Not a lot's changed there then. When you attempt to improve a sport and only 25% of your solutions are connected to performance summat's badly wrong! Hopefully Fax don't vote in favour of these proposals. BTW, what's fandom?

Some talent on the IPG. Exciting times and important times for the club.

Can’t help feeling that with being in the championship we are hamstrung when it comes to point scoring in the criteria - best way to have £4 million turnover, 10,000 attendance and 40% of stadium being used is to be playing the very best week in and week out in a vibrant competition with risk, surely..?

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... B81%5D.pdf Bit more in-depth.

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... B81%5D.pdf Bit more in-depth.

Well at least provisionally the targets have been set out, how realistic it is for clubs such as us who have ambitions to reach them is another thing but whether they can or can’t it will be down to them to determine what current level each of them is at.

Because of being in the highest division it was inevitable that the existing SL clubs would be better placed for an initial higher grading.

Since the goal is always to aim upwards IMG were always going to start at the top.

With that in mind the reasoning is, why should the best of the sport of rugby league (SL) lower the standards to match that of say the Championship?

Or the second best, Championship to Championship 1 level, would we be happy to do that?

is hardly Rugby League reimagined. Below is the list of criteria for SL licensing for 2009-2011

Attendances

A point will be awarded to clubs with an average attendance of around 10,000 spectators. Another point will be awarded if stadiums are operating at 40 per cent capacity.[13]

Finances

Teams will receive a point if they are solvent. Another point will be awarded if their turnover is more than £4 million.[13]

Player strength

Teams earn one point if they are considered to have made a contribution to the competition - that means averaging a place in the top eight over each of the last three seasons. Another point is available to clubs who make a contribution to home-grown player development. That means at least eight members of a first-team squad of 25 should be discovered, trained and developed in the team's home country (United Kingdom or France).[13]

Salary cap

One point is on offer to teams who have not committed a major breach of the salary cap in the last three seasons.[13]

Geographical expansion

The final point goes to clubs who do not have another rugby league club within a 20-mile radius

An alternative viewpoint https://keighleycougars.uk/keighley-cou ... -proposals

An alternative viewpoint https://keighleycougars.uk/keighley-cou ... -proposals

Like I say I’m gonna reserve judgement until there’s more clarity on the situation, the grading system seems quite complex and probably needs to be simplified for the average Joe just wanting to support their club . With onfield performance only contributing 25% does that enthuse teams to actually play to their best , who knows , usually onfield performance and fandom ties together but fax who have had two good seasons haven’t seen a significant rise in attendances . I’m also not sure super league is the promised land , as a product I find it quite boring. What’s ironic is that rugby league has spent the last 30 years trying to make it what it was three decades ago , a great product.

When involvement of IPG was first muted I naively hoped that they would be coming up with new ideas to raise the profile of the game, or increase levels of investment/sponsorship. As has been said this feels just like a very modest revamp of old licencing guidelines. It's almost as though no one has put any thought onto it for 12 months, then suddenly realised they had a week to produce something so just dug out the old licencing guidelines and reworded them slightly. While I'm realistic enough to realise that some change to the promotion/relegation structure is needed, if the main aim of the proposals is to increase crowd numbers, having a system that only applies 25% to onfield performance shows a complete lack of understanding about what motivates supporters to back their team.

[Part quoteWhile I'm realistic enough to realise that some change to the promotion/relegation structure is needed, if the main aim of the proposals is to increase crowd numbers, having a system that only applies 25% to onfield performance shows a complete lack of understanding about what motivates supporters to back their team.

Regarding the performance weighting it’s because everybody knows what draws in the crowds and expects every sports team to try and win every game regardless so they won’t need any encouragement in that area.

For years the first team is where all the money had been spent whilst other areas have been neglected so making them more important is intended to give more incentive to invest in them.

Not saying it’s the right or wrong approach, just offering an explanation.

Let’s face it the new proposals are just rehashed versions of previous licensing. The player pool isn’t big enough to support a professional league of over 12 teams both financially and the onfield product. The main issue is and always will be distribution of money by the rfl through the sky tv deal , without transparency and complete objective governance the teams will by enlarge remain in their current status unless a rich benefactor is put in place to overturn the status quo. You can have all the points systems you want but without money you might as well fight the wind .