just trolling now??

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

52 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Leeds got support for £40 million redevelopment of Headingley.

Salford have had millions of debt wiped off and a new deal agreed with the council specifically to benefit them.

Wakefield, Fev and Cas are having the most public funding ever and are sharing £6 million. The dichotomy you present doesn't exist.

 I thought three clubs being in the same borough was what you were arguing against. Now you're using it in supporting your argument . Much like Leigh playing out of Wigan borough in a new stadium. Then there's Widnes, a single small borough club playing out of a council built stadium. Some councils are helpful towards their clubs, others less so. To claim that just because your a single club playing out of a large population centre you will automatically get more council help is nonsense.

[LeytherRob]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

You want to give a club extra points for being in a large catchment, even when they fail to make any inroads into that catchment?

If you're justifying this pillar as "points for market potential", then you have to take points away when clubs don't break into that potential.

Are you just trolling now??

You do get punished for not making inroads into a large catchment though, catchment is 5% of the grading. London are a prime example of being punished for not taking advantage of a large market to go at.

[dboy]

10 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

You do get punished for not making inroads into a large catchment though, catchment is 5% of the grading. London are a prime example of being punished for not taking advantage of a large market to go at.

I don't understand your point.

Your catchment score is your catchment score. It's not a score for what you do with that catchment.

London suffer because the catchment is the  London borough they are in, not the wider "London".

[LeytherRob]

2 minutes ago, dboy said:

I don't understand your point.

Your catchment score is your catchment score. It's not a score for what you do with that catchment.

London suffer because the catchment is the  London borough they are in, not the wider "London".

Catchment is 1 point out of 20. There are plenty other ways to score or lose points. London suffer because the crowds are tiny, finances are propped up by 1 guy with very little income elsewhere from gates/merchandising, their low social media engagement and so on, even if they corrected the catchment for London(which they should) they’d still be getting relegated because they’ve been a hollow entity for a decade now.

[dboy]

6 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Catchment is 1 point out of 20. There are plenty other ways to score or lose points. London suffer because the crowds are tiny, finances are propped up by 1 guy with very little income elsewhere from gates/merchandising, their low social media engagement and so on, even if they corrected the catchment for London(which they should) they’d still be getting relegated because they’ve been a hollow entity for a decade now.

You're conflating lots of different scores and criteria.

Catchment is a point that's given solely on your catchment population, regardless of what you do with that catchment.

The "tiny crowds" punishment you refer to, is a separate score for attendance.

Being "propped up by one guy" is covered under the funding/reliance on central funding scores.

Social media has nothing to do with catchment either.

I'm not arguing for London, or indeed any particular club to be in or out of SL, merely being completely "un-catchment" in respect of the IMG process.

If you look at the points you do make, ALL are controllable by, in this case, London = they should do better.

There is nothing they can do about their catchment.

[LeytherRob]

5 minutes ago, dboy said:

You're conflating lots of different scores and criteria.

Catchment is a point that's given solely on your catchment population, regardless of what you do with that catchment.

The "tiny crowds" punishment you refer to, is a separate score for attendance.

Being "propped up by one guy" is covered under the funding/reliance on central funding scores.

Social media has nothing to do with catchment either.

I'm not arguing for London, or indeed any particular club to be in or out of SL, merely being completely "un-catchment" in respect of the IMG process.

If you look at the points you do make, ALL are controllable by, in this case, London = they should do better.

There is nothing they can do about their catchment.

And when you combine all those things to a single score, what does it matter where it is punished? 

[dboy]

Why is any score used as a punishment.

Every score is a reflection of how your business performs against a series of metrics - all things you can influence or control.

Except catchment, which is simply a free score given to big city clubs. 

Leeds are an extremely well run club and will score at the top end throughout.

They don't need the catchment score.

As a completely contrived score pillar, it can only be there to support an otherwise failing big-city club/business. It serves no other purpose.

Edited May 27 by dboy

[John Drake]

Rugby League’s very own Godwin’s Law kicks in again. 

The longer an online discussion on any topic goes on, it’s inevitable it ends up arguing over IMG grading points. 

Locked.