"The licence application process was handled by the RFL's staff and took place in three stages: firstly, the clubs were assessed to ensure they meet minimum standards; the clubs were then divided into three categories, A, B and C based on a simple points system; and finally each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.
"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document for Super League which basically said 'This is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like,'" explained Findlay." available here: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-league/RFL-boss-praises-clubs-for.4302787.jp
This is what we want the clubs to look like? Sounds to me like there's a checklist of criteria that the RFL want clubs to meet a "tick box system" if you will.
SmokeyTA wrote:Bill it wasnt, isnt and never will be.
In fact it would be ridiculous to have a tick box system, especially considering there has been no weighting.
"The licence application process was handled by the RFL's staff and took place in three stages: firstly, the clubs were assessed to ensure they meet minimum standards; the clubs were then divided into three categories, A, B and C based on a simple points system; and finally each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.
"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document for Super League which basically said 'This is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like,'" explained Findlay." available here: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-league/RFL-boss-praises-clubs-for.4302787.jp
This is what we want the clubs to look like? Sounds to me like there's a checklist of criteria that the RFL want clubs to meet a "tick box system" if you will.
"The licence application process was handled by the RFL's staff and took place in three stages: firstly, the clubs were assessed to ensure they meet minimum standards; the clubs were then divided into three categories, A, B and C based on a simple points system; and finally each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.
"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document for Super League which basically said 'This is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like,'" explained Findlay." available here: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-league/RFL-boss-praises-clubs-for.4302787.jp
This is what we want the clubs to look like? Sounds to me like there's a checklist of criteria that the RFL want clubs to meet a "tick box system" if you will.
you might want to read the little bit after where you have put a little bit in bold big guy.
you know that bit which says each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.
now i dont know about you, i havent spent as much time in that sea air, but to me, i would find it strange that they would go to all the effort of producing a report on which a qualitative judgement was to be made, making that qualitative judgement and everyone abiding by that qualitative judgement if it was simply a tick box system.
Do you find it strange at all Bill? Do you think there may be a reason for them doing that? Maybe the criteria being used to group the clubs only? and outside of that grouping being irrelevant?
let us in on it big fella--Why oh why oh why did the RFL come up with this criteria, tick the boxes, find out who ticked what boxes, then go on to commission a qualitative report, consider that report and include qualitative judgements in their justification for their decision, but NOT use it for their decision, which was of course made for them by the ticked boxes?
"The licence application process was handled by the RFL's staff and took place in three stages: firstly, the clubs were assessed to ensure they meet minimum standards; the clubs were then divided into three categories, A, B and C based on a simple points system; and finally each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.
"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document for Super League which basically said 'This is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like,'" explained Findlay." available here: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-league/RFL-boss-praises-clubs-for.4302787.jp
This is what we want the clubs to look like? Sounds to me like there's a checklist of criteria that the RFL want clubs to meet a "tick box system" if you will.
you might want to read the little bit after where you have put a little bit in bold big guy.
you know that bit which says each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.
now i dont know about you, i havent spent as much time in that sea air, but to me, i would find it strange that they would go to all the effort of producing a report on which a qualitative judgement was to be made, making that qualitative judgement and everyone abiding by that qualitative judgement if it was simply a tick box system.
Do you find it strange at all Bill? Do you think there may be a reason for them doing that? Maybe the criteria being used to group the clubs only? and outside of that grouping being irrelevant?
let us in on it big fella--Why oh why oh why did the RFL come up with this criteria, tick the boxes, find out who ticked what boxes, then go on to commission a qualitative report, consider that report and include qualitative judgements in their justification for their decision, but NOT use it for their decision, which was of course made for them by the ticked boxes?
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
"The licence application process was handled by the RFL's staff and took place in three stages: firstly, the clubs were assessed to ensure they meet minimum standards; the clubs were then divided into three categories, A, B and C based on a simple points system; and finally each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.
"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document for Super League which basically said 'This is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like,'" explained Findlay." available here: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-league/RFL-boss-praises-clubs-for.4302787.jp
This is what we want the clubs to look like? Sounds to me like there's a checklist of criteria that the RFL want clubs to meet a "tick box system" if you will.
There was a published list of criteria for the last round, which it sounds to me formed the basis of the license grade. I also expect there was some latitude on certain points, as I don't think we got visibility on how many and which points each club scored.
I'm not sure how you can be sure that the same criteria will be used next time round, though, this is the RFL after all. I'm sure they said last time round that A and B clubs would not undergo as much rigorous scrutiny next time as you can only move one ranking category from last time. C clubs on the other hand would be under pressure to deliver on improvement promises, which Rovers have done on a lot of fronts anyway. No way Rovers won't get a franchise.
"The licence application process was handled by the RFL's staff and took place in three stages: firstly, the clubs were assessed to ensure they meet minimum standards; the clubs were then divided into three categories, A, B and C based on a simple points system; and finally each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.
"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document for Super League which basically said 'This is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like,'" explained Findlay." available here: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-league/RFL-boss-praises-clubs-for.4302787.jp
This is what we want the clubs to look like? Sounds to me like there's a checklist of criteria that the RFL want clubs to meet a "tick box system" if you will.
There was a published list of criteria for the last round, which it sounds to me formed the basis of the license grade. I also expect there was some latitude on certain points, as I don't think we got visibility on how many and which points each club scored.
I'm not sure how you can be sure that the same criteria will be used next time round, though, this is the RFL after all. I'm sure they said last time round that A and B clubs would not undergo as much rigorous scrutiny next time as you can only move one ranking category from last time. C clubs on the other hand would be under pressure to deliver on improvement promises, which Rovers have done on a lot of fronts anyway. No way Rovers won't get a franchise.
Mrs Barista wrote:There was a published list of criteria for the last round, which it sounds to me formed the basis of the license grade. I also expect there was some latitude on certain points, as I don't think we got visibility on how many and which points each club scored.
I'm not sure how you can be sure that the same criteria will be used next time round, though, this is the RFL after all. I'm sure they said last time round that A and B clubs would not undergo as much rigorous scrutiny next time as you can only move one ranking category from last time. C clubs on the other hand would be under pressure to deliver on improvement promises, which Rovers have done on a lot of fronts anyway. No way Rovers won't get a franchise.
I'm certain that the 10 point criteria was to be applied to bids this time around (2012) and was not in fact used as such in 2009 although clubs were assessed in four broad areas of their respective businesses and covering similar areas in general.
What bothers me is that there have been recent references to revised/different criteria for 2012 which seems a bit late in the day now since presumably clubs will have been aiming to rack up as many points as possible under the previously published requirements and yes, this is the RFL so nothing can be taken for granted.
SmokeyTA wrote:you might want to read the little bit after where you have put a little bit in bold big guy.
you know that bit which says each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.
now i dont know about you, i havent spent as much time in that sea air, but to me, i would find it strange that they would go to all the effort of producing a report on which a qualitative judgement was to be made, making that qualitative judgement and everyone abiding by that qualitative judgement if it was simply a tick box system.
Do you find it strange at all Bill? Do you think there may be a reason for them doing that? Maybe the criteria being used to group the clubs only? and outside of that grouping being irrelevant?
let us in on it big fella--Why oh why oh why did the RFL come up with this criteria, tick the boxes, find out who ticked what boxes, then go on to commission a qualitative report, consider that report and include qualitative judgements in their justification for their decision, but NOT use it for their decision, which was of course made for them by the ticked boxes?
Maybe, just maybe, even the RFL couldn't just take the clubs at their word and required some sort of evidence to substantiate the boxes ticked...maybe?
Barnacle Bill wrote:Maybe, just maybe, even the RFL couldn't just take the clubs at their word and required some sort of evidence to substantiate the boxes ticked...maybe?
no no no young billy boy, that was audited by KPMG independently. Regardless, not being able to trust the word of the clubs would be irrelevant, they can always fact check and considering the tick box system is simply and only a quantitative study the question was why did they then go on to commission a qualitative report if not to make a subjective decision?
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
