The image of the game is so important in this process as we move forward and the rest of the sporting world is watching so although hardly surprising from the individual concerned this sort of stuff doesn't help us at all does it. I guess IMG will learn a lot that many of us already knew about our central administration from this! https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby ... i-28107245

The image of the game is so important in this process as we move forward and the rest of the sporting world is watching so although hardly surprising from the individual concerned this sort of stuff doesn't help us at all does it. I guess IMG will learn a lot that many of us already knew about our central administration from this! https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby ... i-28107245

I guess with regard to their infrastructure if they are a category A club by then it won't matter and if they aren't, then IMG see it as an incentive for them to gain that status in the Championship to get included in the top division. What interested me was the amount of lower clubs that voted for it as it was a massive amount of support for the changes there must be a more equatable sharing out of the tv money afoot I feel

so what happens if you have 15 clubs all grade A?

Then you increase the teams in the comp. They eventually want at least a 14 team comp.

Its a good theory if and the big if is that clubs have the money to do that. I honestley dont think clubs like Cas have poor toilet facilities by choice, or poor parking and unconvered stands.

The loss of home games will probably see more revenue go down and Sky money also. Who is going to subsidise these losses ?

Cant see it working at all.

The loop fixtures took their toll towards the end of last season with pretty much every side struggling with injuries and in some instances (saints & wigan) fielding weakened squads for SL fixtures. Sides have the right to pick what players they like but none the less it doesn't sit right with me that sides are pretty much forced to pick and chose when to rest players for their welfare, particularly with the impact it can have on the rest of the table.

Less games is less strain on the players, less strain should (hopefully) lead to less injuries and better quality of games. As for SKY money, the IMG/RFL should be making the case for more games to be televised each round. If most rounds have 3 games broadcasted it would more than make up for the loss from scrapping the loop fixtures.

As for promotion/relegation, I think the sport is sadly at a point where it is no longer sustainable and is to some degree holding back the game. I am a firm believer that the structure proposed by IMG will give the likes of Toulouse/Bradford/Widnes/London a better chance of getting back in SL in comparison to the current structure. All of which would offer more to the sport then the likes of Batley/Fev and Halifax.

There is a strange mentality from some west Yorkshire clubs that think the proposals are to protect the elite when in reality its a wake up call for them. The sport is in no position to be held back by part time sides who don't have the ambition of reaching the SL.