Indeed. Without a Moran/Beaumont/Ellis type person it's about small incremental improvements. The notion that our existing backers can contribute massive amounts to match those at other clubs isn't right.

Now that the off field side of the club is improving, there is a bit of pressure to hoover up as many performance points in 2025 as possible with a levelling off of the top tier - not much to choose between us, Toulouse, York, Sheffield, Fev etc.

Good news! TKO (the parent company of UFC and WWE) have agreed a deal to buy Endeavour who are the parent company of IMG.

People on other forums talking up cross over marketing opportunites. I mean some people really have no grasp of reality. I'm sure we can now look forward to seeing Roman Reigns running out for Batley or James Bentley taking on Tom Aspinall in the octagon

I keep seeing people slating the IMG process and whilst its far from perfect, look at what it is forcing clubs to do... improve their businesses and grow the sport.

Without IMG, do you really think Wakefield would have put the money into their ground to make the improvements they did? Would Keighley be building their new stand? Would Bradford have made efforts to buy back the lease in an attempt to get a redevelopment back on the agenda?

P&R has been in our game for years and yet all we have seen is a group of clubs seek to consolidate their place in SL for the smallest amount possible, whilst allowing the teams above to go unchallenged.

Hull KR are a fine example of a club that have seen the benefits of developing their organisation from top to bottom, not just focused on the playing staff and it has massively strengthened their overall standing as a club. This is the approach that IMG should be forcing clubs to adopt, and yet people are moaning before its even got off the ground.

Without change which forces clubs to look at themselves hard in the mirror, the sport will die. No club has the right to exist, and some are no more than glorified amateur teams. In fact some would be shown up by a fair number of NCL clubs.

The NRL have proven that a closed shop produces better outcomes, whilst still having a thriving rugby pyramid where every club plays at its level and if it wants to take that leap to the big stage, they need to prove they have all the pillars in place to be competitive and successful.

What is so wrong with that?

Bullinmyeye- I agree with most of your opinions . Standards are important and should be rewarded.
My first qualification is that when superleague started the standards demanded were never enforced . Quite a few clubs made little or no attempt to improve facilities and/ or structures such as academy pathways. Many fans remember this and suspect that history might repeat itself.
That may be a jaundiced perception but there’s absolutely no doubt that the 11 British Superleague clubs have a “me first “ mentality. I’m open to correction but I believe the “brass” is still shared by those clubs and not Catalans. They act like a cartel.
Your contrast with the NRL is accurate with a partial exception. Superleague clubs now consists of 11 clubs along the M62 corridor with a French outlier receiving no central funds outside prize money. The NRL clubs are based in 3 states in areas with significant markets. And there is a path to expansion in Australasia - it’s difficult but the conditions are clear.
I might be in a minority but I’ve always believed our sport will never become a major sport until it has major bases in or around cities/ large conurbations . The existing clubs ( and it’s them who actually dictate the sports strategy ) have never paid more than lip service to expansion. The only successful expansion has been over the channel and my belief is that would not have happened if the French had demanded a share of the funding