IMG Grading Unveiled

[Toby Chopra]

40 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I will say again: we've been complaining for a long time about acceptance of potential and nice ideas  versus reality. And so whilst - FOR EXAMPLE ONLY - Salford may not be doing a superb job as a Super League club, they are an actual, existing SL club with experience of running a full-time Super League club. And that has to count for *something* even if that something is not much.

I think that's a fair point, and for me it's simply coming down to a question of how much. My reading of what what's been published - and I accept there's more I haven't seen but for the purposes of this forum I can only go on what's published -  is that the incumbency advantage is not "not much" but in fact quite substantial when you add it all up. It would end up repeating the mistakes of the licensing system, not improving on it. 

So yes, I would agree being an existing SL business has to count for something, but only a little bit, or you end up bedding in mediocrity and failure, not growth.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some of this tweaked in the final version.     

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

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?

Yes, we don’t know if the league the clubs operate in will be taken into consideration.

I agree it’s important detail 

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

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?

Yes!

Not only whether the coefficients are weighted but how.

[The Blues Ox]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

The middle 8s

The middle 8's were brilliant in my opinion. They offered some jeopardy, gave Championship teams a realistic shot at promotion and created some very good games. I think part of the problem with them was that it took away a lot of focus from the mundane SL playoffs that were pretty predictable.

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, redjonn said:

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.

totally agree.. but again if they are spending that money wisely that will be reflected in other good points.. however if they are not then that will also got reflected in points (just they wont be getting them). 

I trust IMG have worked this out right mainly because they have done this type of thing before and seemingly successfully.. fingers crossed the normal "its Rugby League so we'll manage to #### it up" doesnt happen here.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The middle 8s

I loved them, and being a Leigh supporter, I have as much expierence or more of being in them than fans of most clubs.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

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

Of course not.

But I still don’t find watching game of RL ‘meaningless’ otherwise I wouldn’t watch it.

I love going to the boxing day fixtures at headingley, as do thousands of others, the idea that if there isn’t an important outcome from a game means it’s meaningless seems bizarre to me, but each to there own.

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

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?

yes but it could be a very complicated metric so i wouldnt expect them to share it.. they have said that the exact way it is calculated will e explained in further detail so i expect we'll find out later 

[Derwent Parker]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

I am a bit confused by SB’s stance on this TBH.

To me there is more incentive for clubs to hit the targets rather than just straight P&R.

For instance he seems to be saying that being in SL means you are automatically at an advantage.

But with things like Fandom and Income gradings, where does it say that when grading teams it doesn’t take into account what league they are playing in.

E.G lets say York average 4k per season in the championship and Wakefield 5K in SL, where does it explicitly state that Wakefield would score higher?

To me this is IMG creating a decent blueprint for clubs to build on, I think some just want a race to the bottom rather than a race yo the top.

That might work if they make a guide based on last years averages

SL attendances which ranged from 4529 to 12940

i.e. 1 point 4k, 2point 6k, 3point 8k, 4 point 10k and 5 point 12k for SL

 

based on last years average Champ attendances which ranged from 714 to 3117

i.e. 1 point 700, 2point 900, 3point 1.2k, 4 point 1.5k and 5 point 2k for Champ

 

based on last years average L1 attendances which ranged from 312 to 1453

i.e. 1 point 400, 2point 600, 3point 800, 4 point 1k and 5 point 1.2k for L1

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

The middle 8's were brilliant in my opinion. They offered some jeopardy, gave Championship teams a realistic shot at promotion and created some very good games. I think part of the problem with them was that it took away a lot of focus from the mundane SL playoffs that were pretty predictable.

It slso meant a club finishing in 9th in SL could be relegated.

This is what I mean by tail wagging the dog and a race to the bottom, it was daft and pointless.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I loved them, and being a Leigh supporter, I have as much expierence or more of being in them than fans of most clubs.

But they were terrible for the sport which is why they were quickly binned.

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

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.

IF IMG want the best clubs involved, which they do. they will want the best run, most engaging clubs to be involved. Therefore I cannot see it being in IMG's best interest to not have those teams in instead of the "failing Super League" ones... therefore I cannot see IMG weighting it in favour of those they cannot see any future in.. its this basic fact (IMG only get paid if this works and the commercial value of the game goes up) which gives me hope that much of what we are "arguing about" will not be as big as we think it is, and may not even exist as a real problem. 

however, i also agree they probably should have just said "it will be weighted but the exact details come later".

[The Phantom Horseman]

50 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

But the in built bias (assuming it exists) will be smaller for those than others and be more easily overcome by the harder working sides outside.

I will say again: we've been complaining for a long time about acceptance of potential and nice ideas  versus reality. And so whilst - FOR EXAMPLE ONLY - Salford may not be doing a superb job as a Super League club, they are an actual, existing SL club with experience of running a full-time Super League club. And that has to count for *something* even if that something is not much.

I really disagree with this, in fact I think the opposite should apply. If you've been in SL for 10 or 15 years the expectation should be that you will have used the massive central funding wisely, built a sustainable business, improved your stadium.

I mean at the risk of bringing politics into it, it's a bit like saying "the Conservatives may not be doing a superb job as a government, they are an actual, existing government with experience of running a country. And that has to count for *something* even if that something is not much."

I realise that's a bit of a facetious comparison but the principle isn't totally different in my opinion.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Of course not.

But I still don’t find watching game of RL ‘meaningless’ otherwise I wouldn’t watch it.

I love going to the boxing day fixtures at headingley, as do thousands of others, the idea that if there isn’t an important outcome from a game means it’s meaningless seems bizarre to me, but each to there own.

You answered it with you first 3 words,

I watch nearly everthing on TV, I have been to games at SL clubs close to me and enjoyed them but that is my total involvement.

They are not my team, the one my dad took me to in 1959, the one that I have had a lifetime on the roller coaster of far more downs than ups following them.

Watching other games is pleasurable I agree, and as you concede no it is not the same as watching your own, with the involvement you feel, and I want that involvement to have a meaning as competing for a meaningful result in all the games I attend.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Didn´t say current system was working, have never said that, just this is worse. 

How do you know it’s worse it hasn’t been implemented or even finalised yet

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It slso meant a club finishing in 9th in SL could be relegated.

This is what I mean by tail wagging the dog and a race to the bottom, it was daft and pointless.

Theoretically Chris, no Championship club should have got anywhere near a SL.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

Isn’t it going on local boroughs, so Skolars and Broncos would not be affected in the way Wigan and Leigh are?

Dunno.....

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, RP London said:

Therefore I cannot see it being in IMG's best interest to not have those teams in instead of the "failing Super League" ones... therefore I cannot see IMG weighting it in favour of those they cannot see any future in..

That is a massive statement RP, so you consider that IMG have already decided to weedle out those they think not worth of SL, presumably in doing so this 19 page plan they have put forward has been engineered to do just that, Phew.

[Chrispmartha]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

You answered it with you first 3 words,

I watch nearly everthing on TV, I have been to games at SL clubs close to me and enjoyed them but that is my total involvement.

They are not my team, the one my dad took me to in 1959, the one that I have had a lifetime on the roller coaster of far more downs than ups following them.

Watching other games is pleasurable I agree, and as you concede no it is not the same as watching your own, with the involvement you feel, and I want that involvement to have a meaning as competing for a meaningful result in all the games I attend.

And as I say if everyone felt like that there wouldn't be people attending or watching a lot of sports.

And again I, not having a go at you for your opinion I just don't think its a view as widely held as you think, many people enjoy going to the rugby (or any sport) because they enjoy it.

Trying to manufacture a sports league where every game matters is pointless, as we saw with the middle 8s this was to try and address that very situation and it ultimately failed.

Ive been watching Leeds since the early 80s when I was 4, we've had a lot of ups and downs and everything in between but that doesn't mean I won't go if nothing is on the line.

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That is a massive statement RP, so you consider that IMG have already decided to weedle out those they think not worth of SL, presumably in doing so this 19 page plan they have put forward has been engineered to do just that, Phew.

wow thats a massive amount of putting words in my mouth.. 

no i think they dont want teams in Super League that are not worthy of their place because they are not well run etc but they will want some from the championship who are... if those 2 things are actually true.. that is what this entire grading thing is there to find out.. I have run process change plans etc for years and this strikes me as the Define and Measure phase of a process change.. They are getting together all the data and can change based on that data.. maybe this will prove that actually our opinions (not theirs but the opinions of those on here giving their opinions on different club) are wrong and the best run clubs are already in super league, at which point IMG will be happy, it may show that they are not and that some are in the championship at which point they will get the chance to prove their point and IMG will be happy. 

This is about getting the best 12 as of that point in time to take the game forward, with an ability for others to work towards being the best. 

the point is they want the best not the teams we believe to be the best.. and they are going at it with facts. Why then hamstring yourself by not taking into account factors that may put bias into those facts. I would be surprised if they don't take the league you are in at the time of the information collection into account.. it would seem counter intuitive to do so 

[Chrispmartha]

13 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because of the obvious consequences of proposals that have been spelt out to you on numerous occasions and by two of the championship club owners, one is is quoted in that he has been misled. 

You may have 'spelt them out to me' and just because a couple of disgruntled championship club owners don't like it doesn't mean it won't work.

[gingerjon]

24 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I really disagree with this, in fact I think the opposite should apply. If you've been in SL for 10 or 15 years the expectation should be that you will have used the massive central funding wisely, built a sustainable business, improved your stadium.

I mean at the risk of bringing politics into it, it's a bit like saying "the Conservatives may not be doing a superb job as a government, they are an actual, existing government with experience of running a country. And that has to count for *something* even if that something is not much."

I realise that's a bit of a facetious comparison but the principle isn't totally different in my opinion.

In which case, you're overvaluing potential. (IMO).

[MattSantos]

27 minutes ago, RP London said:

IF IMG want the best clubs involved, which they do. they will want the best run, most engaging clubs to be involved. Therefore I cannot see it being in IMG's best interest to not have those teams in instead of the "failing Super League" ones... therefore I cannot see IMG weighting it in favour of those they cannot see any future in.. its this basic fact (IMG only get paid if this works and the commercial value of the game goes up) which gives me hope that much of what we are "arguing about" will not be as big as we think it is, and may not even exist as a real problem. 

however, i also agree they probably should have just said "it will be weighted but the exact details come later".

Looking at the deck, they may have said that.

Methodology

Phase 2 - Custom Weights

Phase 3 - Simulation Learning.

Phase 3 seems interesting. Is this where they see who has landed where and then rejig? 

All of the methodology needs to be transparent. The optics if it isn't would be terrible.

 

[RP London]

22 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because of the obvious consequences of proposals that have been spelt out to you on numerous occasions and by two of the championship club owners, one is is quoted in that he has been misled. 

Your assumption is that everything we have been told doesnt have a single nuance in it.. from my experience in life that is very rarely if ever true, 

[gingerjon]

33 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

But they were terrible for the sport which is why they were quickly binned.

Yup. Super League itself utterly devalued, Championship Shield an absolute joke and, where my ongoing reference comes from, a 'whole game solution' that completely ignored an entire tier of the semi professional game.