Are you listening SL/IMG?

[DOGFATHER]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/mar/23/batley-bulldogs-castleford-tigers-challenge-cup-rugby-league?CMP=share_btn_url&fbclid=IwAR2MQbpMOw976qMXS4b2Ky-lE9IwaysxESfshClcCBhPrq9F0SxJ3-FP5bU

Edited March 24 by DOGFATHER

[JohnM]

I do so miss  Peter Tinniswood and Uncle Mort. 

[sam4731]

I think the biggest takeaway from the game is the drum that I keep banging, which is that being in SL is not a good enough reason for being in SL. If you gave Batley the money that Cas get allowing them to be full time, Batley would probably have won yesterday.

[Worzel]

Batley have never been in the top division at any time that we’ve had multiple divisions. Not once. I doubt it’s been their goal for a very long time, if it ever was. So what does IMG’s role in Super League have to do with them? 

Anything they’ve done in the past to build their club, and its connection with its community, has never relied upon the promise of some sort of sunlit uplands in another league. It’s been about the enjoyment of today, and the building of local roots for tomorrow. It’s been about being part of the area they’re in, and doing what they do for many other positive reasons that don’t rely on some nebulous idea of needing the “benefits” of promotion.

Basically Batley are the living, breathing embodiment of how there’s a genuine, sustainable, enriching, rewarding life in rugby league without doing that. They’re a standard bearer of the future model, not a critique of it. Hopefully Featherstone and others can learn the right lesson from Batley’s excellence. 

[daz39]

15 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Batley have never been in the top division at any time that we’ve had multiple divisions. Not once. I doubt it’s been their goal for a very long time, if it ever was. So what does IMG’s role in Super League have to do with them? 

Anything they’ve done in the past to build their club, and its connection with its community, has never relied upon the promise of some sort of sunlit uplands in another league. It’s been about the enjoyment of today, and the building of local roots for tomorrow. It’s been about being part of the area they’re in, and doing what they do for many other positive reasons that don’t rely on some nebulous idea of needing the “benefits” of promotion.

Basically Batley are the living, breathing embodiment of how there’s a genuine, sustainable, enriching, rewarding life in rugby league without doing that. They’re standard bearer of the future model, not a critique of it. Hopefully Featherstone and others can learn the right lesson from Batley’s excellence. 

Agree with this, Super League is not the be all and end all of Rugby League, some club are more than happy to be a success in their local community and are, and do well off the field rather than like professional football where everything revolves around getting as high as you can to make as much money as you can.

I've never in 36 years of following RL ever thought of Batley as a club who desperately want to get into Super League, i'm sure they wouldn't turn it down if they thought their club were ready for it on and off the field, but they seem to be a great club who's supporters and townspeople are bloody proud of what they are and what they continue to do for them.

Batley is a proper rugby league day out these days, a great atmopshere inside and around the ground and the ground has been developed into a smashing place to watch and enjoy the great game, they seem perfectly happy up there that that's what they want to be and fair play to them.

It would be wrong for the media and people to presume that IMG/SL are holding clubs like Batley back, unless of of course clubs like Batley come out and say otherwise.

Edited March 24 by daz39

[Sports Prophet]

And with those two fantastic posts, I don't think there is anything further to add other than a crossbar with a black dot to kick any perceived hinderance IMG are placing on Batley.

[M j M]

13 hours ago, Worzel said:

Batley have never been in the top division at any time that we’ve had multiple divisions. Not once. I doubt it’s been their goal for a very long time, if it ever was. So what does IMG’s role in Super League have to do with them?

Because IMG's involvement is with professional Rugby League as a whole not just with Super League. Batley and the other Championship clubs fall within their remit and most of what we've seen so far suggests that IMG don't really care much about what happens to clubs like them.

Edited March 25 by M j M

[Archie Gordon]

14 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/mar/23/batley-bulldogs-castleford-tigers-challenge-cup-rugby-league?CMP=share_btn_url&fbclid=IwAR2MQbpMOw976qMXS4b2Ky-lE9IwaysxESfshClcCBhPrq9F0SxJ3-FP5bU

This is a good article.

I think the point it makes is not that IMG are holding Batley back from SL - they're not, as excellently demonstrated by posts above - but rather that the Brave New World must not focus on SL alone. Batley may or may not be interested in SL but I am certain that they are interested in a good CC run, including hosting big clubs at home that they can turn into an occasion. *That* is what Bower is worried about IMG/RLC forgetting about.

[JohnM]

33 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

This is a good article.

I think the point it makes is not that IMG are holding Batley back from SL - they're not, as excellently demonstrated by posts above - but rather that the Brave New World must not focus on SL alone. Batley may or may not be interested in SL but I am certain that they are interested in a good CC run, including hosting big clubs at home that they can turn into an occasion. *That* is what Bower is worried about IMG/RLC forgetting about.

The sole function of ANY article in the Guardian is to increase the misery of its readership.

Just a thought: its not IMG that is making the decisions here and it might just be that the RFL, SL, the Championship, with IMG supporting them, know what they are doing. It's a 12 year project, which itself is revolutionary and beats the normal RL project like time by 11 years 

[Pulga]

Batley is exactly what you want in the second division after you finally get rid of P&R. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, daz39 said:

Agree with this, Super League is not the be all and end all of Rugby League, some club are more than happy to be a success in their local community and are, and do well off the field rather than like professional football where everything revolves around getting as high as you can to make as much money as you can.

I've never in 36 years of following RL ever thought of Batley as a club who desperately want to get into Super League, i'm sure they wouldn't turn it down if they thought their club were ready for it on and off the field, but they seem to be a great club who's supporters and townspeople are bloody proud of what they are and what they continue to do for them.

Batley is a proper rugby league day out these days, a great atmopshere inside and around the ground and the ground has been developed into a smashing place to watch and enjoy the great game, they seem perfectly happy up there that that's what they want to be and fair play to them.

It would be wrong for the media and people to presume that IMG/SL are holding clubs like Batley back, unless of of course clubs like Batley come out and say otherwise.

So why did the Batley Chaiman question and objected to the IMG scoring methods, if like you say Daz Batley don't have any ambition to be in the top flight why the protest?

[Dave W]

31 minutes ago, JohnM said:

The sole function of ANY article in the Guardian is to increase the misery of its readership.

Just a thought: its not IMG that is making the decisions here and it might just be that the RFL, SL, the Championship, with IMG supporting them, know what they are doing. It's a 12 year project, which itself is revolutionary and beats the normal RL project like time by 11 years 

This article didn't increase my misery. Did you actually read it? 

It was a considered and well- written celebration of clubs outside SL and the importance they have in their communities. Something that needs to be preserved in an often dirty race to get a seat at the the top table.

Aaron Bower's one of the few RL journalists capable of stringing a coherent sentence together and he understands what the game means to those those who support it.

Some of the others are dreadful: There was one article I read on a rival RL site this weekend where the writer was describing how Sheffield Eagles famously beat Wigan in 1998 "under the Wembley arch". Remarkable, considering the arch didn't exist until 2007. That's the sort of half-arsed tripe that makes this reader miserable.

Edited March 25 by Dave W

[Harry Stottle]

26 minutes ago, JohnM said:

The sole function of ANY article in the Guardian is to increase the misery of its readership.

Just a thought: its not IMG that is making the decisions here and it might just be that the RFL, SL, the Championship, with IMG supporting them, know what they are doing. It's a 12 year project, which itself is revolutionary and beats the normal RL project like time by 11 years 

You most obviously missed Tony Suttons interview on TV last year if that is your take/thoughts on the matter John, I am sure I could see the strings that were attached to Sutton being pulled by *Ed Mallaburn from above.

*For those who don't know he is IMG's Head of Sport who sits on both the RL and RL Commercial Boards as part of IMG's 12 year strategic partnership.

[JohnM]

Of course I read it. As I said earlier, I miss Peter Tinniswood and Uncle Mort.

Just a shame it wasnt in  a paper with a wider and more representative readership.

[Griff]

23 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So why did the Batley Chaiman question and objected to the IMG scoring methods, if like you say Daz Batley don't have any ambition to be in the top flight why the protest?

Fair point.

[Griff]

15 minutes ago, Dave W said:

Some of the others are dreadful: There was one article I read on a rival RL site this weekend where the writer was describing how Sheffield Eagles famously beat Wigan in 1998 "under the Wembley arch". Remarkable, considering the arch didn't exist until 2007. That's the sort of half-arsed tripe that makes this reader miserable.

That's a cracker.  Which Gen Z said that?

[gingerjon]

25 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So why did the Batley Chaiman question and objected to the IMG scoring methods, if like you say Daz Batley don't have any ambition to be in the top flight why the protest?

You can Google and find out. He felt there were three scenarios that the scoring failed to avoid which would undermine the whole system. He was supportive of the idea of grading and, in the report on TRL I’ve just read, said he would be in favour regardless of Batley’s score.

Someone with better googling than me may be able to get their current view.

[Harry Stottle]

22 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Of course I read it. As I said earlier, I miss Peter Tinniswood and Uncle Mort.

Just a shame it wasnt in  a paper with a wider and more representative readership.

Did you really, there was nothing to read!

It was an interview with Brian Carney and A.N. Other cant remember who at the moment, Sutton was pants, how he became CEO of such a company was simply because of lack of ambition from the organisation promoting - again - from within, or another view could be IMG wanted him in knowing how easy he could be manipulated.

Just read your reply back, maybe you were answering me or Dave W, you answered directly below my reply to you, if you don't quote a post how do we know who you are addressing.

 

Edited March 25 by Harry Stottle

[The Phantom Horseman]

15 hours ago, Worzel said:

Batley have never been in the top division at any time that we’ve had multiple divisions. Not once. I doubt it’s been their goal for a very long time, if it ever was. So what does IMG’s role in Super League have to do with them? 

 

You've missed the point of his post, which is that existing tenancy in SL is a massive advantage in terms of scoring enough IMG points to remain in SL.

 

[Dave W]

26 minutes ago, Griff said:

That's a cracker.  Which Gen Z said that?

Sent you a link

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

You've missed the point of his post, which is that existing tenancy in SL is a massive advantage in terms of scoring enough IMG points to remain in SL.

 

No, I didn't, although I think you've missed mine: If we're going to try and make the argument that the IMG model is somehow deleterious to some clubs, it would be sensible to use a better example than Batley. That's a club who have shown that Super League is't the be-all-and-end-all of rugby league in the UK, that it's possible to have a meaningful purpose outside of that league.

Look at what Batley bring to the sport, and their community. Other clubs could build something similar, undistracted by the unrealistic idea of building an elite-level, professional sports team in a crowded geographic market. Nothing about the IMG model makes Batley's life worse, if anything it reinforces the vision and mission they already have in place. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

No, I didn't, although I think you've missed mine: If we're going to try and make the argument that the IMG model is somehow deleterious to some clubs, it would be sensible to use a better example than Batley. That's a club who have shown that Super League is't the be-all-and-end-all of rugby league in the UK, that it's possible to have a meaningful purpose outside of that league.

Look at what Batley bring to the sport, and their community. Other clubs could build something similar, undistracted by the unrealistic idea of building an elite-level, professional sports team in a crowded geographic market. Nothing about the IMG model makes Batley's life worse, if anything it reinforces the vision and mission they already have in place. 

I never mentioned Batley. I was referring specifically to his point that "being in SL is not a good enough reason for being in SL". The massive occupancy bias may well make SL a closed shop in years to come. I did think that two or three years down the line this would lead to established SL clubs being able to coast along with poor on-field performances as long as they were picking up points elsewhere, but it looks like that's already starting to happen.

[Worzel]

11 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I never mentioned Batley. I was referring specifically to his point that "being in SL is not a good enough reason for being in SL". The massive occupancy bias may well make SL a closed shop in years to come. I did think that two or three years down the line this would lead to established SL clubs being able to coast along with poor on-field performances as long as they were picking up points elsewhere, but it looks like that's already starting to happen.

Where does it say that in the article? Genuinely don't see it there, neither explicitly nor implicitly. 

Regardless, London are about to find out that there's no occupancy bias, and Castleford are at high risk of discovering that too. So I'm not sure the case can be made. 

However it was the case before. Under the old model, being in Super League certainly was absolutely a good enough reason for being in Super League though. 11 of the 12 clubs were guaranteed their spot, as long as they weren't quite as bad on the pitch as the 12th one. They could do that by blowing an extra £200k on players the 12th club might not be able to afford, often pulling in some loan ringers in the back half of the season to orchestrate some great escape. No matter whether they had good community engagement, a fit-for-purpose stadium or any of the other better indicators of a club's long-term potential as a Super League club that the IMG model is attempting to add into the mix. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

6 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Where does it say that in the article? Genuinely don't see it there, neither explicitly nor implicitly. 

 

Ah, ok. I was referring to Sam4731's post which directly preceded yours. I took your post as a reply to his, which perhaps it wasn't, so if so that's my fault, though the point I was making about the SL occupancy bias remains. I don't think anyone can argue, for instance, that it's easier to average crowds of 3,000+ in SL when hosting Wigan, Hull KR, St Helens, Leeds etc with a team built with £1.4m central funding etc than it is hosting Sheffield/Whitehaven/Dewsbury etc etc with a team built on £80k central funding in the Championship?

[sweaty craiq]

Batley are a club in which the romance is far stronger than the reality - they can’t pull a home crowd