Well I think that’s what clubs outside of SL believe, and that’s why they want the current criteria changed, interesting times ahead, who will blink first, IMG or none SL clubs, keeping in mind that the Sky deal ends this year, and nothing’s been announced re new deal, MCs comment re clubs returning to part time if there is no new deal, then why would clubs outside SL vote for an IMG scheme that excludes those clubs. As I have said, interesting times ahead.

Some updates from the Keighley fallout
Tweets taken from the “Game Caller” past couple of days

Keighley Cougars go to Parliament. The Sports Minister, Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP together with Robbie Moore MP met with Cougars owners Kaue Garcia and Ryan O'Neill to hear their objections to the IMG proposed cartel.

Keighley and the consortium of clubs against the IMG proposals now have cross party Parliamentary support fully behind them in their fight against IMG and their Reimagining Rugby League proposals. Worrying this is now playing out in Parliament.

Worth remembering that we are in a crucial consultation period and IMGs Reimagining Rugby League proposal announced at Huddersfield was the first draft so to speak. Good to see the consultation process working well between the RFL/IMG for these changes/revisions to be made.

There has been an important update on IMGs Reimagining Rugby League proposals. The RFL have told clubs this morning that there will be changes/revisions to the proposals announced at Huddersfield. The clubs will be discussing these changes/revisions at a meeting next week.

Ive read today thst some of criteria changing mostly around academy and it been more in the points

Whilst a sensible u turn (of sorts) we are so far down on performance, fandom and location it hardly matters. Also we will post a £400k+ loss on the finance front for last year. We're going down this year and we certainly will not be in a position to dislodge the worst SL B grade team for the 2025 season and thats optimistically assuming we'll finish high enough in the championship to challenge for the promotion spot.

Featherstone now taking the p!ss out of us (and Cas). Not only are we the joke of SL, championship clubs are piling in too. That's how far we have sunk this year.

What date is Khlav?

I know, and we're the butt of the joke.

Posted on the RL site @ 12.30pm today

Reimagining Rugby League – Update

Clubs and other members of the Rugby League Council have today been informed of changes to the club grading criteria for the Reimagining Rugby League proposals, under which clubs will be rewarded for the extent of their community engagement.
Following extensive consultation with clubs and Community Rugby League representatives in the weeks since the proposals were first presented to Council on March 9, the Catchment category has been renamed “Community” and will include points under the proposed model for clubs’ positive impact in the communities in which the sport is based and played.
Such activity will be worth up to 2.5 points of the maximum 20 on offer and therefore carries a significant impact, and will now combine each club’s fanbase potential with a rating for their Foundation – the charitable bodies linked to clubs which drive much of their community and participation activity.
This will be measured on the Foundation’s turnover, with a maximum of 1 point available – and the previous Catchment category now worth a maximum of 1.5 points (having previously been up to 2 points).
The Finance pillar will now carry a maximum of 4.5 points, compared to the original 5.
There has also been a small amendment to the Digital section of the Fandom pillar, with a greater emphasis on overall engagement.
In addition, details of the Minimum Standards that will support the club grading criteria have been circulated – with further details to be supplied to clubs via conference call next Wednesday (April 12), before a meeting of the Rugby League Council votes on whether to accept the recommendations on April 19.
These standards have been broken down into eight categories, including Community Game Development – requiring clubs to have a registered Foundation and an engaged Community Development Plan to be graded A or B – and Talent and Performance Pathway, which will also be necessary to be graded A or B, with a Women’s team required for a Grade A Talent and Performance Pathway as well as complying with the Player Welfare Policy.
There are also Minimum Standards around Anti-Doping, Environmental Sustainability and compliance with Rugby League’s Professional Club Governance Code – which includes Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.
Clubs can lose grading points for failing to comply with the standards, while the remaining three categories cover breaches of the Operational Rules (including Salary Cap), of other regulations, or the existing Insolvency Policy – again, with penalties stipulated.
Tony Sutton, the RFL’s Chief Executive Officer, said: “The RFL and RL Commercial are grateful to clubs and other Council members for their constructive engagement since the proposals were presented last month.
“Throughout the process, we have worked with our strategic partner IMG to keep stakeholders informed – including supporters through the media and our own digital channels.
“Our aim for the period since the proposals were first presented has been simple - that going into the vote, clubs will be making an informed choice.
“As a result of feedback, we have worked with IMG to amend the club grading criteria to provide greater recognition for clubs’ engagement with their communities through their Foundations – which strengthens the category previously known as Catchment.
“The development of Foundations has been one of the great successes of Rugby League in recent years – enhancing the contribution the sport makes in the communities in which it is established – so it is absolutely right that this is now included in the criteria.
“The Minimum Standards underpin the club grading criteria – we have been working with clubs to introduce such standards in recent years, and this process helps us embed best practice that clubs currently show with the aim of raising standards more widely to the advantage of the sport as a whole.
“Crucially, this process remains democratic as well as informed and transparent. The clubs and other Council members will decide later this month whether or not the sport accepts the recommendations that overwhelmingly last Autumn we as a game asked IMG to develop for us and bring forward. We look forward to dialogue continuing over the coming weeks.”

I've forgotten.
Does Talent and Perfornance Pathway include the academy?

I don’t know PT, I don’t think JM mentioned that part when he discussed the IMG criteria at last night’s shareholders meeting. Today’s statement by IMG doesn’t specify Academy, but isn’t the lack of Academy grading the reason most clubs asked for the criteria to be reviewed.

I’ve just noticed this Tweet by the Game Caller, I’m not sure if the review was about minimum standards, unless having an Academy is part of Minimum Standards.

Whilst the community changes are welcome. It feels like the RFL/IMG have responded to Keighley’s strong criticisms of the historic lack of application of minimum standards. The RFL/IMG has acted and will now punish and remove points from
clubs that don’t meet minimum standards.

After what appears to be a considerable length of time spent consulting and building this criteria it doesn’t I still confidence that modifications and changes are already taking place.

Not that I don’t agree with them.

Academy and pathways should most certainly feature significantly in the criteria I would think. We need to increase player base for the future of the sport and the talent pool for all leagues in the sport.

My question isn't so much about what IMG are doing.
More about, when people talk about Talent and Performance Pathway, does it include academy, or is that a different thing.
It's just terminology I'm wanting to clarify.