Exiled Wiganer
-
Posts
10,083 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Exiled Wiganer
-
-
11 hours ago, Worzel said:
If the criteria involved an assessment of future financial strength to the detail you oddly expect, in a competition where several clubs rely on season ticket sales post-season and commercial agreements won post-season, then it would have so much subjectivity that everyone on God's earth would be up in arms about the scores.
"Yes, that was last year but look we're going to sell 20% more season tickets for next season"
"Yes, that was this year's shirt sponsorship, but seriously, I'm about to sign a front-of-shirt deal with a blue chip firm for double the amount for 2025, we're almost there on the paperwork"
It just doesn't make any sense. The model assesses the last 3 years, and uses that to form the basis of an evaluation of what is likely to be the present state. Salford scored poorly on that basis, rightly so.
You're desperately trying to apportion blame to an outside bogeyman. The fault lies with Salford, and the choices they're making with the resources they have, and have had consistently recently. It's nobody else's fault they have made plans more in hope than expectation.
I have absolutely no idea why you are finding this so difficult to follow.
Why is it “odd” to expect a financial test to consider the ability of a club to stay afloat? Forward looking tests are business audit 101. You seem to be saying that that would be some form of crazy witchcraft. I hope for your sake you never buy a business.
I am not “desperate” in the slightest. Read the actual words, and take off your IMG t shirt and rose tinted glasses gift set.
There is no need for a “bogeyman”. People successfully sue for missing out unfairly on business opportunities all the time, after supposedly competitive tenders. Usually they train their guns either on the person or persons applying the test or the person who denied them that opportunity. If the test is not fit for purpose, but has been applied correctly, then their case becomes much harder of course.
This is a serious matter. Something has gone so wrong that the clubs are all meeting today to investigate a request - some might say a “desperate” one - to get an advance of funds because Salford can’t pay their bills. They are doing this within weeks of having been confirmed in SL for 25. If I were running any club I would want to know how this happened, what the assessments were meant to do, how they were applied and most importantly who knew what, and when. If I were in charge of Toulouse I would be very interested indeed.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, dkw said:
But no one who is questioning the score has been able to show which part of the scoring was wrong for them, it seems to all be based in "feelings".
I am not sure whether you are saying my stance was in your opinion based on “feelings”, which I am guessing would be a terrible thing: what next, women voting? It doesn’t concern me or keep me awake at night. I have hopefully expressed myself sufficiently clearly by now: there is a great deal to know and understand about this happening so close to the award of places for 25. There is a great deal we do not know, and anybody in their right mind would want to look into whether there is anything actually to worry about (if not, then we can all go on with our lives), or whether it is as simple as Salford portray it and there is nothing to see here. However, if there is a fundamental problem with their financials which throws into question their future, then it would be insane not to look closely at the integrity of the process that was followed, in the 3 areas I have spelt out. Because this was a process which resulted in another club being denied entry into SL for 25.
I will follow this story with keen interest, and genuinely hope it is non story.
I do have misgivings, which I make no secret of, around asking IMG to do some of the things that they have done as part of this process, based on my own experience, so there is a large element of confirmation bias in my take. I readily admit that.
l think Toby’s measured position is the one I think best addresses this issue.
-
2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:
And furthermore, under the old system Salford would have continued to fly high in the league, comfortably escaping relegation and winning praise for how well they're doing for a smaller club - until one day they suddenly went pop like several clubs before them and the gnashing of teeth began.
Under this system they're already on the edge of exclusion from the SL due to their financial weakness. If people want to increase the weighting of the finances score - which would probably finish off Salford in SL - then fine by me.
It’s so peculiar that a club could seemingly score enough by every other matrix than actually having any money and be given a ticket to SL.
When we have seen clubs go bust time and time again. Though perhaps the answer is that when providing answers to the “financial stability” element of what seems to be universally described as IMG’s criteria they presented a rosier picture than they should have done.
Tomorrow’s should be an interesting meeting.
-
1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:
1. No its not, Salford scored very poorly in that financial aspect.
If it was down to just financials, based on the grading Criteria alone, it's likely (without having read every club's breakdown) that Salford wouldn't be in Super League.
They are in the top 12 because the grading isn't just down to financials. It really isn't that complex.
I am not sure why you keep labouring a point I didn’t make.
It really isn’t that complex. We have put in place a system in which a club has run into instant financial difficulties after being awarded a place in SL which was not decided on the field. That is a major issue. Hence the key questions…
What does that say about the system? What does that say about how it was implemented? What did Salford know and what did Salford say?
-
11 hours ago, Worzel said:
Let me keep this simple:
1. The financial assessment is backward looking, at a fixed point in time. It doesn’t predict the future.
2. RL Commercial does the grading assessment, not IMG. They just designed the idea.
1. So the test is rubbish. A club could literally run out of money the next day and still get a good score. Or by historical do you mean you look at the past to extrapolate into the future?
2. And IMG played no part in asking questions or carried out any analysis/made any judgment.
3. I beg your pardon entirely. If you mean that nobody looked ant any projections or took a view as to asets/liabilities and their effect on future trading, then IMG are only at fault for the test being possibly the most useless financial robustness test in human history.
The IMG designed system has got off to a terrific start!-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said:
You're conflating a lot of things there.
You can question whether the criteria are the right ones but there's nothing spurious about how they were assessed.
And even if Salford had known their new revenues were in doubt, none of that was relevant for the numbers that went into the grading.
Salford have performed a magic survival trick for several years, largely due to superb recruiting and coaching combined with a uniquely benevolent local council. But as Tommy says that luck could run out on all aspects very soon, and if it does, it won't take long for that to be reflected in the gradings.
No need for conspiracies or Harry-style suggestions of legal action, the facts will out in due course.
I hope the facts will out, and I hope all of our clubs thrive.
So far, this outcome confirms a specific misgiving I have around IMG being asked to do what they were asked to do, and it is really that line that I am most interested in. It may be that these are great tests, perfectly applied, Salford may have been entirely full and frank, and it’s a non story. I hope that’s the case.
But if any single one of those things is not true then the game needs to get a grip on it.
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, wasginger said:
WWE wrestling I think he means
I have no idea what that is.
-
1 minute ago, gingerjon said:
That should end the debate on this specific bit really.
Really? Which specific bit?
It merely makes the point that they were awarded certain scores under the system that was adopted, which isn’t the main point anyone that I have seen is debating.
Again, can those criteria be deemed to be fit for purpose, when Salford may well fall apart within weeks of being awarded a place. Were they applied properly? Did Salford give full and correct information?If I were Toulouse I would be looking very closely at this, because at one step removed it seems like they may have been excluded on spurious grounds, or worse, if Salford knew or should have known this train was coming down the track towards them.
By the way, I loved watching Salford last year, and would be delighted to watch them in SL next year. I fully appreciate that it is there but for the grace of God/a rich benefactor for all sporting clubs. My points are simple enough - were these rubbish tests? Were they applied properly? Were Salford asked the right questions? Were Salford honest/open in their answers? These seem to be questions absolutely fundamental to the direction of travel for this system.
I am not prejudging any answers, save that my experience of seeing IMG in action over the last 10 years is that they are good at what they know best, and that is broadcasting and sponsorship.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, JohnM said:
It might help you if you were to go right back to the very beginning and re-read the RFL/IMG documentation. That would set your mind at rest and clear up any false assumptions that are being resurrected. I don't think you need lose any sleep over IMGs financial ability. It’s all a metter of public record. This might help: IMG (company) - Wikipedia
Have you actually had any contact with them in the real world?
-
1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:
Correct. Or at least nearly anything.
The 'owner investment' and 'balance sheet strength' categories could be effective here, but combined they only award an extra 0.5pts. So clubs that have support to fall back on if needed aren't really rewarded much more than those that don't.
So I'd be in favour of beefing this up. But for those that don't like principle of gradings in general, this would only take us further into "off field" territory.
I am not privy to those debates, but given that there is a straight line cause and effect between buying good players and winning, how can considering the ability to pay those players be considered to be “off field”? I suspect we are ad idem on this.
-
2 hours ago, JohnM said:
"we paid them anyway"
How much?
what for?
when?
anything to do with grades?
I assume IMG have been paid.
I assume IMG’s job included an assessment of the clubs’ suitability to be in SL.
I assume they have been paid in accordance with their contractual terms, because I have seen no sign that they are downing tools or walking away.
I assume IMG either award or recommend grades, with letters such as A, B and C, with A being better than B and so on.
I assume Salford were awarded their grade based to some extent on financial representations and analysis.
If any of this is wrong, then that would affect the extent to which the points I made in my longer post above continue to stand.
(Personally, I would not employ IMG to carry out a financial audit, by the way. But others may disagree.)
-
9 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:
The financial test isn't rubbish, but it could have more teeth. But it isn't any worse than what was in place before to stop a club spending money that hadn't come in yet - ie nothing.
As for its application, noting the above paragraph, it was applied just fine.
We haven’t paid anyone before to assess teams. A forward looking test should have highlighted that Salford were a very risky proposition. What was required was a level of informed judgement. IMG know nothing about how to do this, but we paid them anyway. They can count social media hits, and do know how to work sponsors and broadcasters. In a way blaming them is futile - it’s like blaming a plumber because they made a rubbish job of mending your roof.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:
Indeed. From what I can see, Salford have received the appropriate points for the revenue they generate, which given SL status is roughly top-12. They haven't received much/any bonus for having a strong financial underpinning. But that's just the same situation as most clubs in the system - they're running on pretty fine margins.
The difference this year is that Salford have budgeted for revenues that haven't come on stream yet, so have hit trouble. But that won't show up in the criteria (nor would it have failed any pre-IMG financial rules).
Looking at the IMG criteria scoring, I'd say there should be more points available for really strong financial positions. Currently the financially stronger clubs only get 0.75 pts more than anyone else.
A bigger differential wouldn't stop a Salford style situation, but it would better reward the clubs that are much less likely to end up in one. That might have seen Toulouse pip Salford if such scoring was in place.
IMG can do deals with sponsors and broadcasters. They are not financial experts. It is no wonder their tests appear rubbish, and have been rubbishly applied.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Or, alternatively, as Salford haven't reached the highest grade possible, Salford whilst poor are still overall one of the best 12 clubs in the UK and France, reflecting an indictment on the game's position and that of clubs below them more than anything else.
I don’t really see where the “alternatively” comes from there.
Do you mean that yes, the tests were brilliant, properly applied, that Salford gave full and honest disclosure, and were properly scrutinised, and they still ended up a better proposition than Toulouse? If so, then clearly there would be nothing to see here.
-
“On 22/11/2024 at 00:02, Hopie said:
Ruddy hell, a lot of posts hoping this is worse than it looks. Club rivalries should be about hoping other teams lose the match, not that the people working their lose their jobs.”
I posted this on the Salford on the verge of going bust weeks after being confirmed in SL by IMG. It seems more pertinent here. But, but, but they are such experts…
I don’t get that sense at all. What bothers me is that we have supposedly selected 12 teams for next season on an objective basis with finance supposedly a key criterion, only to find out weeks later that there are massive structural issues around Salford’s finances.
So:
- do they really need a handout to reach the starting line, in which case they are clearly in a terrible position cash wise? (Seemingly yes.)
- were the criteria so c—p that it didn’t matter whether anyone is on the verge of insolvency? (Probably not, but IMG have no financial expertise so maybe.)
- assuming that IMG’s financial criteria would assess a club’s finances, did IMG do its job? (It certainly doesn’t look like it, unless Salford were selective with the truth.)
- what did Salford say to IMG? (See above. Though even here, anyone who knew anything about league - and I am not assuming the IMG person knows anything at all - would look at Salford’s historic finances, and lack of a backer and take a long hard look at them.)
- when did Salford know what? (There is possibly a get out of jail card for both IMG and Salford, but given that this is a very long running saga, I would be astonished if they hadn’t the faintest notion.)
Unless I missed it, you weren’t concerned about people at Toulouse losing out on Super League jobs. Because unless there are satisfactory answers to all of those questions, Toulouse should be in the 12.
If I were a Super League boss, I would be very concerned indeed by the ramifications for the whole IMG edifice, and would be looking into the merits of a claim by Toulouse against SL (the RFL?) and/or IMG. They have nothing to(u) lo(u)se after all.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Hopie said:
Ruddy hell, a lot of posts hoping this is worse than it looks. Club rivalries should be about hoping other teams lose the match, not that the people working their lose their jobs.
I don’t get that sense at all. What bothers me is that we have supposedly selected 12 teams for next season on an objective basis with finance supposedly a key criterion, only to find out weeks later that there are massive structural issues around Salford’s finances.
So:
- do they really need a handout to reach the starting line, in which case they are clearly in a terrible position cash wise? (Seemingly yes.)
- were the criteria so c—p that it didn’t matter whether anyone is on the verge of insolvency? (Probably not, but IMG have no financial expertise so maybe.)
- assuming that IMG’s financial criteria would assess a club’s finances, did IMG do its job? (It certainly doesn’t look like it, unless Salford were selective with the truth.)
- what did Salford say to IMG? (See above. Though even here, anyone who knew anything about league - and I am not assuming the IMG person knows anything at all - would look at Salford’s historic finances, and lack of a backer and take a long hard look at them.)
- when did Salford know what? (There is possibly a get out of jail card for both IMG and Salford, but given that this is a very long running saga, I would be astonished if they hadn’t the faintest notion.)
Unless I missed it, you weren’t concerned about people at Toulouse losing out on Super League jobs. Because unless there are satisfactory answers to all of those questions, Toulouse should be in the 12.
If I were a Super League boss, I would be very concerned indeed by the ramifications for the whole IMG edifice, and would be looking into the merits of a claim by Toulouse against SL (the RFL?) and/or IMG. They have nothing to(u) lo(u)se after all.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, paul hicks said:
the parent company caddick plc does not own leeds rhinos it jointly owned by paul caddick who has 76% of shares and gary hethington who owns the remaining 24% .
all because a rich man takes a controlling interest in a club does not mean his company owns it. for instance, does AGE PARTNERSHIP now fully own HULL F.C or does Andrew Thirkill just part own them.
what Caddick did when he jointly bought the club was to guarantee the clubs overdraft through one of his companies, he did not pump millions into the club on a capital basis.
indeed, when the cricket ground was sold to Yorkshire cricket for i think £15 million that paid off the club's debts and also provided a dividend for the shareholders . the club has given out several dividends to the shareholders over the years (both of them) and has traded profitably most years. the two years mentioned are those that were ruined by covid and given the clubs reliance on off field activities with its 365 days a year use of the ground thats no great surprise
i think if you look at losses against asset values you will see there is no problem in the long term.
Age partnership may not own FC but they would be an ideal sponsor for Old Faithful.
-
1
-
-
This is not an unusual or surprising outcome. They don’t have a Danson etc and so can’t pay their debts. Anyone looking closely at this from a financial standing perspective would have dug deeply enough into their position to be able to predict this. This isn’t Enron (though it sounds like it is run like it), it is simply a rugby club with very few moving pieces. I do have sympathy for the IMG intern, though, as they had a lot of excel spreadsheets to fill, and a lot of social media posts to count, so missing a house built entirely of straw was easily done.
-
1
-
-
While Bevan may not be a great example for England for other reasons, had he played for Catalans, I would be a strong advocate of his being available for them. It is fair to observe that in this respect other sports have zero qualms and get no stick for it.
-
Ken was a fine player. At home we had a picture of him scoring under the posts at, I think, the SCG. He was part of the scene in an era where we could still compete with the Aussies on a regular basis. He ran a pub in our village, where I recall going on various dates in my teens, with somewhat mixed results.
(Have just checked and it was a 10 all draw.)
-
On 16/11/2024 at 08:28, Dave T said:
This is not true. Why are you repeating things that have been pointed out as incorrect.
When you say these teams get 3 games at least, what you really mean is 2 or 3 games. Three of the five you named only played 2 games this year, that's very different to 'at least 3'.
But I can understand why you are so positive about the international game now, because there are loads of imaginary games being staged that you are counting.
I will take some time to prove my point later on. You appear completely deranged, lashing out madly.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:
It boils down to the same thing.
You don't help international RL by not playing games.
We are playing more games overall, even if the Kangaroos are playing fewer than in some years. Samoa, PNG, Tonga, Fiji and Cooks get at least 3 games each in front of good crowds, at a historically high standard. And the bulk of their players come from the NRL.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Helping France ought to be a very high priority for the game up here. We need to send the IMG intern on a trip to the Côte d’Azur. Our goal should be to move heaven
If the concern is around quality of opposition, we could play a French plus guests team. See if we could add Field and Vaughan etc (plus even the best Welsh players?) to a mostly French selection. We have a very long history of Other Nations selections.
Of course, finance is an issue. But the prize is so great if we can move the French/NH opposition to england up a notch.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, George Watt said:
If I were to name mine from first watching/supporting them from 1945 to now, maybe a couple of the above would be included.
It was off the top of my head somewhat, and I would be interested in seeing yours.
You will see that mine went from the early 80s. Might Knocker, Schofield and Sterling make the cut? If not, the better player must have been something.
Last year, my auntie - whose season ticket I am about to renew - picked her favourite 13 of Wigan players she had seen. She started going to games in 1932 so had a lot to choose from.
IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
I have no interest in your view of my credibility. I have repeatedly questioned what the RFL has delegated to IMG. In fact it is pretty much a theme of all my concerns around the licensing process. As to forward looking financial assessment, that is not my home patch. Nor is it IMG’s.
I see that the clubs have left the decision to RFL Commercial who are writing the cheque. So, this may be a non story after all, and there may be nothing to see here. Or the clubs may be washing their hands of it, so that it is clearer where the responsibility may lie if Salford face more problems.