@jon but from what journalists like James has said previously the population points are based on census. The next census where the 130k number would be shown is 2031? So it wouldn’t be in effect until then.
@jon but from what journalists like James has said previously the population points are based on census. The next census where the 130k number would be shown is 2031? So it wouldn’t be in effect until then.
You're probably right, I've not took any notice of it, but wow - imagine using a source that's only updated every ten years. That's absolutely shocking.
I've asked IMG on twitter/X the question about population's used in the criteria. I doubt they'll answer, but using outdated estimates would seriously flaw the outturns. Let's be honest, it's not going to change things that much for Widnes anyway.
@jon What other way can you ACCURATELY count population? An estimate, which is a guess or a cast iron figure you know was right in 2021?
The fact we are debating how to count population when discussing rugby league shows how farcical the situation has now become. And I may add, not for admitting a new team, but when discussing a team that's existed for 150 years.
Heres a statistic for you London has a population of 8.8 million, Sheffield has a population of 556,500. The Broncos have been going for 44 years and the Eagles for 40 years and how many fans do they actually get.
While we are making stuff up, how about you lose -1 point for every professional football team you have in your town? That has more of an impact on "fandom" than most of the IMG measures. Widnes/Halton has zero, so up the rankings we go!
@jon What other way can you ACCURATELY count population? An estimate, which is a guess or a cast iron figure you know was right in 2021?
The Census is an estimate. It's not cast iron. It's the best estimate, but it's still an estimate. It's a snap shot, as at 21st March 2021.
The ONS use that estimate to complete mid-year population estimates. Using birth/death/migration (both internal and external) using various sources. There's more here, if you're instersted [believe me it's not much fun] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/methodologies/populationestimatesforenglandandwalesmid2022methodsguide
In principle I am not against some sort of grading system, I remember (as we probably all do) the framing the future initiative. at the time, when I stood at Wakefield in what was just a wreck of a ground, and yet they could sign players like they did just to stay in SL, I thought something needed to be done. However, like many of the posts on this forum have shown with the excellent questions, this IMG scheme just seems something that took five minutes to throw together.
The opportunity for promotion is great, its the relegation that hurts. I can understand investors steering clear when you can lose your shirt based on one game or a referee's decision. If you want to build a club up, that risk just makes it prohibitive. You have to throw money at it, get out of the championship quick and get into SL, and there are not many around who can afford that. If you can build the club over a number of years with the knowledge that whilst you won't get promoted you won't get relegated and will have annual home games against Bradford and Widnes, who have travelling fans, then you could build something special with all the community and youth development we want.
The IMG thing, in my opinion, is just playing with the situation, and I agree with gpo1971, a breakaway by the championship clubs would be great. We get bugger all from the RFL anyway. Personally I would be in favour of the divisions set out as the NFL use in the States, while your team is strong you can go through to win silverware and while it isn't you can rebuild without have the ground pulled from underneath you. It is actually as enjoyable to see your team develop as anything else, which I think we all have appreciated this year at Widnes. Anyway, it won't happen as the RFL will just take the path of least resistance and shout how well it has done.
Think I must be getting cynical.
Dan1's point is fantastic. Got my vote.
@jon if you download the data from the census it says its the most accurate. The mid year estimates, which take into account births , deaths etc, get less accurate year on year from the date of the census. That's what is says.
Tbf, if they did it the other way round and it cost us a whole half point, I'd wager you would probably find that shocking too!
Whilst most clubs are struggling for money, I wonder how much IMG are charging?
The only real criteria that is used is that Wigan, St Helens, Warrington and Leeds are guaranteed a permanent place in SL and a larger slice of the Sky money.
The spreadsheet approach to promotion and relegation is a nonsense, as this discussion has shown. Surely on population, a more relevant statistic should be average attendance compared to population.
There should be promotion and relegation between the Divisions based on results, with a fairer distribution of central funding and financial incentives for success ie league position and competitions.
I doubt anything will change until one of the big Clubs faces financial meltdown, when the wealthy sponsor withdraws.
......surely not! As has been said previously, the whole system is a farce! Maybe they will one day come up with a criteria for how many supportes have been driven away from the game through their own poor decision-making and self-interest.....0.25, 0.5 or 1 point, anybody...?Just doing the maths makes you wonder why the club voted for this. Regarding the population statistic, something the club have no control over. Widnes local authority is Halton with a population of approx 128,000, thus giving us 0.5 points. Leigh which is smaller than Widnes comes under Wigan borough, as such they score 1 point. Then there's Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley (Dewsbury & Batley are similar sized towns to Widnes) which come under Kirklees, an authority that covers TEN towns, again they all outscore us. Then there's clubs in areas of over 250,000, the likes of Sheffield, Bradford and Toulouse who are all given 1.5 Points. Now a gifted 1 point advantage doesn't sound much until you realise all other things being equal we'd have to out perform them on the league ladder by NINE places just to nullify it.
These are all excellent points, and if I may, as a fan of another club I'd add that the grading boundaries for population seem to have been set in a fairly arbitrary manner that seems to work against a fair few clubs in northern towns. As you are probably aware, the cut-off point between 0.5 points and 1 point is 130,000, which conveniently leaves Widnes just under the threshold for 1 point , as it does to my club Fev (and Cas and Wakefield) with Wakefield Borough population coming to just under 360k which divided by the 3 clubs means a total for these purposes of around 120,000. It's almost like they looked at the figures for certain clubs and then decided the boundaries...
@wrlfcefc1989 There was a report on total rugby last year which said they had submitted an invoice for £450,000, which is an astronomical figure for marketing advice. Not sure if there hasb been any further updates on that.