Doubt it, it's shut.

It seems more club’s beginning to question IMG proposals, it would appear currently they would favour the current 12 SL clubs, even if Trinity were relegated This season.

The statement below is taken from The Featherstone Rovers Chief in today’s total RL.

THE latest IMG proposals in order to ‘re-imagine’ rugby league have created some heavy debate.

In order to achieve Grade A, B and C clubs, IMG set out a number of criteria that were sent out to the 36 professional clubs at a meeting a number of weeks ago at Huddersfield Giants’ John Smith’s Stadium.

In that criteria, five main areas were outlined: fandom (25%), performance (25%), finances (25%), stadium (15%) and catchment (10%) with different weightings in each.

For Featherstone Rovers chief executive, Martin Vickers, the plans were a ‘disappointment’ after what he feels was a change in the rules.

“We were disappointed with the latest iteration of the model. We had some clear messages previously that whilst B category teams were in Super League, B clubs in the Championship could get promoted,” Vickers told League Express.

“It is now that you have to be a B plus a score. That means it is all skewed towards a a current top 12 club so there is no way you can beat the bottom end of Super League on performance even if they are bottom of the league because they will be 12th out of 36 as opposed to our 13th.

“So we were disappointed. We felt there was a tweak in the rules that seemed to be skewed in favour of the bottom end of Super League who in every way have had their chance.”

For Vickers, he believes there is a “ceiling” for Championship clubs that should be done away with.

“We have such a strong model here for continuous improvement so this is not anything of us being fearful of improvement. We have aspirations and goals to be a category A.

“We do feel, though, that we have to have a level playing field and have a chance because the same four or five teams dwindling at the bottom of Super League have had their chance already.

“I feel there is a ceiling of a B Championship club on reaching the same score as those clubs, this is our chance.

“We know we can hold our own against those clubs but we know we have to have improve. We know we are not a category A club which you see against the benchmark of Leeds, St Helens and Wigan but you don’t necessarily get it with some other clubs.

“It’s obvious why some clubs are A star clubs, they have the crowd, stadium and have invested in their teams and academy teams. It’s those kind of fine lines as you get past those six or seven clubs.”

Among Championship and League One clubs, there have been a number of conversations in order to establish the opinions of various officials with dialogue ongoing.

“We have been in lots of consultation with other clubs because there definitely seems to be a strength of feeling on some of these issues and that was gathered after the last council meeting.

“We need to be clear that some of these standards are creating an accessible kind of game for the future. And that’s all we want.

“The consultations haven’t been massive in terms of detail but there was a big talk at the start of this that the game has got overly focused on structure in the past and I agree with that.

“But now we are all talking about a scoring system. Where do you have an exam system where someone is a B16 or a B12? What we are doing is creating another monster in my view that could be far more simplistic.

“There is certainly lots of dialogue in a constructive way. Clearly everyone wants the game to flourish and everyone knows it can’t go on as it is. It’s just good collaboration and making sure some of these voiced are heard.”

Problem is, until some of the SL clubs kick-off about the criteria, it won't mean a jot what the likes of Fev or Keighley say about it to IMG.
That will only happen if/when the current SL clubs get a B rating....

It does not come in until the end of season 2024 therefore do they mean the 12 SL clubs at this point which could include Featherstone because it does not make any sense to take the 12 now. If it is the former then it makes our squad selection even more strange because we could find ourselves out of SL.

Why do you think it make more sense to include Fev than us?

If it is based on 2024 final league positions then based on current form Featherstone will be promoted this season and we will be relegated.

Well they've only played 7 games so the other teams might have something to say about that but that's just P&R.
That's not the same as 'making sense' to have Featherstone in SL instead of us from IMG standards point of view. Each should be judged on its merits.

Although there is promotion and relegation this year, currently, the grading system is so complex that as far as I’m aware, the grades will be provided before this season ends, and at this moment, or until the current criteria is changed then it’s quite possible that this season’s relegated cub could possibly receive higher grades than the promoted club, which would mean the club promoted this year will then be relegated next year with the relegated team returning to the top tier, this one of many reasons clubs outside of SL are meeting amongst themselves to bring changes to the current criteria. Not my theory, this whole IMG was discussed last night on the “full eighty minutes” don’t laugh without listening to the program, a lot is said that’s plausible.

A little pedantic but I gave Featherstone as an example which I am sure you realise it could be Toulouse this part doesn’t matter but the bit about us being relegated that is relevant.

I hope they are correct.

Well I think that’s what clubs outside of SL believe, and that’s why they want the current criteria changed, interesting times ahead, who will blink first, IMG or none SL clubs, keeping in mind that the Sky deal ends this year, and nothing’s been announced re new deal, MCs comment re clubs returning to part time if there is no new deal, then why would clubs outside SL vote for an IMG scheme that excludes those clubs. As I have said, interesting times ahead.

Some updates from the Keighley fallout
Tweets taken from the “Game Caller” past couple of days

Keighley Cougars go to Parliament. The Sports Minister, Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP together with Robbie Moore MP met with Cougars owners Kaue Garcia and Ryan O'Neill to hear their objections to the IMG proposed cartel.

Keighley and the consortium of clubs against the IMG proposals now have cross party Parliamentary support fully behind them in their fight against IMG and their Reimagining Rugby League proposals. Worrying this is now playing out in Parliament.

Worth remembering that we are in a crucial consultation period and IMGs Reimagining Rugby League proposal announced at Huddersfield was the first draft so to speak. Good to see the consultation process working well between the RFL/IMG for these changes/revisions to be made.

There has been an important update on IMGs Reimagining Rugby League proposals. The RFL have told clubs this morning that there will be changes/revisions to the proposals announced at Huddersfield. The clubs will be discussing these changes/revisions at a meeting next week.

Ive read today thst some of criteria changing mostly around academy and it been more in the points

Whilst a sensible u turn (of sorts) we are so far down on performance, fandom and location it hardly matters. Also we will post a £400k+ loss on the finance front for last year. We're going down this year and we certainly will not be in a position to dislodge the worst SL B grade team for the 2025 season and thats optimistically assuming we'll finish high enough in the championship to challenge for the promotion spot.

Featherstone now taking the p!ss out of us (and Cas). Not only are we the joke of SL, championship clubs are piling in too. That's how far we have sunk this year.

What date is Khlav?

I know, and we're the butt of the joke.

Posted on the RL site @ 12.30pm today

Reimagining Rugby League – Update

Clubs and other members of the Rugby League Council have today been informed of changes to the club grading criteria for the Reimagining Rugby League proposals, under which clubs will be rewarded for the extent of their community engagement.
Following extensive consultation with clubs and Community Rugby League representatives in the weeks since the proposals were first presented to Council on March 9, the Catchment category has been renamed “Community” and will include points under the proposed model for clubs’ positive impact in the communities in which the sport is based and played.
Such activity will be worth up to 2.5 points of the maximum 20 on offer and therefore carries a significant impact, and will now combine each club’s fanbase potential with a rating for their Foundation – the charitable bodies linked to clubs which drive much of their community and participation activity.
This will be measured on the Foundation’s turnover, with a maximum of 1 point available – and the previous Catchment category now worth a maximum of 1.5 points (having previously been up to 2 points).
The Finance pillar will now carry a maximum of 4.5 points, compared to the original 5.
There has also been a small amendment to the Digital section of the Fandom pillar, with a greater emphasis on overall engagement.
In addition, details of the Minimum Standards that will support the club grading criteria have been circulated – with further details to be supplied to clubs via conference call next Wednesday (April 12), before a meeting of the Rugby League Council votes on whether to accept the recommendations on April 19.
These standards have been broken down into eight categories, including Community Game Development – requiring clubs to have a registered Foundation and an engaged Community Development Plan to be graded A or B – and Talent and Performance Pathway, which will also be necessary to be graded A or B, with a Women’s team required for a Grade A Talent and Performance Pathway as well as complying with the Player Welfare Policy.
There are also Minimum Standards around Anti-Doping, Environmental Sustainability and compliance with Rugby League’s Professional Club Governance Code – which includes Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.
Clubs can lose grading points for failing to comply with the standards, while the remaining three categories cover breaches of the Operational Rules (including Salary Cap), of other regulations, or the existing Insolvency Policy – again, with penalties stipulated.
Tony Sutton, the RFL’s Chief Executive Officer, said: “The RFL and RL Commercial are grateful to clubs and other Council members for their constructive engagement since the proposals were presented last month.
“Throughout the process, we have worked with our strategic partner IMG to keep stakeholders informed – including supporters through the media and our own digital channels.
“Our aim for the period since the proposals were first presented has been simple - that going into the vote, clubs will be making an informed choice.
“As a result of feedback, we have worked with IMG to amend the club grading criteria to provide greater recognition for clubs’ engagement with their communities through their Foundations – which strengthens the category previously known as Catchment.
“The development of Foundations has been one of the great successes of Rugby League in recent years – enhancing the contribution the sport makes in the communities in which it is established – so it is absolutely right that this is now included in the criteria.
“The Minimum Standards underpin the club grading criteria – we have been working with clubs to introduce such standards in recent years, and this process helps us embed best practice that clubs currently show with the aim of raising standards more widely to the advantage of the sport as a whole.
“Crucially, this process remains democratic as well as informed and transparent. The clubs and other Council members will decide later this month whether or not the sport accepts the recommendations that overwhelmingly last Autumn we as a game asked IMG to develop for us and bring forward. We look forward to dialogue continuing over the coming weeks.”

I've forgotten.
Does Talent and Perfornance Pathway include the academy?

I don’t know PT, I don’t think JM mentioned that part when he discussed the IMG criteria at last night’s shareholders meeting. Today’s statement by IMG doesn’t specify Academy, but isn’t the lack of Academy grading the reason most clubs asked for the criteria to be reviewed.

I’ve just noticed this Tweet by the Game Caller, I’m not sure if the review was about minimum standards, unless having an Academy is part of Minimum Standards.

Whilst the community changes are welcome. It feels like the RFL/IMG have responded to Keighley’s strong criticisms of the historic lack of application of minimum standards. The RFL/IMG has acted and will now punish and remove points from
clubs that don’t meet minimum standards.

After what appears to be a considerable length of time spent consulting and building this criteria it doesn’t I still confidence that modifications and changes are already taking place.

Not that I don’t agree with them.

Academy and pathways should most certainly feature significantly in the criteria I would think. We need to increase player base for the future of the sport and the talent pool for all leagues in the sport.

My question isn't so much about what IMG are doing.
More about, when people talk about Talent and Performance Pathway, does it include academy, or is that a different thing.
It's just terminology I'm wanting to clarify.

Completely agree, there’s no hood us just having the principals or headline criteria. We need detail to understand what each section entails.

I would imagine there will be one huge document containing all this but it would be a shame if more detail wasn’t filtered down to the fans of the sport.

As I see it and I believe there is a change needed in RL but from what I read from the start of this, is that IGM have not been asked to look at growing RL at any sort of grass roots or academy level only to grow RL to a wider ordinance by getting larger amounts of people to see the game.
For me we have entrusted to survival or RL league to a marketing team. Irrelevant if succeed or not they get paid. Will walk away in 12 yrs whatever state the game is in, whether or not it’s worked.
The RFL are totally to blame for this, just shows what a lack of leadership is in the RL by amateur, weak self indulgent individuals.Yes employ a marketing company, but to give them the keys to the mansion then what need is there for the RFL at all, as what will they be doing for their money?
The clubs of any part of the leagues should throw this out if they had any thought of the future of Rugby League and send them back to the drawing board and bring a new plan to the table which involves growing a stronger sport from the start.
Super league started all this were alright Jack attitude in RL. Easy in hindsight but monies from the sky deal should always have gone to the RFL central fund and distributed accordingly to clubs in each division with a good percentage kept by the RFL for growing a strong governing body like what happens in RU. Thank you again mr grab what you can Lindsey!!! Yes the RU clubs might be in the sh.t but christ the governing body could financially stand a small war and that makes them strong unlike us with a pi..poor and weak governing body.
This should be IGMs main objective, get a strong main body and sell the best action for more profit and grow participation in the sport not just the marketing rights.
About time RL clubs stood up to the idiots that believe they run an amazing governing body!!!

Quote ="comeontrinity"As I see it and I believe there is a change needed in RL but from what I read from the start of this, is that IGM have not been asked to look at growing RL at any sort of grass roots or academy level only to grow RL to a wider ordinance by getting larger amounts of people to see the game. For me we have entrusted to survival or RL league to a marketing team. Irrelevant if succeed or not they get paid. Will walk away in 12 yrs whatever state the game is in, whether or not it’s worked. The RFL are totally to blame for this, just shows what a lack of leadership is in the RL by amateur, weak self indulgent individuals.Yes employ a marketing company, but to give them the keys to the mansion then what need is there for the RFL at all, as what will they be doing for their money? The clubs of any part of the leagues should throw this out if they had any thought of the future of Rugby League and send them back to the drawing board and bring a new plan to the table which involves growing a stronger sport from the start. Super league started all this were alright Jack attitude in RL. Easy in hindsight but monies from the sky deal should always have gone to the RFL central fund and distributed accordingly to clubs in each division with a good percentage kept by the RFL for growing a strong governing body like what happens in RU. Thank you again mr grab what you can Lindsey!!! Yes the RU clubs might be in the sh.t but christ the governing body could financially stand a small war and that makes them strong unlike us with a pi..poor and weak governing body. This should be IGMs main objective, get a strong main body and sell the best action for more profit and grow participation in the sport not just the marketing rights. About time RL clubs stood up to the idiots that believe they run an amazing governing body!!!'" I have to agree with you, and I think its fair to say, I’m still no wiser re the points system, Below is another link with just a little more information, but I’m still no wiser. e.leeds-live.co.uk/_act/link.php ... d=11474281

Quote ="comeontrinity"As I see it and I believe there is a change needed in RL but from what I read from the start of this, is that IGM have not been asked to look at growing RL at any sort of grass roots or academy level only to grow RL to a wider ordinance by getting larger amounts of people to see the game. For me we have entrusted to survival or RL league to a marketing team. Irrelevant if succeed or not they get paid. Will walk away in 12 yrs whatever state the game is in, whether or not it’s worked. The RFL are totally to blame for this, just shows what a lack of leadership is in the RL by amateur, weak self indulgent individuals.Yes employ a marketing company, but to give them the keys to the mansion then what need is there for the RFL at all, as what will they be doing for their money? The clubs of any part of the leagues should throw this out if they had any thought of the future of Rugby League and send them back to the drawing board and bring a new plan to the table which involves growing a stronger sport from the start. Super league started all this were alright Jack attitude in RL. Easy in hindsight but monies from the sky deal should always have gone to the RFL central fund and distributed accordingly to clubs in each division with a good percentage kept by the RFL for growing a strong governing body like what happens in RU. Thank you again mr grab what you can Lindsey!!! Yes the RU clubs might be in the sh.t but christ the governing body could financially stand a small war and that makes them strong unlike us with a pi..poor and weak governing body. This should be IGMs main objective, get a strong main body and sell the best action for more profit and grow participation in the sport not just the marketing rights. About time RL clubs stood up to the idiots that believe they run an amazing governing body!!!'" I have to agree with you, and I think its fair to say, I’m still no wiser re the points system, Below is another link with just a little more information, but I’m still no wiser. e.leeds-live.co.uk/_act/link.php ... d=11474281