All conveniently very vague. It seems they have just brought the minimum standards part which is already there into the scoring system. It’s unlikely going to change much at all. The RFL have somewhat backed themselves into a corner by having a two-tier academy system. By awarding some clubs elite licences and also refusing other clubs bids to have them, even when they wanted to run one, they have created a situation where it would be unfair for it to be judged on on quality and results alone. For now they will likely have to just have a ‘junior pathway’ in place, which could be a full elite academy set up or could be a college link up and/or basic junior set up. It will probably be tightened up down the line but right now they’ve created a rod for their own backs.

My take on all the IMG proposals is that it is nothing more than page after page of corporate speak. It has no depth or clarity and is open to interpretation and manipulation. It has therefore delivered what it was always intended to do, and that is to give unlimited power to a few clubs to dominate this sport in their own self interest.

Why would they do that though?

There needs to be more detail but most of the points are valid for me.

Out of interest, have we seen any targets IMG have to hit? Have we seen any strategic plan of where they want the game to go? Or is the goal just purely to make the game more commercially successful with no KPI's?

There are three ways of looking at how to grow the sport.

There is the IMG commercial model, which is create an exciting and vibrant top-flight, with lots of fans and engagement, with millionaire owners and sponsorship and TV money. The extra interest in the game because of the vibrant top flight, will spread the game and increase interest, with a spin-off of more grassroots involvements.

This first option is aimed at the top teams in super league and growing the game.

There is the growth model, which is invest heavily in grassroots and create an even playing field amongst all the clubs.

This second option doesn't necessarily improve the top flight nor create extra business money or sponsorship or TV money, but does create a healthier growth in heartland areas.

The third option is to carry on as we are and see how it goes.

In reality, the first model has more chance to deliver what IMG have been instructed to deliver. The second model is a strong heartlands game, but IMG weren't instructed to make sure Fev and York have a good academy. The believe is that the survival of the game is dependent on TV money and sponsorship, with the growth lower down spinning off that success.

I agree with that approach, but the conflict sums up the problem of a largely regional game. The top clubs want big crowds and vibrancy. The smaller clubs, like us, want to be able to sit at the top table, even if we can't deliver the same. Is the future of the game dependent on Fev doing well? I hope not.

It is different in Aus, where the same local conflicts are not played out in the same way. Here, our strength is our strong local support. It is also our biggest weakness.

Maybe I'm just paranoid but, the "tweaking" of criteria will be centred around who they want to have in SL.

Lets just think that, there is little point in having their consultation, if this will result in the same 12 clubs remaining in SL.
Therefore, who do they want in and who do they want out.

The criteria will fit this narrative.

The ground is mortgaged up to the hilt, so they are no better off than us, so you're wrong on that one.

Like I said the ground is only 15% , so it doesn't really help us to get that far Infront.
By the way we have a mortgage on our ground . Cas do not have a mortgage on their ground you are wrong.
They own the ground outright. What they have is land registry charges and these are to their directors and only have to be paid once they sell. The directors do not charge them tent and these charges are interest free.

It doesn't matter what other teams have. It's up to us to make the best we can of Wakefield Trinity.
Trying to not be the worst is exactly why we are nit succeeding.

It does matter what other teams have though, if there are 12 teams better than us then we won't be in, if there are 11 teams better than us than we will be in so what other clubs do is actually very important.

Just noticed this tweet in the Twitter page of The Game Caller (Mick Gledhill). Does anyone know if this is now in the IMG criteria? If not then Gledhill should be taken to Task by our club, we don’t need any more mud thrown at our club.

Just for clarity both Castleford and Wakefield will be deducted points for failing to meet minimum standards with their respective stadiums. Both clubs have taken millions of pounds in broadcast revenues and have failed to improve their stadiums to meet minimum standards.

A couple of tweets from The game caller.
Interesting that IMG won’t reveal specific thresholds until the vote has been taken. Although I can understand IMG reasoning, it would appear clubs will not know what’s in the small print until it’s too late.

The RFL/IMG have sent clubs examples of what a Grade A club looks like, Grade B club in the Heartlands and a Grade B club in an expansion area look like. It's clear from these examples that clubs will make the cut for the top tier with an accumulated points total of 12 points.

Clubs asking for specific thresholds on the five pillars have been told that these will be released after the vote at Huddersfield on Wednesday. This to ensure that clubs don't know where they currently are in the new RFL/IMG table and that they don't vote with self interest.

How does that make sense to a ANY of the clubs,
Turkey and Christmas springs to mind.

I'm pretty sure they said clubs have details before public and media. They had chance to talk to IMG and challenge some things so they are not going in completely blind.

So even though IMG are looking at the future clubs will still be penalised for their past even despite vast considerable improvement ongoing for facilities and no lack of effort on attempts through planning etc thwarted by various issues most not in the clubs control. Can’t see that. It should be on what currently is in place or what currently the club offers in terms of facilities.

And we didn’t fail to improve stadium.

We built the flats, we also had two roofs put on and various paint cosmetic jobs over the years, these are improvements in tune to hundreds of thousands and also let’s not forget that the club I believe have had money reduced I think recent years for having restricted capacity due to safety?

This all added to the fact that in promotion and relegation a playing squad capable of competing must be maintained or clubs face losing monies altogether.

Seems an incredibly poor thought out tweet from this game caller.

I'll read it again today but
1) the minimum standards aren't included in the IMG paper, they were RFL minimum standards.
2) by the time IMG come to do their assessment we will exceed those standards

Surely not, Mick Gledhill?!

I would think the first clubs to be considered will be the 12 in SL. It will then be the Championship which the way this season is going will contain us to replace any from SL. The problem we face is our location goes against us because we are in a densely populated rugby area and they are favouring expansion.
I believe the only way we would be admitted is if we had an A rating but sadly we are way off at the moment and being in the Championship will probably ensure we never do.

I know these are Mick Gledhill tweets from today, so ibut I’m sure the information is correct, anyway, it’s time we all had some more information that will affect our future.

Good to learn clubs have finally received their IMG/RFL handbooks which shows clubs the thresholds of where will be assessed against to gain points from the five key strategic pillars. I’m just going through the handbook now and will provide an update later this evening.

For example on Attendances:

Average attendance of 7,500 over three years = 2.5 points.

Average attendance of 3,000 over three years = 2 points


Average attendance of 1,500 over three years = 1.5 points.

Average attendance under 1,500 over three years = 0.75 points.

The Bradford Bulls would score 2 points based on their average attendance over the past three seasons. That’s the same as Huddersfield, Castleford, Leigh, Toulouse, Wakefield, Widnes and Salford.

Out of curiosity, did he look at the scoring for recent bankrupcies

Does anyone else think that the 12 month delay by IMG, for implementing their new criteria, was designed to help any particular side gain a spot in SL, with Bradford being the most likely to benefit ?

No, the current Bradford offer nothing that numerous other clubs can't right now, save a large latent support from the boom years of the early 2000's.

Can't see how they come up on ground alone, not forgetting the money, or lack of they've had in the past

He does make me laugh https://twitter.com/TheGameCaller/statu ... 0459201536

He does make me laugh https://twitter.com/TheGameCaller/statu ... 0459201536

That latent support and promises from their new owner may well be enough.
Like it or not, they are the only club outside SL that could bring some decent numbers to games
and for me, there was good reason why the new regime was delayed by 12 months.

The other possibility would be Toulouse but, they may yet win the Championship GF, which would be another kick in the nuts for Fev.