[The IMG Gradings Thread - Post all your IMG Gradings related questions or comments here]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

But that is the clubs that this system is aimed at. The B graded clubs that need to improve. And while the cliff edge is there between 12th and 13th place, there will be focus from those clubs on not falling off it.

Every club is in need of improvement regardless of what their current grading is. The system isn't aimed at any particular grade of club at all. Some people are just focusing on the group of clubs around their own in the rankings as that is what is likely to most immediately impact on their own club.

That is understandable as those fine margins involved could seriously hamper the efforts of affected clubs to work to gain the 3 or so grading points that would secure an A grade in future, should those fine margins result in them missing the SL cutoff. I suspect that is why IMG immediately began to speak of a 14 club SL when they released the indicative scores as the margins between 12th and 13th are so fine while there is a clearer gap between 14th and 15th. Locking clubs 13 and 14 out now could see two clubs that could grow into A grade clubs never get higher than they are.

[The IMG Gradings Thread - Post all your IMG Gradings related questions or comments here]

3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Attendances  

Tickets sold ? 

Tickets issued ? 

People in stadium ? 

Have they specified which ? 

It is supposed to be the number of people actually in the stadium that is the attendance figure used by IMG. So someone who bought a ticket but didn't attend wouldn't be counted as attending when it comes to deciding the attendance score for grading.

[The IMG Gradings Thread - Post all your IMG Gradings related questions or comments here]

9 minutes ago, binosh said:

So if Salford finish bottom next year, and Bradford finish top of the championship then nobody moves leagues?

No. The finishing positions do not determine whether a club moves up or down between SL and Championship, the grading scores of the clubs do. The 12 clubs with the highest grading scores will make up SL in any given year. The relative finishing positions only count in so much as they provide a performance score that contributes to a club's overall grading score. The clubs that make up SL in 2025 will constitute the 12 clubs that achieved the 12 highest grading scores. The scores released today are only an indication of where each club stands relative to others and whether they are likely to make the cut for SL in 2025 should nothing change. The scores that will be released next year will decide the 12 clubs that compete in SL in 2025.

Using the indicative scores we have now, if the order in which the clubs have been ranked was to stay the same when the next set of grades are calculated, then after the 2024 season London and Castleford would be relegated (as they would fall outside the top 12 highest grading scores) and Toulouse and Wakefield would be promoted (as they would be among the 12 highest ranked clubs based on the grading scores). It wouldn't matter whether or not any of those had finished 12th in SL or won the Championship GF as much as it has in the past. It is the grades and whether that puts a club in the top 12, not the finishing positions in the league table that determines if a club will play in SL (or not) for the following season.

[The IMG Gradings Thread - Post all your IMG Gradings related questions or comments here]

9 minutes ago, binosh said:

Am I right in saying that the twelfth placed team will only be relegated if they are a grade B and the winner of the championship is also a grade B that scores higher?

The (B graded) club in the Championship wouldn't need to win the GF or finish top and the threat of relegation doesn't apply only to the team finishing 12th in SL. Once the grading system kicks in, from the point when the grading scores that will apply for 2025 are released next year, then any B graded SL club (regardless of finishing position) is under threat of relegation if any B graded Championship club gains a higher grading score than them. Any B graded Championship club that gains one of the 12 highest grading scores out of all clubs will move into SL for the following season as a consequence.

[Championship Meeting]

4 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

I know it doesn’t take much, but I am confused now re the Newcastle situation, what is actually happening :

a) have they folded,

b) just not entering a team this year in League 1 but hoping to return in season 2025 ( can’t see how you can do that)

c) or is it back to how it was on the last day of the season, ie they will be competing in League 1?

Isn't that what York did after the original club folded in 2002? The Knights couldn't get things ready in time (or were told they weren't ready) for the 2002 season but the newly formed Knights applied to join the league and were accepted starting in 2003? If I am remembering correctly they had a year out before the resurrected club joined so there would be precedent for it happening if Newcastle are able to organise something even if it was for 2025.

[London (Merged Threads)]

24 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Its SAD seeing/hearing how this is going. - Its Biased against everyone outside of SL

I know the IMG grading system was supposed to improve all the team standards.- FAIR ENOUGH

When it was first mentioned it was all about who will be an "A" or "B" and the rest were "C" - FAIR ENOUGH

Then it was "A" teams would be guaranteed SL - could not be relegated - FAIR ENOUGH

 

Then it was "B" teams would complete SL places - FAIR ENOUGH

Then it was "C" would not be allowed in SL - FAIR ENOUGH

And it was stated the grading system would show every team - Where and how it could improve to improve their grading - FAIR ENOUGH

But Why cant a "B" team winning Championship not be Promoted if the bottom team is a "B" - THAT IS NOT FAIR.   

It now states if team finishing 12th [who would normally be relegated] will stay in SL  instead of Champ winner if they have more  points, because points determine the positions.

If this is the case that the points determine the position why is it that it does not affect top of SL??

If Wigan [for example] have 24GP [graded points] how can Catalan win GF/league etc if they end up only having  23.5 points

Also promotion is not stopped between Champ and L1 regardless of points  - but hopefully they will merge before any more teams fade away

Weird

So really points only affect the middle third of RL teams

Some might say all this is to stop anyone else from getting in to SG

The grading system as it appears to operate (from what has been published) certainly is set up to favour those clubs that are in SL/have spent most time in SL in the preceding 3 seasons. The really unfair element in this is the absence of any weighting mechanism to the metrics being assessed. An attendance of 3000 in a SL match and an attendance of 3000 in a Championship match are not equal achievements for example. Things like attendances and sponsorship income are likely to be higher inherently as a consequence of being in a higher league but the system doesn't seem to account for this in any way. If there was a weighting ratio applied to the metrics being assessed then it wouldn't matter that the mechanism for a Championship GF winning B club replacing a B club finishing 12th in SL isn't in place.

If there is no weighting applied to give strong Championship clubs a fighting chance of moving up (as it appears is the case) then IMO there should have been the mechanism in place for the Championship GF winners to replace the lowest finishing B club in SL. I would prefer a weighting system during assessments to allow a realistic chance of Championship clubs gaining promotion via grading score alone. This would then avoid teams overspending in an attempt to finish top as would happen if winning the GF was the only hope.

Hopefully this aspect of the process will change as we begin to use the system as it appears from the information we have seen that this system may well lock out all clubs including those that IMG/RFL might have hoped would climb into SL under grading.

[London (Merged Threads)]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Is it really to do with the change of systems though? I'm fairly certain London did the much the same the last time they were promoted to SL. They didn't do too bad either.

There is a lot to be said about continuity rather than signing a lot of rejects, and often players that weren't good enough for the relegated club, for the sake of it.

Whether that approach adds anything to SL is a different question. 

You could be correct in that they may have been considering this approach anyway, opting for continuity and an already bonded squad rather than upheaval and potential disruption to team cohesion by recruiting a whole new squad in essence.

I was responding in my post to some criticism of London's reported plans for squad building and operation next year that had come from some other posters. The change in systems though does put London in a situation whereby they can no longer just finish 11th and be safe in SL as used to be the case. Given the consideration of a 3 season period, during which London performed poorly against a few of the metrics being assessed; and its bearing on the likelihood of them retaining their place in the top tier , it is certainly a possibility that the situation London find themselves in, whereby it appears very unlikely they will be able to retain that place, then it is certainly plausible that this knowledge (or assumption) would have figured in their thinking and planning of their approach to next season.

If my own theory as to which seasons will be used to formulate the grades that determine the make-up of SL in 2025 is correct then the seasons that decide this (2021, 22 and 23) will have already happened. It is a commonly held view based on what we know of the grading process that it is easier to get a higher grading points total in a season in SL than in the Championship (even if finishing 12th). London may then have considered that they won't be able to stay up no matter what they do, so chose to save up cash to spend in 2025 to give them a better chance of having a later assessment period made up of a promotion season (2023), a SL season (2024) and a potentially successful season back in the Championship (2025) from which they can aim to get a higher grading score and aim for a sustainable SL place from 2027 onwards.

It could also simply be as others have suggested that London had secured the bulk of the squad on contracts for a season in the Championship and surprised even themselves by winning the GF, but have decided to honour the contracts already agreed which happen to be for a part time basis.

[London (Merged Threads)]

21 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I wish London all the best but this a great example of the need for minimum standards. 

London will be going into next season knowing that due to the change from conventional P&R to the IMG system it is unlikely that there is much they could achieve that would see them retain their place in SL. It therefore makes sense for them to retain most of the successful Championship squad in readiness for their likely return to the Championship in 2025. The alternative involves replacing the part time squad with a new one only to have to replace that with a new part time squad in 2025. London can't really be blamed for taking the approach they have to next year. If they do return to the Championship then any money not spent in 2024 can be put into building the club in the Championship with an aim to regaining a SL spot in the next few years (at which time it is more likely to be sustainable as it will have been earned under the grading system). If London do unexpectedly do so well that they are graded in the top 12 and stay in SL then they can look to go FT then as their place will be more secure than it is likely to be next year.

It is the change in systems and its likely effect on London that has forced their hand on this. Given the particular circumstances they are doing the sensible thing.

[London (Merged Threads)]

1 minute ago, Barley Mow said:

Which is why I thought you meant the same three year period being used now and for the first operative gradings.

I now assume you meant only two years worth of data might be used for the indicative grades.

Yes I think that the indicative scores will be calculated using 2021 and 2022 seasons only. I suppose we will only know for sure when the scores are published assuming some clarification is provided when they are made public.

[London (Merged Threads)]

6 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Apologies, I thought you had suggested that they would use 2021-22-23 for the indicative grades as well because only 11 clubs completed the 2020 season.

They could of course use 2020-21-22, but essentially only data for two years for the majority of the clubs.

I would expect 2020 not to be used as most clubs didn't have a 2020 season and those that did didn't have crowds for the majority of it so to include it would skew things too much.

[London (Merged Threads)]

10 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Yes, but using the last couple of line as an example as to why this is wrong.

It's that York's [used as example]  achievements that season are totally ignored and irrelevant

That is not how sport should work!

They wouldn't be ignored it would just be that any uplift in York's hypothetical grading would happen after a gap of a season, as a season needs to have been completed prior to it being counted towards a grading score. So a GF win in 2024 would improve the grading in 2026 rather than 2025. As imperfect as it may seem it is impossible to predict how a season will end with any certainty.

Taking 2023 as an example a prediction made in early season would likely have had Warrington winning SL, Fev winning promotion and London getting relegated to League 1. As we know though the seasons of Warrington and London changed course dramatically. The system is likely to be contentious enough as it is without it also relying on supposition and predictions that could end up being way off reality.

[London (Merged Threads)]

1 minute ago, Barley Mow said:

If your theory is correct, that would mean the indicative gradings to be published shortly would actually also be the 'live' gradings to be used to decide the SL12 in 2025.

That would make things even more interesting.

No. The grading scores that decide the SL 12 in 2025 and the indicative scores that will soon be published will only share 2 common seasons out of 3 as the process involves a rolling group of 3 seasons being assessed. If my theory is correct the indicative scores would use 2020 (if that season is used), 2021 and 2022 and the scores (released during 2024) that decide the SL 12 for 2025 would use 2021, 2022 and 2023. There may or may not be much difference in the two sets of scores but they should be different to some extent.

[London (Merged Threads)]

1 hour ago, Derwent Parker said:

Hi, Not arguing with you here its just everytime I hear/read this explained it sounds even worse.

You say "The first actual "live" scores that determine the 12 SL clubs that will be released during 2024 will cover seasons 2021, 2022 and 2023"

So Hypothetically Lets say Wakefield [no offence just they are the relegated team" have an absolute stinker this year 2024 and just to over emphasize, finish 8th in Championship or worse next season.

But they IMG  only count up to end of 23 season when Wakey finished 12th.

And London do a Leigh in 2024 and finish 6th but they only count up to end of 23 season when London finished 1st in champ or 13th whichever way you like.

That means a team actually finishing 6th in SL could be replaced by a team finishing 20th?

Because the advantage of London having bigger gates this year and Wakey having lower gates are ignored for a season.

And just to add to that lets say York win Championship in 2024 it wont even be considered until the following year ?

Sounds a bit stupid to me..

It's just my theory on how things will work. As things have stood with automatic P&R through winning the Championship GF and finishing bottom of SL the club going up doesn't know they are going up and can't begin recruiting SL standard players until mid October. Should any promotion/relegation have to wait until an announcement by IMG/RFL/SLE post-season then that threshold is pushed back even further. This would make it still more difficult to assemble a strong enough squad to compete in SL (and attract the increased attendances, tv coverage etc. that go along with having a better, more competitive team). The same applies to the club being relegated having to choose who to retain/release and setting budgets.

As the indicative scores due to be published don't have a direct effect on anything it doesn't matter that they are only published post season. Moving forward though, to avoid having the situation be made worse for any club being promoted to SL than it has been previously, in terms of ability to compete with other SL clubs in the transfer market, it makes sense for the grading scores that will affect the next season to be released prior to the season's end. The licensing announcements were made in mid season so I would expect a similar sort of scheduling under the IMG system.

If the scores that will affect 2025 are calculated and made public during the 2024 season then it would not be possible to include anything related to any of the metrics for the 2024 season in those calculations. A look at the early season performances of Warrington and London in 2023 and how differently their seasons ended compared to how they began illustrates how prone to errors making projections could be. Therefore it makes sense that the 3 preceding seasons will be used to grade clubs and not the current one. In your example it would be impossible to predict that London would do what Leigh did, that Wakey would perform poorly or that York would win the Championship GF with any certainty so the performance metric (and its effects on other areas of the business) could not be included before the end of the 2024 season.

[London (Merged Threads)]

13 minutes ago, Cougarmaniac said:

Seems to me that London's promotion has the potential to massively undermine the IMG model because there's no way they can make the top-rated 12 for 2025, even if they win Super League next year. On that basis why invest in what they know is an almost guaranteed single season? It's nuts. 

It would only undermine the system if IMG graded London as outside the top 12 and then decided to keep them in SL anyway. The situation that London face is the reason why some posters have suggested that a sensible approach for them would be to put aside as much of the SL cash as they can so as to put more in when (likely) back in the Championship in 2025 where its impact will be greater. London's situation is not helped by their low supporter base and their poor on-field performance in 2022 as these will count against them in the grading calculations at least until the 2022 campaign is no longer counted in the grading.

[London (Merged Threads)]

2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Thanks. That's interesting. It means that we may have often lame ducks - like London will be in 2024 - who know they are going up, but just for one season. 

I would expect that will largely be an issue just as we transition into the IMG system as we have had this year where London were able to get promoted purely based on on-field performance, immediately before a complete change in the paradigm for gaining (and keeping) a SL place. When we move from 2024 to 2025 we may see 1, 2 or even 3 clubs that have earned a SL place previously dropped to the Championship under the new system. Once that initial threshold has been crossed though movement is likely to be minimal due to the way the criteria are set. There are clubs in the Championship that could grow enough to overtake some of the lower scoring SL incumbents over time but any SL club under threat of being overtaken and losing their place is likely to be able to see it coming over two or more seasons as the score of clubs 13, 14, 15 begin to catch up with their own. Only financial implosion is likely to cause a sudden drop and loss of SL place without it being apparent to all that they are on a downward track over a few seasons. Clubs gaining promotion in future will have done so based on their grading score so will not face the same issue as London will next year.

[London (Merged Threads)]

2 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

How can the final gradings be known by July each year?

I may be wrong but I had always assumed the club grading scores from 2024 onwards (i.e when they actually have an impact on the following season) would be (and need to be) published in mid season (like the licensing announcements were) to give any clubs being promoted/demoted adequate time to recruit a suitable/affordable squad in the knowledge of what division they were to be in the following year.

As such the scores being collated in any given year would be based on the three seasons preceding the year in which they were published and would not include the ongoing season (as they can only be calculated using records for completed seasons). So the indicative scores published this year would be compiled using 2020, 2021 and 2022. The first actual "live" scores that determine the 12 SL clubs that will be released during 2024 will cover seasons 2021, 2022 and 2023. London's promotion season and GF bonus points for example will not feature in their indicative grading score when it is published next week but will form part of their score to be released during 2024 that will determine whether or not they retain their SL place. Using the three previous seasons (rather than the previous 2 and the current season) to compile the grading score means that they are able to be calculated in early season and published mid season.

If I am correct then given the disrupted nature of the 2020 season (and the fact that many clubs didn't have one) it may not feature in the calculations for the indicative grades as it otherwise would or if it does the indicative grades may not be quite as indicative as we all think they will be.

[London (Merged Threads)]

11 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Is there definitely no automatic relegation in 2024 then? I wasn’t sure if that’s been confirmed or not?

Yes. There will be no promotion/relegation next year in the traditional sense. Grading scores to be applied for 2025 will be released at some point during next season. Those grading scores will determine which 12 teams are in SL in 2025.

[London (Merged Threads)]

2 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

If IMG really wanted London and Toulouse in they would have set up the criteria to enable that in the first place - it's their system so they could have done whatever they wanted. But when we looked at the system one of the most striking things is how little it offers such teams.

IMG have vaguely talked about London being a target market but nothing up till now has done anything to support that, while they've never talked about France.

I don't think teams like London and Toulouse are priorities for them at all.

This is true. Identifying London as a target market doesn't necessarily mean needing London Broncos to be in the top tier. London growing their business enough to be judged to be worthy of a place in the top 12 under the grading system would likely be a consequence, down the line, of that market having been adequately and consistently tapped.

London has been shown to be a good place to attract healthy crowds for internationals. Perhaps the strategy that IMG have in mind to tap into the London market is more geared towards placing internationals and club events (such as Magic or whatever they plan to replace it with) in the capital. Using one or two day eye catching events to engage the London public rather than forcibly trying to engineer a place in the top tier for a London club before they are adequately equipped, or the potential London market has been engaged enough, to take advantage of the opportunity a SL place would present.

[London (Merged Threads)]

4 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Thanks. Just as I guessed. Broncos will be scored into a B which will be good enough for them to retain their position, over having to be ranked in the top 12 by overall score.

Wont be long before we find out for sure.

When some of the releases relating to how the grading system will work appeared included was a graphic that showed a bunch of grading scores in descending order with a cutoff after the 12th highest determining the initial 12 in SL (or whatever they decide to re-brand to) for 2025. This along with replies to club-made inquiries from Championship clubs, as to whether a grade B club that won a Championship GF would replace a grade B club in SL, created the impression that the 12 constituent clubs in any given year will be determined solely on the basis of being in possession of one of the 12 highest grading scores.

This along with the lack of any weighting mechanisms for non-SL clubs means that the system heavily favours clubs that have spent more of the preceding 3 seasons in SL. This then leads everyone to the conclusion that London will have a difficult time overhauling the deficit in grading scores vs Wakefield or any other contenders for the SL places available for B grade clubs. All other contenders will have had more seasons in SL than London and thus will get higher points for categories like performance (Wakefield get more points for being 12th in SL this year than Fev get for topping the Championship table), attendance, tv coverage etc. This combined with a poor finishing position in 2022 for London means that even if they achieve what Leigh did next year they will still likely struggle to make up the deficit and secure one of the 12 highest grading scores.

It is expected that merely being in SL next year and being graded in the Bs will not suffice to keep that SL place. London (or any other SL club) will need to be one of 12 highest scoring clubs out of 34 to retain their place no matter how well (or poorly they perform).

[Newcastle Thunder]

10 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Swinton's statement doesn't seem to consider this - going into the last round of fixtures this year they still looked like going down. Are they really that confident they won't get relegated to the 8 team division next year.

The bottom of the championship was so close this year - Haven and Barrow could easily have been in the bottom two as well - with six weeks to go York were even looking over their shoulders.

About half of the Championship teams have been in L1 in the last few years or so - why don't they think "it could be us again soon" and act accordingly. It's so short sighted.

Clubs at all levels will always vote based on self interest, that's why the RFL need to just tell them that the two divisions will merge for 2024 rather than allowing them a vote on whether or not they will (we already know they would vote against it as they did after Skolars withdrew). They can be reorganised into two again after a single season but for the sake of the 8 clubs left in League 1 a single division for 2024 has to happen.

[Grand Final Entertainment]

12 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

I did it feel it detracted from the entrance of the teams though in-person, almost a sidetrack. And the less said the better about how the ‘moment of silence’ went.  

The big mistake they made with the announcement of the 'moment of silence' IMO is that they only mentioned it the once, and did so just as it was about to occur, while the crowd had been built to a crescendo of noise so most people likely didn't pick up that it was happening. I managed to pick up the odd word or two that told me what was to happen and passed it on to those near me but I doubt that many people did hear enough with the background noise level at the time. They should have put a message up about it on the big screen and scoreboards so that the crowd didn't have to rely on hearing the instruction at a time when it was very hard to do so.

[(Yet another) restructuring thread]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

Various options - what I was concentrating on was providing a core fixture list for the season.  Play-offs for the Championship and promotion and relegation are, of course, possible - indeed, likely.

But I'd suspect the most likely would be to split the middle eight into two halves and return to two divisions below Superleague in 2025.

IMG's rankings are, of course, an option too.

Looks to be a good approach to giving everybody a set of manageable fixtures. It would be a good way to bring the two divisions together and then reconfigure them back into two divisions.

[(Yet another) restructuring thread]

18 minutes ago, Griff said:

No need for "thumpings".  Here's what I said on the Newcastle thread.

 

I roughed this out when there were 23 clubs, so it'd need a bit of tweaking but the principle's the same.

Split your 23 clubs into top 8, middle 8, bottom 7.

Top eight play each other home and away + middle eight home or away.   22 games.

Mddle eight play everybody home or away.  22 games

Bottom seven play each other home and away + middle eight home or away.  20 games.

Separate league tables for each group.

Advantages  - Reduces possibility of "blow-out" scores, attractive fixture list for all clubs.

Disadvantages - Compromises the principle of everyone playing each other home and away.

You don't mention it but presumably this would involve some post season movement between the three groups? Otherwise how would any club progress within this division of 22 clubs?

[(Yet another) restructuring thread]

7 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

I agree with all that as I wish no club to not exist, but if it was me when Gradings come out I’d make the 2 leagues based on those results tbh. 

You aren't the first to suggest that but the issue would be that the grading scores for next year were always meant to be indicative rather than having any direct consequence so you would be moving the goalposts. It would also involve performing after the fact relegation by doing this as at least two clubs that thought they had avoided relegation would find themselves dropped to League 1. It would be too contentious.

Grading scores were also never meant to determine whether a club was in Championship or League 1, just whether they were in SL or not so this would be yet more moving of goalposts.

[(Yet another) restructuring thread]

22 minutes ago, Rovers13 said:

I don’t think it makes much difference only to paying spectators tbh because I’d choose a bulls fax fev game than I would a fev hunslet game, it’s not just about not wanting them you have to think about your own fans too. Like close competitive games not cricket scores.  

Your viewpoint is understandable as one sided games become very boring particularly when they are the norm. Sadly though we seem to getting into the realms of necessity rather than what we would like to see happen. League 1 was struggling enough at 11 teams with the large cut in funding those clubs underwent. In the last 12 months or so that has gone to 10, 9 and now 8 clubs left standing. An 8 club league is not tenable, if it was we wouldn't have ditched the previous attempt at an 8 team division 2 that was tried. Obviously it would be a bridge too far too lump the likes of Cornwall, NWC and Midlands in with the likes of Wakey, Fev, Fax and co on an ongoing basis. Doing nothing though is not an option unless we wish to see the 8 clubs that remain forced to withdraw as well.

The two divisions need to be merged to allow all 22 clubs a chance to continue existing and competing within our sport. The recent meeting though shows the RFL that this can't be left to a vote by clubs. Self interest will scupper it and likely doom the 8 clubs if it is. The RFL need to be a governing body and to tell the Championship and League 1 clubs that the 2 divisions will be merged for 2024. This only needs be for a single season to facilitate a return to two smaller leagues (rather than having after the fact relegation occur) where the difference in playing strength will not be so stark. There would be some thumpings for sure in that one season but to paraphrase Christian B, one year of hammerings is better than no club (or the loss of 8 clubs) at all.