IMG Grading Unveiled

[dboy]

10 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

No, but the clubs will get the detailed criteria. There's already people in this thread saying "my head hurts" and "I haven't got a PhD", so they're hardly going to put every rivet into the initial briefing. 

We know enough for now. People forget the objective is to get to a semi-closed, invitation league. One that adds new teams as additional ones, as revenues grow, rather than shares an ever-smaller cake. These are just criteria to manage the transition - to enable marginal clubs to focus on the right things, to give them the best chance of success.

  

I know. I agree.

[dboy]

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because protecting the weakest teams in super league has been the strategy so f*ck all has changed there

 

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Wakefield with new stand that now seems to be unmarketable

They aren't protecting the worst SL clubs, they are saying that they can only be replaced by something better.

And you are going to have to explain your dismissal of the stadium development - in what way is it unmarketable?

They see it as a real advantage when it starts holding events = utilisation.

[dboy]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Also what happens when you finish top and win champ and instead of going up all your best players sign for SL teams so you fall back and get less points next year? 

 

What, like in a free market?

Like when a club spends years developing youth players, only for them to be whisked away?

It happens. Always has. Always will.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

8 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

But every club outside of SL that could grow the pie will have shriveled away so who is going to get added here? Secondly the pie is sky and why would they pay for this?

Why will they? Recently only Leigh, Fev and Toulouse have been realistic contenders to make the step up. At least 2 of those are wholly reliant on benefactors to pump up their wage budget, and beat less well resourced teams, hoping for the promised land. Why's that a better criteria? Why is that any less soul destroying for clubs like Dewsbury?

Sky want a good product. They want sizzle they can sell, not just a sausage. Part of that is having a positive strategy to improve every aspect of clubs, and fans experience of clubs. The things Sky wants are not just measured by the "TV audience" metric, that's to wholly misunderstand the point of these different criteria. Most of the other metrics are themselves input metrics for the overall customer and viewer experience, which will drive positive audience growth. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

9 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because protecting the weakest teams in super league has been the strategy so f*ck all has changed there, it has just created a system that hits any reason to show on tv or sponsor those outside it and crucially, made half the games meaningless in SL. IMG ‘s international strategy remains beg The SH, 

Its just the worst of all worlds and I note you have made zero attempt to answer the blindingly obvious problems it took me and anyone who can see the logic five seconds to come up with. Namely, what happens when sponsors and tv and fans pull out of the clubs who could actually grow (Widnes, York, Wakefield with new stand that now seems to be unmarketable) London when you have zero chance of going up 

At the moment, in our current model, Super League clubs have an 11/12ths chance of being in the league next year. Many of those 11 will be poor clubs, failing in many areas. Just saved by not being the 1/12th club. At the same time, Championship clubs have a 1/12th chance of being in Super League next year.

Quite why people are suddenly concerned that the new process adds some sort of "extra" level of protection here mystifies me? It does the opposite. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No it doesn’t because this year Wakefield , a comparable club to half a dozen teams in champ will go down and half a dozen clubs in champ can go up. 

But once what you do on the field shrivels in significance ( ie, winning the champ is no longer a guarantee of promotion) then crowds , tv coverage and sponsors will diminish to a level that always puts the clubs below the worst ranking SL teams. That’s so obvious a blind man could see and again, this would benefit the teams I want in SL but the effect it would have on the overall game I think is poisonous. 

Sky want tv viewers, meaningless games mean significantly fewer people are watching. The whole problem with the product over the last three years has been that the worst SL teams were de facto protected from relegation. This year they aren’t so its actually worth watching all the games.

You've provided no evidence that the sponsors of many clubs only do so in the hope of promotion this year, or that these changes create more meaningless games for Sky, so from my perspective both points is pretty moot eh. It's just your contention.

The clubs have evaluated this path, and chosen it having seen that the one you would defend has serially failed for decades now. We know that much at least. We also know Sky explicitly told us that not re-thinking our strategy would lead to a poorer deal from them, at best.

In the light of that personally I think it's fair enough to try another way. That's all, there's no guarantees in anything.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

4 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Think Fev Halifax Keighley Bradford Toulouse are putting money in to not be in the playoffs and have a chance to get to SL? Really? Derek would’ve put cash into Leigh and people would’ve bought season tickets last year for them if they couldn’t win promotion on the field? Calling nonsense on that 

No relegation means the amount of dead rubbers increases. That’s not a moot point , that’s a point anyone who knows anything about leagues without p and r understands. I am not sure devaluing what sky pay for is what sky had in mind tbh. 

It would be more honest if you just say(as many Bradford fans might say) well my clubs alright so no worries rather than to be willfully  ignorant of the criteria set out and how without p and r on the field the results will be  absolutely rigged. 

No, I genuinely believe this offers a better path for the sport in the mid-term, as it has for many other sports. I’m also absolutely certain that if we carry on doing the same things, we’ll get the same - or likely worse - outcomes.

Disagree all you want, but please don’t take the reassuring path of thinking I’m either gullible or wilfully dishonest in how I express my judgement on it. Life’s full of grey, not black & white. 

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, NW10LDN said:

Once again you need to be reminded that I do not support London and don't even live in the UK anymore.

What's that about, I was just adding London into your suggestion 

[Midlands hobo]

17 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

That seems bloody reasonable actually. 

Scary isn't it

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Hey Harry, are we happy with the predictions being right on what IMG will go for and how the grades within grades will look?

No, why not just make it more grades than just 3, being more open would indicate the next rung on the ladder to climb or even maintain, even with the 'A' grades.

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

No, why not just make it more grades than just 3, being more open would indicate the next rung on the ladder to climb or even maintain, even with the 'A' grades.

That's far too simplistic and not how marking has worked for years.

[RP London]

9 hours ago, dboy said:

What, like in a free market?

Like when a club spends years developing youth players, only for them to be whisked away?

It happens. Always has. Always will.

Or in a season where there are 2 outstanding teams who have spent all out to try to get to Super League and 1 doesn't make it. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

That's far too simplistic and not how marking has worked for years.

So simplistic is not good, a system that is transparent and everyone can understand without having to dissect it into little pieces!

[David Shepherd]

19 hours ago, The Daddy said:

The recommended grading criteria cover five areas, with each element contributing to a percentage of the overall weighting, including: 

• Fandom (25%): encouraging clubs to attract more fans in stadia, both at home and digitally, and improve fan engagement, contributing to both club and central revenues.
• Performance (25%): incentivising clubs to perform on the field and drive fan awareness and engagement. Teams will be ranked between 1 and 36 based on where they finish in the leagues for the previous three seasons. Bonus points will be awarded to teams who win league and cup competitions in the previous season.
• Finances (25%): reflecting the success of fan engagement and business performance and rewarding sustainable investment, as well as diversified revenue streams and sound financial management.  
• Stadium (15%): based on a number of factors, including facilities and utilisation, which add value to the fan and broadcast or digital viewer experience, and match or exceed competition from other sports and events.
• Catchment (10%): based on area population and the number of clubs in the area, with a view to maximising growth of the sport in the largest markets to generate new fan bases and incentivise investment. 

Seems very reasonable to me, if it's implemented fairly and transparently (not like last time).

I'll judge it's success by two metrics: 1) Are crowds & TV audiences improving? 2) Are we seeing regular movement of teams up and down the divisions?

[Jughead]

2 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Seems very reasonable to me, if it's implemented fairly and transparently (not like last time).

I'll judge it's success by two metrics: 1) Are crowds & TV audiences improving? 2) Are we seeing regular movement of teams up and down the divisions?

Why would 2 be deemed a success  based on the IMG criteria?

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Seems very reasonable to me, if it's implemented fairly and transparently (not like last time).

More than anything, it was the deliberate and very obvious fudging and rigging that killed licencing stone dead last time round.

[RP London]

There is still consultation with clubs to happen before the vote.. therefore if enough clubs say:

"look this is good an we broadly agree. However, we need p&r between the B ranked clubs because those fighting for promotion are hardly likely to slip to a C in one year."

Then I don't see that being a big jump or change in this set up, you still grade year on year, you still lock in anyone stepping up to A grade.. you just might find a B with more points in the league below a B with fewer. 

My team will get locked out of this and I don't see an issue with that because they know exactly how to get out. I also don't have an issue with P&R staying between B clubs or the system they are talking about now. But at some point some of these clubs have to realise they will never be an A grade club and therefore they will not get to Super League unless they drastically change things (grounds, fan base etc) and that actually is  not a huge amount different to where they stand today.  

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

How can it be implemented fairly when 50% of the points are already biased in favour if SL teams getting higher just because they are in SL . When you add the fact that non central rev is heavily tied to what division you are in then it is just cowards franchising without even locking in the biggest markets. 

Are they? Have you seen the much larger document that outlines how all of this will be calculated and whether it will be weighted/handicapped in anyway? 

Until we see that you cannot possibly say the above IMO

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

More than anything, it was the deliberate and very obvious fudging and rigging that killed licencing stone dead last time round.

But surely by having grades within grades , we might well see the same again 

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Took the batley owner five minutes to see why this is woeful. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/batley-img-super-league-bias-26432345

I don’t think we are going to see any championship club bar maybe Toulouse vote for this, even then their crowds are half that of what they were in SL . 

Thanks for that, I think that more Championship clubs when they sit down in their respective boardrooms and scrutinise this, may very well take the same attitude as Batley.

Just taking this a step further and if all SL clubs are for it but it still does not get the required votes to get passed, will the SL clubs do their threatened break away, if so there will be no need for IMG then, job accomplished.

[David Shepherd]

12 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

How can it be implemented fairly when 50% of the points are already biased in favour if SL teams getting higher just because they are in SL . When you add the fact that non central rev is heavily tied to what division you are in then it is just cowards franchising without even locking in the biggest markets. 

I don't see it that way. OK the performance metric is weighted to the SL teams.  However it's heavily hinted that winning a league gets you bonus points, likewise the challenge and sundeck cups.

Non central revenue is a very interesting one and heavily favours those clubs that increase the quality of matchdays and the resulting ancillary revenues. Also those clubs that own their facility and can sweat the asset on the 350 or so days of the year when there's no Rugby being played.  There are plenty of non SL clubs that could and should be focussing in on that.

[David Shepherd]

32 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Took the batley owner five minutes to see why this is woeful. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/batley-img-super-league-bias-26432345

I don’t think we are going to see any championship club bar maybe Toulouse vote for this, even then their crowds are half that of what they were in SL . 

I'd be amazed if Featherstone voted against.

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Why should we believe it is going to be weighted? they have had months to mention that if it was the case.

They spent a lot of time talking about categories and it turns out they mean nothing. 

Why should we believe it isn't going to be weighted.. they have already said this is an overview with a much bigger document detailing the information needed and the way they will be calculating things going out to clubs (it's there in the presentation) so why believe they haven't sorted this out in the time they have spent with it? 

[Tommygilf]

34 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So simplistic is not good, a system that is transparent and everyone can understand without having to dissect it into little pieces!

Simplistic for the sake of being simplistic isn't good.

This breaks down marks to relevant areas and provides an overall grade to provide an indicative result. It means you can have a "strong B" or a "weak B" without having to use the full alphabet.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

9 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

When someone raises multiple reasons why it isn’t new and nothing different is being done but you merely respond with the same line.  

When you ask how does it increase dead rubbers and you are asked to show a sport where games at end of the season with nothing at stake in any closed shop aren’t dead rubbers with lower crowds or viewers (NFL, NRL, association football) and just elect to ignore that .

When you regurgitate the same point without any reference to the topic at hand or responding to how rigging it so SL clubs always get more points, or not having the honesty to say “Yes, I do think all the clubs you mentioned are putting money in the champ not to get promoted but because of just pure circumstance “ then it is hard not to think it is disengenous. 

Being honest means admitting the trade offs.  when clubs existences are on the line, black and white is exactly what it should be

 

Of course there are trade offs. Every path has those.

1. You say nothing different is being done. This 12-year partnership is demonstrably different, even the grading model is demonstrably different. There's no need for me to regurgitate how here, it's all published.

2. Your reference was to meaningless games for Sky. My argument is that a few relegation "battles" at the end of the year are not really the product Sky is buying. They don't show every match live, so they've no need to show any 'dead rubbers'. Instead, they can concentrate on the excellent clubs, fighting for things at the top. That should be the product, not us televising demonstrably poor teams flailing around at the bottom with a narrative of how "somebody's mortgage is riding on the outcome of the game". That's not a narrative that sells the sport!

3. You complain the scoring criteria favours SL clubs. My points are simple: 1) It should. There are benefits to security of tenure, things need to go badly wrong for us to want to exit a side if we believe in the product. Playing poorly for one season is not "badly wrong". 2) It always has. In the current model, existing SL clubs have advantages in retaining their status versus non-SL clubs. 

I'm sorry, but me disagreeing with you is not me being disingenuous. It's just me disagreeing with you. I've given you my reasons, you just don't like them. But there are numerous sports around the world who have grown their sport this way, and the British clubs have now chosen this path, so I'm hardly some religious weirdo spouting some stuff I've made up stood on a box on a street corner.

There is a case to be made that doing things this way might work, and I think it deserves a try. Simple as that.