IMG Grading Unveiled

[Cerulean]

51 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Phwoar.

Plenty of words, an assortment of decent abstract nouns, and some coloured charts to go with them. That’s the future sorted, for this and every other sport. Must be worth every penny spent.

I didn’t know so many people were still impressed by Powerpoint presentations.

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

Indeed. But I would have liked to see pro clubs getting involved with community clubs not only to drive their fan numbers up but to drive player numbers up. There's no incentive to do that here and I feel there ought to be. Opportunity missed.

The current real lack of involvement with community clubs is definitely a hole but any club serious about getting to SL will be forced to do that in order to score higher overall. That’s the incentive and if they don’t see that then they only have themselves to blame. 

[LeeF]

7 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Yes. And there is no mention of male grooming products anywhere in this evaluation so we are least spared that.

Haven’t you seen Leigh’s new proposal?

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

No because noone is going to put money into those championship clubs, or sponsor them, or watch them or show them on tv because the league is now meaningless. You´ve won an extra 0.5 but because Huddersfield get the benefit of being on Sky and away crowds they still outperform you. This actually kills clubs like York having a real chance to get there because it will tank the champ to a level no club will get higher than SL teams,. So any club outside the SL should take one look at this and say F*ck off. 

You are entitled to that view but it isn’t a realistic one so I’ll leave you to it

[Roughyed Rats]

Interesting that turnover has a 45% weighting and profit only 10%. What's the old expression, 'turnover is vanity, profit is sanity'? Of course, if it was the other way around it would rule out quite a few of the big boys.

[Northern Eel]

What I really want to know is, with these criteria, could it actually be possible for a Batley-like club to meet the 15 points required for Grade A? That would really put the cat amongst the pigeons in terms of what strategic decisions such clubs would (and could) make to get their Super League spot. If it is possible, it really does make such clubs a potential interest for investors looking for a quick passage into Super League.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

The grown-ups have entered the building

Looks like a good, balanced platform to measure progress

Lots I like about it - the focus on non-central revenue generation, the sophistication in some of the metrics (e.g. stadium capacity utilisation as well as just raw attendance numbers). All done in a straightforward manner, with a clear timetable, not rushed into half-baked. Have I come to the wrong sport's discussion forum? 

But I'm sure Keighley's black and white photocopied "local sport for local people" handout afterwards will win the argument. 

 

[Bostik Bailey]

21 minutes ago, LeeF said:

It’s far from “awful” if you take your blinkers off for more than 5 seconds. There will still be movement between what is now the SL and the Championship but hopefully far less “boom and bust” and some longer term planning.

Without the exact specific detail but applying a reasonable amount of common sense I  can easily see where a top Championship side would have scored higher than the bottom SL side in some recent years. 

One tweekI would make is switch the top two championship on field performance points with the bottom two super league points

Edited March 9, 2023 by Bostik Bailey

[hunsletgreenandgold]

22 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

Plenty of words, an assortment of decent abstract nouns, and some coloured charts to go with them. That’s the future sorted, for this and every other sport. Must be worth every penny spent.

I didn’t know so many people were still impressed by Powerpoint presentations.

You know this is just a high level doc, right? 

[Bostik Bailey]

17 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Interesting that turnover has a 45% weighting and profit only 10%. What's the old expression, 'turnover is vanity, profit is sanity'? Of course, if it was the other way around it would rule out quite a few of the big boys.

 most sports clubs don’t turn in big profits all their income is generally reinvested, either players, facilities, long term projects.

[super major]

8 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

The grown-ups have entered the building

Looks like a good, balanced platform to measure progress

Lots I like about it - the focus on non-central revenue generation, the sophistication in some of the metrics (e.g. stadium capacity utilisation as well as just raw attendance numbers). All done in a straightforward manner, with a clear timetable, not rushed into half-baked. Have I come to the wrong sport's discussion forum? 

 

 

Can quite see why you would like the  points you mentioned

On the whole it seems to be a reasonable appraisal but I can't see why clubs have not been doing most of this already?

[RP London]

42 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Something as basic as doing a literal map show postcodes of where your regular ticket buyers/season ticket holders are based?

potentially but then there could be quite a lot of overlap etc so will be interesting to see how they do it, same with viewership on the TV side of things.. what is influencing people turning on, is it the teams, the day, the weather outside (looking out my window tonight I will probably be watching, but a normal Thursday I'm ferrying the kids around for much of it etc)

They're not daft and they've done this before but would be interested to see the metrics and how they will judge these things, they do say this will be all sent to the clubs, and the information clubs send in will be audited etc so they will have a plan. 

[RP London]

41 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Yes. And there is no mention of male grooming products anywhere in this evaluation so we are least spared that.

yet.... never forget to add "yet" 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

12 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

 most sports clubs don’t turn in big profits all their income is generally reinvested, either players, facilities, long term projects.

Yes, revenue growth is the key. There's no real point in taking profit until we've drastically transformed revenues (as Catalans have in the last decade for example). If anything I imagine "profit" is there in the sense of measuring losses which are plugged by an owner, so a negative scoring factor in most cases. 

[Big Picture]

Callum Walker reports on Three rugby league clubs that could benefit most from IMG plans — London Broncos, York Knights and Newcastle.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Big Picture

[RP London]

37 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No because noone is going to put money into those championship clubs, or sponsor them, or watch them or show them on tv because the league is now meaningless. You´ve won an extra 0.5 but because Huddersfield get the benefit of being on Sky and away crowds they still outperform you. This actually kills clubs like York having a real chance to get there because it will tank the champ to a level no club will get higher than SL teams,. So any club outside the SL should take one look at this and say F*ck off. 

Case in point, Leigh are now racking in the crowds thanks to being in SL but if they were outside when this started they would have no chance. It´s bollo*ks

it has been mentioned by a couple of people that we dont know yet quite how they are going to mark the "attendance" part of criteria and it may well be weighted so that it doesnt punish you for not being there. There is also the engagement side that will show the potential of this, therefore a simple metric will show this. 

This is something they measure in Eurobasket when they do the licences there (and the debate is the same between the leagues below Eurobasket) so they do have form with these metrics. 

I dont think it is as doom and gloom as you make out.. I certainly am not panicking about Eagles' place in the grand pyramid just yet!

[Chrispmartha]

Also interesting to read that 160over90 agency will have the rebrand done for next year, they've done some great work so look forward to seeing what they do!

[MattSantos]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

But it has been for years and none of these other things have changed. Once everyone gets their houses in order and to the same level then performance between them all will be the only difference between clubs and therefore the most important thing.

I have a different view.

We could easily see 2 clubs with very similar points scored & grades across the criteria not rewarded by performance on the pitch. 

Now if you include performance, your league position can only give you a max of 4 points. My maths shows that a league position would be worth 0.11 points. X finish 12th and earn 2.79 points. Y finish 13th and win 2.68, plus the 0.25 bonus for winning the comp, totalling 2.93

This just isn't a big enough difference and performance (which absolutely should be the single most important criteria) is not rewarded high enough. 

Being in a 'good' catchment area can earn you 2 points for Pete's sake! You can earn 1.5 points through being digitally engaged (how they prove that these days with bots etc is beyond me) which is equivalent to 14 league positions.

Is promotion and relegation dead?

 

 

 

 

[Roughyed Rats]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

I have a different view.

We could easily see 2 clubs with very similar points scored & grades across the criteria not rewarded by performance on the pitch. 

Now if you include performance, your league position can only give you a max of 4 points. My maths shows that a league position would be worth 0.11 points. X finish 12th and earn 2.79 points. Y finish 13th and win 2.68, plus the 0.25 bonus for winning the comp, totalling 2.93

This just isn't a big enough difference and performance (which absolutely should be the single most important criteria) is not rewarded high enough. 

Being in a 'good' catchment area can earn you 2 points for Pete's sake! You can earn 1.5 points through being digitally engaged (how they prove that these days with bots etc is beyond me) which is equivalent to 14 league positions.

Is promotion and relegation dead?

 

 

 

 

Yep - but with fancy corporate speak to avoid actually saying it

[MattSantos]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

In the detailed deck put up by @welshmagpie, it has comfortably the highest single value.

We have a different view of what words and numbers mean.

Fandom: 25%

Performance: 25%

Finances: 25%

It's equally as important as 2 other criteria. It is not the highest single value. It should be.

 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

I have a different view.

We could easily see 2 clubs with very similar points scored & grades across the criteria not rewarded by performance on the pitch. 

Now if you include performance, your league position can only give you a max of 4 points. My maths shows that a league position would be worth 0.11 points. X finish 12th and earn 2.79 points. Y finish 13th and win 2.68, plus the 0.25 bonus for winning the comp, totalling 2.93

This just isn't a big enough difference and performance (which absolutely should be the single most important criteria) is not rewarded high enough. 

Being in a 'good' catchment area can earn you 2 points for Pete's sake! You can earn 1.5 points through being digitally engaged (how they prove that these days with bots etc is beyond me) which is equivalent to 14 league positions.

Is promotion and relegation dead?

 

 

 

 

no, but we need to make sure that those that are being promoted are strong. clubs have proven for god knows how long that with P&R its a race for the position and screw everything else, we'll worry about that later.. now that is not the case and we will get to a stronger position as a sport where, if we really want it, P&R with conditions will work really well. 

You can be in a good catchment but make nothing of it so while you get 2 points you lose them somewhere else.. looking at these criteria the stronger clubs will be really well rounded and that will be a good thing for the sport as a whole. 

If you have 2 equally weighted teams then performance is going to be the one difference between the 2, that is the point I'm making.. if you are not as strong a club then you need to strengthen that first which means the sport as a whole benefits.. 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

We have a different view of what words and numbers mean.

Fandom: 25%

Performance: 25%

Finances: 25%

It's equally as important as 2 other criteria. It is not the highest single value. It should be.

 

It has been the highest single value for a while and look at the state of some of the clubs and the game as a whole.. that is why IMG are doing this. Its the reason they were brought in, something HAS to change.. they have decided that its the fact the clubs HAVE to be incentivised to change how they work, they shouldnt and its sad that they do but hey ho.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

We have a different view of what words and numbers mean.

Fandom: 25%

Performance: 25%

Finances: 25%

It's equally as important as 2 other criteria. It is not the highest single value. It should be.

 

They are further broken down in the link I referred to

[MattSantos]

Just now, RP London said:

 

If you have 2 equally weighted teams then performance is going to be the one difference between the 2, that is the point I'm making... 

But it's not. It absolutely isn't.

I'm purposefully selecting this to quote as the rest i agree with.

Club X and Club Y finish 12th and 13th respectively. Club X only has to outperform Y by 0.15 points to remain in Super League. 

2 equally weighted teams and performance does knacker all to promotion and relegation.

This doesn't sit right.

[MattSantos]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They are further broken down in the link I referred to

And league performance is awarded even fewer points given the assumed sliding scale down from 4