Jump to content

37 of 42 back IMG’s proposal


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

And what comes after C etc.?

Basically if there is only 3 grades it could be construed that on your analogy it ranges from 'A' 100 to 66.6, 'B' 66.5 to 33.3 and C 33.2 to 0, so being awarded a 'B' grade some clubs could be miles apart.

I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this is not an oversight by IMG and it has been designed as such with due consideration that there could a number of clubs very close together and they can 'squeeze' into SL who they prefer not who at the time of grading would be the correct choice on a scoring system.

After C is "ungradeable" one would assume, unless C is intended as a catch all.

I don't think they are controversial grades H. Pretty much everyone would put the same clubs in or around A, pretty much everyone would pick roughly the same C's, the Bs by default generally also fall into their category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


32 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Those athletes exist here, but the Wolfpack didn't have the stature or money to attract the best of them, not even close, plus they were classed the same as Aussies and Kiwis under the roster regulations which also worked against the club carrying them on the roster

So these "ready for purpose" athlete's weren't in fact available to RL if they were totally out of our price range, that figures with what I was told was the 'quality' from those that turned up for the trials by someone who was part of the selection process, but never mind it was good publicity and there were quite a few on these pages took in by it all banging the drum and waving the flag.

I admire your pipedream, but this game I have totall admiration for and been apart of for a very long time is never going to be as big as you percieve it could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pretty much everyone would put the same clubs in or around A"

This is a central issue largely undiscussed. The same clubs no matter what the criteria are guaranteed progess and long term planning time but they're the clubs that need it least otherwise the category has no meaning at all.

I do find it funny how the language of assessment is so easily accepted and adopted.

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I admire your pipedream, but this game I have totall admiration for and been apart of for a very long time is never going to be as big as you percieve it could be.

Which begs the question of what an IMG is for? Harry.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

After C is "ungradeable" one would assume, unless C is intended as a catch all.

I don't think they are controversial grades H. Pretty much everyone would put the same clubs in or around A, pretty much everyone would pick roughly the same C's, the Bs by default generally also fall into their category.

Go on then Tommy grade all the club's, all 37 of them with your assumed grading, considering "pretty much everyone" has an opinion, and please put them in order of how you consider they would sit in their respective catagory top to bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Just looked back and these were the headlines after IMG's proposal was presented back in Sept. It does state that P&R will be maintained between the Championship and L1, but nothing on P&R between SL and Championship So how much does just having 'B' grades differ from 'Traditional' P&R.

In-depth look at how IMG plan to catapult rugby league forward amid radical proposals

Ditching traditional promotion and relegation is one of the key recommendations, while fewer matches, more emphasis on internationals and a potential name change for Super League are all on the cards in IMG's blueprint for the future

Matthew Shaw reported after the vote on 13th October that it had been clarified that if a Cat B finishes bottom of SL and a Cat B wins the Championship then they would swap as under P&R.

I haven't seen that in any other reporting of that same meeting though which is surprising as it's quite a specific point - Sky, TRL etc were still just reporting it as P&R being scrapped with annual re-assessments of Cat B clubs on both on and off field measures determining who is in SL.

Ultimately though we're not really going to know until those on and off field measures are confirmed and the illustrative gradings are done at the end of next season. So plenty of time for another 60 pages of hypotheticals 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Go on then Tommy grade all the club's, all 37 of them with your assumed grading, considering "pretty much everyone" has an opinion, and please put them in order of how you consider they would sit in their respective catagory top to bottom.

As - Leeds Wigan Saints Catalans Warrington possibly the 2 Hull clubs

C - all of League 1, plus Swinton, Haven and Keighley.

Bs - everyone else. 

Ranking them within that is silly, I don't have access to the accounts, nor the criteria IMG would use to grade them like Stadium facilities, Social Media Reach and things of that nature.

The first initialy Grading is pretty straightforward and will align with what most people think. The second bit is details and naturally needs people with further knowledge and information at their disposal.

Edited by Tommygilf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

As - Leeds Wigan Saints Catalans Warrington possibly the 2 Hull clubs

C - all of League 1, plus Swinton, Haven and Keighley.

Bs - everyone else. 

Ranking them within that is silly, I don't have access to the accounts, nor the criteria IMG would use to grade them like Stadium facilities, Social Media Reach and things of that nature.

The first initialy Grading is pretty straightforward and will align with what most people think. The second bit is details and naturally needs people with further knowledge and information at their disposal.

So in your opinion possibly 7 'A's or could be 5, 14 'C's leaving 16 or 18 'B's, if that is the case the ranking of the 'B's will be anything but silly, and precisely says to me why it will cause conflict in the final sorting, 3 grades are simply not enough even with your grading within the grading.

Just seen a report from Matt Dywer who said

"The key points are that the criteria will be objective, easily measurable, reliable, valid and, most importantly, is transparent so it’s very clear and transparent how the grades are calculated and how they change if an owner wants to change the grading of their club.”

For his sake lets hope he keeps to his word, and everthing is disclosed in its entirety.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

"Pretty much everyone would put the same clubs in or around A"

This is a central issue largely undiscussed. The same clubs no matter what the criteria are guaranteed progess and long term planning time but they're the clubs that need it least otherwise the category has no meaning at all.

I do find it funny how the language of assessment is so easily accepted and adopted.

Which begs the question of what an IMG is for? Harry.

 

 

 

IMG are in it to make money from the game.If they increase income streams and all clubs are better off they will have been successful.I think some present SL clubs should be nervous as new clubs with a plan and finance + ground who wish to join may be rated cat A and added to the top tier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So in your opinion possibly 7 'A's or could be 5, 14 'C's leaving 16 or 18 'B's, if that is the case the ranking of the 'B's will be anything but silly, and precisely says to me why it will cause conflict in the final sorting, 3 grades are simply not enough even with your grading within the grading.

I think he was saying it's silly for us to try ranking the B's right now as we don't know the IMG criteria. They definitely will be ranking Bs they've made that clear. 

  • Like 2

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

So in your opinion possibly 7 'A's or could be 5, 14 'C's leaving 16 or 18 'B's, if that is the case the ranking of the 'B's will be anything but silly, and precisely says to me why it will cause conflict in the final sorting, 3 grades are simply not enough even with your grading within the grading.

Just seen a report from Matt Dywer who said

"The key points are that the criteria will be objective, easily measurable, reliable, valid and, most importantly, is transparent so it’s very clear and transparent how the grades are calculated and how they change if an owner wants to change the grading of their club.”

For his sake lets hope he keeps to his word, and everthing is disclosed in its entirety.

Ranking the Bs on here will be silly, as we don't have the info needed. In the real world however it is not silly at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Ranking the Bs on here will be silly, as we don't have the info needed. In the real world however it is not silly at all.

On the other hand, the forum is full of posts by people without the information they need.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Griff said:

On the other hand, the forum is full of posts by people without the information they need.

Indeed, I could do a list based on half truths, suppositions and the information I do know, but it wouldn't be of much value. The grading guessometer I put is as good a bet as you'll get out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sentoffagain2 said:

IMG are in it to make money from the game.If they increase income streams and all clubs are better off they will have been successful.I think some present SL clubs should be nervous as new clubs with a plan and finance + ground who wish to join may be rated cat A and added to the top tier.

Yes they are in it for the dosh, and if RL doesn't make moolah they don't.

Yes if they increase income streams hopefully the sport will be better off.

Category A clubs will have no reason to be nervous. Therefore no reason to change.

All those likely to be  affected are nervous.

The promise of a loto win is good motivation to part with money, sense and logic, RL has a history of being far too good at this.

 

  • Like 1

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

From a tv point, I can see why Sky would like Leeds vs Bulls back on their tv screens. Leeds vs Bulls at Elland road is marketable but Bulls stadium is woeful and this fantasy project doesn’t help. 

Leeds vs. Cas did well there in 2018 I think it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.