I get Wilkins main point, that there are a few clubs that don’t project Super League like the big few, but what he doesn’t get is that none have done it without a wealthy backer. They’ve all done it through rich supporter, or another organisation, or the council helping them out with grounds. If Tesco hadn’t wanted to build a big supermarket, Saints would still be playing out of Knowsley Road, with fans using open-air toilets (although I prefer Knowsley road to the new one). Hull KR is probably the nearest club to doing it themselves, as they have built slowly, and us!

However, I understand the argument that we got Grade A based partly on winning competitions every other club would have won if they had a full-time squad and half-filled with super league players, whereas Huddersfield and others are judged against stiffer competition, but I can’t imagine any super league club preferring London to us.

How quickly we forget about our own history. We now have an owner with genuine financial resources who was able to secure our return to SL. I don’t want to think where we would be without him and it might have been us wanting the return of promotion and relegation.
The sport never pandered to any group of teams outside SL. I actually believe the Championship will be an exciting league but without much coverage.

We don’t forget about our own history. Whether it be promotion and relegation or IMG I have no doubt that Ellis would have made the required investment. That doesn’t have anything to do with changing and modifying the IMG structure after year 1 implementation though.

If we had failed to make the 12 I would still not want to see any large changes. You shouldn’t change the criteria when clubs are and have been planning to meet the current criteria. Let’s also not forget that recruitment has been completed by most clubs now too so if you change the on field importance of being promoted as a B regardless then clubs who have invested in other parts of the criteria have missed the boat.

If it absolutely has to be reviewed then you do so now for planning and discussion for implantation for 2026 not 2025 comp where pre season is starting imminently.

Absolutely boggles my mind how things don’t get properly structured and planned. Though I suspect this is more just airing out some concerns of the few and paying some lip service perhaps for future consideration and discussion.

I think the criteria is OK to modify as you learn and progress but you shouldn't be changing fundamental principles after a year.

Important to remember nothing’s changing though, and no one’s dicking about. It’s just Batley’s board saying they’ll put a motion forward to have some sort of P&R - their only hope of playing in the top tier. I don’t blame them as such.

What’s sadder is the coverage, which is designed to get people to click and groan and repost. Not blaming that on Matt Shaw as such, it’s just the state of play now.

Like that headline is about as untrue as you can stretch it while still being true