Re: Tolouse. : Sun Nov 19, 2023 11:30 pm  

dboy wrote:

Our attendance score won't change at all.

Why's that then? is it anything to do with the average over 3 years? I'm guessing even if we average 5500 next year our score won't change till we get back into SL.

Re: Tolouse. : Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:00 am  

We don't have the ground capacity (or indeed the fans), to take our 3 year average to the next threshold, in one season.

On the flip side, our score can't go down either.

[PopTart]

Re: Tolouse. : Mon Nov 20, 2023 6:05 am  

dboy wrote:

We don't have the ground capacity (or indeed the fans), to take our 3 year average to the next threshold, in one season.

On the flip side, our score can't go down either.

Indeed. Using the average attendances you posted we'd need an average this year of 13,629!!

Re: Tolouse. : Mon Nov 20, 2023 8:19 am  

PopTart wrote:

I kinda don't mind Toulouse being competitive with us.
I know it sounds great to think we'll walk through the league but the crowds need a but if chance in the game to keep coming

Don't we just need to get 15 IMG points for an A grade and we are back in SL.
The one thing i think that needs changing on IMG scoring, is this catchment area thing. To me, why was it set at 130,000 ? have IMG explained why this particular figure, how did they arrive at 130,000 which gives the 3 WMDC clubs a huge disadvantage,and costs each club quite a lot in lost points. None of the other SL clubs i don't think are as affected as badly as we are. The population of our Metropolitan council area in January this year was,according to google figures 353,802,so with population growth currently averaging around 5% yearly, by the end of 2024 our population should be around 360,000. divide this by 3 and our clubs have a catchment area each of 120,000.
Wakefield CITY [not counting outer areas like Ossett etc.] population is 110,000 according to 2021 census,Castlefords around 45,000 and Featherstone 18,000,yet we all get equal points for catchment area, i.e all 3 clubs in WMDC are classed as a "Small catchment area"

Re: Tolouse. : Mon Nov 20, 2023 9:08 am  

KevW60349 wrote:

Don't we just need to get 15 IMG points for an A grade and we are back in SL.
The one thing i think that needs changing on IMG scoring, is this catchment area thing. To me, why was it set at 130,000 ? have IMG explained why this particular figure, how did they arrive at 130,000 which gives the 3 WMDC clubs a huge disadvantage,and costs each club quite a lot in lost points. None of the other SL clubs i don't think are as affected as badly as we are. The population of our Metropolitan council area in January this year was,according to google figures 353,802,so with population growth currently averaging around 5% yearly, by the end of 2024 our population should be around 360,000. divide this by 3 and our clubs have a catchment area each of 120,000.
Wakefield CITY [not counting outer areas like Ossett etc.] population is 110,000 according to 2021 census,Castlefords around 45,000 and Featherstone 18,000,yet we all get equal points for catchment area, i.e all 3 clubs in WMDC are classed as a "Small catchment area"

Absolutely agree with that. At the last membership shareholders meeting, John Minards did say he was in communication with Tony Sutton at the RFL (think that’s his name) regarding this very matter. Unfortunately, John doesn’t appear to be connected with this matter now, and I don’t know if anyone else within the club has taken up this batton. I do hope someone has, if not, then Trinity and the other 2 clubs are disadvantaged as there is no way they can increase this IMG score simply because catchment area numbers are beyond the clubs control.

[PopTart]

Re: Tolouse. : Mon Nov 20, 2023 9:10 am  

We need enough IMG points to be in the top 12 to be in Super League.
15 points means we would be in SL no matter what others do.

The Community points around catchment area are based on the local authority District....from 2021! They won't change it before the first audit so we are just going to have to live with it.
No one is affected as much as the 3 'calder' teams but a few have 2 in the district.

Re: Tolouse. : Mon Nov 20, 2023 9:12 am  

Dunkirk Spirit wrote:

Absolutely agree with that. At the last membership shareholders meeting, John Minards did say he was in communication with Tony Sutton at the RFL (think that’s his name) regarding this very matter. Unfortunately, John doesn’t appear to be connected with this matter now, and I don’t know if anyone else within the club has taken up this batton. I do hope someone has, if not, then Trinity and the other 2 clubs are disadvantaged as there is no way they can increase this IMG score simply because catchment area numbers are beyond the clubs control.

Maybe all three clubs could put out a joint statement asking fans, where possible, to have another child?

Re: Tolouse. : Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:38 am  

111

imwakefieldtillidie wrote:

Maybe all three clubs could put out a joint statement asking fans, where possible, to have another child?

We need approx. 30,000 population increase to WMDC over the next 18 months, that should take us to around 390,000, divided by 3,equals 130,000 each club, Get bonking folks !!!!

Re: Tolouse. : Mon Nov 20, 2023 11:54 am  

KevW60349 wrote:

111We need approx. 30,000 population increase to WMDC over the next 18 months, that should take us to around 390,000, divided by 3,equals 130,000 each club, Get bonking folks !!!!

If it's based on the 2021 census, you'll need a time machine too.

Re: Tolouse. : Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:19 pm  

PopTart wrote:

Just looking at the Bradford squad. They are no mugs either.
The top 5 I reckon are a pretty tough opposition.

I like the look of York this season. Blooded a lot of young players who went well last season and will be better for it this season.

We still need to pull in a handful of quality players to be challenging for finals with more certainty imho. The squad hasn’t nearly enough depth either.

We absolutely need a pack leader.

York, Bulls, Fev, Toulouse will be tough opposition next season.