Re: IMG : Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:25 pm  

Dunkirk Spirit wrote:

Fair enough PT, but what do London bring to SL more than Trinity do. I think you’ve been around long enough to remember the start of SL, you’ll remember how Trinity were engineered out of SL.

I remember it well!

Re: IMG : Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:36 pm  

Expansion should not be at the expense of existing clubs.
How can it be true expansion if say London and Newcastle are brought in and Trinity plus one other are out.?
Expansion is maintenance of heartland RL and adding to it.

Re: IMG : Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:54 pm  

If you believe that IMG are truly `independent` in the sense of the usual suspects having there usual influence on decisions then I think you are extremely naïve IMO, I don`t believe it for a minute. As Dunkirk alluded to, I`ve seen too much in this game to have faith in the integrity of decisions made and that`s not just where we have been shafted, look at the the Cas relegation / Wigan points deduction postponement situation, had it been the other way around can you seriously say the same would have happened? I really hope that it`s different this time but as I say based on the history you can`t blame anyone for been sceptical.

Re: IMG : Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:57 pm  

London invested properly in can bring more than any club in SL. Unfortunately that will take a monumental amount of money and time to realise that.

Re: IMG : Fri Dec 16, 2022 7:08 pm  

I’ve just read this item from the link. Perhaps we might earn some brownie points after all. But it appears it’s not just about stadium quality “It (licensing) was based on business plans rather than actuals. One of the challenges was that people weren’t sticking to those plans. “We are looking at what you have actually done. It isn’t about planning to build a new stadium.” https://www.totalrl.com/img-vice-presid ... licensing/

I’ve just read this item from the link. Perhaps we might earn some brownie points after all. But it appears it’s not just about stadium quality “It (licensing) was based on business plans rather than actuals. One of the challenges was that people weren’t sticking to those plans. “We are looking at what you have actually done. It isn’t about planning to build a new stadium.” https://www.totalrl.com/img-vice-presid ... licensing/

Re: IMG : Fri Dec 16, 2022 7:14 pm  

Dunkirk Spirit wrote: I’ve just read this item from the link. Perhaps we might earn some brownie points after all. But it appears it’s not just about stadium quality, but the wording is a bit ambiguous “We are looking at what you have actually done” “It (licensing) was based on business plans rather than actuals. One of the challenges was that people weren’t sticking to those plans. “We are looking at what you have actually done. It isn’t about planning to build a new stadium.” https://www.totalrl.com/img-vice-presid ... licensing/

Dunkirk Spirit wrote: I’ve just read this item from the link. Perhaps we might earn some brownie points after all. But it appears it’s not just about stadium quality, but the wording is a bit ambiguous “We are looking at what you have actually done” “It (licensing) was based on business plans rather than actuals. One of the challenges was that people weren’t sticking to those plans. “We are looking at what you have actually done. It isn’t about planning to build a new stadium.” https://www.totalrl.com/img-vice-presid ... licensing/

Re: IMG : Sat Dec 17, 2022 1:43 am  

Dunkirk Spirit wrote: I’ve just read this item from the link. Perhaps we might earn some brownie points after all. But it appears it’s not just about stadium quality “It (licensing) was based on business plans rather than actuals. One of the challenges was that people weren’t sticking to those plans. “We are looking at what you have actually done. It isn’t about planning to build a new stadium.” https://www.totalrl.com/img-vice-presid ... licensing/ We built a sustainable business model We built a first class academy and scholarship with clear pathways to first team football PDRL and LDRL We built an award winning community programme We own our own ground We are refurbishing the ground to excellent standards Other than the mortgage for the ground we operate with little or no debt Areas to develop further: the ladies team (ready for full professionalism) The commercial interface The multi sport Educational facilities Seems good progress to me… put a couple of genuine moneybags directors and we’re flying

Dunkirk Spirit wrote: I’ve just read this item from the link. Perhaps we might earn some brownie points after all. But it appears it’s not just about stadium quality “It (licensing) was based on business plans rather than actuals. One of the challenges was that people weren’t sticking to those plans. “We are looking at what you have actually done. It isn’t about planning to build a new stadium.” https://www.totalrl.com/img-vice-presid ... licensing/ We built a sustainable business model We built a first class academy and scholarship with clear pathways to first team football PDRL and LDRL We built an award winning community programme We own our own ground We are refurbishing the ground to excellent standards Other than the mortgage for the ground we operate with little or no debt Areas to develop further: the ladies team (ready for full professionalism) The commercial interface The multi sport Educational facilities Seems good progress to me… put a couple of genuine moneybags directors and we’re flying

Re: IMG : Sat Dec 17, 2022 3:04 am  

Spookisback wrote:

We built a sustainable business model
We built a first class academy and scholarship with clear pathways to first team football
PDRL and LDRL
We built an award winning community programme
We own our own ground
We are refurbishing the ground to excellent standards
Other than the mortgage for the ground we operate with little or no debt

Areas to develop further:
the ladies team (ready for full professionalism)
The commercial interface
The multi sport
Educational facilities
E
Seems good progress to me… put a couple of genuine moneybags directors and we’re flying

All great. But we don't have Montgomery Burns

Re: IMG : Sat Dec 17, 2022 10:34 am  

People would feel far more comfortable with this if IMG had put their cards on the table before finding out who may want to be in SL.
Notwithstanding the fact that, on principle, you shouldn't promote/relegate anyone because they have more or less plastic seats.

I'm ok with having well defined minimum standards for SL but, this isn't what appears to be happening and who decides which criteria is most appropriate.

Just imagine if, at some point, in an attempt to expand the game, there is some geographical restriction on whether a club could be in the top flight.
Of course, they've said, from the get-go that A grade clubs wont be relegated but, as more clubs achieve this grading, RL will become a protection racket for certain clubs, just as it always has been, with certain clubs having substantially more influence then others into the running of the game.

Just remember folks, we were effectively chucked out once before.

RL is a sport and should be about what happens for 80 minutes on a Sunday afternoon and not measured by having X number of plastic seats and it's a major, major worry that IMG seem to have this concept back to front.

Re: IMG : Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:05 am  

Just noticed this from yesterday’s Difficult to disagree with the first 4 of these clubs, but how the hell does number 5 keep getting the positive press. https://www.totalrl.com/imgs-overhaul-o ... -the-most/

Just noticed this from yesterday’s Difficult to disagree with the first 4 of these clubs, but how the hell does number 5 keep getting the positive press. https://www.totalrl.com/imgs-overhaul-o ... -the-most/