Posted on the RL site @ 12.30pm today

Reimagining Rugby League – Update

Clubs and other members of the Rugby League Council have today been informed of changes to the club grading criteria for the Reimagining Rugby League proposals, under which clubs will be rewarded for the extent of their community engagement.
Following extensive consultation with clubs and Community Rugby League representatives in the weeks since the proposals were first presented to Council on March 9, the Catchment category has been renamed “Community” and will include points under the proposed model for clubs’ positive impact in the communities in which the sport is based and played.
Such activity will be worth up to 2.5 points of the maximum 20 on offer and therefore carries a significant impact, and will now combine each club’s fanbase potential with a rating for their Foundation – the charitable bodies linked to clubs which drive much of their community and participation activity.
This will be measured on the Foundation’s turnover, with a maximum of 1 point available – and the previous Catchment category now worth a maximum of 1.5 points (having previously been up to 2 points).
The Finance pillar will now carry a maximum of 4.5 points, compared to the original 5.
There has also been a small amendment to the Digital section of the Fandom pillar, with a greater emphasis on overall engagement.
In addition, details of the Minimum Standards that will support the club grading criteria have been circulated – with further details to be supplied to clubs via conference call next Wednesday (April 12), before a meeting of the Rugby League Council votes on whether to accept the recommendations on April 19.
These standards have been broken down into eight categories, including Community Game Development – requiring clubs to have a registered Foundation and an engaged Community Development Plan to be graded A or B – and Talent and Performance Pathway, which will also be necessary to be graded A or B, with a Women’s team required for a Grade A Talent and Performance Pathway as well as complying with the Player Welfare Policy.
There are also Minimum Standards around Anti-Doping, Environmental Sustainability and compliance with Rugby League’s Professional Club Governance Code – which includes Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.
Clubs can lose grading points for failing to comply with the standards, while the remaining three categories cover breaches of the Operational Rules (including Salary Cap), of other regulations, or the existing Insolvency Policy – again, with penalties stipulated.
Tony Sutton, the RFL’s Chief Executive Officer, said: “The RFL and RL Commercial are grateful to clubs and other Council members for their constructive engagement since the proposals were presented last month.
“Throughout the process, we have worked with our strategic partner IMG to keep stakeholders informed – including supporters through the media and our own digital channels.
“Our aim for the period since the proposals were first presented has been simple - that going into the vote, clubs will be making an informed choice.
“As a result of feedback, we have worked with IMG to amend the club grading criteria to provide greater recognition for clubs’ engagement with their communities through their Foundations – which strengthens the category previously known as Catchment.
“The development of Foundations has been one of the great successes of Rugby League in recent years – enhancing the contribution the sport makes in the communities in which it is established – so it is absolutely right that this is now included in the criteria.
“The Minimum Standards underpin the club grading criteria – we have been working with clubs to introduce such standards in recent years, and this process helps us embed best practice that clubs currently show with the aim of raising standards more widely to the advantage of the sport as a whole.
“Crucially, this process remains democratic as well as informed and transparent. The clubs and other Council members will decide later this month whether or not the sport accepts the recommendations that overwhelmingly last Autumn we as a game asked IMG to develop for us and bring forward. We look forward to dialogue continuing over the coming weeks.”

I've forgotten.
Does Talent and Perfornance Pathway include the academy?

I don’t know PT, I don’t think JM mentioned that part when he discussed the IMG criteria at last night’s shareholders meeting. Today’s statement by IMG doesn’t specify Academy, but isn’t the lack of Academy grading the reason most clubs asked for the criteria to be reviewed.

I’ve just noticed this Tweet by the Game Caller, I’m not sure if the review was about minimum standards, unless having an Academy is part of Minimum Standards.

Whilst the community changes are welcome. It feels like the RFL/IMG have responded to Keighley’s strong criticisms of the historic lack of application of minimum standards. The RFL/IMG has acted and will now punish and remove points from
clubs that don’t meet minimum standards.

After what appears to be a considerable length of time spent consulting and building this criteria it doesn’t I still confidence that modifications and changes are already taking place.

Not that I don’t agree with them.

Academy and pathways should most certainly feature significantly in the criteria I would think. We need to increase player base for the future of the sport and the talent pool for all leagues in the sport.

My question isn't so much about what IMG are doing.
More about, when people talk about Talent and Performance Pathway, does it include academy, or is that a different thing.
It's just terminology I'm wanting to clarify.

Completely agree, there’s no hood us just having the principals or headline criteria. We need detail to understand what each section entails.

I would imagine there will be one huge document containing all this but it would be a shame if more detail wasn’t filtered down to the fans of the sport.

As I see it and I believe there is a change needed in RL but from what I read from the start of this, is that IGM have not been asked to look at growing RL at any sort of grass roots or academy level only to grow RL to a wider ordinance by getting larger amounts of people to see the game.
For me we have entrusted to survival or RL league to a marketing team. Irrelevant if succeed or not they get paid. Will walk away in 12 yrs whatever state the game is in, whether or not it’s worked.
The RFL are totally to blame for this, just shows what a lack of leadership is in the RL by amateur, weak self indulgent individuals.Yes employ a marketing company, but to give them the keys to the mansion then what need is there for the RFL at all, as what will they be doing for their money?
The clubs of any part of the leagues should throw this out if they had any thought of the future of Rugby League and send them back to the drawing board and bring a new plan to the table which involves growing a stronger sport from the start.
Super league started all this were alright Jack attitude in RL. Easy in hindsight but monies from the sky deal should always have gone to the RFL central fund and distributed accordingly to clubs in each division with a good percentage kept by the RFL for growing a strong governing body like what happens in RU. Thank you again mr grab what you can Lindsey!!! Yes the RU clubs might be in the sh.t but christ the governing body could financially stand a small war and that makes them strong unlike us with a pi..poor and weak governing body.
This should be IGMs main objective, get a strong main body and sell the best action for more profit and grow participation in the sport not just the marketing rights.
About time RL clubs stood up to the idiots that believe they run an amazing governing body!!!

Quote: comeontrinity "As I see it and I believe there is a change needed in RL but from what I read from the start of this, is that IGM have not been asked to look at growing RL at any sort of grass roots or academy level only to grow RL to a wider ordinance by getting larger amounts of people to see the game. For me we have entrusted to survival or RL league to a marketing team. Irrelevant if succeed or not they get paid. Will walk away in 12 yrs whatever state the game is in, whether or not it’s worked. The RFL are totally to blame for this, just shows what a lack of leadership is in the RL by amateur, weak self indulgent individuals.Yes employ a marketing company, but to give them the keys to the mansion then what need is there for the RFL at all, as what will they be doing for their money? The clubs of any part of the leagues should throw this out if they had any thought of the future of Rugby League and send them back to the drawing board and bring a new plan to the table which involves growing a stronger sport from the start. Super league started all this were alright Jack attitude in RL. Easy in hindsight but monies from the sky deal should always have gone to the RFL central fund and distributed accordingly to clubs in each division with a good percentage kept by the RFL for growing a strong governing body like what happens in RU. Thank you again mr grab what you can Lindsey!!! Yes the RU clubs might be in the sh.t but christ the governing body could financially stand a small war and that makes them strong unlike us with a pi..poor and weak governing body. This should be IGMs main objective, get a strong main body and sell the best action for more profit and grow participation in the sport not just the marketing rights. About time RL clubs stood up to the idiots that believe they run an amazing governing body!!!'" I have to agree with you, and I think its fair to say, I’m still no wiser re the points system, Below is another link with just a little more information, but I’m still no wiser. e.leeds-live.co.uk/_act/link.php ... d=11474281

Quote: comeontrinity "As I see it and I believe there is a change needed in RL but from what I read from the start of this, is that IGM have not been asked to look at growing RL at any sort of grass roots or academy level only to grow RL to a wider ordinance by getting larger amounts of people to see the game. For me we have entrusted to survival or RL league to a marketing team. Irrelevant if succeed or not they get paid. Will walk away in 12 yrs whatever state the game is in, whether or not it’s worked. The RFL are totally to blame for this, just shows what a lack of leadership is in the RL by amateur, weak self indulgent individuals.Yes employ a marketing company, but to give them the keys to the mansion then what need is there for the RFL at all, as what will they be doing for their money? The clubs of any part of the leagues should throw this out if they had any thought of the future of Rugby League and send them back to the drawing board and bring a new plan to the table which involves growing a stronger sport from the start. Super league started all this were alright Jack attitude in RL. Easy in hindsight but monies from the sky deal should always have gone to the RFL central fund and distributed accordingly to clubs in each division with a good percentage kept by the RFL for growing a strong governing body like what happens in RU. Thank you again mr grab what you can Lindsey!!! Yes the RU clubs might be in the sh.t but christ the governing body could financially stand a small war and that makes them strong unlike us with a pi..poor and weak governing body. This should be IGMs main objective, get a strong main body and sell the best action for more profit and grow participation in the sport not just the marketing rights. About time RL clubs stood up to the idiots that believe they run an amazing governing body!!!'" I have to agree with you, and I think its fair to say, I’m still no wiser re the points system, Below is another link with just a little more information, but I’m still no wiser. e.leeds-live.co.uk/_act/link.php ... d=11474281

All conveniently very vague. It seems they have just brought the minimum standards part which is already there into the scoring system. It’s unlikely going to change much at all. The RFL have somewhat backed themselves into a corner by having a two-tier academy system. By awarding some clubs elite licences and also refusing other clubs bids to have them, even when they wanted to run one, they have created a situation where it would be unfair for it to be judged on on quality and results alone. For now they will likely have to just have a ‘junior pathway’ in place, which could be a full elite academy set up or could be a college link up and/or basic junior set up. It will probably be tightened up down the line but right now they’ve created a rod for their own backs.

My take on all the IMG proposals is that it is nothing more than page after page of corporate speak. It has no depth or clarity and is open to interpretation and manipulation. It has therefore delivered what it was always intended to do, and that is to give unlimited power to a few clubs to dominate this sport in their own self interest.

Why would they do that though?

There needs to be more detail but most of the points are valid for me.

Out of interest, have we seen any targets IMG have to hit? Have we seen any strategic plan of where they want the game to go? Or is the goal just purely to make the game more commercially successful with no KPI's?

There are three ways of looking at how to grow the sport.

There is the IMG commercial model, which is create an exciting and vibrant top-flight, with lots of fans and engagement, with millionaire owners and sponsorship and TV money. The extra interest in the game because of the vibrant top flight, will spread the game and increase interest, with a spin-off of more grassroots involvements.

This first option is aimed at the top teams in super league and growing the game.

There is the growth model, which is invest heavily in grassroots and create an even playing field amongst all the clubs.

This second option doesn't necessarily improve the top flight nor create extra business money or sponsorship or TV money, but does create a healthier growth in heartland areas.

The third option is to carry on as we are and see how it goes.

In reality, the first model has more chance to deliver what IMG have been instructed to deliver. The second model is a strong heartlands game, but IMG weren't instructed to make sure Fev and York have a good academy. The believe is that the survival of the game is dependent on TV money and sponsorship, with the growth lower down spinning off that success.

I agree with that approach, but the conflict sums up the problem of a largely regional game. The top clubs want big crowds and vibrancy. The smaller clubs, like us, want to be able to sit at the top table, even if we can't deliver the same. Is the future of the game dependent on Fev doing well? I hope not.

It is different in Aus, where the same local conflicts are not played out in the same way. Here, our strength is our strong local support. It is also our biggest weakness.

Maybe I'm just paranoid but, the "tweaking" of criteria will be centred around who they want to have in SL.

Lets just think that, there is little point in having their consultation, if this will result in the same 12 clubs remaining in SL.
Therefore, who do they want in and who do they want out.

The criteria will fit this narrative.