I wonder if 'owning your own stadium' means just that, or does it mean owning the lease? Just asking!

Quite amazing the RL are squandering hundreds of grand on something they should be able to work out themselves. But then again, maybe not!

But if they don't do that they wouldn't be able to pocket a little sly percentage.

Primacy of tenancy counts the same as 'owning' in terms of IMG points (this is unchanged from the original published handbook)

I thought as much.

It really should be the case that no club that neither owns nor has primacy of tenancy of their ground should be able to obtain an 'A' grading.

No club, not one, should have any sort of grading.

Gledhill saying the Championship clubs will find out next month how much central funding they will receive and could be based on how many IMG points you have, those who have more could get more which will only widen the gap between the strength of each clubs squads or even threaten the existence of the already struggling less well off clubs.

I've no real issue with grading providing it's done in a better way than using a template from 1980s style 'job evaluations', with criteria that allow for true demarcation, rather than just effectively yes/no as many of the current do, and with the application of minimum standards that apply across the board and aren't watered down if, for example, your stand was built prior to 2015, to get into SL high results on the field.

If the words coming out of several clubs are true there are going to be at least 10* A grade clubs come October so clearly there's not too much wrong with the game...

*Amazing what can be done with a little creative accounting

Incidentally if you don’t happen to like or agree with your grade then it’s tough and sod all you can do about it.

The handbook states“All Clubs agree to be bound by the arbitration provisions contained within this document and by virtue of the same, enter into an arbitration agreement for the purposes of Section 6 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”).

“Each Club agrees that they waive irrevocably their right to any form of challenge, claim, complaint, appeal, review or recourse to any state court or judicial authority, subject to any applicable statutory or other righth[/is.”

Sounds more like a governing dictatorship rather sports to me.

If you play 20 games and get 40 points you should be Champions. If you play 20 games and get no points you should be relegated. The end.

Rugby League survived over 100 years without "central funding" so they have to learn to live without it yet again. Significantly reduce player contracts. whatever it takes it can be done. It needs to be done.

Just saying what’s actually going to be happening next month on thread and sorry but whatever it is it won’t be any of your proposals so with central funding going to continue for 2025 at least I’d rather have all clubs get an equal share per the divisions rather than some getting more especially when it was reported to be based on the IMG system and their points.

A bit from last weeks rugby press and how IMG should be engaging more with the fan base.

After all they have included that in the criteria and in a recent pole as an example.

59.31% voted for a Super League of 14 teams.
32.19% for 16.
6.15% the current number of 12.
And finally.
2.35% for 10.

Can’t see it affecting us and can’t them listening either.

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the fattest pigs with the snouts in the trough vote for a reduced SL of 8 teams to get a bigger slice of the pie. After all, there're some clubs in SL "which shouldn't really be there" when the Framing the Future was being modelled in the 90s.

It really is "Us and Them" isn't it? So much so that I actually want SKY to pull the plug. And it just may happen. SKY has no competition for the rights so can bid what they want anyway, and I'm guessing the number of RL fans who would cancel their SKY subs if no RL would be minimal.