I think we’ve 4 directors who can probably chip in £50k each per year. But millions? Not likely

Indeed. Without a Moran/Beaumont/Ellis type person it's about small incremental improvements. The notion that our existing backers can contribute massive amounts to match those at other clubs isn't right.

Now that the off field side of the club is improving, there is a bit of pressure to hoover up as many performance points in 2025 as possible with a levelling off of the top tier - not much to choose between us, Toulouse, York, Sheffield, Fev etc.

Good news! TKO (the parent company of UFC and WWE) have agreed a deal to buy Endeavour who are the parent company of IMG.

People on other forums talking up cross over marketing opportunites. I mean some people really have no grasp of reality. I'm sure we can now look forward to seeing Roman Reigns running out for Batley or James Bentley taking on Tom Aspinall in the octagon

I keep seeing people slating the IMG process and whilst its far from perfect, look at what it is forcing clubs to do... improve their businesses and grow the sport.

Without IMG, do you really think Wakefield would have put the money into their ground to make the improvements they did? Would Keighley be building their new stand? Would Bradford have made efforts to buy back the lease in an attempt to get a redevelopment back on the agenda?

P&R has been in our game for years and yet all we have seen is a group of clubs seek to consolidate their place in SL for the smallest amount possible, whilst allowing the teams above to go unchallenged.

Hull KR are a fine example of a club that have seen the benefits of developing their organisation from top to bottom, not just focused on the playing staff and it has massively strengthened their overall standing as a club. This is the approach that IMG should be forcing clubs to adopt, and yet people are moaning before its even got off the ground.

Without change which forces clubs to look at themselves hard in the mirror, the sport will die. No club has the right to exist, and some are no more than glorified amateur teams. In fact some would be shown up by a fair number of NCL clubs.

The NRL have proven that a closed shop produces better outcomes, whilst still having a thriving rugby pyramid where every club plays at its level and if it wants to take that leap to the big stage, they need to prove they have all the pillars in place to be competitive and successful.

What is so wrong with that?

Bullinmyeye- I agree with most of your opinions . Standards are important and should be rewarded.
My first qualification is that when superleague started the standards demanded were never enforced . Quite a few clubs made little or no attempt to improve facilities and/ or structures such as academy pathways. Many fans remember this and suspect that history might repeat itself.
That may be a jaundiced perception but there’s absolutely no doubt that the 11 British Superleague clubs have a “me first “ mentality. I’m open to correction but I believe the “brass” is still shared by those clubs and not Catalans. They act like a cartel.
Your contrast with the NRL is accurate with a partial exception. Superleague clubs now consists of 11 clubs along the M62 corridor with a French outlier receiving no central funds outside prize money. The NRL clubs are based in 3 states in areas with significant markets. And there is a path to expansion in Australasia - it’s difficult but the conditions are clear.
I might be in a minority but I’ve always believed our sport will never become a major sport until it has major bases in or around cities/ large conurbations . The existing clubs ( and it’s them who actually dictate the sports strategy ) have never paid more than lip service to expansion. The only successful expansion has been over the channel and my belief is that would not have happened if the French had demanded a share of the funding

If we take all that you're saying as a matter of fact there isn't much to disagree with. However, the devil is in the detail and as you say the current process isn't perfect.

My main concern is that there is "incumbency bias" embedded into the assessment. For an existing SL club it's far easier to boost their numbers in certain areas simply by being in SL now rather than making any special effort. I'd prefer it if there was some weighting that rewarded clubs in the championship or in development areas who will never get the attendances that those in traditional areas will.

I remember when the IMG scores were announced last week that RL journalist Matt Newsome was trying to explain the process to Mark Chapman on 5Live and he had trouble selling it - the wider sporting public are used to P&R as it's the culture over here. Those who aren't advocates will dub it promotion via spreadsheet. You run the risk of losing people by making it a complicated process. This is sport at the end of the day and what happens on the field is why everyone is involved and that ought to be weighted appropriately.

I'm also a bit sceptical as to whether there will be genuine movement between SL and Championship. We shall see in future years if a Championship club gets a higher IMG number than an incumbent SL club. Will the goalposts be moved? What it the "relegated" club finishes high up the league table? Will some excuses be made? I guess this is a due to me seeing how licensing manifested itself - don't remember anyone being relegated due to off field criteria during that period. Unless the sceptics are proved wrong it'll soon become indefensible.

The romance of sport is in the jeopardy. Remove that and games can become sterile. Can clubs survive and keep fans and sponsors interested if the games they're attending lose their meaning? They may in the NRL where RL is the premier sport but over here with so many competing sports and passtimes I'm not sure sure. I'm not sure how fans of clubs like Cas, Huddersfield, Hull etc will keep turning out when it becomes clear after 6 or 7 weeks that their games are effectively a series of dead rubbers. Maybe we need more cup competitions? Same applies to aspirant Championship clubs.

We've seen many cases of SL clubs acting like a cartel. It's already been admitted that the 12 team comp won't be expanded unless the TV money increases (but no actual agreed figure of by how much I notice - how convenient). We saw in 2013 how clubs voted to share out the Bulls TV money amongst themselves which effectively made Omar Khan's Bulls doomed from the start. For me expansion of the competition is really important. Clubs in the championship need to have some genuine chance of getting into the top flight or otherwise people at some clubs will lose interest.

You need to aspire to mid-table mediocrity, it makes the season enthralling.

York's position at 15th and everyone tipping them to be promoted shows you how flawed it is.

They've never won the Championship or competed at the top level, have relatively small crowds and, key for me, no academy.

We've got a well established academy that have produced many superleague and NRL level players including international reps. 2 of the current England team came through it, have a well established community foundation, have played at the highest level, have better oengagement and more fans. However, our ground has a bigger capacity and doesn't have video screen advertising hoardings so are rated lower than York.

No club without an academy should be given a grade B rating if the sport are serious about competing with others on offer to the general public.

I suspect that next season we will hit the 12 A graded clubs in SL mark making it pretty much impossible for any Championship team to get in there. I challenge anyone to go through the grading criteria and come up with a realistic way in which a Championship team can get to 15 points. It is pretty much impossible.

You only have to look at the score that London got this season to see the advantages of holding a place in SL so in my opinion the best thing for Championship clubs is to ride it out and in the RL tradition, IMG maybe gone in 3 or 4 years and we are on to something else. The big question for teams like Bradford is if the money men will stick around and wait that long as we also know there is zero chance that the clubs vote to extend SL to 14 teams so that is not an option.