Re: IMG Announce Proposed Criteria for Super League 2025 : Thu Jul 06, 2023 5:34 pm
PopTart wrote:
He does. But your statement that it is on the RFL website, seems to no longer be true. Which casts doubt.
I don't know either way, but as I said in my original post, JM told us it was being worked out in a different way, based on his meeting with IMG.
So to answer your question, I do believe him, but time has moved on since then and IMG may have changed the details.
I don't know either way, but as I said in my original post, JM told us it was being worked out in a different way, based on his meeting with IMG.
So to answer your question, I do believe him, but time has moved on since then and IMG may have changed the details.
No, it's still there. There seems to be an issue that when you try to cut and paste the link, it changes the URL but if you google "rugbyleague.com uploads" it will come up as one of the first links.
In any case, as mentioned earlier, captaincaveman has cut and pasted the relevant parts. It's fairly well documented that some chairmen and CEOs didn't understand a lot of the implications of grading when the inital document was released and that's partly why I highlighted this specific point - it's of much bigger implication than many will grasp from such a long document.
To put it into context - if the 3-year on-field performance grading of Wakefield, Fev or Cas ended up being nine positions higher than that of Bradford (eg finishing 11th compared to 20th for Bradford), and all other gradings were equal (just for the sake of this argument), Bradford's score of 1.5 for catchment area compared to 0.5 for the three WF teams would see them ranked higher overall.