Did I read somewhere that IMG “clarified “ their position on team performance? Specifically that top 4 in the championship & a final appearance in the 1865 cup would give similar points as finishing bottom of Super League?

Unlucky for fev then

If this is true then for me this is a must win game. The other teams York/Newcastle, Batley/Keighley or London/Dewsbury are all beatable in order to get to Wembley. Making it to that final must be the aim and of course winning it. Would be beneficial in terms of 'Performance' for IMG and of course a great day out at Wembley for the club and the fans.



If IMG are saying top 4 and a final's place is equivalent of an SL bottom place (especially considering Wakey at the moment are the statistically worst team ever in SL at the moment). Then IMG don't really value the Championship at all. Also IF say Bradford were to finish 3rd/4th and get the final or win the 1895 Cup. Would we be ranked higher on 'Performance' than Featherstone (if they win the Champ?).

None of it matters for this season anyway, really. You're a season too early. And even then, I seriously doubt winning some mickey mouse cup and finishing 4th in the league will carry the same weight as winning the championship.



I think the IMG proposals give Bradford a more realistic chance of getting back into the top division, but we're still a million miles away from being good enough (both on and off the field) and a good cup run isn't going to disguise that.

Ah. I thought this seasons results and next seasons results would matter for who gets 'franchised' for 2025. So two years worth of performances. I'm not saying winning the 1895 Cup carries as much weight as winning the Championship. But winning the Cup, combined with a playoff spot (two years on the bounce) would that carry weight for the 'Performance' side of the grading system. I was just replying to Highlander's comment as he was the one who read about IMG's 'clarification'.







I agree. I think we'd do well in some aspects of the grading system, specifically fanbase and academy/catchment/development etc. Not sure on finances or performance yet (depending on 2023 and 2024 seasons). But yeah, we are a while away yet from being good enough. But hopefully two playoff places and a couple of good cups runs gets us higher on the 'Performance' grading section. And that starts by beating Fax on Saturday.

Don't think IMG are going to be the saviours some of the loud mouths on social media think they'll be.



All the issues we had during the licensing years haven't been resolved in their proposals IMO although there's at least a bit of transparency this time.



Clubs coasting along as theres zero chance of them being replaced, fans getting bored of meaningless games (remember we had the ridiculous situation of the RFL having to expand the the play-offs to Eight teams to try create more meaningless games) those issues are still there.



Then in 4 years time we'll have another critical meeting for the sport wondering why crowds are dwindling after we've changed the format for the millionth time.

Say we somehow made the criteria for SL (stay with me here).. who then puts the necessary money into the club to be competitive?



We'd just become a Wakefield, making up the numbers and getting a hiding each week.

Agreed. We're miles off SL. It's not happening. Even if they weren't raising the drawbridge we're still miles off. I find it difficult to get exercised about the whole IMG thing as a result. The club needs a huge transformation to get back to elite level. Particularly in the areas of ownership and stadium

An owner with funds & genuine business acumen.

A professional CEO with RL experience

And a SL quality coach would be a start

Rake out the rotten culture that's existed for years & start again with a 95 style rebuild.



That's the only way we will get there.



As it stands now we are a ghost ship,

Ticking boxes to get a place at the table but no clue as to what to do when we get there.

Bulls and the foundation are running 7 teams and the staff required for that on 3k ticket sales, sponsors and is it £200k central funding?

If we get an additional £1.6m central funding with promotion, I would think we could finance a team.

Finding the players in October is the problem. Leigh got round that by funding an SL team the year before they went up, which no one else can do.

You could if you had a decent owner..

Don't doubt they could finance 'a team' it just wouldn't be a very good one.

I’m not saying we are anywhere near SL. I also think we are miles off (not even a top 3 Champ side atm). However at the moment we do have this criteria that certainly helps towards the grade. If we aren't doing our best to at least try meet as much of it as we can then what’s the point?



I think Wakefield left it too late to upgrade their facilities (as they are going for a betting grade on facilities, probably so they rank higher than Cas) and now money is tied up in the new stand hence the lack of quality or depth in their squad this season.



I’m not interested in what we do if we get to SL. Because again, there’s things we need to do to even be in contention for SL. One of those things is securing a place in the 1895 final. Which means beating Fax.



I have no doubt we’ll probably get an SL side in the next round of the CC cup. So hopefully we get a decent side. Get some money in from the tie (which helps us now). Go out of the Cup and focus on the semis of the 1895 Cup and the league. But first we need to beat a strong Fax side.

If anything, I could actually see the IMG grading system leading to a lot of deflation and stagnation, especially in the lower leagues.

Once the provisional and final gradings come out, clubs will know how close - and more importantly how far away - they are from a potential spot in the top division. This could either be a motivating factor or a stark realisation of what is required to make the grade.

I have a feeling that for a lot of clubs the improvement will just be unobtainable. IMG talk about clubs needing to grow but unless I've missed it, I haven't seen any talk of their plans for how the central funding is to be distributed going forward and how much the lower leagues are going to get.



The huge elephant in the room when it comes to our sport is that the only clubs who ever achieve anything at all, including growth, are those funded by benefactors.

But isn't that the issue right there? Hull and Huddersfield went bang and two clubs were sacrificed for them (but we're the RFL pets still

) and at that point I was sure rules were put int to ensure that clubs were not expected to make a loss yet here we are with clubs in SL owners masking the games issues by pouring millions into clubs and them taking the losses.



Hudds would be dead in a breath again as would others. Until that situation is taken away you've no hope of rescuing the game. You could say that the much despised (by me) Ken Morrison displayed his vast business acumen by staying well and truly out of RL despite calling the club his 'beloved Bulls' the .

So Hull and Huddersfield make huge losses despite having millionaire owners. Who funds us out of curiosity and do we have huge losses?



I saw someone post that we need 3k sales a year, bullbuilder, foundation and 200k in central funding.



Is that enough to compete? Obviously if we finish higher than last year the funding is more.

As much as our owners/board get criticised a lot (at times deservedly so) I am quite glad we seem to keep our heads down and crack on rather than Chalmers bluster.



Keighley seem to he having a meltdown, even though I actually agree with them that IMG aren't the saviours.

As far as we're concerned we probably won't notice a difference whether the IMG proposals go through or not. Keeping our heads down and trying to make incremental improvements is probably all we can expect under the current ownership. Making sure the seats and terracing is cleaned up after the stock cars would be a start. Odsal was a state last weekend and taping off large swathes of dirty areas doesn't really address the issue.

Well the IMG proposals have passed. All 11 SL teams voted in favour (shocked at Cas and Wakey there). And only Fev, Batley, Barrow and Keighley voted against it in the Champ.



So the ones who have voted against it wouldn’t survive in SL anyway. Fev’s catchment area is also Wakey, Cas and Leeds. Batley and Keighley can’t really upgrade their facilities or get the crowds needed to survive. And even though Cumbria is a hotbed for talent, there never seems to be a lot of support for the three teams up there.



Everyone else like Newcastle, Halifax, York, Us, Widnes etc all have room to grow. Improve. Have the talent areas. Already have a decent stadium (probably ours is the worst of the those three). And all have potential to increase the crowds (I think we are higher that 2/3 SL teams at the moment). Even now we’d probably average 6-7k inc away support in SL.



What does surprise me is the likes of Swinton, Rochdale and Oldham voting for being in favour. As neither of these clubs will be anywhere near the mid levels of the grading system. To vote against would be in their best interests as they are yo-yo clubs really.



Votes For:



All SL Clubs (minus Catalan who have no vote)

Sheffield

York

Newcastle

Widnes

Bradford

Halifax

Swinton

London Broncos.

Doncaster

Midlands

Cornwall

Rochdale

Workington

Oldham

North Wales



Against:



Featherstone

Batley

Keighley

Barrow

Hunslet

Dewsbury



Abstained:



London Skolars

Whitehaven

West Wales



Make of that what you will.



33 in favour. 6 against. 3 abstains. Vote passes at 88%.

Fev voted against for the reason that apparently if you're a grade B club and finish top of the championship there's no guarantee you'd replace a grade B club if they finished bottom of SL. That seems totally fair enough to me. If there are B's in both places they should swap.

Aren’t they going for a 14 team SL though? According to the powerpoint IMG and RFL published everything indicated towards a 14 team SL unless that’s changed?

Apparently that reasoning is wrong. Your right in why Fev declined but apparently in October and in the IMG Proposal Meetings. It was said that if a club finished bottom of SL with a B rating and the winner of the Champ had a B rating. They would swap places.



That was from a piece Matt Shaw wrote in October and was confirmed in IMG Rugby League Council meeting. Although that is coming from Matt Shaw. I’m personally not sure on the reliability of RL Journos or whos the most informative.

Surely Fev knew what they were voting o? Or have they made a mistake like Salford and London Skolars?

I’m only going by what Matt Shaw’s piece said from last October. I’m not sure if that still applies. But even Fev are happy apparently with the vast majority of the proposal. Just not all of it. Reading now that Salford and Skolars cannot change their vote however it’s been noted in the minutes for the meeting their desire to change votes.

They also had some disquiet about the stipulation that fans must only have 10 fingers.