IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Gooleboy]

2 hours ago, Fevrover said:

Do you honestly belive IMG will last 12 years ?

More like 2 years.

[glossop saint]

18 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

I simply answered your question. It did happen. Whether it should have, or how clubs were then supported and developed (or not) is the endless debate. But it has happened. Quite regularly, in and outside SL. Toronto, Toulouse, Oxford, Hemel, Gloucester......

What favouritism did those clubs get?

I suppose to an extent it is how you define favouritism though discussing that may take us into the realms of the politics forum.

[Click]

6 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

What favouritism did those clubs get?

I suppose to an extent it is how you define favouritism though discussing that may take us into the realms of the politics forum.

I think the favouritism is that those clubs had the audacity to want to play RL outside of the North of England.

[marklaspalmas]

18 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

What favouritism did those clubs get?

I suppose to an extent it is how you define favouritism though discussing that may take us into the realms of the politics forum.

I refer you to my previous post with specific regard to 'favouritism' a loaded word which seems to mean whatever anybody wants in this thread

[marklaspalmas]

14 minutes ago, Click said:

I think the favouritism is that those clubs had the audacity to want to play RL outside of the North of England.

Climb down mate.

[Click]

2 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

Climb down mate.

You're the one that started talking about favourites.

Any Expansion club that was let into SL must have had all sorts of things given to them as they were the favourites, right?

[marklaspalmas]

Just now, Click said:

You're the one that started talking about favourites.

Any Expansion club that was let into SL must have had all sorts of things given to them as they were the favourites, right?

Eh? Creating spurious POVs for other posters is poor form in a 'debate'.

[Click]

4 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

Eh? Creating spurious POVs for other posters is poor form in a 'debate'.

When I asked when the expansion clubs were favourites, you said "Whenever London, PSG, Gateshead, Catalans, Crusaders, etc were pushed into SL."

So I am not sure how I have created your POV.

So Expansion clubs entering into SL is bad I guess.

I have a feeling that this is probably more about London and Featherstone rather than all the other clubs you've mentioned.

[glossop saint]

25 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

I refer you to my previous post with specific regard to 'favouritism' a loaded word which seems to mean whatever anybody wants in this thread

I'm sorry, you've lost me. You gave a list of expansion clubs that were put into SL as an example of the sport having it's favourites. Then in a later post listed some none SL clubs, presumably expanding the list of the sports favourites. I'm not sure how these clubs are favourites and wondering what the reason was for listing them.

As it stands it does seem that you are just listing expansion clubs as favourites. It could feasibly but seen to be an anti-expansion bias. I don't think you necessarily are being like that and asking what your reasoning behind it is. By not answering then you are forcing people to read between the lines. 

[marklaspalmas]

9 minutes ago, Click said:

When I asked when the expansion clubs were favourites, you said "Whenever London, PSG, Gateshead, Catalans, Crusaders, etc were pushed into SL."

So I am not sure how I have created your POV.

So Expansion clubs entering into SL is bad I guess.

I have a feeling that this is probably more about London and Featherstone rather than all the other clubs you've mentioned.

Sigh. Carry on.

Those clubs were put into SL above others. Where have I said that's necessarily a bad thing? It happened. Why do you "guess" on my behalf.

Your childish last line is so far away from me, I fear exchanging views is pointless.

[marklaspalmas]

1 minute ago, glossop saint said:

I'm sorry, you've lost me. You gave a list of expansion clubs that were put into SL as an example of the sport having it's favourites. Then in a later post listed some none SL clubs, presumably expanding the list of the sports favourites. I'm not sure how these clubs are favourites and wondering what the reason was for listing them.

As it stands it does seem that you are just listing expansion clubs as favourites. It could feasibly but seen to be an anti-expansion bias. I don't think you necessarily are being like that and asking what your reasoning behind it is. By not answering then you are forcing people to read between the lines. 

Yes. I lost you. Sorry.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Click said:

Oh right, and how has that turned out?

We will never really know because of the rule changes. When it became obvious that London were miles off on the gradings it made zero sense for them to invest in on the field matters. For all we know if we were playing under P&R they may have signed well enough to stay up especially with Cas and Hull being so bad.

1 hour ago, Gooleboy said:

More like 2 years.

I reckon give it 3 and we will have a change. History suggests this will not last long and its another reason any business person with money and sense should be cautious about putting their money in to the game.

[Click]

26 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

Sigh. Carry on.

Those clubs were put into SL above others. Where have I said that's necessarily a bad thing? It happened. Why do you "guess" on my behalf.

Your childish last line is so far away from me, I fear exchanging views is pointless.

Those clubs were put into SL above others? Have you got a list of those clubs that were held back due to the favourite expansion teams? 

I can only guess that you see it as a bad thing, as you're still bringing it up in conversation years later.

[Click]

Just now, The Blues Ox said:

We will never really know because of the rule changes. When it became obvious that London were miles off on the gradings it made zero sense for them to invest in on the field matters. For all we know if we were playing under P&R they may have signed well enough to stay up especially with Cas and Hull being so bad.

I reckon give it 3 and we will have a change. History suggests this will not last long and its another reason any business person with money and sense should be cautious about putting their money in to the game.

DH was never going to invest more in the squad if there was a hope of staying up. He has been slowly pulling his investment away from the team for the last 5 years, I don't understand why people think he suddenly has access to all of this money again. He came out of retirement to keep earning some more money to keep pumping into the LB, and that was probably about 10 years ago. I am sure he has retired again.

[Griff]

21 minutes ago, Click said:

Those clubs were put into SL above others? Have you got a list of those clubs that were held back due to the favourite expansion teams? 

I can only guess that you see it as a bad thing, as you're still bringing it up in conversation years later.

Featherstone, Widnes, Keighley, Batley ........

[Click]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

Featherstone, Widnes, Keighley, Batley ........

When were Widnes and Batley held out of being in SL due to an expansion club?

[Griff]

7 minutes ago, Click said:

When were Widnes and Batley held out of being in SL due to an expansion club?

1996

[Click]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

1996

I am confused as to when they were they held back?

Widnes finished 3rd in the 2nd Division and Batley finished 10th in the 95/96 season

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, Click said:

I am confused as to when they were they held back?

Widnes finished 3rd in the 2nd Division and Batley finished 10th in the 95/96 season

The decision was made in April 1995. Look at the 1994/95 tables.

[Click]

12 minutes ago, Griff said:

The decision was made in April 1995. Look at the 1994/95 tables.

I don't understand still, Batley finished 2nd in the second division in 94/95 and Widnes was relegated after finishing 14th. How were they excluded? 

[glossop saint]

1 hour ago, marklaspalmas said:

Yes. I lost you. Sorry.

And don't want to clarify apparently. Maybe I was trying to be too understanding. 

[Griff]

40 minutes ago, Click said:

I don't understand still, Batley finished 2nd in the second division in 94/95 and Widnes was relegated after finishing 14th. How were they excluded? 

Batley would've been promoted, Widnes wouldn't have been relegated.

[Click]

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

Batley would've been promoted, Widnes wouldn't have been relegated.

But the 1995/96 season was formed with the top 10 teams from the previous season plus London.

I am not sure why Batley would have been promoted and not Keighley? And how Widnes finishing 14th would have made them safe from relegation?

[Griff]

6 minutes ago, Click said:

But the 1995/96 season was formed with the top 10 teams from the previous season plus London.

I am not sure why Batley would have been promoted and not Keighley? And how Widnes finishing 14th would have made them safe from relegation?

OK - you probably had to have been there to understand it.

With a bit of luck someone will come along and be better at explaining it than me.

[marklaspalmas]

26 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

And don't want to clarify apparently. Maybe I was trying to be too understanding. 

Sorry, mate. It does look at way, but isn't. The perils of posting online.

The first list was clubs who were given a gilt-edged opportunity/ a poisoned chalice (delete according to your POV). I don't necessarily count that as favouritism, but IMO it was a definite opportunity. The second list was simply clubs invited to have-a-go under their own steam.

I don't want to fall out with you over this misunderstanding.