2024 attendance thread

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

But why wouldn't that be the case for Oldham? They will score higher this season than Dewsbury on the IMG points so would replace them.

Are you sure?

Championship/L1 utilise P&R.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Are you sure?

Championship/L1 utilise P&R.

I don't think you've been reading the full thread. This was a hypothetical scenario in response to a previous post.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

That is just proof that you can't judge anything by just one season, disasters and success can equally be a flash in the pan. Walking the walk means doing it for a while.

Agreed, but a good or indifferent season can ser the tone for the next season, usually but not always.

[Harry Stottle]

11 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I don't think you've been reading the full thread. This was a hypothetical scenario in response to a previous post.

OK, but just reflecting, IMG's scoring system will have nothing to do who will play in each of those divisions Championship/L1 it will be down to on field performance, unlike at the other end of the Championship/SL.

Either play one or the other grading or P&R for the whole pro game .

[Roughyed Rats]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

OK, but just reflecting, IMG's scoring system will have nothing to do who will play in each of those divisions Championship/L1 it will be down to on field performance, unlike at the other end of the Championship/SL.

Either play one or the other grading or P&R for the whole pro game .

Exactly. The current position is a complete fudge.

Edited August 6 by Roughyed Rats

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

OK, but just reflecting, IMG's scoring system will have nothing to do who will play in each of those divisions Championship/L1 it will be down to on field performance, unlike at the other end of the Championship/SL.

Either play one or the other grading or P&R for the whole pro game .

I completely agree. But I'd do that across the entire game. I.e. if the game opts for P&R then we have a pyramid across the entire game to enable movement from top to bottom. Or if it opts for a standards-based system then adopt that across the entire game. That way both systems are transparent in terms of how you progress from bottom to top.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I completely agree. But I'd do that across the entire game. I.e. if the game opts for P&R then we have a pyramid across the entire game to enable movement from top to bottom. Or if it opts for a standards-based system then adopt that across the entire game. That way both systems are transparent in terms of how you progress from bottom to top.

I gave you the like simply because I know it won't happen, given the choice  I would have P&R from one level to another, irrespective of who the club is, no protecting big clubs or Foriegn clubs.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I gave you the like simply because I know it won't happen

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Agreed, but a good or indifferent season can ser the tone for the next season, usually but not always.

That's true, but finances and other off field, as much as on field, need to be seen on more than just 1 years worth of data.

[Roughyed Rats]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That's true, but finances and other off field, as much as on field, need to be seen on more than just 1 years worth of data.

Even if they were debt ridden and mis-managed by a complexly different owner. I’m just so thankful that our new owners, who have made significant investment to completely wipe our debt, did so before they knew the IMG criteria. Otherwise, I suspect they may have not invested. 

[Tommygilf]

There is a substantive difference between full time and semi pro clubs paying a hundred quid a match.

To pretend there isn't is fiscally delusional.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Even if they were debt ridden and mis-managed by a complexly different owner. I’m just so thankful that our new owners, who have made significant investment to completely wipe our debt, did so before they knew the IMG criteria. Otherwise, I suspect they may have not invested. 

Yeah, because that owner went as quickly as the new owner came, and vice versa.

It's the club that is measured not the owner. 

[Roughyed Rats]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah, because that owner went as quickly as the new owner came, and vice versa.

It's the club that is measured not the owner. 

Our last owner was here for 26 years Owner investment is one of the IMG criteria and is measured over 3 years. It will take another 2 years to work through the zero investment from the previous owner. Never mind the other financial issues measured over the same period. IMG will be gone by then anyway.

Edited August 6 by Roughyed Rats

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Roughyed Rats said:

Our last owner was here for 26 years Owner investment is one of the IMG criteria and is measured over 3 years. It will take another 2 years to work through the zero investment from the previous owner. Nevermind the other financial issues measured over the same period.

All you are doing is making a good argument for recent averages being used.

[Roughyed Rats]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

All you are doing is making a good argument for recent averages being used.

I am. Do it all over 1 season instead

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

I am. Do it all over 1 season instead

And there's the classic short termism of RL strikes again and why we are in this mess.

[Roughyed Rats]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

And there's the classic short termism of RL strikes again and why we are in this mess.

But 40% of the criteria are not measured over 3 years. Hardly consistent is it? Do I detect an actual criticism of IMG? And there was me thinking you were one of their employees as a plant on here

[Tommygilf]

29 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

But 40% of the criteria are not measured over 3 years. Hardly consistent is it? Do I detect an actual criticism of IMG? And there was me thinking you were one of their employees as a plant on here

Of course there is critique of IMG. Only a fool follows something so ideologically.

40% is a lot, but of that, significant amounts are static IE facilities - you either have them or you don't. And then 25% on on-field performances, at the clubs behest.

[dkw]

52 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

I am. Do it all over 1 season instead

That would be insane, it would makes things worse as clubs artificially inflate things to get points in a season, then are unable to get even close to that score again. Its a ridiculous idea to base anything on a single set of data points. 

[Roughyed Rats]

5 minutes ago, dkw said:

That would be insane, it would makes things worse as clubs artificially inflate things to get points in a season, then are unable to get even close to that score again. It’s a ridiculous idea to base anything on a single set of data points. 

It was very much tongue in cheek!!!  

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

There is a substantive difference between full time and semi pro clubs paying a hundred quid a match.

To pretend there isn't is fiscally delusional.

Correct. The game isn't like it was 30 years ago when there was a relatively flat structure of 30 odd part time clubs. In terms of the size of the operation and what it takes to run it, the difference between full and part time is probably bigger than that between part time and top amateurs.

I understand why people want to believe "all clubs are equal" but it hasn't been the case for decades. 

 

Edited August 6 by Toby Chopra

[Roughyed Rats]

19 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Of course there is critique of IMG. Only a fool follows something so ideologically.

40% is a lot, but of that, significant amounts are static IE facilities - you either have them or you don't. And then 25% on on-field performances, at the clubs behest.

Facilities not static for Oldham over 3 years. As a result, utilisation score down massively as the club have moved from a 1,500 ground to a 13,500 all seater stadium. We now need crowds of around 8000 to hit the same score

Edited August 6 by Roughyed Rats

[Wakefield Ram]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think a better question is whether those clubs who are increasing crowds are doing it due to increased off field effort and performance. 

History has generally shown that it's off field stuff that grows crowds materially - and we have seen that recently with Hull KR, Leigh and Wakey - I don't know enough about Oldham. 

Think it is both to be fair and al those quoted have had generous benefactors to fund them. That's not a criticism, good luck to them.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Think it is both to be fair and al those quoted have had generous benefactors to fund them. That's not a criticism, good luck to them.

Of course a winning team is likely to drive crowds, part of the challenge is around what happens when you lose - not every team can be winners in a table. Every team can be well run off the field though. 

 

[Tommygilf]

48 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Facilities not static for Oldham over 3 years. As a result, utilisation score down massively as the club have moved from a 1,500 ground to a 13,500 all seater stadium. We now need crowds of around 8000 to hit the same score

And your attendances have gone up as have every other aspect of facilities? 

Can't see wood for the trees!