WARNING! RAMBLE ALERT! : Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:54 pm  

So rambling in fact that RLFans can't take it being pasted in one go. Several posts therefore in coming.

Re: WARNING! RAMBLE ALERT! : Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:03 pm  

A few RL chairmen have been quite vociferous over the “transparent” IMG grading proposals. Bongser, if you please, will give his own humble musings on them below. Herein he will be presuming that clubs have not been given more info than that released to we fans.

Firstly the hasty departures of Rimmer and Co spoke volumes as to just who called in IMG. The supposed realignment of the RFL and SL was a sham and it is to be assumed that a (very) few SL chairmen both called in IMG and informed them of their actual remit.

Let’s take the proposed criteria seriatim (IMG in Red, musings in Black):

FANDOM

What an awful word to start with!
OBJECTIVE: Assess clubs on the size of their fanbase and reward growth.

Yep, straightaway smacks of benefiting the big clubs! Furthermore why is there not a comma after the word “fanbase”, that would have de-necessitated Bongser having to read it twice to make sense of it. A better, clearer version might have been:

OBJECTIVE: To assess clubs on the size of their fanbase and to reward growth thereof.

Everybody makes gaffes typing late at night on social media, but this is supposedly an important document! Do IMG employ illiterates?

Moving on, and it to be remembered that there are only 20 points available:

ATTENDANCE: 2.5 pts

Obviously favours the big clubs; St Helens, Wigan, Warrington, Leeds & Hull FC. But there is no mention of the breakdown of those 2.5 pts. The full monte for one attendance over 10,000 (including finals on neutral grounds) and JACK for everyone else? Expand on it, explain, pretty please!
As to rewarding growth, please again give criteria. DB (Gor bless ‘is leopard print socks) has worked hard, employing Scouting for Girls, The Fuel Girls, T’Pau (Carol seems to be a Leyther now, judging by her tweets) and The Lottery Winners to make home matches into rounded events. Add in the bonus of larger travelling contingents due to being back with the big boys and attendances are very much up.

On a side note, one Sunday Bongser was in The Pendle Witch and asked Darren (who books that venue’s live acts) if he had come across The Lottery Winners. Daz, despite personal animosity toward the lead man, recommended them and directed Bongser to Youtube (Spotify has a few of their songs too). They’re actually quite a good pop-rock band and with a lyric like,
“Don’t be so afraid of losing the game for you’ve got to play it anyway - get up and START AGAIN”, it could be an “anthem” for Derek, The Leopards and, indeed, the whole sport. Check ‘em out on the 30th.

VIEWERSHIP: 1 pt

Again an awful word! We are to assume that this means “people watching on the box”. The icons feature Channel 4, SkY and Viaplay. Bongser has no idea what Viaplay is (though he thinks he remembers that Premier Sports has been taken over and, if it is by that company, it might be worth tuning into for two, errrm “points of interest”!)

Are the live streams from Our League factored in? What about retrospective viewings of full games / highlights on club websites or Youtube? Cynical Bongser is surprised that “The Super League Show” isn’t included - it would benefit the top division’s teams and exclude everyone else! What about folk watching live in pubs? The pub has to pay through the nose to show a match and will not do so if the interest is not there.

DIGITAL: 1.5 pts

Broken down into three sections; SOCIAL, WEBSITE VISITS and TOTAL ENGAGEMENTS. The only one that’s vaguely transparent is the middle one (0.6 pts) , one easily manipulated using multiple “Bots” - IF A CLUB HAS A WEBSITE! Bongser still looks up the Leigh RLFC website every day in hope. Does that count? Also follow The Leopards & Derek on Twitter (and today dutifully began following Leeto just in case it helps) but do not use Facebook and do not have an Instagram account. Is Bongser letting the club down on the SOCIAL side (0.3 pts)? As to TOTAL ENGAGEMENTS (0.6 pts), wow! Feel confident that La Jeunesse (not a sports fan) would prefer the question to be finally popped to her somewhere romantic rather than on the Centre spot at LSV with 8,000+ fans baying “Tell ‘im ‘Nope!” Seriously, what does it mean and where is the metric?

Re: WARNING! RAMBLE ALERT! : Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:08 pm  

PERFORMANCE: Clubs to remain incentivised to perform on the field.

OMG IMG the above is truly groundbreaking. Performing on the field has been the intent of every side in every game since Sport’s inception. It is usually incentivised by the possibility of silverware or promotion and the threat of relegation - two of which things IMG “has been instructed” to minimize then eradicate. Hence onfield performance is only 25% of the story as far as their criteria go. JOKERS!

LEAGUE PERFORMANCE (4 pts):

[color=#FF0000]Teams are ranked 1-36 based on where they finish in the leagues and playoffs for the last three seasons.[/color]

Surely that should read “finished….for the last three seasons”?

How are they ranked? Each of the three divisions presently has playoffs for the top teams at the end of the season proper (something Bongser dislikes intensely (as do many others.)) Let’s take a look close to home. Last season Leigh (then Centurions) romped The Championship, losing only one game and breaking multiple records (in a positive way) as they went. Would that rank them 13th (below the 12 SL teams) or would it merely go on their performance in the playoffs whereby they could be 13th (winners) 14th (runners-up) J15th (losing semi-finalists) or J17th (also rans)? If a combo of the two, how is that calculated?

IMG would have done better allotting 3.5 pts to this section (3.5 to the highest ranked team, 3.4 to the second highest, 0.1 to the second lowest and jack to Team 36). The extra 0.5 pts would be better allocated to the following section.

Teams are awarded bonus points for winning the league and cup competitions:

Super League - 0.75 pts
Challenge Cup - 0.25
Championship - 0.25
League 1 - 0.1
1895 Cup - 0.1

Winning SL (by which it is to be assumed they mean the Grand Final rather than topping the table) 0.75 pts (a mere 3% of the full pie, though that could rise, with a No1 ranking (4 pts), to 19%). Fair enough a lot of sports cups give free entry to the following year’s cup to the defending champions (that they maybe wouldn’t be defending otherwise (see Liverpool who were allowed into “The Champions’ League” qualifiers even though Everton had beaten them to 4th spot). Winning SL under the present system would guarantee the chance to defend the title anyway. What Liverpool were (quite rightly) not granted the following season was exemption from “relegation” in that they were not automatically awarded a spot for a third season.

Challenge Cup - 0.25 pts

Winning the Challenge Cup is one of Bongser’s earliest memories of Leigh RLFC and one of the two closest to his heart (you can guess the other - and no GF just a completely separate Premiership Playoff between the top 8 clubs that carried very little kudos for fans). Yup, the CCup win was over half a century ago and should not lend any weight to these gradings (nor does it). But surely winning such a prestigious event (viewed by far more people around the world than the GF) the previous year (but not THREE) should be with more than 1% of the weighting - if we are herded down this track.

Championship - 0.25 pts

Again assuming that this means winning the “MPG”, this would have put Leigh on more performance points than Toulouse at the end of last season. Leigh have won the Champ four times in the last eight seasons. Is Bongser the only one that would trade one of those instances for a Challenge Cup win? Hmm? No, he thought not. Yet the two are given the same ranking.

League 1 and 1895 Cup - 0.1 pts apiece: there to make the numbers balance. No more thought than that from IMG.

Re: WARNING! RAMBLE ALERT! : Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:15 pm  

On to the next section.

FINANCE - 5 pts:

Nearly half of those points (2.25) is given to NON-CENTRALISED TURNOVER. By that Bongser thinks that they mean monies other than telly dosh. If so then YET again, it favours the established clubs. Attendance has already been covered and rewarded above but is herein being rewarded again - we need not wonder why!!

Derek has probably been the biggest source of non-centralised funding for Leigh, followed by gate receipts, sponsorship and merchandise sales.

Bongser gets to LSV for about half of our home games (though it will be harder this season due to the days on which we play) but his tuppence ha'penny contribution is as nothing next to an undefined “six figure” sponsorship from Homes Together! A big call out to them, AB Sundecks, Elvis E and all the other sponsors (large or small) of this club… the squad numbers have just been announced for the Leigh Leopardesses along with their personal sponsors - add the latter to your trusted trader list. Merchandise? A lot of people are buying (literally) into the rebrand but Bongser still can’t take to the home shirt. This IMG gubbins may, however, tempt him into digging deep for away one - though he would rather they first define the sub-criteria in this section!!

Now to an enormous red herring:

NON-CENTRALISED TURNOVER AS % OF TOTAL TURNOVER.

This is obviously a sop to lower clubs whose whole finance is from non-centralised funding. 100% to all of them! But Whoopee-fourcan-Ding! Surprise, sur-fourcan-prise, this section only gets a third of the weighting of the one above!

IMG need to realise that, although we may be Northerners, we are not corn-belt or alligator swamp-belt Americans (with the possible exception of certain, past or present, members of the RFL).

Then come other subcategories of FINANCE (0.5 pts apiece) - most, but not all of which, Bongser (as a non-qualified accountant) will not comment upon.

The one he will comment on is INCREASE IN OWNER INVESTMENT. Is that NUMBER of actual spondoolicks invested or that number as a percentage increase on previous investment? One would think that, should these shenanigans achieve their purpose, the fat cat chairmen will be seeing a return on their investment. With either of the above scenarios, they (whilst reaping the rewards) would only lose out on 0.5 pts. IMG seems fond of the word “incentivise”. Chairmen further down the pyramid would see the drawbridge going up and therefore be disincentivised to invest. This is piffle and tosh.

Re: WARNING! RAMBLE ALERT! : Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:24 pm  

Now onto the minor categories, the first of which is:

STADIUM (3pts) - Stadium facilities to reach minimum standards and add value to broadcast and fan experience.

Interesting that “broadcast” comes before “fan”, wouldn’t you say!

Define “minimum standards”. We’ve been here before during Licensing - the RFL “saw no ships” on many occasions when these were not met.

STADIUM FACILITIES (1.5 pts): Well LSV has ample toilet facilities; hot and cold drinks (including alcohol) are available to buy also hot and cold food and snacks (really like Peter’s Meat & Potato Pies); there are also corporate boxes and lounges, more than adequate floodlighting and a big screen. The playing surface is second to none and spectators have the choice of standing or being seated. What else do they want at a sports arena - massage parlours? Hairdressing salons?

UTILISATION (1): Which means what? Yes it is also used by other teams. The facilities can be hired for private functions. There have also been a couple of high profile concerts there.

PRIMACY OF TENURE (0.25 pts): Thankfully a small percentage of the points up for grabs as Leigh does not have Primacy of Tenure as Manchester United want the pitch relaid in their close-season meaning during Leigh’s season. Leigh are therefore unable to stage home matches for two months of the summer even if a broadcaster wants them to do so. However, here’s an interesting little point. Following the demise of a couple of high profile Rugby Union clubs, the RFU decided to introduce new licensing criteria one of which was going to be Primacy of Tenure but this criterion was found to be in contravention of UK competition laws! Whoopsadaisy, IMG!

LED (0.125): Bongser assumes that this means that the floodlighting has to be the very white and bright Light Emitting Diode type rather than old fashioned bulbs (or mirrored candles!) Pretty sure the lighting at LSV ticks this box. This section should also ask whether the lighting is roof-mounted or on stanchions that spoil sight lines.

BIG SCREEN (0.125): Tick for LSV.

CATCHMENT (2pts): To maximise growth of the sport in the largest markets to generate new fan bases.

= Area population divided by number of clubs in the area.

AREA POPULATION: Defined as the population of all cities and towns (i.e. of all built up areas or their subdivisions).

Remember Andy Burnham, erstwhile MP for Leigh and one-time President of the RFL? This is where he comes in. Every Leopards fan should write to him and ask that Leigh return to comprising the traditional six vills: Westleigh, Bedford, Pennington, Atherton, Tyldesley cum Shakerley and Astley. Leigh’s population would roughly double overnight but there would also be a kickback for Andy: he could say that he had finally given Leigh a railway station. Bongser’s Goodness! What would rival fans have to sneer about then?

As to further population growth:
Ladies, lie back and think of Leigh; Gentlemen, dig for victory!

Number of clubs in the area presumably means number of pro or semi-pro Rugby League clubs but is, yet again, not properly defined.

RAMBLE OVER!

Re: WARNING! RAMBLE ALERT! : Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:26 pm  

That is a beltin read, well done that man.

Re: WARNING! RAMBLE ALERT! : Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:33 pm  

I think the LED one is in reference to LED advertisement boards, which we have at LSV.

As for the rest, right now it's difficult to assess as there isn't enough detail. I'm not liking the feel of a lot of it though, especially the idea that all the clubs will be ranked and the top 12 are automatically in SL. Doesn't seem like a good move for the game below SL.

Re: WARNING! RAMBLE ALERT! : Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:04 pm  

micktheleyther wrote:

I think the LED one is in reference to LED advertisement boards, which we have at LSV......

Aaah ! Sorry there wasn't an LED one. You're probably right this being from IMG. Bongser supports sponsors when they are relevant to his needs, but has not noticed any of the hoardings at LSV (LED or otherwise) as he has installed an Ad-Blocker in his specs / brain. We are all now so bombarded with adverts that they cease to be noticed most of the time and are just plain annoying (to the point of antipathy toward the brand) the rest of the time!

Re: WARNING! RAMBLE ALERT! : Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:30 pm  

Bent&Bongser wrote:

Aaah ! Sorry there wasn't an LED one. You're probably right this being from IMG. Bongser supports sponsors when they are relevant to his needs, but has not noticed any of the hoardings at LSV (LED or otherwise) as he has installed an Ad-Blocker in his specs / brain. We are all now so bombarded with adverts that they cease to be noticed most of the time and are just plain annoying (to the point of antipathy toward the brand) the rest of the time!

Good idea with the ad blocking specs!

Re: WARNING! RAMBLE ALERT! : Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:40 pm  

Thanks Bongser for giving your thoughts on the IMG proposal. One item that irks me, appears not to mentioned at all, and that is the pitch dimensions. Once upon a time if memory serves me right, pitch markings used to be less prominent, with only half-way and possibly a 22 or 20 metre marked out. At some point League adopted a more uniform American Football - grid system. This helped with referees being able to take teams back a more uniform distance. Then rules like 40-20 came in to keep wingers on their toes. The obvious result of this change is that pitches should be 100 metres long plus in goal areas. I find it horrendous to watch Castleford at home with their famous slope and ridiculous spacing between 30 and 40 metres. According to Wikipedia it is Field size 120 by 74 yards (110 m × 68 m). If the in goal area is 10 metres, the pitch can only be 90 Metres at maximum. With 5 metres lopped off both 30-40 markers. Such a non-standard dimension has helped Castleford develop a unique style of play and no doubts is worth extra points every season.
Vossy highlighted during the World Cup, that even a new stadium like Hull FC is not a 100 metre playing surface.

Bradford with their historical hole in the ground and corresponding Speedway track have pitch dimensions of 111.74 m x 67.79 m. This is a narrow pitch only marginally narrower than Castleford. Which results in very little play down the flanks and Leigh demonstrated last year, the best route is to steam roller a team down the middle.

The official guidelines for a Rugby League pitch is 112-122m x 68m. Castleford is not long enough and Bradford is not long or wide enough. Yet both clubs will be wanting category A status.

Don't even get me started on either of these stadia or the fine stadium at Wakefield.