Exactly, taking anything Gledhill says (or tweets) seriously is laughable.
He has zero credibility.

I almost agree with you.
However, IMG will have taken a decent "wedge" to come up with something new and if the net result is Toulouse being promoted in place of Fev (or whoever else), it really hasn't been a worthwhile exercise.
As for putting Bradford back in "years ago", I'm sure that if it was worthwhile, they would have but, Bradford haven't been stable enough to put anywhere and it would have been akin to dropping a grenade into the the comp and just waiting for another big bang.
You've had Nigel Wood as Chairman for the last 3 years and he has both ambition and a book full of contacts to help their "re-birth" and as a club, Bradford are al least competitive in The Championship.

I've said all along this criteria can be manipulated to get the teams they want in top 12

It's not the teams "they want in". It's the teams "capable of getting in"
I think Bradford are a long way off but if they can turn it around to get a license then they deserve it

I never understood why they chose Bulls for a moniker, until I used their toilets. It is just like a cattle shed.

Odsal is possibly the worst ground in Rugby League.

Do you think that anything so far could be described as "reimagining the sport" ?
On the plus side, clubs are having to get their houses in order and show that they are making progress towards the new criteria but, ultimately, there looks like being very little change.
Yes, we could see someone like York or Newcastle getting the nod but, their "on field" performance doesn't merit their inclusion but, we could also see a club like Fev or maybe Trinity or Cas missing out and none of this will do much to elevate the sport in the eyes of the media.
Including Toulouse could give RL a wider appeal but, this would also consign a "heartland" club to the "wilderness".
Yes, they would have the opportunity to try and gain "grade A" status but, what will this actually achieve and where is the 5 /10 / 20 year plan ?

Just seen this on Total RL. It appears clubs can also be deducted grading points, and receive fines. https://www.totalrl.com/the-eight-ways- ... -gradings/

Just seen this on Total RL. It appears clubs can also be deducted grading points, and receive fines. https://www.totalrl.com/the-eight-ways- ... -gradings/

Just to expand the subject of scoring categories.
Aaron Bower has written an article about the catchment area process and scoring - it's at thirteenrugby.com but behind a paywall.

He explains that the catchment area population for each club is reached by dividing the Local Authority District population for each club and dividing it by the number of SL/Championship clubs in that area.

So the Office for National Satistics figure for the Wakefield area according to Bower is 353,300 which, dividing by 3, means Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone will all have a "population score" of 117,767.

Bradford meanwhile have an ONS figure of 546,400 and as they share the District with Keighley that has to be divided by 2, meaning Bradford (and Keighley) have a "population score" of 273,200.

Now to the interesting bit. Every club will score either 1.5 points, 1 point or 0.5 points for this sector.
And the threshold to score 1.5 points has been set at 260,000, with the threshold for 1 point set at 130,000. So Bradford will edge into the maximum 1.5 points, and Wakefield, Cas and Fev get the minimum 0.5 points.

Putting my tin helmet on here, but I'd be very interested to know how they reached those seemingly-arbitrary figures of 260,000 and 130,000. Why not 300,000 and 150,000, or 200,000 and 100,000? I hope the management at Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone are talking to each other about this.

Have to say one whole point lost for that potentially (and something not in the clubs control to change) is quite a penalty if it proves to be that the clubs will be weighted against each other.

If they are judged against other clubs might be unfair on some level. If it’s against criteria then it’s a bit harsh too on something that can’t be influenced by clubs but means they could have to score higher in other areas to make up an A license. Again probably not fair either. Perhaps the points allocated for this section should be significantly less.

JM explained this.
It isn't divided into 3. We get the Wakefield part and they get the area identified as Cas and Fev. So we have the major share.
We should have full points in this.

From the document https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... %20Version).pdf it looks fairly clear? • Catchment Area is defined as the population of the Local Authority District where the club’s stadium is located divided by the total number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 clubs in the same area. • The population data is based on the latest census (2021) and ONS Boundaries for Local Authority Districts. METHODOLOGY Catchment Data: 1. Find club stadium postcode and what Local Authority Area it is in 2. Download this file from the ONS website Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021 - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) 3. Find Local Authority Population

From the document https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... %20Version).pdf it looks fairly clear? • Catchment Area is defined as the population of the Local Authority District where the club’s stadium is located divided by the total number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 clubs in the same area. • The population data is based on the latest census (2021) and ONS Boundaries for Local Authority Districts. METHODOLOGY Catchment Data: 1. Find club stadium postcode and what Local Authority Area it is in 2. Download this file from the ONS website Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021 - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) 3. Find Local Authority Population

Hmm. Are you saying that what he said is right, and what was published yesterday in the Final version of Gradings Document yesterday on the RFL's official website is wrong?

I'm not saying that. JM updated on the back of his meeting with IMG so I've no reason to disbelieve him.

However, I'm not sure which bit you refer to so please hold the line caller while I check.

That link doesn't work and I can't find anything on the site that's new.
So I remain to be convinced.