Re: IMG Vote : Wed Apr 19, 2023 3:05 pm  

Listenup94 wrote:

I wonder why Halifax voted for it if it meant we never have a chance of promotion, I know they have set up a separate entity to deal with img and appear to be doing everything they can to benefit the club , they could do with announcing something just to clarify our position.

I totally agree with this.

Re: IMG Vote : Wed Apr 19, 2023 3:17 pm  

I try to be possessive and want the club to succeed and be successful in what ever league or competition we are in.
I suspect that which ever SL club is relegated this season will be given a licence to be back in there in 2025

Re: IMG Vote : Wed Apr 19, 2023 3:36 pm  

Read an article about how Castleford have said they are applying for planning permission to upgrade Their stadium because of the new criteria. That is so funny as that was a criteria when the first licensing was introduced. They never did anything to Wheldon Road and constantly told the RFL licnecing body they had plans in place. 15years later they have started saying the same. It will all end in tears. (Or the professional game of Rugby League going to the wall)

Re: IMG Vote : Wed Apr 19, 2023 4:35 pm  

Our announcement on the subject is almost as bad as the decision to support it....

Re: IMG Vote : Wed Apr 19, 2023 4:57 pm  

One of the issues I have is transparency of information both from img and our board , I’m still non the wiser where we’re at with it has a club . I appreciate the sport needs to be modernised but I don’t think this is the way to go . Even though I wasn’t following rugby during our glory years ( infact my first year was when we were relegated) the 80s seemed to be really competitive where different teams we’re winning the leagues and challenge cup etc in front of hungry crowds, even when fax we’re in the second division we beat saints in the semis of the regal trophy and gave a good account in the final against Wigan , that type of competitiveness is almost dead and super league is becoming as boring as the Scottish premier league. Rugby league is a working class sport predominantly for townsfolk who prefer an alternative from football, trying to constantly sell it in uninterested areas as ruined it for me .

Re: IMG Vote : Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:11 pm  

Faxlore wrote:

Read an article about how Castleford have said they are applying for planning permission to upgrade Their stadium because of the new criteria. That is so funny as that was a criteria when the first licensing was introduced. They never did anything to Wheldon Road and constantly told the RFL licnecing body they had plans in place. 15years later they have started saying the same. It will all end in tears. (Or the professional game of Rugby League going to the wall)

Exactly !

Re: IMG Vote : Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:14 pm  

Listenup94 wrote:

One of the issues I have is transparency of information both from img and our board , I’m still non the wiser where we’re at with it has a club . I appreciate the sport needs to be modernised but I don’t think this is the way to go . Even though I wasn’t following rugby during our glory years ( infact my first year was when we were relegated) the 80s seemed to be really competitive where different teams we’re winning the leagues and challenge cup etc in front of hungry crowds, even when fax we’re in the second division we beat saints in the semis of the regal trophy and gave a good account in the final against Wigan , that type of competitiveness is almost dead and super league is becoming as boring as the Scottish premier league. Rugby league is a working class sport predominantly for townsfolk who prefer an alternative from football, trying to constantly sell it in uninterested areas as ruined it for me .

Unfortunately very true.

Re: IMG Vote : Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:50 pm  

I did start watching in the 80's and yes in lots of ways it was a much more satisfying product to watch, mainly because it was a fairly level playing field with only Wigan full time and good second division teams like Halifax able on their day to beat a 1st division team. Because the gap between 1st and 2nd division was so much smaller promotion was something to be chased with a realistic chance of staying up afterwards. Unfortunately now unless we get more parity in the way all clubs are funded, whilst promotion and relegation seems what sport should be about, it is totally unrealistic, for any team without a multi millionaire backer. So while I think IMG haven't suggested anything that would increase desperately needed revenue for the game, frustratingly at the moment I can see some logic in saying if you haven't a chance of being able to put together a competitive team in Superleague what's the point in being promoted. I realise this view will be very unpopular with a lot of people- but say Halifax by some miracle got promoted this year I can't believe they could afford to put together a team that wouldn't get thumped every game - having witnessed that first hand in the early 2000's it not something I'd like to see again. It's a pity IMG's brief wasn't to increase revenue for the game and apply a fairer distribution of it as a way of improving both the product and the game as a whole.

Re: IMG Vote : Thu Apr 20, 2023 6:38 am  

Is part of the problem central funding? Are we the only sport that’s gives its top teams a large sum of money every season? May be the solution is that the top financially better off clubs get less central funding and more
Money goes to championship and champ 1 clubs so they can attract better players. At the end of the day people go to watch a team to see them win. Irrelevant of what’s going on in and around the club community etc. If St Helens didn’t have a woman’s team didnt do community engagement they would still attract big crowds because they win games and afford the best players because of an owner who can afford it. So why should they get a bigger piece of central funding when the have a millionaire backer. Lower clubs will never ever (no matter how hard they try) get to the top because financially it can not be done.

Re: IMG Vote : Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:16 am  

Faxlore wrote:

Is part of the problem central funding? Are we the only sport that’s gives its top teams a large sum of money every season? May be the solution is that the top financially better off clubs get less central funding and more
Money goes to championship and champ 1 clubs so they can attract better players. At the end of the day people go to watch a team to see them win. Irrelevant of what’s going on in and around the club community etc. If St Helens didn’t have a woman’s team didnt do community engagement they would still attract big crowds because they win games and afford the best players because of an owner who can afford it. So why should they get a bigger piece of central funding when the have a millionaire backer. Lower clubs will never ever (no matter how hard they try) get to the top because financially it can not be done.

I agree to some extent that the central funding should be more equally divided - but where is the incentive then for the lower league clubs to develop if they can survive on increased central funding and their current levels of commercial and match day income? It's a double edged sword. By working for the central funding by engaging with the local community interest may just increase. What needs to happen as well is the RFL and IMG need to look to grow the 'size of the pie' they can distribute, as well as clubs looking to increase their own revenue