Thanks MD.
So the playoffs in the Championship were pretty much meaningless as soon as London pulled off a fantastic end of season. I hadn’t appreciated that at all.
I sort of understand the principle of the grading system but can’t get my head around that a team finishing higher in SL could be relegated because a team lower in the league has a higher grading of say 0.01 point.
I always thought that London would be given some sort of dispensation to be in SL and possibly even managed by IMG.

London are planning on running with a similar team to what they had last season, keeping on their part time players and giving them a shot at SL. While i admire the sentiment, i think it is very telling of how far off being a SL level club London currently are.

I think it speaks volumes that most of their fans seem to be accepting of the grading and seem to see it as a fair assessment. I also liked the club itself's statement after the gradings were released, thought it was classy how they acknowledged that it was an accurate assessment of where the club is at currently and their intentions to improve in the area's outlined. Showing some clubs how that statement should have been given as some clubs embarrassed themselves and showed the type of thinking that has put them at that grading in the first place.

Would London with draw from SL for next year knowing they would be relegated regardless? Could they if they wanted to?

I don’t see the point of them getting beat by 70-80 every week. It wouldn’t do them or the league any good. If they are running with the same part time players as previously suggested those kind of score lines would be likely.

Well that is probably their best hope. Run with an extremely cheap squad, essentially forfeit a year of competitiveness and invest all of their SL money into everything else.

I suspect you're correct, but how many here would have said exactly the same about the Lobby Gobblers 12 months ago? I think Cas have to be at least joint favourites to go down next year (unless they seriously pull their socks up).

I think they mean London are doomed because even if they do a Leigh, win the cup and finish 5th, they’ll still be relegated because they won’t get enough points under the new licensing system. I don’t have a massive issue with that, this system was always going to throw circumstances up where teams felt hard done to but we need to ride that period out and it will settle and when it does, it will just keep everyone honest and make sure clubs aren’t just sleeping and plodding along in a comfort zone.

With the new grading system, they will only get relegated if they finish bottom, assuming another grade B team wins the championship GF, won't they?

I don't think many who paid attention thought that about Leigh. They signed a SL quality team in advance and annihilated the championship from round 1. They had a team capable of being competitive in SL a full season before.

London have managed to sneak their way through with a mostly part-time team from 5th. Even they didn't expect themseves to be promoted, hence why they had already re-signed some of their part time players before the playoffs even began. Not comparable.

Re-reading the statement from London, although they said they will stick by their part timers, they have also saod they are having a lot of players thrown at them so hopefully they can cobble something somewhat competitive together before the season starts.

Can't say i am optimistic though, the only signing they have made so far is a Keighley player.

Quote: Jack Burton "With the new grading system, they will only get relegated if they finish bottom, assuming another grade B team wins the championship GF, won't they?'" I may be wrong, but i believe the top 12 graded clubs will be who is in super league next season. Which is why Castleford are upset about being in 13th, a mistake that appears to be completely of their own doing. Mind blowing how you can make a mistake on what is probably the most significant documentation in your clubs whole history. They should be docked points for being that amateur. Interesting article from Matthew Shaw, can't say i completely agree with it all but he makes some good points. Nice to see some actual journalism in RL for once too https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... dium=email

Quote: Jack Burton "With the new grading system, they will only get relegated if they finish bottom, assuming another grade B team wins the championship GF, won't they?'" I may be wrong, but i believe the top 12 graded clubs will be who is in super league next season. Which is why Castleford are upset about being in 13th, a mistake that appears to be completely of their own doing. Mind blowing how you can make a mistake on what is probably the most significant documentation in your clubs whole history. They should be docked points for being that amateur. Interesting article from Matthew Shaw, can't say i completely agree with it all but he makes some good points. Nice to see some actual journalism in RL for once too https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... dium=email

I do wonder if IMG are just serving up what's been tried before and noone liked it back then I suspect this system after couple of years will cause the same sort of feelings..

The TV deal isn't a good start for IMG either,like it or not they were charged with spreading the gospel and sorting the sport and it's TV deal out what's happened so far is much less money for more product unless and again I suspect this will happen the pay per view bunny is pulled out of the bag to offset the losses like I say not a great start.

I've no issue with social media but it simply shouldn't be the be all and end all far to easy to manipulate numbers as no one checks if there's a real person behind the name,yes use social media and try to use it well but be wary of it too.

Yes it is exactly what has been served up before - back in '96 when Superleague was launhced (although that was even more rigorous at the time) but we know how that went and sadly i suspect this latest attempt will go the same way. It is a worthy try but too many of the clubs are willing to dwell in mediocity and make no serious effort to change - as long as they get sufficient crowds they have no interest in the bigger picture or the overall health of the game, short-termism rules.

How much has changed since 1996 - too little - apart from Bradford who bomed and busted it is the same clubs at the top as always - and often there is one other club who sort of hovers around for a while and then fades (Warrington, Huddersfiled for example and now Catalan).

I am pleased to see Hull KR and Leigh doing well (although I do worry that Leigh have put all into one tilt at things and will struggle going forwards - hopefully not).But we do need more clubs putting in a serious challenge.

I am surprised that youth development was not included to some degree - many clubs will lag on this unless forced, despite some restirictions and money issue for many clubs it is not difficult to see that the clubs that have put this at the forefront of their philosophy are the three SL winners, if the game is to grow and develop this has to be important, More so that social media for instance,Internet clicks are not going to produce the next generation of top players.

Wasn't there a bit of talk about expanding to 14 clubs sooner than later just a couple of weeks ago? That would calm some nerves in the lower graded clubs, but I can't help thinking that the lack of relegation didn't work last time & I see no reason to think it'll be an unqualified success this time. Also, isn't there then a temptation for some of those clubs who [ido[/i make the initial grade to use it as an excuse to either do nothing to improve or just the bare minimum to preserve their status? Those with shallow wallets will be in trouble from the off & we could even see another Bradford scenario.
I didn't like it at the time (especially as we lost that first game in Perpignan) but allowing the French a grace period to get their act in gear has actually worked. Why not simply have a grace period from relegation (2 or 3 years at most) to allow promoted teams to settle in but still have promotion from below - yes you could then have the 3rd from bottom going down, but at least it's maintaining the integrity of the league system, and you have a meritocracy instead of a closed shop.

That's a risk isn't it. I don't think this system is perfect. The hope is that as the grading is biased towards performance and Finance, any club coming up should be in a strong enough position to compete and stay up. The gap in standards between SL and Championship will always make that tough but that is already true. A promoted side will now at least already have a good grading score before being promoted, which will likely improve after a year in SL

Teams that are relegated now don't need to throw every penny they have at a playing squad to come back up. Being financially viable and keeping the crowds coming are now important factors and hopefully clubs in the Championship will be more focused on those things that keep them sustainable than they would be under straight P&R