What You need and get are 2 different things.
Who the hell do you think you are, you give it a rest.

As Img are running the game they will do whatever’s in the best interest of img and makes the most for their shareholders.
The RFL won’t really have much say, img don’t give a crap about the history of the club why would they.

They will create criteria that give them the outcome they want, just like in a redundancy situation - the person or people that create the criteria invariably get rid of the people they want shut of. Img are leaving the door open to do whatever they want

Reality is if they decide to reduce the league or bring in other clubs, cas and Wakefield will be vying for the same slot probably with hull kr , Salford etc will be category b, but of course if Bradford , Halifax Toulouse, London etc got their act together they could also be made into category b.

at least we will have a new ground and stand, we are also the city club, cas have better support and more success but have a sub standard ground, Salford have poor support, potentially no ground yet in the past couple years have had more success than any of the others. Pros and cons all around.

Personally have seen the sport steadily decline over a long period of time, supporter numbers have declined, ridiculous rules designed to speed the game up, and crazy fixture congestion have resulted in teams fielding half a team on numerous occasions, crazy fixture dates and times have reduced numbers further, some of the on and off field decisions have convinced me that corruption is present in the game, RFL and super league aren’t fit for purpose. So if img can achieve some sort of turnaround and way of improving the games fortunes good luck to them

The ridiculous rules is one of the main reasons the sport is less entertaining in my eyes. Since day 1 I have been against six agains especially. That rule has single handed lu stifled any creativity in games.

It used to be that teams would have to put on some set plays or have some creative off the cuff talent to create opportunities to break the defensive line. Six again has basically promoted a different boring one up style of quick play followed by a quick drive from first receiver to catch the opposition retreating to either force a repeat set or find a gap behind the ruck. The style of games has become a real slog fest of bartering it up at speed repeatedly.

Saint Helen’s have mastered this. Theyre not what I would call a classy or creative team. They adapt to six again and have built their game to suit it in hammering the opposition line at pace one after another. They also exploit the six again by purposefully giving away six agains on the first tackle forcing the refs hands. My guess is that they do the because they only lose 1 tackle yet after a few the ref thinks he’s given a few against so will relax on giving them. Most games in terms of penalty or six agains are relatively even. Nothing against saints. They’re just a smarter team than the other 11 and have excellent fitness levels across the park.

I just don’t like it. I’d rather scrap and go back to how it was when crowds were bigger and the clubs and coaches actually coached players to break down teams rather than work to a fast streamlined system.

No you don’t get away that easy.I’m a fan and you had a poke at the fans.

You stated that Trinity fans were happy to let the grass grow under our feet, this reads as lacking ambition.

I dispute this, it’s an insult to those working hard to move us forward.

So in fairness I asked you to explain how you’d do it better as you often claim you could. So please justify your comments and explain how, that’s all I’m asking.

Simple enough, he's asking you to justify your comments which you don't seem to be able to.

You read things as you wish, I couldn't give a dam
Who the hell do you think you are demanding answers.
You have no importance, get used to it.
Chissitt, when I want your advice I'll ask for it, butt out

Once again let's all cut out the insults and sniping.

Wouldn't dream of offering you advice squire, just making an observation if that's allowed, thanks for the prompt response by the way

Come on, if you're not willing to argue or discuss what you post, then why post at all. Facebook and Twitter are the places for that, this is a Forum, it's in the name, we debate or that's the idea

I'm not picking on you, I'm open minded. If you can give me a valid rationale on how you'd do better than the club already are I'd say no more. In fact I'd salute you and suggest you e-mailed the club. I've no doubt there are things the club could do better, just tell us what they are and how you'd sort them. I'm a nobody but both MC and JM read these forums, now is your opportunity.

Look Vasty if your constantly looking to argue, if you are going to make a statement make it factual.
I have never ever said I could run the club better, maybe you could show me were I have.
I'm not going through the things I have said because I'm sure you are aware.

I'm not arguing, I'm asking.

I'm not the one who made the statement.

However we are getting nowhere so I'll leave it. Thanks.

Here's where it gets interesting.
It seems that York believe that they are close to being a grade A club.
New ground, plenty of cash and a wealthy backer and then there is Newcastle too, who fit much of the same criteria.

Are these clubs more worthy of a spot in SL than us, Cas, KR or Salford ?

It could all get very messy, especially if at some point, being in close proximity to another SL club, becomes part of the criteria.

Plenty of time and more detail will come but, with the stated aim of "spreading the game", Newcastle and York will gain extra points when they evaluate suitability and London are being mentioned too.

Anyone nervous ?

York don't have an Academy or the off field infrastructure in place, we do. Ditto London and Newcastle though they do have academies but it would be interesting, especially in Londons case, just how secure a deal they have with their landlords.

What this is showing to me is that our BOD's seem to have anticipated what was coming much better than some others - most notably our neighbours over the common.

In fact I'd be furious if I were a Cas fan, because their BOD's seem determined to stick to the principle that on field results alone will save them.

No Academy, a ground that is now quite some way behind ours and IMHO at least five years off happening. Yet they still seem to spend every penny on players - ditto Salford.

I expect to see a number of clubs across leagues hastily setting up academies and joining the reserves comp.

I hope we stay ahead of the game (we are very good in this area) and keep investing in academy and reserves. The academy/scholarship more so as like saints show it ends up benefiting the club and first team substantially over the years.

Cas do have an Academy

They can do that but they won't be elite Academies and come 2027 I can't see the incumbents giving up easily.

No mate, sorry but you have an under 19's and maybe an U17's? But not an elite Academy. There is a big difference. I was surprised you didn't get one but even your own fans say the club stupidly neglected it despite being warned.

Not to say you won't produce some talent from your juniors, Cas is still a hotbed. But because you don't get central funding you won't get the pick and it will cost you directly.

Cas (along with Bradford & Hull KR) were awarded a funded probationary elite licence shortly after the original announcement to cover this year and next with the proviso that if they show progress it will be extended to full term.

Whatever the criteria set for the IMG gradings then by way of fairness they have to be or have been achievable for all parties. For that reason i wouldn’t be surprised if the initial weighting towards academies is quite low, with it becoming a more significant part further down the line. The goalposts have now moved and many of the clubs (York being a prime example) could point at not being awarded an elite licence as an insurmountable barrier to their ambitions that wasn’t a factor previously. If this is held against them it could lead to several legal challenges and a lot of in fighting which is the last thing that the game needs. I’d expect in the first instance an in depth funded plan to introduce development strategies to carry a similar weighting with tough monitoring moving forward as to its implementation. I’ve a feeling ‘planning’ is going to play a big part first up, but those plans will have to be watertight.

Serves me right for reading and believing the RFL website.

So they have a kind of semi elite academy, meaning elite is not quite so elite, only on RL

I’ve just been reading the League Express and there is a an article (bottom right page 3) regarding some clubs backing the IMG proposals, and John Minards is one who Backs the proposal. I would hope the club hold another fans forum to allow MC and JM, to explain the benefits not just for the game but for Trinity in particular, because I, as most on here are Rugby League supporters, we are Trinity Fans First .
Now everyone has taken few days to read and think about the proposals, I get the feeling that he initial good feeling for the idea, people are beginning to have second thoughts.

If all they do is market the game properly then it benefits Wakefield Trinity.

Pop Tart, I’m an old cynic when it comes to RL management. No matter how well the game is marketed, there will be some clubs it will not benefit equally, as we all know some clubs are more equal than others. Remember this, Grade “A” clubs will not be relegated no matter how bad they perform, and grade B&C clubs will be moved around like chess pawns to ensure the top tier maintains Status Quo. It will take years for some established clubs to get a sniff of an A grade, by which time some clubs will no longer exist. I’ve not seen any information that suggests a league of more than 14 “A” graders. So once that 14 club league is completed and no one relegated, what then?

Maybe, at this stage, they want to be seen as being on board.
Any club, being strongly against the changes, could find themselves with a steeper hill to climb.

Let's be honest here, whichever set of criteria is put forward will help some clubs more than others and certainly, if different aspects are weighted more heavily than others, certain clubs will benefit.
Even though they have said there will be no mergers, IF part of the criteria is proximity to other clubs, this would hepl say, London, York and Newcastle and would count in the minus column for us.
Having said that, details need to be given to clubs at the earliest opportunity, so that they can get on with counting plastic seats and toilets with a closing lid etc.

So how many teams will be in Super League?
In IMG's words, that is 'open and fluid'. The goal is that in the coming years, those Category B clubs who get a place in Super League develop on and off the field to such an extent they are awarded Category A grading. Once Super League has 12 Category A teams - Super League won't be reduced to ten teams, it will remain at 12 - the prospect of expanding the competition to include more teams becomes a reality.

Open and Fluid. To me this really is open to abuse, the “A” team can decide who joins them, and only if the funding will stretch to additional newcomers.

When does the grading system kick in?
Clubs will be told their initial grading at the end of next year, ahead of them being rolled out on an illustrative basis for 2024. That means next year is the final year with conventional promotion and relegation as we know it. Then, in late-2024, after a review of the grades has taken place, 2025 sees the Category A clubs in Super League, joined by the highest-ranked Category B clubs that takes the total to 12.

Then, in late-2024, after a review of the grades has taken place, 2025 sees the Category A clubs in Super League, joined by the highest-ranked Category B clubs that takes the total to 12

This doesn’t give the “B” teams much time to get themselves organised for the new season, and those “B” teams not selected for the 12, have to adjust to the expectation of lower funding.

Along with a likely complete mess for players having contracts cancelled too. As I said it will be hard for B clubs to plan and sign players to long term contracts if they can just be torn up.

If I were a player and I got offered two contracts from a B and an A club for 3 years yet the B offered 5k more a year I’d probably still sign for the A club for the guaranteed security.

There’s so many questions but the A clubs will have advantage in all areas certainly for initial/early years of the transition.