Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 126 to 145 of 145

Thread: IMG thoughts

  1. #126
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,647
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KentishBarry View Post
    I posted something at the start of this about the devil being in the detail.
    I guess that the detail is starting to trickle through!
    Clubs being 'monitored' on a yearly basis to decide if they're SL material could simply mean 'monitored' by league position!

    It is still different to what we have now though, because A's will apparently be protected from relegation.

    Whatever they do, it has to be transparent and it has to be explained to the fans. We shouldn't need to be puzzling over this.
    Based on what’s come out in the past twenty four hours, it doesn’t appear that much will change. Yes, A grade clubs will be exempt from relegation but given you’ve got to go back to 1980 for Wigan’s relegation, a relegation for us, Wigan, Warrington or Leeds is next to impossible anyway and if B teams are going to be promoted and relegated, it doesn’t look like much has changed on the face of it. The thing I’m pinning my hopes on is that B licences aren’t just handed out to half the Championship to keep them happy as we’ll just continue the exact same cycle we’re on now.
    St Helens Rugby League Football Club

  2. #127
    In The South Stand KentishBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,737
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    Based on what’s come out in the past twenty four hours, it doesn’t appear that much will change. Yes, A grade clubs will be exempt from relegation but given you’ve got to go back to 1980 for Wigan’s relegation, a relegation for us, Wigan, Warrington or Leeds is next to impossible anyway and if B teams are going to be promoted and relegated, it doesn’t look like much has changed on the face of it. The thing I’m pinning my hopes on is that B licences aren’t just handed out to half the Championship to keep them happy as we’ll just continue the exact same cycle we’re on now.
    I can see where you're coming from.
    saintgeorge asked if the criteria for A B and C was known yet in #119.
    It's that devil in the detail again! I guess that they will have to grant a fair number of clubs a B, but will there be some sort of grading within each band? They can't all be exactly the same IMO. If a B club gets promoted, then manages to tweak itself in to an A, then it's safe from relegation. Another B club might be miles off A status so could still yoyo if promoted then finish bottom.
    I don't actually have a problem with this system as it doesn't completely close the door to to lower leagues, but I do take your point about the exact same cycle as now.

  3. #128
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    679
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos Cervezas View Post
    Based on what’s come out in the past twenty four hours, it doesn’t appear that much will change. Yes, A grade clubs will be exempt from relegation but given you’ve got to go back to 1980 for Wigan’s relegation, a relegation for us, Wigan, Warrington or Leeds is next to impossible anyway and if B teams are going to be promoted and relegated, it doesn’t look like much has changed on the face of it. The thing I’m pinning my hopes on is that B licences aren’t just handed out to half the Championship to keep them happy as we’ll just continue the exact same cycle we’re on now.
    It makes sense, if say 2 or 3 championship teams meet the same criteria as their SL counterparts as grade B to allow them to go up and down. As long as it is tightly controlled as to who gets a B - so for example, a team like Batley aren't given a grade B by default and then sneak up as they might have done this year.

  4. #129
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    I am not sure if anything has changed. There was always going to be a review every 12 months and on field performance should be a factor. I guess the only question is will a newly promoted team be given a bit more time to establish themselves than one season.

    Things like good facilities youth system, financial plan should result in in the end goal of strong on field performances.

    I think the number of Grade B teams will be pretty low from day 1. There is an assumption that York, Newcastle, Bradford will all be Grade B but I am sure in their current state they are C.
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

  5. #130
    In The West Stand saintgeorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    eccleston
    Posts
    5,257
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    This is pure guesswork based on performance/ facilities/player development/ financial stability/attendances.
    Saints A star
    Wigan A ( shared ground)
    Warrington A star ( despite not winning SL ever and last season’s performance)
    Leeds A star ( despite lack of away end roof cover)
    Hull A ( but share ground and lack of success in SL)
    Huddersfield (A-)
    Catalan A

    I think after that there might be a case for the following to be B+
    Hull KR
    Toulouse
    Leigh ?
    Castleford?
    Salford?

    I reckon Wakefield and Featherstone would be B
    After that you’re looking at Widnes and York
    maybe? Then there’s the two in “expansion” areas -Newcastle and London.
    I can’t really justify Bradford being up there despite their successes in the early days of SL because of financial and stadium issues. There’s a case for Halifax being a B grade as well. Batley might also qualify. The rest look nailed on C grades.

  6. #131
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saintgeorge View Post
    This is pure guesswork based on performance/ facilities/player development/ financial stability/attendances.
    Saints A star
    Wigan A ( shared ground)
    Warrington A star ( despite not winning SL ever and last season’s performance)
    Leeds A star ( despite lack of away end roof cover)
    Hull A ( but share ground and lack of success in SL)
    Huddersfield (A-)
    Catalan A

    I think after that there might be a case for the following to be B+
    Hull KR
    Toulouse
    Leigh ?
    Castleford?
    Salford?

    I reckon Wakefield and Featherstone would be B
    After that you’re looking at Widnes and York
    maybe? Then there’s the two in “expansion” areas -Newcastle and London.
    I can’t really justify Bradford being up there despite their successes in the early days of SL because of financial and stadium issues. There’s a case for Halifax being a B grade as well. Batley might also qualify. The rest look nailed on C grades.
    Saints
    Leeds
    Catalans
    -------------
    Warrington
    Hull KR
    Huddersfield
    Wigan
    Hull
    Leigh
    Toulouse
    Wakefield
    Salford
    Castleford
    Featherstone
    ------------------
    York
    London
    Newcastle
    Widnes
    Bradford
    Halifax
    Barrow
    Batley

  7. #132
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk paulscnthorpe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St Helens
    Age
    40
    Posts
    8,592
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    I don't see how Warrington wouldn't be an A, financially solvent, academy system, own ground and decent enough fanbase..

    I'm guessing on the field performance will be last of the criteria (it's no surprise that the successful teams have a good youth setup, stable off the field)

    I reckon your definite A are Saints, Leeds, Wigan, Warrington, probably Hull and Catalans..

    Everything else is guesswork

  8. #133
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magic superbeetle View Post
    Saints
    Leeds
    Catalans
    Warrington
    Wigan
    Hull
    -------------
    Hull KR
    Huddersfield
    -------------
    Toulouse
    Castleford
    Salford
    --------------
    Leigh
    Wakefield
    Featherstone
    ------------------
    York
    London
    Newcastle
    Widnes
    Bradford
    Halifax
    Barrow
    Batley
    Wire, Wigan and Hull are 100% Category A. I know Hull and Wigan don't own their grounds but they provide enough without that. Huddersfield and Hull KR can't be too far off either.

    The rest I agree with.
    Last edited by Noel Cleal; 14th October 2022 at 17:52.
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

  9. #134
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    under the laughing tree
    Posts
    1,271
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    It’s good we will not be relegated. The pressure will be on Cas though, and if Bratfud want to come up they really do have to get things sorted but it won’t happen with Mr Disaster Nigel Wood in charge .

  10. #135
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,647
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    I hope that a B licence isn’t easy to get. It can’t be if we want to do this properly and if we don’t, it’s just the same cycle we’re in but with a fancy new name and nothing more.

    You can confidently say Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Catalans, Warrington and Hull FC are A’s. Huddersfield, Hull KR, Wakefield, Salford, Cas, Leigh and Toulouse are most likely B’s. After that, I don’t think you can give many more out. Featherstone? Tiny village club who’ve been nowhere near the top for a generation or two. York? They’re growing well but still some way from Super League level in many ways. Don’t even bother with Bradford or Widnes.
    St Helens Rugby League Football Club

  11. #136
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noel Cleal View Post
    Wire, Wigan and Hull are 100% Category A. I know Hull and Wigan don't own their grounds but they provide enough without that. Huddersfield and Hull KR can't be too far off either.

    The rest I agree with.
    I personally would want the threshold for Grade A clubs to be much higher than they were in previous iterations of licencing. Ultimately Grade A clubs should represent the model that IMG want all other teams to follow. Warrington need to sort out their youth development, and Hull and Wigan need to get their own grounds sorted as you say. Both are huge factors which have commercial and reputational impacts, and land the sport in difficulties from time to time (as we saw with the semi final noise). I don't disagree they're "comfortable" B's, or that the gap between them and others in the chasing pack like Hudds and HKR isnt that big.

    It is just as possible that other clubs match Wigans youth development in the time it takes for them to get their stadium sorted out.

  12. #137
    In The South Stand KentishBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,737
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magic superbeetle View Post
    I personally would want the threshold for Grade A clubs to be much higher than they were in previous iterations of licencing. Ultimately Grade A clubs should represent the model that IMG want all other teams to follow. Warrington need to sort out their youth development, and Hull and Wigan need to get their own grounds sorted as you say. Both are huge factors which have commercial and reputational impacts, and land the sport in difficulties from time to time (as we saw with the semi final noise). I don't disagree they're "comfortable" B's, or that the gap between them and others in the chasing pack like Hudds and HKR isnt that big.

    It is just as possible that other clubs match Wigans youth development in the time it takes for them to get their stadium sorted out.
    It also has to be realistic, so I doubt if ground ownership will come into this any time soon.
    The likes of Wigan might loose the odd point in the gradings for not being able to 100% guarantee fixture dates, but that is a fairly minor issue in the greater scheme of things IMO.

  13. #138
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KentishBarry View Post
    It also has to be realistic, so I doubt if ground ownership will come into this any time soon.
    The likes of Wigan might loose the odd point in the gradings for not being able to 100% guarantee fixture dates, but that is a fairly minor issue in the greater scheme of things IMO.
    Should it be so unrealistic to think we can grow from 3 teams in Saints position to 15 teams in the coming decades?

    Thats not to say Saints are perfect, Saints should be losing the odd point here and there (not averaging 15k across 10 home games a season for example) to continue to drive us forwards. Giving us full marks just to bolster the numbers defeats the purpose of this

  14. #139
    In The South Stand KentishBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,737
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magic superbeetle View Post
    Should it be so unrealistic to think we can grow from 3 teams in Saints position to 15 teams in the coming decades?

    Thats not to say Saints are perfect, Saints should be losing the odd point here and there (not averaging 15k across 10 home games a season for example) to continue to drive us forwards. Giving us full marks just to bolster the numbers defeats the purpose of this
    One ground ownership, basically yes.
    It's just a bit of an inconvenience (and quite funny), that a club can't use a particular stand because of a wedding, or can't play on a certain date because of a clash with football.
    I really don't see the RL authorities placing too much emphasis on ground ownership in the gradings if a club has reasonable access to facilities that meet the criteria.

  15. #140
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KentishBarry View Post
    One ground ownership, basically yes.
    It's just a bit of an inconvenience (and quite funny), that a club can't use a particular stand because of a wedding, or can't play on a certain date because of a clash with football.
    I really don't see the RL authorities placing too much emphasis on ground ownership in the gradings if a club has reasonable access to facilities that meet the criteria.
    But it isn’t just the being in control of the own schedule. It massively limits a clubs ability to grow commercially (which seems to be a big focus of IMG), with many of the rental teams foregoing match day revenues (I think Hull don’t even get corporate revenue if I remember correctly) and even simple things like branding around the ground which impacts reputation (see the massive fight erupting on the Allianz Stadium in Aus, because the soccer club put a Tarp over the Roosters logo on match day).

    And again, there’s nothing wrong with being a B grade. Wigan could sail through the B grade review every year without owning their stadium and it never be a question of kicking them out of the league. But should other clubs catch up in youth development (which accepting the likelihood of the stadium situation changing being minimal, is the more likely option), Wigan only then really have reputation and on field performances as a reason to keep them in the league - not something that puts them in the top category.

    Totally accept having such harsh criteria is incredibly unlikely to happen, given they’re talking about 14 grade A licenses in 2027, but I don’t think any club should be able to score 100%, and the purpose is to inspire clubs to build in the right way rather than feeling comfortable (which is what happened with the last round of licensing)

  16. #141
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,188
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magic superbeetle View Post
    I personally would want the threshold for Grade A clubs to be much higher than they were in previous iterations of licencing. Ultimately Grade A clubs should represent the model that IMG want all other teams to follow. Warrington need to sort out their youth development, and Hull and Wigan need to get their own grounds sorted as you say. Both are huge factors which have commercial and reputational impacts, and land the sport in difficulties from time to time (as we saw with the semi final noise). I don't disagree they're "comfortable" B's, or that the gap between them and others in the chasing pack like Hudds and HKR isn't that big.



    It is just as possible that other clubs match Wigans youth development in the time it takes for them to get their stadium sorted out.
    Is owning their own ground important, or is it that they should have a ground of a certain size and standard?

    PS. Just read your reasoning in the post above.

  17. #142
    In The South Stand KentishBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,737
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magic superbeetle View Post
    But it isn’t just the being in control of the own schedule. It massively limits a clubs ability to grow commercially (which seems to be a big focus of IMG), with many of the rental teams foregoing match day revenues (I think Hull don’t even get corporate revenue if I remember correctly) and even simple things like branding around the ground which impacts reputation (see the massive fight erupting on the Allianz Stadium in Aus, because the soccer club put a Tarp over the Roosters logo on match day).

    And again, there’s nothing wrong with being a B grade. Wigan could sail through the B grade review every year without owning their stadium and it never be a question of kicking them out of the league. But should other clubs catch up in youth development (which accepting the likelihood of the stadium situation changing being minimal, is the more likely option), Wigan only then really have reputation and on field performances as a reason to keep them in the league - not something that puts them in the top category.

    Totally accept having such harsh criteria is incredibly unlikely to happen, given they’re talking about 14 grade A licenses in 2027, but I don’t think any club should be able to score 100%, and the purpose is to inspire clubs to build in the right way rather than feeling comfortable (which is what happened with the last round of licensing)
    I agree with you over the 100% thing, and I agree that clubs should be encouraged to move forward, however way that is defined.
    I just don't believe that ground ownership will be a major point scorer when the criteria are released. I think the focus will be more about financial sustainability.
    You make some good points about revenues linked to 'own grounds', but remember what happened during Covid. The loss of revenue hit the likes of us and Leeds more than it did the likes of Wigan and Hull.
    Don't get me wrong. I'd rather be in our position than Wigan's!

  18. #143
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magic superbeetle View Post
    I personally would want the threshold for Grade A clubs to be much higher than they were in previous iterations of licencing. Ultimately Grade A clubs should represent the model that IMG want all other teams to follow. Warrington need to sort out their youth development, and Hull and Wigan need to get their own grounds sorted as you say. Both are huge factors which have commercial and reputational impacts, and land the sport in difficulties from time to time (as we saw with the semi final noise). I don't disagree they're "comfortable" B's, or that the gap between them and others in the chasing pack like Hudds and HKR isnt that big.

    It is just as possible that other clubs match Wigans youth development in the time it takes for them to get their stadium sorted out.
    The grading needs to match the teams we have rather than the other way around. It is not like we are going to get different/better clubs applying if you raise the bar.

    Previously the RFL set the bar high and then had to admit a D grade team which is admitting that we didn't have enough teams that met the minimum standard.

    If the quality of teams available improves there is nothing wrong with moving the goal posts later to taylor for this.

    In the end the point of a category A team is the league cant afford to lose them as they bring too much to the competition. If quality of the teams available improves the definition of what being invaluable also increases.
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

  19. #144
    In The West Stand
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noel Cleal View Post
    The grading needs to match the teams we have rather than the other way around. It is not like we are going to get different/better clubs applying if you raise the bar.

    Previously the RFL set the bar high and then had to admit a D grade team which is admitting that we didn't have enough teams that met the minimum standard.

    If the quality of teams available improves there is nothing wrong with moving the goal posts later to taylor for this.

    In the end the point of a category A team is the league cant afford to lose them as they bring too much to the competition. If quality of the teams available improves the definition of what being invaluable also increases.
    I think the difference between this time and last time was that last time, it didn’t matter if you were graded A or D, if you were in, you were in and you had 3 years to dream up pie in the sky ideas to convince the RFL you haven’t just sat on your backside going Jack all for 3 years, which in reality is exactly what they did.

    This time, getting a grade A grants you additional privileges over a grade B. The way you make that “fair” (to borrow the language from the Keighley Chairman) is to restrict those A grades to literally the teams too big to fail. At one time of day we might have thought Bradford were in that category, recent league success (only 1 of 4 teams to win SL, excellent youth development, community involvement etc) but look at them now, and if they hadn’t had a stadium to sell I doubt we would be able to look at them now.

  20. #145
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magic superbeetle View Post
    I think the difference between this time and last time was that last time, it didn’t matter if you were graded A or D, if you were in, you were in and you had 3 years to dream up pie in the sky ideas to convince the RFL you haven’t just sat on your backside going Jack all for 3 years, which in reality is exactly what they did.

    This time, getting a grade A grants you additional privileges over a grade B. The way you make that “fair” (to borrow the language from the Keighley Chairman) is to restrict those A grades to literally the teams too big to fail. At one time of day we might have thought Bradford were in that category, recent league success (only 1 of 4 teams to win SL, excellent youth development, community involvement etc) but look at them now, and if they hadn’t had a stadium to sell I doubt we would be able to look at them now.
    I agree with you on this one. Once every three years we would get a children's art gallery of stadium drawings that were "in the works" then as soon as teams got their 3 year licence it was back to business as usual.
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •