IMG Grading Unveiled

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Shouldn't it be possible to be what you say "You need to get to be the best well run best interactive club you can be" ... given within the potential limiting factors of the league your in and hence be a Cat A in whichever league. 

That is for example a Cat A run club in the championship.  The limited view of the criteria seems to have a bias to existing SL clubs or once in SL.

 

I dont see why not and its why for this entire thread I have said that I wouldn't be surprised to see a weighting being used so that those clubs are looked on as "If they were in super League with all this going on then they will get XYZ which is more than other teams already there who are doing nothing." However, you would probably find they miss out due to on the field stuff so they would be a high B.. get a Super League place (therefore they can "prove it" and show that what they were doing will result in all the other bits) and get the Cat A the next year securing their place for the future and to build more.. 

its that that makes me think this could work really well. You show that in theory you will be better than team 12 all being equal, you get a chance to show that, you then get security to build even further and solidify your club.. 

[Jughead]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

yet that was a "successful" way of making the games more meaningful throughout the season, "every minute matters"... but loads of people on here hated it... its a problem we just cannot fix and keep everyone happy.. 

 

It was unsuccessful in that you didn’t know nearly 25% of your fixtures for a season until about a week before some of those games were due to be played. 

[Harry Stottle]

41 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Would you rather not have some security, allowing Derek to spend his money growing the club in its widest sense, rather than having to spend overs on players just to try and stay up? It's no way to run a business. Simplistic P&R is the exception not the rule in elite team sports, outside of football. 

Simply answer to your question Bronco is NO,

When the result is on the line (in a contest, not like a lot of Leigh's games last season) I am involved I make the bigs hits, ride the tackles, feel the pain, and have all the emotions that winning or losing brings.

If the result of the match has no meaning, those emotions are not required they are both dormant and redundant, I am just merely a passive observer.

As for your it's no way to run a buisness did you read @Dunbar's excellent post an hour or so ago I quote:-

"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" 

That sums me up in a nut shell.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

It was an ill thought out solution to a problem that didn’t exist.

I can remember trying to explain it to people even ones that sporadically watched RL - i just got blank expressions.

agree.. but my point being that that was the solution, and sort of still is, if you want to have this "every minute matters" that is sort of the only way you'll do it... it still didnt because some teams were never in danger in the middle 8s and the whole thing was a shambles.. 

it is a "problem" you can never solve because it is the nature of the beast.. why we get so hung up about some teams not having anything to play for is beyond me.. EVERY league in EVERY sport has those teams, those teams need to aim not to be in that situation again the next year and be "playing for something" at the end of the season, simples.

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Jughead said:

It was unsuccessful in that you didn’t know nearly 25% of your fixtures for a season until about a week before some of those games were due to be played. 

agree, as per my other post in answer to Chris.. it was an example of solving this "teams with nothing to play for".. there is no way to solve it and we shouldnt be trying to.. its just the nature of the beast.. when we do try to solve it it gets messy because it is so convoluted because it is just the natural outcome of a league system its like fighting to try and stop the tide coming in.

[Chrispmartha]

34 minutes ago, RP London said:

if they are not actively doing things and they are just being caught up in the fact they are in Super League then this should get caught up in things like the fandom where it is about how they are interacting with the audience and how they are trying to encourage more etc They would then have no ability to get to the 15 points and be safe so they will always be vulnerable to other teams coming through and doing better. 

The key is going to be to get to be top end B so that you get the chance to get to A by getting into Super League. You have to look at it as being in competition with yourself not with others. You need to get to be the best well run best interactive club you can be, that will get you right up to the top end of Bs then you can push for the A.

Edited as i messed the quote up

Edited March 10, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[Tex Evans Thigh]

18 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

If you think that 10% will decide whethere you're in or not then it will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

The other 90% will decide it for most. Indeed, if you think you'll score poorly on that 10%, then you'll hope the other 90% is what you can do well on.

The 10% could absolutely determine whether a team is in or not. Saying it's a self fulfilling prophecy is a little bizarre, I don't know why you have used that literary reference.

What happens when two teams are level or close on points from the other 90% and the catchment criteria is fluffy and subjective?

Let's use a very possible scenario of Wakey and Fev being close on points in 12th and 13th but the catchment area metric end up being some whimsical formula whereby either Wakey get more points because theyre a city or Fev get more points because there are no teams south of them until you get to Donny? 

Hopefully, you will take the mic at that point to reiterate why the 10% doesnt matter and they can figure it out on the fly. Every single criteria needs to be tangible and objectively measurable. Please don't pursue a career in procurement.

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Simply answer to your question Bronco is NO,

When the result is on the line (in a contest, not like a lot of Leigh's games last season) I am involved I make the bigs hits, ride the tackles, feel the pain, and have all the emotions that winning or losing brings.

If the result of the match has no meaning, those emotions are not required they are both dormant and redundant, I am just merely a passive observer.

As for your it's no way to run a buisness did you read @Dunbar's excellent post an hour or so ago I quote:-

"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" 

That sums me up in a nut shell.

BUT... we have been doing it that way for a long time and we do not have enough people for whom that is the key.. that is why so many clubs are in the situation they are in.. we have to look at other ways of doing it and how to bring other people in and other money in otherwise these clubs and this sport just wont be here down the line.

personally I think you could keep P&R for the Cat Bs with this for the moment and when we have 12 Cat A clubs then lets cross that bridge then as this sport will look very different then... but i also get why they are not saying this at the moment and why it isnt ideal to IMG.. but I think this is where they will compromise with the clubs. 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

agree, as per my other post in answer to Chris.. it was an example of solving this "teams with nothing to play for".. there is no way to solve it and we shouldnt be trying to.. its just the nature of the beast.. when we do try to solve it it gets messy because it is so convoluted because it is just the natural outcome of a league system its like fighting to try and stop the tide coming in.

Creating false relegation battles is just the tail wagging the dog

[redjonn]

11 minutes ago, Jughead said:

He’s talking quite sensibly for a Rugby League chairman. Off with his head. 

chuckle

Then again it favours his club given no other clubs in his catchment, stadium and finances I guess with performance reduced.   

That is he is sensible in that he has looked at what is best for his club and circumstances.

Just like any that may not agree. That is I would not belittle anyone not being in agreement with their understanding of proposals and how it impacts their club.

 

 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

With the greatest of respect the sport wouldn’t exist as it does if everyone thought like that.

Going to a game as a neutral can be a great experience, and if people only watched games that they are invested emotionally in a game we wouldn’t get TV audiences.

im sorry i am not sure what you are referring to here. 

I am saying that if a clubs is just getting a big crowd simply because they are in Super League then the points they would get for that would be lost somewhere else because they wont be doing other things that they need to be (mostly in the fandom side of things). so teams that are just living on the fact they are in super league but not doing anything else will get punished in other fields.. its the teams that look to maximise the fact they are in super league and milk the name that will do ok, and isnt that what we want?

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Creating false relegation battles is just the tail wagging the dog

that is the exact point I am making.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

im sorry i am not sure what you are referring to here. 

I am saying that if a clubs is just getting a big crowd simply because they are in Super League then the points they would get for that would be lost somewhere else because they wont be doing other things that they need to be (mostly in the fandom side of things). so teams that are just living on the fact they are in super league but not doing anything else will get punished in other fields.. its the teams that look to maximise the fact they are in super league and milk the name that will do ok, and isnt that what we want?

I’ve totally quoted the wrong person that was in response to Harry - ill try rectifying it!

[Archie Gordon]

I think that there are two incumbency bonuses and that may be why some discussions are at cross-purposes.

Bonus #1 comes from operating in SL with some longevity. The club has habitually picked up a large CF, maybe reinvested some of it, has become a solid operator in the top division. 

Bonus #2 comes from simply being in SL rather than the Championship. Doing nothing much different except for attracting larger crowds because the rugby is better, getting on Sky/C4/BBC rather than OurLeague and collecting a much larger CF that goes mainly on your playing budget.

I don't get the sense that anyone begrudges bonus #1. Bonus #2, however, is unearned and will lead us away from where we want to go. Leigh v2023 are probably no greater an asset than Leigh v2022 plus CF. Likewise, TO v2023 are probably just as strong a club as v2022 minus CF.

Given that the action here is around the scramble for places 11 and 12, it's astonishing (to me anyway) that the latest announcements kind of just ignore this.

[Chrispmartha]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Simply answer to your question Bronco is NO,

When the result is on the line (in a contest, not like a lot of Leigh's games last season) I am involved I make the bigs hits, ride the tackles, feel the pain, and have all the emotions that winning or losing brings.

If the result of the match has no meaning, those emotions are not required they are both dormant and redundant, I am just merely a passive observer.

As for your it's no way to run a buisness did you read @Dunbar's excellent post an hour or so ago I quote:-

"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" 

That sums me up in a nut shell.

With the greatest of respect the sport wouldn’t exist as it does if everyone thought like that.

Going to a game as a neutral can be a great experience, and if people only watched games that they are invested emotionally in a game we wouldn’t get TV audiences.

[redjonn]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

im sorry i am not sure what you are referring to here. 

I am saying that if a clubs is just getting a big crowd simply because they are in Super League then the points they would get for that would be lost somewhere else because they wont be doing other things that they need to be (mostly in the fandom side of things). so teams that are just living on the fact they are in super league but not doing anything else will get punished in other fields.. its the teams that look to maximise the fact they are in super league and milk the name that will do ok, and isnt that what we want?

What you say may be right, problem is until one has the details we don't really know.

Bearing in mind that getting central funding/SL funding will also help in being able to achieve what ever criteria a club focuses on. That is give same funding to a non SL club they may achieve better results.

Unless of course any central SL funding was ring fenced and can only be used on players salary and any that is not is returned. Plus their is a weighting to take account of commercial benefits and advantages of being in the top tier of the sport.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

I've read a fair bit of the thread - skipped over a few pages of inane nonsense too. Overall if this proposal means that we end up with the strongest all-round clubs being in SL, the aspiring clubs having clear guidance of what elevates them and the 'legacy' clubs doing what they've done for years - isn't that what we and the game wants/needs? 

[The Phantom Horseman]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think that there are two incumbency bonuses and that may be why some discussions are at cross-purposes.

Bonus #1 comes from operating in SL with some longevity. The club has habitually picked up a large CF, maybe reinvested some of it, has become a solid operator in the top division. 

Bonus #2 comes from simply being in SL rather than the Championship. Doing nothing much different except for attracting larger crowds because the rugby is better, getting on Sky/C4/BBC rather than OurLeague and collecting a much larger CF that goes mainly on your playing budget.

I don't get the sense that anyone begrudges bonus #1. Bonus #2, however, is unearned and will lead us away from where we want to go. Leigh v2023 are probably no greater an asset than Leigh v2022 plus CF. Likewise, TO v2023 are probably just as strong a club as v2022 minus CF.

Given that the action here is around the scramble for places 11 and 12, it's astonishing (to me anyway) that the latest announcements kind of just ignore this.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more the incumbency factor is going to play a big role.

As well as big attendances being much easier to achieve in SL than Championship, and as well as the fact that flopping in SL will still get you more performance points than doing well in the Championship, also look at the financial criteria - a large chunk of this is going to revolve around sponsorship and this is so much easier to achieve when you are in SL, appearing on Sky/Channel 4 regularly etc.

This could actually damage progressive clubs - a club averaging 4,000 gates in the Championship and achieving £250k in commercial sponsorship has probably been more dynamic and has greater prospects than a SL club averaging 5,000 gates and £300k sponsorship, but the SL club is going to get a higher rating all other factors being equal, unless there is some sort of balancing factor.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more the incumbency factor is going to play a big role.

As well as big attendances being much easier to achieve in SL than Championship, and as well as the fact that flopping in SL will still get you more performance points than doing well in the Championship, also look at the financial criteria - a large chunk of this is going to revolve around sponsorship and this is so much easier to achieve when you are in SL, appearing on Sky/Channel 4 regularly etc.

This could actually damage progressive clubs - a club averaging 4,000 gates in the Championship and achieving £250k in commercial sponsorship has probably been more dynamic and has greater prospects than a SL club averaging 5,000 gates and £300k sponsorship, but the SL club is going to get a higher rating all other factors being equal, unless there is some sort of balancing factor.

We don’t know that this is the case yet.

[Harry Stottle]

18 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Creating false relegation battles is just the tail wagging the dog

Please explain what a false relegation battle is, I haven't scooby.

[RP London]

13 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I’ve totally quoted the wrong person that was in response to Harry - ill try rectifying it!

thank god... i was very confused, but that doesnt normally take much!

[The Phantom Horseman]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

We don’t know that this is the case yet.

Do you mean we don't know whether or not it will be weighted? If so, it's a very important detail isn't it?

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

With the greatest of respect the sport wouldn’t exist as it does if everyone thought like that.

Going to a game as a neutral can be a great experience, and if people only watched games that they are invested emotionally in a game we wouldn’t get TV audiences.

Do you have the same feelings and emotions when Leeds are not involved?

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Please explain what a false relegation battle is, I haven't scooby.

The middle 8s

[The Blues Ox]

5 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more the incumbency factor is going to play a big role.

As well as big attendances being much easier to achieve in SL than Championship, and as well as the fact that flopping in SL will still get you more performance points than doing well in the Championship, also look at the financial criteria - a large chunk of this is going to revolve around sponsorship and this is so much easier to achieve when you are in SL, appearing on Sky/Channel 4 regularly etc.

This could actually damage progressive clubs - a club averaging 4,000 gates in the Championship and achieving £250k in commercial sponsorship has probably been more dynamic and has greater prospects than a SL club averaging 5,000 gates and £300k sponsorship, but the SL club is going to get a higher rating all other factors being equal, unless there is some sort of balancing factor.

Thats it I could easily argue that many Championship teams are better run than some SL clubs simply because of the restraints they work under.