Key difference between grading and licencing explained amid obvious comparisons

[ad_1]

One of the big questions among the more casual rugby league supporter keeping an eye on the sport’s introduction of grading is how it compares to the ill-fated licencing era.

On Wednesday, the Rugby Football League council voted to follow IMG’s proposals for a new grading criteria, which will determine which clubs play in Super League based on several key metrics, from the beginning of 2025.



Licencing was in place between 2009 and 2014 and was similarly designed to raise the standards of clubs. However, while brought in with good intentions, its execution left a lot to be desired.

Read more: Salford Red Devils chairman explains late IMG voting change after sharing grading views

There are, understandably, concerns that the same could happen with grading. However, Rugby League Commercial’s Managing Director, Rhodri Jones, believes there is one key difference that will ensure grading is a fairer, more productive way of driving improvement and ensuring the right clubs are positioned in Super League.

“It’s different because it’s live,” Jones said. “That’s the difference. Licencing was a three-year thing. You could write a business plan now, get accepted into the Super League for the next three years and actually not do anything based on that business plan.

“This is live, this is going to get done on an annual basis so if you’re not changing, not improving, your score is going to be reflected. I liken it to the live salary cap in some ways. You can see, pretty much on a month-by-month basis how you’re going to track because it’s live. Where licencing was three years.”

The RFL’s chief executive, Tony Sutton, was active within the game during the licencing era and reinforced Jones’ thoughts.

[ad_2]

Source link