Grading question

[DaveO]

i believe Cas have a special grading section "The PipeDream" Grading. They scored 5 for all the b***s*** they keep spewing about their new / upgraded stadium, which makes up for the 0 they should score for the actual stadium

Yes I heard Bradford and Cas worked together on the "pipedream"clause,play in a shithouse,try to not pay bills for years on end but get hits hitting Twitter and tik tok by the bots and that's proof they're ready for SL.

Bots and paid followers could be a problem in the social media section. If you want to keep a team up and you've got a botnet you can have a real influence!

Over to you Mike to develop a bot t up Wigan's social media score just in case. While you are at it we need another to reduce Leeds & Saints score.

[josie andrews]

Yes I heard Bradford and Cas worked together on the "pipedream"clause,play in a shithouse,try to not pay bills for years on end but get hits hitting Twitter and tik tok by the bots and that's proof they're ready for SL.

Bots and paid followers could be a problem in the social media section. If you want to keep a team up and you've got a botnet you can have a real influence!

Over to you Mike to develop a bot t up Wigan's social media score just in case. While you are at it we need another to reduce Leeds & Saints score.

[Mike]

Yes I heard Bradford and Cas worked together on the "pipedream"clause,play in a shithouse,try to not pay bills for years on end but get hits hitting Twitter and tik tok by the bots and that's proof they're ready for SL.

Bots and paid followers could be a problem in the social media section. If you want to keep a team up and you've got a botnet you can have a real influence!

Over to you Mike to develop a bot t up Wigan's social media score just in case. While you are at it we need another to reduce Leeds & Saints score.

I reckon we're probably good already. But who do I want in SL... NYC or Las Vegas anyone?

[Dr Zaius]

Stadium is only a relatively minor aspect of the gradings, which is why Cas score OK and why people need to understand this is not a 'rank the stadia' exercise. Cas run a tight ship financially so don't rack up the huge losses of most other clubs, have a decent academy and are typically a mid-table team. Their average crowds are usually around the key 7,500 mark too.

[fozzieskem]

Stadium is only a relatively minor aspect of the gradings, which is why Cas score OK and why people need to understand this is not a 'rank the stadia' exercise. Cas run a tight ship financially so don't rack up the huge losses of most other clubs, have a decent academy and are typically a mid-table team. Their average crowds are usually around the key 7,500 mark too.

That the stadium isn't considered a big deal is shocking to me it's a dump,are the accounts actually audited and signed off at companies House I wonder too?

That these buffoons at IMG seem to care more it seems about social media is shocking it's all well and good connecting with lapsed fans (no bad thing) but you want them back in grounds surely and some of rugby leagues grounds are shambolic it beggars belief it really does.

[the pieman]

Stadium is only a relatively minor aspect of the gradings, which is why Cas score OK and why people need to understand this is not a 'rank the stadia' exercise. Cas run a tight ship financially so don't rack up the huge losses of most other clubs, have a decent academy and are typically a mid-table team. Their average crowds are usually around the key 7,500 mark too.

its still worth 3 marks (15% of overall weighting)

So if we are to use Wigan with my assessment scores (2.25) and Cas (0.95) for comparison purposes are roughly what i'd be scoring the 2 based on criteria, when in reality we all know that Cas are trying to plaster over the big cracks by saying they've now got corporate / seating areas etc etc. In reality the Wigan score may have been 2 as i gave 1.5 for the stadium element and Cas may be higher, but i cant justify how it could be as i'd struggle to justify 0.95 anyway

the whole of the process is a ranking exercise (some of which i agree with and some that IMG have massively missed out on IMO), and whilst i agree that something like this is needed, its only worth the paper its written on if IMG / SL / RFL follow through with it. I dont want a 14 team SL from the end of 2024, just to keep Cas and Bradford happy. If its still 12 and side like that miss out, then they only have themselves to blame for years of lack of investment / abject failure, but knowing RL we'll reward their failure extending SL just to keep the Yorkshire mafia happy

i also note there is a ** after this section for stadiums built before 2015, so a probable get out clause for them

i've also just seen Appendix 2 which relates to minimum standards, and all clubs can lose 0.25 for the following not having a talent and performance pathway, community game development, breach of operational rules, breach of regulatory (ie HMRC) rules, Insolvency, Diversity and Inclusion, AntiDoping and Environmental Sustainability

[Dr Zaius]

Stadium is only a relatively minor aspect of the gradings, which is why Cas score OK and why people need to understand this is not a 'rank the stadia' exercise. Cas run a tight ship financially so don't rack up the huge losses of most other clubs, have a decent academy and are typically a mid-table team. Their average crowds are usually around the key 7,500 mark too.

its still worth 3 marks (15% of overall weighting)

So if we are to use Wigan with my assessment scores (2.25) and Cas (0.95) for comparison purposes are roughly what i'd be scoring the 2 based on criteria, when in reality we all know that Cas are trying to plaster over the big cracks by saying they've now got corporate / seating areas etc etc. In reality the Wigan score may have been 2 as i gave 1.5 for the stadium element and Cas may be higher, but i cant justify how it could be as i'd struggle to justify 0.95 anyway

the whole of the process is a ranking exercise (some of which i agree with and some that IMG have massively missed out on IMO), and whilst i agree that something like this is needed, its only worth the paper its written on if IMG / SL / RFL follow through with it. I dont want a 14 team SL from the end of 2024, just to keep Cas and Bradford happy. If its still 12 and side like that miss out, then they only have themselves to blame for years of lack of investment / abject failure, but knowing RL we'll reward their failure extending SL just to keep the Yorkshire mafia happy

i also note there is a ** after this section for stadiums built before 2015, so a probable get out clause for them

i've also just seen Appendix 2 which relates to minimum standards, and all clubs can lose 0.25 for the following not having a talent and performance pathway, community game development, breach of operational rules, breach of regulatory (ie HMRC) rules, Insolvency, Diversity and Inclusion, AntiDoping and Environmental Sustainability

It's only really 2 points for stadium, the third is the % utilisation metric which is less relevant to stadium quality and which Cas do quite well on anyway.

[DaveO]

Stadium is only a relatively minor aspect of the gradings, which is why Cas score OK and why people need to understand this is not a 'rank the stadia' exercise. Cas run a tight ship financially so don't rack up the huge losses of most other clubs, have a decent academy and are typically a mid-table team. Their average crowds are usually around the key 7,500 mark too.

its still worth 3 marks (15% of overall weighting)

So if we are to use Wigan with my assessment scores (2.25) and Cas (0.95) for comparison purposes are roughly what i'd be scoring the 2 based on criteria, when in reality we all know that Cas are trying to plaster over the big cracks by saying they've now got corporate / seating areas etc etc. In reality the Wigan score may have been 2 as i gave 1.5 for the stadium element and Cas may be higher, but i cant justify how it could be as i'd struggle to justify 0.95 anyway

the whole of the process is a ranking exercise (some of which i agree with and some that IMG have massively missed out on IMO), and whilst i agree that something like this is needed, its only worth the paper its written on if IMG / SL / RFL follow through with it. I dont want a 14 team SL from the end of 2024, just to keep Cas and Bradford happy. If its still 12 and side like that miss out, then they only have themselves to blame for years of lack of investment / abject failure, but knowing RL we'll reward their failure extending SL just to keep the Yorkshire mafia happy

i also note there is a ** after this section for stadiums built before 2015, so a probable get out clause for them

i've also just seen Appendix 2 which relates to minimum standards, and all clubs can lose 0.25 for the following not having a talent and performance pathway, community game development, breach of operational rules, breach of regulatory (ie HMRC) rules, Insolvency, Diversity and Inclusion, AntiDoping and Environmental Sustainability

It's only really 2 points for stadium, the third is the % utilisation metric which is less relevant to stadium quality and which Cas do quite well on anyway.

So despite the fact Cas play in a dump they get points for primacy of use (I assume) and because they average about 7500 (so get maximum points for attendance) and because it’s small so 7500 gives them a high percentage utilisation. They will score more than Wigan on all three.

If I am correct with those assumptions just what is their incentive to improve their ground? They don’t need to.

[the pieman]

Stadium is only a relatively minor aspect of the gradings, which is why Cas score OK and why people need to understand this is not a 'rank the stadia' exercise. Cas run a tight ship financially so don't rack up the huge losses of most other clubs, have a decent academy and are typically a mid-table team. Their average crowds are usually around the key 7,500 mark too.

its still worth 3 marks (15% of overall weighting)

So if we are to use Wigan with my assessment scores (2.25) and Cas (0.95) for comparison purposes are roughly what i'd be scoring the 2 based on criteria, when in reality we all know that Cas are trying to plaster over the big cracks by saying they've now got corporate / seating areas etc etc. In reality the Wigan score may have been 2 as i gave 1.5 for the stadium element and Cas may be higher, but i cant justify how it could be as i'd struggle to justify 0.95 anyway

the whole of the process is a ranking exercise (some of which i agree with and some that IMG have massively missed out on IMO), and whilst i agree that something like this is needed, its only worth the paper its written on if IMG / SL / RFL follow through with it. I dont want a 14 team SL from the end of 2024, just to keep Cas and Bradford happy. If its still 12 and side like that miss out, then they only have themselves to blame for years of lack of investment / abject failure, but knowing RL we'll reward their failure extending SL just to keep the Yorkshire mafia happy

i also note there is a ** after this section for stadiums built before 2015, so a probable get out clause for them

i've also just seen Appendix 2 which relates to minimum standards, and all clubs can lose 0.25 for the following not having a talent and performance pathway, community game development, breach of operational rules, breach of regulatory (ie HMRC) rules, Insolvency, Diversity and Inclusion, AntiDoping and Environmental Sustainability

It's only really 2 points for stadium, the third is the % utilisation metric which is less relevant to stadium quality and which Cas do quite well on anyway.

Fair point

the other 2 points are split between 9 criteria, which means they are almost irrelevant, and thus meaningless, and mean they dont need to put any effort into making up for the stadium being crap. They automatically get 0.5 from the grading as they dont meet min standards

they'll no doubt score 0.75 (or slightly higher) for utilisation, probably because the local H&S wont grant them a safety certificate for > 10k attendees, so another great metric rewarding mediocrity

they'll get another 0.25 from primacy

so for a dump in Cas, you get 1.5 out of 3 for no investment and no incentive to do anything

whereas, and i'll continue to use Wigan (we lose 0.25 at the minute for primacy and 0.5 ish for utilisation). So you look to the future, build a new ground (shared ownership) and are now punished, not rewarded for that. How the hell, is that looking to the future and promoting growth in the game

so i'm completely with DaveO on this one. Where is the incentive for Cas to do anything with their ground to bring it into the 20th century, let alone the 21st