Hmm. Not good news as pre- season starts. Our squad generally relies to a significant degree of players we have developed. However in last 3 years how many have broken through? Basically only the Leyland brothers. SL is hardly the place for completely untested academy graduates, nor was bottom of the Championship. We have no Loan arrangements with lower tier teams, Skolars have gone. We have to pay for additional training facilities. We get spanked most times we play the occasional academy fixture and IMG allocate no points for all this good work. Difficult to see how any players we develop could reach correct standard and yet our squad is built on academy players who are in the mid 20s - Davis, Bienek, Walker, Meadows, Boafo, Lovell, Williams, etc etc.
Bit of a s**t show really.

In short, no.

What a mess

https://londonbroncosrl.com/2023/11/15/ ... structure/ From the club - they're calling it a 'restructure' Whatever they call it it still seems wrong - although possibly not quite the total collapse of the set up as first feared?

https://londonbroncosrl.com/2023/11/15/ ... structure/ From the club - they're calling it a 'restructure' Whatever they call it it still seems wrong - although possibly not quite the total collapse of the set up as first feared?

Proof of the pudding is on the eating. If the club are seriously revamping the system then I wish them well. It's clear there are currently issues and they are likely to worsen as junior playing numbers decline, Skolars can't blood players etc. There may be value in revisiting the set up. Hopefully it's not just words to cover up an awful decision.

Agree 100%

"With the new IMG grading criteria, clubs are not directly rewarded for running an ‘Elite Academy’, so we will
focus on other areas to improve the club with the long term aim of becoming ‘Category A’."

So there we go as I alluded to. I'm sure it's not the only reason (or necessarily even the major reason) but illustrates what I'm suspecting that clubs will be driven towards meeting IMG's Grading criteria. IMG had better have got their direction right.

I watched IMG acquire BSI and take over the running of the Speedway Grand Prixs. They proved they can make the top level very attractive, but have done nothing to help (and have in fact hindered) the grass roots of that sport. There are/were other drivers so not all BSI/IMG's fault, but they were only interested in the very top. Poland are the (very) big winners mind.

From my relatively recent view of the sport, whilst I understand the benefits of a more prominent Super League, I'd argue that Rugby League is a sport that needs to expand, yet I think IMG's strategy will shrink it. With it's M62 emphasis, the only other sport I can see that is successful in a very localised part of the country is Aussie Rules in Victoria. And even there they expanded to Sydney / Brisbane / Adelaide / Perth etc. By their very strategy aren't IMG locking out any chance of expansion and limiting what they have now to France (and I'm not sure they really want that) and London (but without a strategy to get there)?

Coming as you do as a newbie Smithers, your views are quite refreshing. You see the blindingly obvious while those running the game cannot.

Always struck me as odd that Social Media etc was considered of more value by IMG than running an academy & developing more players. But what do I know? Which is not a lot to be honest.

I'm a relatively recent Broncos fan, first taking my son along in 2017. Like many from the south my introduction to the game was through the BBC but I hadn't attended many games for about 20 years (my wife and I lived in Yorkshire during the 1990s and I went to a game most weekends but lost the habit when we moved to Sussex). When talking to some of my northern mates, who sometimes query London having a team, I always point to the top level players from the south. It always struck me there's not much point having clubs outside Lancashire and Yorkshire if they don't produce their own players.

If this is driven by IMG's ranking system I do wonder what the clubs were doing accepting it. Having a system that produces players is surely a far more important measure of sustainability than a LED screen or a modern stadium full of empty seats?

We got 8.07 points, around 4 points below what we would need for a SL ranking. Even if IMG had included points for having an Elite Academy I doubt this would have attracted more than a single point since it does not directly support the objectives that the grading system is designed to incentivise. Perhaps with league performance being the biggest single factor in the grading (max 4 points), IMG expected clubs would see the sense in producing a supply of quality players. On the other hand, what do they care if clubs buy in success as long as it is done in a sustainable way.

The club have positioned this decision as being driven by the rating system.


So while communicating this as a decision not to run the Elite Academy for 2024 they also accept we are unlikely to be in SL in 2025.

The question is how is the club going to change in order to make up the ranking deficit ? How are they going to invest that money in a better way ?