IMG Grading Unveiled

[redjonn]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Because I understand there is probably a ceiling for attendances whilst playing in the champ, playing in SL will mean clubs can increase attendances.

My point is where does it say that the league the club currently play in isn’t taken in to account?

Do you think York has hit their ceiling in the championship attendance wise?

For me which league you are in should be a consideration with regard to the improvements and hence criteria you can meet.

A club marking system should allow a well run club achieving maximum potential in the championship to be a Cat A club.   Other criteria may determine they should not be promoted but surely you should ultimately be able to achieve being a Cat A grade whatever league your in. That is unless one is trying to limit which clubs can be in which league. 

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

My point is where does it say that the league the club currently play in isn’t taken in to account?

It also doesn't mention that the division a club plays in is relevant to the accounting, that is a moot point which should have been highlighted don't you think?

[Pulga]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I totally agree with that Oxy, and if my team gains enough points in the grading system and Relegation is no longer there or at least promotion is not attainable - when we recieve clarification if a SL B Carry's more weight than a Championship B - I will not be attending games when the result doesn't matter, now then if more people think like thee and me that will throw the 'fandom' category up into the air.

Nothing wrong with trying to win the Championship. 

You'd stop attending if your team wasn't given the chance to lose every game the following year?

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Pulga said:

I wonder why that the case in England but the opposite in Australia. They're the same sports.

Again, it's impossible to overstate the impact that the Premier League has on the overall picture. And the UK remains something of an outlier in that streaming, compared to other countries, remains a pretty small deal.

All sports here are seeing their deals either flatline or decline, or uplift only if something has altered. And that does include previously guaranteed recipients of establishment largesse like cricket and rugby union.

[OdsalBull]

36 minutes ago, dboy said:

They do get a lot column inches - "we used to be big", "Odslum is iconic", "Brian Noble says Bulls should be in SL", "did we mention we used to be big", "we're building a superdome," "we've gone bust again"...

Ad infinitum. 

Whereas others they don't even bother writing about 

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

There will be games every year even under this current system where the result doesn’t matter.

Agreed but it will be more plentiful if relgation is no more.

[The Blues Ox]

1 minute ago, OdsalBull said:

Whereas others they don't even bother writing about 

Id describe it as rubbernecking .

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, redjonn said:

For me which league you are in should be a consideration with regard to the improvements and hence criteria you can meet.

A club marking system should allow a well run club achieving maximum potential in the championship to be a Cat A club.   Other criteria may determine they should not be promoted but surely you should ultimately be able to achieve being a Cat A grade whatever league your in. That is unless one is trying to limit which clubs can be in which league. 

In theory I agree. Lets say Saints had s massive meltdown this year (this is just a wild example) and got relegated, I would still have them as a Cat A team for 2025, same with Leeds & Wigan

[The Phantom Horseman]

In some respects the devil is still going to be in the detail isn't it? and for that reason Shropshire Bull might turn out to be correct about current SL incumbents holding a massive advantage - they will certainly hold one, it's just not easy to work out yet how much.

Some of the criteria are going to be meaningless until we know how they are assessed. The issue of catchment area is an obvious one, with the Leeds vs Hunslet example and Skolars v Broncos situation obvious problem areas for IMG.

Also if as suggested the performance points are just a sliding scale based on league position, that will definitely favour habitual SL cellar dwellers over habitual Championship top dogs, and actual numbers of games won/lost ought to be a factor too really.

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I don't need promotion as my only be-all and end-all.

Neither do I Bronco, I desire both P&R, if Leigh are in a dogfight at the end of this season I won't miss, if the results did not matter I doubt I would attend, well I probably would because I have a season ticket, but if the ruling was to change I would not purchase another.

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Agreed but it will be more plentiful if relgation is no more.

Did attendances drop dramatically in 2009-2011?

Genuine question as I don’t know

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

In some respects the devil is still going to be in the detail isn't it? and for that reason Shropshire Bull might turn out to be correct about current SL incumbents holding a massive advantage - they will certainly hold one, it's just not easy to work out yet how much.

Some of the criteria are going to be meaningless until we know how they are assessed. The issue of catchment area is an obvious one, with the Leeds vs Hunslet example and Skolars v Broncos situation obvious problem areas for IMG.

Also if as suggested the performance points are just a sliding scale based on league position, that will definitely favour habitual SL cellar dwellers over habitual Championship top dogs, and actual numbers of games won/lost ought to be a factor too really.

I think it's fine for incumbents to hold an advantage - as you say, how much is open to, ahem, debate - because one the legitimate complaints about what we've had until now has been how much has been put up with on the grounds of potential or promises of improvement.

If we want it to based on what is real, rather than what might be, then we have to accept some bias towards those who are currently doing it, even if we'd like them to be doing it better. And we have to be prepared to accept also that some real hard work and obvious things really happening will be needed to take another club's place.

[Pulga]

The English really seem to be left in the past when it comes to sport.

Sport is a business. 

Your local team has no real right to be in the top flight. The "if you're good enough on the field you should be allowed into SL" is a 19th century fetish.

Do the teams outside of L1 cry about being in a completely meaningless competition?

If you have no catchment you shouldn't be in. If you have no money you shouldn't be in. If you have no strategy, marketing, business sense etc, etc you shouldn't be in. 

It's great to see someone actually trying to hold the game in England to some kind of standard where previously it was to do just enough to not get relegated without spending too much.

If your team is locked out it's for the good of the game. 

Improve.

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

Did attendances drop dramatically in 2009-2011?

Genuine question as I don’t know

Yes, if you wanted to talk to the guy next to you walkies talkies were required.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Neither do I Bronco, I desire both P&R, if Leigh are in a dogfight at the end of this season I won't miss, if the results did not matter I doubt I would attend, well I probably would because I have a season ticket, but if the ruling was to change I would not purchase another.

Obviously you are entitled to that view, I personally just find it odd, I attend hames because i enjoy them in and of themselves, im not sure the threat of being relegated is a way to increase crowds.

For every fan like yourself there will be a fan who wont go because they are in a relegation fight.

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes, if you wanted to talk to the guy next to you walkies talkies were required.

What were the championships and SL attendance averages?

[Jughead]

Of course any criteria that are to be used by IMG are going to suit the bigger clubs, as naturally these clubs are the bigger clubs because they have their homes in order and are, largely, reasonably well run clubs. I just cannot get my head around this as an argument against criteria. Being angry because the criteria points towards Saints or Leeds being highly graded and Bradford and Sheffield not is a strange hill to choose to die on. 

 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Of course any criteria that are to be used by IMG are going to suit the bigger clubs, as naturally these clubs are the bigger clubs because they have their homes in order and are, largely, reasonably well run clubs. I just cannot get my head around this as an argument against criteria. Being angry because the criteria points towards Saints or Leeds being highly graded and Bradford and Sheffield not is a strange hill to choose to die on. 

 

It’s bizarre, as I say some want a race to the bottom it seems.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Pulga said:

Sport is a business. 

This is the dichotomy that Rugby League, and every other sport, faces in 2023.

Sport is a business to those running clubs and agreeing sponsorship or broadcast deals.

But to the people going to the games, or indeed following it on tv or digital media, it isn't a business, it's a passion, it's an obsession, it's a part of who they are.

The more the former category take advantage of the latter without considering why they invest their time and money in the game, the worse off we will be.

[dboy]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes, if you wanted to talk to the guy next to you walkies talkies were required.

At Wakefield, we used to send each other letters, that year.

[redjonn]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

In theory I agree. Lets say Saints had s massive meltdown this year (this is just a wild example) and got relegated, I would still have them as a Cat A team for 2025, same with Leeds & Wigan

Yep.

One issue I have with the IMG suggestions is that it doesn't seem to purely focus on the clubs efforts in being a well run club, achieving well against its potential bearing in mind the league the clubs is playing in and its ongoing sustainability.

Their is an undoubted benefit to being in the premier league of a sport with regard to attracting fans, commercial income, etc. That should be taken account of. It seems unfair in comparative assessing clubs that any criteria favours the fact you may be doing poorly within the potential of being in the sports premier league versus doing well in a more limiting league's potential.

Typically a well run club achieving its max potential within its league will probably translate into having a better team on the pitch. They may not finish top of the league but probably high in the league. 

It also needs to take account of clubs efforts in creating player pathways and how much harder it may be for clubs in lower leagues without the higher leagues brand. 

The sport as a whole is poorer if we are overly weakening or demoralising clubs outside the top tier that is SL.  Whilst of course recognising that SL is our sports major asset. 

 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

Yep.

One issue I have with the IMG suggestions is that it doesn't seem to purely focus on the clubs efforts in being a well run club, achieving well against its potential bearing in mind the league the clubs is playing in and its ongoing sustainability.

Their is an undoubted benefit to being in the premier league of a sport with regard to attracting fans, commercial income, etc. That should be taken account of. It seems unfair in comparative assessing clubs that any criteria favours the fact you may be doing poorly within the potential of being in the sports premier league versus doing well in a more limiting league's potential.

Typically a well run club achieving its max potential within its league will probably translate into having a better team on the pitch. They may not finish top of the league but probably high in the league. 

It also needs to take account of clubs efforts in creating player pathways and how much harder it may be for clubs in lower leagues without the higher leagues brand. 

The sport as a whole is poorer if we are overly weakening or demoralising clubs outside the top tier that is SL.  Whilst of course recognising that SL is our sports major asset. 

 

 

This is where the published report is lacking because it doesn’t clarify this, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the case.

[Archie Gordon]

10 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Of course any criteria that are to be used by IMG are going to suit the bigger clubs, as naturally these clubs are the bigger clubs because they have their homes in order and are, largely, reasonably well run clubs. I just cannot get my head around this as an argument against criteria. Being angry because the criteria points towards Saints or Leeds being highly graded and Bradford and Sheffield not is a strange hill to choose to die on. 

 

Impossible to argue with. 

Is anybody arguing with it?

[RP London]

58 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Poor copy pasting.

1.58 same as Newcastle and Dewsbury

ta i did wonder.. 

 

[Derwent Parker]

2 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

I could have missed it, but do you have a quote/document showing there is/was an intention for B replacing B to be based on on field performance?

I know they said B's would be able to replace B's, but can't remember IMG ever saying on what basis.

I remember thinking that people were putting their own interpretation on it when it was first discussed as an on field thing.

IMG were specific that on field P&R would remain between Championship and League 1.

You have to read it as a whole thing.

B's cannot replace an A

B's would be able to replace B's

But now they say only if they have More Points