Really surprising that developing homegrown players doesn't score you any points...

I'm all for every club making improvements and making the game as a whole stronger but how can it be a fair system when 1 of the criteria is impossible for certain teams to score points on?

Surely any fair system would give every club the opportunity to score points on every part of it?

Agree with an earlier comment.....if I was MC i'd be out of there too...without hesitation...

We really do need to up the output via social media.

Apparently IMG gave us a good review of that.
Could be improved to get top marks but we are not bad.

Completely agree.
The major concern here is that, someone, somewhere, has decided who they want in SL and the criteria is being designed to achieve a particular result.
Therefore look at who may want to be in SL that isn't currently there and see where they would score.
York, Newcanstle, Toulouse Fev and Braford will be the most likely contenders, plus the current SL clubs.

Like you, I dont understand why community work and junior development isn't right up there but, of course, certain SL clubs really struggle with this, as do many of the Championship contenders.

A B rating whilst being in SL can only be bettered by an A rating in the Championship unless you finish in the relegation position. I doubt any club in the Championship would attract this rating based on the criteria because they would fail on attendances and we would out score them on league position based on the way it is calculated. The downside is however if they decide to go with a 10 club SL.
The bottom line is we must stay in SL to give us any chance.

Let's remember these are proposals, the clubs still have to decide whether this is what they want to happen to improve standards across the board. I know it's supposedly written in stone that they will accept, but you never know......!

INOUT
The top clubs will be largely unaffected by these proposals other than giving them a safety net should one if them have a poor year ala Wigan in 2006 with Leeds and Wire more recently. These proposals will be ratified.

I'm not sure all clubs will be listened to equally

Of course they won't, as some are more equal than others and guess which category we will fall into ??

Good spot DS...wonder how many they will get ??

Has anybody seen any detail of how a club’s catchment area is going to be calculated?
Is our catchment area (along with Cas and Rovers) the Wakefield Met area and will that be compared with London’s and Skolar’s London and the South East? Will Leeds and Hunslet have the same score? It seems likely to be fraught with difficulty and inconsistency to me.

For the 1895? 0.1 points

IMG have been given the job of revamping Super League. Anyone given that job would say they need to two things:
1. Ensure the continuation of big, successful clubs and those who provide a good matchday experience
2. Spread the game

The criteria should do that. Let's be honest, our concerns are only about us, but any objective view of us would say that we bring nothing to the party and never have. Leigh are already adding more to the Super League than us. I get the criteria.

If I were to be given a choice of a successful and vibrant sport of rugby league but Wakefield in the Championship, or a declining Super League that included Wakefield, I'd pick the former. I love rugby league. Wakefield is my team because it's where I'm from and it's the team I've attended for over fifty years, but it's the love of rugby league that underpins everything. The game has got to thrive, or else what's the point?

Quote: Slugger McBatt "IMG have been given the job of revamping Super League. Anyone given that job would say they need to two things That's all well and good but where do think the game will actually thrive? London? Been there York or Newcastle? Would they have a good enough team or just end up with players from the relegated clubs? Bradford? Not financially secure... Cumbria? A team would be good from there, I'll grant you that, but is that feasible? The talk about location areas is a clear indication that they want to remove teams within that certain area, like us, cas and fev. But no mention of the closeness - albeit different cities of Leeds & Bradford. And what about Hull? I would like to see teams [ipenalised[/i points for sharing football grounds in the criteria... I mean we could play at Barnsley FC, which would make us a better proposition. Speaking of Hull I see that we have a new RFL Chief Exec..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/64962394 He worked for Hull FC for 13 years and "assisted" IMG in the plans for moving forward.... Hmmm...

Quote: Slugger McBatt "IMG have been given the job of revamping Super League. Anyone given that job would say they need to two things That's all well and good but where do think the game will actually thrive? London? Been there York or Newcastle? Would they have a good enough team or just end up with players from the relegated clubs? Bradford? Not financially secure... Cumbria? A team would be good from there, I'll grant you that, but is that feasible? The talk about location areas is a clear indication that they want to remove teams within that certain area, like us, cas and fev. But no mention of the closeness - albeit different cities of Leeds & Bradford. And what about Hull? I would like to see teams [ipenalised[/i points for sharing football grounds in the criteria... I mean we could play at Barnsley FC, which would make us a better proposition. Speaking of Hull I see that we have a new RFL Chief Exec..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/64962394 He worked for Hull FC for 13 years and "assisted" IMG in the plans for moving forward.... Hmmm...