Quote ="Irregs#16"As a Hull fan, the performance rating is justified, we have been awful. However, for Wakefield to score higher than us in that regard when we have finished above them in the 'standings' every year since 2009 is daft.
We got downgraded for our 2 LED big screens, being too big - hence the pixel quality is diminished apparently. They are UEFA approved, but not IMG - bizarre. We also get penalised for having 2 professional clubs in the same City, yet we are not allowed to include places like Beverley, Willerby, and other West Hull suburbs in our catchment despite having a large supporter base from those areas! When LED screens score higher than Academy, Junior Development etc. just shows how flawed it all is'"
Isn't this the whole point though.
Rugby League is stagnating.
- Sky deal reducing
- Clubs in financial trouble
- Less juniors playing the game
- Etc, Etc
If we continue with the same model, then nothing will change, and whilst I disagree with some of the criteria and the weightings, the idea is to not apply focus on the on field performance of clubs as that doesn't help with growth. The criteria is focusing on viewers, stadium facilities, website clicks etc. It is clearly marketing heavy, but you can see the direction is towards trying to grow the sport. Although one absolutely stinking omission is the mentioning of academies.