|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 13862 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [quote="Big lads mate":evycnemd]Should have kept London in and put Salford into the championship, I bet the RFL new this was happenning so it was announced at the start of the season so Salford kept their place.[/quote:evycnemd]
To be fair London are hardly a shining example of a well run club. Hughes financially backed them but did little else and in fact has left a much worse club than when he took over through his negligence.
| | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 13862 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [quote="The Phantom Horseman":3sbc7qu2]Surely this has been comprehensively debunked by what we are seeing with Salford - if you could actually judge a club's status by their grading, there's no way they would have been just a point away from a Grade A.
The fact that London were able to soar from a basement grade of 8.07 in 2024 to a grade of 12.65 simply on the back of a year in SL with all its IMG-point benefits highlights that the grades hide as much as they show.[/quote:3sbc7qu2]
They finished 4th, and have some decent league positions to fall back on, yet they were a grand final win for Toulouse away from losing their spot. They're artificially boosted by the population of Salford, but the gradings have suitably placed the club despite its on field, relative, successes.
| | | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Captain | 2820 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2018 | 7 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [quote="Butcher":3cdgyv62]Good question, and my answer is a massive Yes. Toulouse yes, York maybe, Bradford no, Fev definitely not. That’s what the gradings are good for - you don’t have to guess at which clubs would make the comp stronger, you can actually see it.
I don’t want Salford to go bust, but I don’t mind if they drop into the Championship and rebuild sustainably or attract a new owner in the meantime. Especially if that means Toulouse or even York get a shot without the threat of relegation looming over them.[/quote:3cdgyv62]
I think it`s pretty subjective on which clubs would make the competition `stronger` so I`m not sure it`s as simple as saying just look the IMG scores, although in practice I know that is how the system works, but this Salford situation just shows the system up really... York might have a screen to the right pixels, have some LED boards around the perimeter of there pitch but do they have the potential to average 15k fans with a decent team like Bradford could?
| | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Junior Player | 173 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2023 | 1 year | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [quote="The Phantom Horseman":ybnc8b9l]Surely this has been comprehensively debunked by what we are seeing with Salford - if you could actually judge a club's status by their grading, there's no way they would have been just a point away from a Grade A.
The fact that London were able to soar from a basement grade of 8.07 in 2024 to a grade of 12.65 simply on the back of a year in SL with all its IMG-point benefits highlights that the grades hide as much as they show.[/quote:ybnc8b9l]
I don’t think so, personally. A point is a long way from Grade A. And now their finances have found to be rotten, they’ll get less points. You could argue it’s a few months too late, but you could argue that the obsession with avoiding relegation is what gets clubs in this mess in the first place.
| | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Junior Player | 173 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2023 | 1 year | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [quote="homme vaste":2q3cw5tu]I think it`s pretty subjective on which clubs would make the competition `stronger` so I`m not sure it`s as simple as saying just look the IMG scores, although in practice I know that is how the system works, but this Salford situation just shows the system up really... York might have a screen to the right pixels, have some LED boards around the perimeter of there pitch but do they have the potential to average 15k fans with a decent team like Bradford could?[/quote:2q3cw5tu]
And I think the gradings are the closest thing you can get to objectivity. I think a strong club does have LED boards around the pitch, along with a competitive squad, solid finances, a funded marketing team, a community programme, good attendances, and pretty much everything that’s covered in the gradings. I think a strong club has other things that aren’t covered - like a productive academy - but it’s a good effort.
The LED boards (and directors seats) always get brought up as a rhetorical tactic to make the whole system seem trivial, but we all know it’s a tiny part of an overall grade of which attendance and performance - as you mention above - are a bigger part. As for York, yes, I don’t think they have the potential to get bigger crowds than Bradford, but they do have the potential to be a better team, and they arguably greater potential in other areas. Whereas Toulouse, who IMG ‘objectively’ see as the 13th strongest club, have greater potential in every single area.
| | | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7146 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2004 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [quote="Butcher":mwhr8ejw]And I think the gradings are the closest thing you can get to objectivity. I think a strong club does have LED boards around the pitch, along with a competitive squad, solid finances, a funded marketing team, a community programme, good attendances, and pretty much everything that’s covered in the gradings. I think a strong club has other things that aren’t covered - like a productive academy - but it’s a good effort.
The LED boards (and directors seats) always get brought up as a rhetorical tactic to make the whole system seem trivial, but we all know it’s a tiny part of an overall grade of which attendance and performance - as you mention above - are a bigger part. As for York, yes, I don’t think they have the potential to get bigger crowds than Bradford, but they do have the potential to be a better team, and they arguably greater potential in other areas. Whereas Toulouse, who IMG ‘objectively’ see as the 13th strongest club, have greater potential in every single area.[/quote:mwhr8ejw]
I agree with pretty much all that until the last part. Toulouse certainly don’t have greater potential in every area. Their crowds have been going in reverse, their team while good isn’t to the level of last years trinity or previously Leigh. They would be lucky to last 2 seasons in SL imo with crowds barely above 2k, the costs associated with logistics abs building a competitive team. Catalans manage it with a much higher attendence just about but even they’ve found it challenging in places.
Toulouse SL year drops off this year so they will lose points. I expect they’ll miss out and end up packing their bags for 2026.
| | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|