RP London

I think you'll find that that is the very point many people are making on this thread and why they think there should have been a game in London/Newcastle, the North West and Yorkshire rather than 2 in Yorkshire and 1 in the North West..

I love the fact they have reversed the sponsors logo as well as if it proves their point

What do you mean "half followed" you quote me and I quote you back its 2 people having a conversation. You're asking me questions I answer and ask some back... I've picked you up on the Newcastle thing becuase you are wrong and using poor language about it.. FFS if you don't like backwards and forwards conversation or people having an opinion on what you are saying what are you doing on a message board?

fair enough.. glad to see professionalism is strong in your line of work..

As someone who does the job you do I am surprised that you are using the word "bust" the way you did and flippantly then dismiss it when called out... they have taken a mature decision that it would be nice if many other companies would make when they know there is a chance cannot continue. They have made sure this does not happen mid season next year leaving players in the lurch, staff in the lurch and many small businesses owed a lot of money. As a small businessman it would be nice if others made similar decision rather than causing the upset, pain and anguish that companies do when they try and try and try to keep going but leave people unpaid for work carried out which can be quite a lot of money and have a major knock on effect. There are meetings going on about the structure and the club itself has said (IIRC) that they will be looking for someone to come in who is prepared to lead them through this. So they are not done just yet hence (I presume) the grading was done with the information they have to hand. With regards IMG, your not keen on them by the sounds of it (I am inferring from what you say but the "by the sounds of it" gives that away) for a number of reasons not all to do with these gradings. Fair enough. As I have said many times on this board over the past year I am sceptical but we desperately need to do something otherwise the game will continue to slip. I am not sure the grading is picking the right areas etc but that is where it is and to be honest I am not that shocked about any of the placings and I think if you took a step back with your "company valuation" hat on you would see the same.. London is a basket case as has been said for a long time on here, Sheffield without Mark Aston would be gone, the ground is poor but is a work in progress etc What it does show is that a strong business can see that league one doesn't work so much that they cannot see them surviving the drop in income and extra costs that come with league one, surely rather than that being an issue with IMG's calculations can we not see that is further evidence for what has been said for a long long time which is that league one is unsustainable? You see this as an issue with IMG but when you put all of this with everything that has been coming out of clubs for the past 5 years or more the grading is just more evidence that the RFL have been asleep at the wheel. Things need to change otherwise what the hell does happen to any expansion effort and frankly to the likes of Hunslet and Keighly who will end up trapped. The grading places London below Newcastle, I think thats probably fair to be honest as a business (would you survive the drop to league one?) the fact that on the pitch one went up and one went down this year shows the perils of p&r for a sport that does not have the funding to help clubs with the step up and down and plug the gaps. As with the arguments about teams/investors giving up due to seeing their grading this is about what you do with the data not the data itself. If the RFL stick their head in the sand, if the clubs stick their heads in the sand then nothing will change. If they use it as proof, a to do list and a catalyst then maybe just maybe this will work but thats not on IMG thats on the clubs and the RFL all IMG have done is provide the information. I think i've pretty much said my piece now though, its going around in circles as people are pretty much entrenched against this idea and have been from the start (not saying that is you leonard) and, I am sure, they will say the opposite too.

Who's that? No ones gone bust... If you mean Newcastle, they realise that it would be irresponsible to go bust on people therefore have chosen in the current state not to compete next year.. many clubs would not do the same and just go bust owing suppliers..

Really, where does it say they will release all the data to the public. AFAIK they've only said they will release the grading but each club will get a breakdown of their own gradings to know where to improve. Happy for you to prove me wrong bit don't recall seeing anything

Use by specific people yes but not to be shared far and wide and made public knowledge. That's why it's up to the clubs to share otherwise they would do it, it's daft not to.

what did he say? perhaps he didn't think it necessary when you are dealing with private company financial data I would have thought it wouldn't even be a question to be honest, if someone even hinted at something from our financials that I hadnt said they could (as a private company) I'd be livid.

This is Rugby League at best its the "Million Pound Fax"

totally agree but they're working with what they can.. clubs are going to be very inward looking on this i expect, as we have seen before, becuase they dont like to admit/show where they are failing and its a stick for their own fans to beat them with.. obviously there will be some clubs that see how this can be an incentive and also to show the fans, when they are not spending it on the pitch for example, that there is a reason for them spending the money where they are and it will help them understand that and placate the fanbase a little.

again... more transparent yes but breaking confidentiality of information rules potentially too.. different if a club wants to put it up as its based on their information but for someone else to that would be another matter.. remember these are private companies.

not like that for starters I'd say you work it out as average finishing positions across the three years.. add together the finishing positions (if you win for the past 3 years you get 3, your example gets 23) tabulate that and apply the grading points to those positions.. then you add on the extras.

depends on how much money you have....... ooooh i see the analogy works on many levels

I agree.. I think they could have put another band in to split the B's in half (call it B1 and B2) and the B1s are able to get promoted but the B2s arent.. a 7 point difference between top and bottom of the grade does seem a big difference when it could be 1 game which could be the difference between staying up and going down and that could be 1 team playing saints before and 1 team playing saints after saints have secured the League leaders shield for example.

I find the comments about businessmen walking away interesting. I understand many of ours are in it for the love of the sport and this may damage that but often you hear its for the love of their hometown club so why does this then make them walk away? They are literally being shown where to improve the club and where there are guarantees that if they get xyz done they get some points, rather than just "wouldnt it be nice if...". In terms of improvements this is more ROI obvious and businessmen do tend to like that. There is also then the element of "on the pitch" that is also worth points so they can have some fun along the way. This just stops someone buying a club shoving loads onto the pitch then having nothing off it when they have a bad year/unlucky result or they just decide to withdraw their cash.. London, Sheffield etc are examples of this, one good year on the pitch could actually have some massive ramifications, whereas clubs that have built quite nicely off the pitch then get damaged in the opposite way (arguably tolouse and fev fall into this category) the risk of this happening is tough for people to invest in (and the more it happens the worse that gets)

i like that idea if they were able to do it.. The transparency issue is one that the clubs need to address, but I would guess some wont like their warts being shown too publicly as its a nice stick to beat you with (can i mix anymore metaphors??)

before I write the below the genuine answer is "I dont know". However, in many other leagues in other sports around the world that have strict minimum standards you know before the season starts that team xyz are not going to go up if they finish top, therefore you know you only need to worry (if you are a bottom/near bottom side) if team abc or def, who do meet the criteria, are getting towards the top. That can also change, I remember a few years ago with the RU that championship Doncaster would get promoted if they finished top but only if planning permission came through for a new stand, that was still going on throughout the season. Therefore you would hope that you get a firm idea at the beginning with that potential movement and keeping an eye on it and how that would affect the grade, therefore you know pretty much by the end of the season that the fight for bottom is a relegation scrap or not.. Before anyone says "but thats rubbish and takes away xyz" i dont disagree but it works very well in many other countries with many many sports (and in this with sports at different levels of pyramids too).. so its not unprecedented To be fair we are here to a part due to our past. Early 2000s the bottom club wasnt always relegated if the team below didnt meet minimum standards IIRC, sadly that was binned off due to it not being true to the spirit of P&R and now we are here... this could have been solved back then TBF

why would it open them up to legal action, that would only be the case if the criteria were not set out for all to see and the processes weren't followed in full.. I can see a case where the cas situation may do this, but we dont know the ins and outs, but legal action would need to prove that IMG had done something against what they said they would.. the clubs agreed and signed up to this.

and by themselves you cannot forget that, they have said they also made a mistake. I, personally, think you are giving these gradings more impact/credit than they are going to have in terms of player signings etc.. even if it was you can just say "yes but that mistake was worth 0.5 points which puts us at x position" and jobs a good un..

This is where it would be good to see where london have scored poorly.. as has been stated there could be some places to get good and potentially large wins, and the document is very clear on scoring.. however, thats down to London to publish and then be held accountable for inaction.. It may well be as you say but equally it may not actually be that bad a situation for someone like London.

I think the key to this is that this is "indicative grading" and is a guide.. it is also there to iron these wrinkles out. That also, surely, includes the clubs ironing out issues like submitting the incorrect data in the first place which is impacting on their grading etc.. this isn't solely on IMG to fix its also on the clubs so that they know what they need to submit and submit correct data (as it has implications!)

i refer you to the "this has been done already" part.. there are some quite long threads where all of this has been gone over including the pros and cons of 2 up and 2 down... if it was all as easy as that it would have been done by now TBF.

This is the one thing I have not seen clarified properly yet... its something that keeps cropping up but no one seems to have the actual answer from what I have seen.

I think you need to get a dictionary Leonard.. I've not inferred anything I have stated things based on what you have actually said, i have not inferred nor assumed anything. I have never said you do think they should be in the top 12.. I dont know where you are getting that from unless you are reading into stuff that I am saying and getting your own conclusion out of it (BTW, thats inferring ie you are inferring that I have said that think they should be in the top 12, i have not said it)