Jump to content

IMG Grading Unveiled


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

Its a very noble idea to have everyone equal

I don't think that is the intention at all quite the opposite.

What we never heard argue though is more money to those that need it and this would go at least some of the way to levelling up which is the point.

Do I expect this argument to be taken seriously enough, investigated as a possibility and even posted about on forums? Well just a little less than I expect to find out that the crew of the Marie Celeste were just in the Back room of Charlie Camelleris Cafe  Salford, all along.

  • Thanks 1

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, steve oates said:

Keighley and Batley make a case that Rugby League works where there is a strong community connection. Places where the whole town are behind the club.  Add to that success on the field and relatively small towns can have relatively big audiences. Saints are an example.

I don't think being left out of any funding at this point in times affects Keighley's new owners point that if their club and others like them can get to Superleague then crowds and interest will  be a lot bigger than those like London get, or Sheffield got  when in Superleague.  The point seemed to be that continuing to fund London clubs and such as Hurricanes North Wales and Newcastle is a waste of funding, and "fake expansion"........

Too right, get rid of Cumbria as well, the upstarts. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

The point seemed to be that continuing to fund London clubs and such as Hurricanes North Wales and Newcastle is a waste of funding, and "fake expansion"........

They see any club that wasn't playing the game before WW2 (obviously they don't know their history because they include the West Cumbrians) as somehow illegitimate. 

That sounds awfully like a them problem, not a Rugby League problem.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Its a very noble idea to have everyone equal and that the money should be shared around all the lower leagues, but the reality is thats just never going to happen. Companies like Sky pay for SL because that's where they see they'll get the biggest returns for their investment.

That aside, there's still the fact that there are a fair number of SL clubs who aren't exactly in a stable financial position to start with. The ones with wealthy owners & backers could probably survive perfectly well with some sort of reduced funding but there is probably a 3rd of the league that couldn't. So you have to ask yourself whats the point of giving some extra to the Championship clubs, knowing too well it still wouldn't be enough to get them on par with the better off SL clubs, when in doing so you bankrupt a 3rd of the current SL clubs ? 

The only way to increase funding for Championship clubs is to increase the overall income into the game as a whole, and whether you like it or not that starts with SL. And this is primarily IMG's whole aim, to make the game more saleable to outside parties.

Based on what we know so far, in the short term there is probably little to no benefits for Championship clubs in IMG's proposals, and you can see why a club like Keighly is getting so upset.  But why have all the other clubs so far backed their proposals ? is it because they can see the longer term aims and potential benefits, are they just pleased that finally there's actually a long term plan ? And while that plan may not be perfect for them its at least better than not having one at all, which is what we've had for a long time with the incompetents at the RFL.

Just bungling along with no plan benefits nobody at all from to to bottom.  

Yes, Its a very noble idea to have everyone equal - But Greed has got in the way hasn't it?

You say taking a bit of the 2 Million each off SL clubs, when in doing so you bankrupt a 3rd of the current SL clubs ?

Were you arguing the same when they took 50K from the MASSIVE 75K that L1 clubs were getting rather than take it from those who could afford it???

You stated "whats the point of giving some extra to the Championship clubs, knowing too well it still wouldn't be enough to get them on par with the better off SL clubs"  Championship and L1 need some money, just to be better off - just a fair share,  Nobody said they need the money to match "the better off SL clubs"

Its ok sitting on the inside counting all your cash that you are given - when those outside are on scraps [champ teams] and those in L1 are starving.

And you just sitting there doing you Marie Antoinette impression - Upon being told that the peasants outside were starving and had no bread, the Queen replied "“Well Let them eat cake”

 

Edited by Derwent Parker
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They see any club that wasn't playing the game before WW2 (obviously they don't know their history because they include the West Cumbrians) as somehow illegitimate. 

That sounds awfully like a them problem, not a Rugby League problem.

Workington won the cup and the league inside 6 years, of joining the league and they had brilliant players already playing at amateur level in Cumberland, and big crowds, so there is no comparison.

It's more the down south clubs who the Keighley lads say "haven't worked", they appear to resent as travel costs can be high. On the longest costly Journey to Cornwall they argue there is no real  "expansion" and crowds are in reality a few hundred. 

Anyway it will sort itself out if lower division clubs lose their TV funding ....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

That's some tinfoil hat stuff. They don't want 10 teams.

The whole thread has descended into paranoia and nonsense

  • Like 4

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Based on what we know so far, in the short term there is probably little to no benefits for Championship clubs in IMG's proposals, and you can see why a club like Keighly is getting so upset.  But why have all the other clubs so far backed their proposals ? is it because they can see the longer term aims and potential benefits, are they just pleased that finally there's actually a long term plan ? And while that plan may not be perfect for them its at least better than not having one at all, which is what we've had for a long time with the incompetents at the RFL.

Just bungling along with no plan benefits nobody at all from to to bottom.  

Keighley Cougars have made their comments based on sports-centric observations.

They have experience of not being allowed access to the inaugural season of Super League in the 1990's.

It was the 'incompetents' at the RFL who initiated the broadcast deal with Sky,on which Super League has been dependent for all the past years.

As I type this it is IMG who are bungling along with no plans which doesn't benefit anyone form top to bottom as the whole sport requires a very serious root and branch review.

What is the long term plan that you mention? What are the benefits to the sport, as it seems any money goes to IMG?

How do young players benefit? Will coaching improve? Should I expect the national side to win a World Cup in the future?

 

  • Like 1

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

then crowds and interest will  be a lot bigger than those like London get, or Sheffield got  when in Superleague.  The point seemed to be that continuing to fund London clubs and such as Hurricanes North Wales and Newcastle is a waste of funding, and "fake expansion"........

But these are just arguments, in other words possibilities and could even be just the wishes and dreams of the people running the clubs that these ideas support.

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The whole thread has descended into paranoia and nonsense

How did you pick it out from the crowd?

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Agbrigg said:

Just one point, you are correct that the clubs waved this through on a near 100% vote. However now the further details were published last week I am hearing quite a few are having concerns or at least need many of the points explained in much greater detail. 

As far as I am aware there will be a further vote once the clubs get more information. That vote may not get anything near the 100% . It's still not cut and dry

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Based on what we know so far, in the short term there is probably little to no benefits for Championship clubs in IMG's proposals, and you can see why a club like Keighly is getting so upset. 

IMG are too competent and savvy to believe that the near landslide vote they recieved for their initial proposals put them in a great position or is it a false sense of security to simply believe that their situation is actually safer than it is, aren't they?

The way that IMG have set out the grading criteria that they have now presented to "all the clubs" is most definatley weighted in favour of the SL clubs and as you say Toppy has little to no benefit for the Championship clubs and indeed League 1. Clubs.

We have heard from two sub SL clubs who are not happy, how many will follow is the question, as @Agbriggsays above the vote is still not cut and dry and I think that will be the case once more clubs realise they are most likely to be cut off and set adrift.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the Keighley chaps made some good points. Maybe because I am sceptical  of the IMG proposals so far announced. I like to believe I listened intently to their specific queries and opinions. I tried not to box them into a category, tried not to allow my own bias to be interpretative nor allow any attribution bias twist any of their specific points.

They raised their concerns plus provided a top level alternative approach. Yes they questions of how expansion has been done to-date plus outlined a view of London and its local boroughs that should be listened too. They also made a point about what they called organic growth - that is provide funding for a geographical local lead to work to create more clubs in Cornwall and have a local based league to create growth from. They mentioned the same for other area's.  As distinct from selecting a single club in an area as previously done with success. etc etc etc. They of course made the point about RL being mainly a "town" and small locality sport that we shouldn't be embarrassed about and which if we embraced could be a USP.   

I note though that some commentators in this thread seem to twist what was specifically said, I guess to dismiss them as anti something. As distinct from answering their specific points that they rightly have.

I also noted the specific point about the analogy of the winning team in a play-off would not be promoted, whilst the losing team would if it had a small percentage point higher in grading. That being confirmed by IMG spokesperson. 

Edited by redjonn
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some great points made, I'm struggling to know which way is best as arguments on each side are strong and convincing 😁

Would really appreciate if you could copy and paste your thoughts onto the YouTube comments section, oddly enough comments and thumbs up or down all increase the video engagement score far more than views and this helps push it up the searches 👍

So pls leave a comment there, subscribe and like of you can.

More engagement hopefully encourages more clubs to get in touch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Agbrigg said:

Just one point, you are correct that the clubs waved this through on a near 100% vote. However now the further details were published last week I am hearing quite a few are having concerns or at least need many of the points explained in much greater detail. 

As far as I am aware there will be a further vote once the clubs get more information. That vote may not get anything near the 100% . It's still not cut and dry

We don't need 100%. The sport has finally, at long last, decided it will no longer be held back by people happy to take a "lowest common denominator" approach. All it has given us is slow, managed decline.

As long as the Super League clubs, the RFL leadership, and some Championship clubs want to do it it's going to happen. In fact, I think it would on just the first two elements - but I know plenty of Championship leaders actually "get it" anyway, so that isn't an issue.

Simon Johnson reaching out to Keighley last week is just common sense, old fashioned politeness, and good stakeholder management. It doesn't signify a change in strategy, and the luddites who'd like to hold the game back in order for their club to have an almost purely notional, hypothetical chance of getting promoted into Super League on playing results alone are going to have to find a way to handle it.

We need to do what is right to grow the commercial and broadcast attractiveness of the elite league, and increase its attractiveness (and security) for the investors who sustain it. If we can do that, and so make the whole financial cake bigger, then down the track tier 2 and tier 3 clubs will both get more central funds, and also be part of a sport with a better profile to sell their own value in their own local communities. 

It's time to step up!

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Apparently this site says I "won the day" here on 23rd Jan, 19th Jan, 9th Jan also 13th December, whatever any of that means. Anyway, 4 times in a few weeks? The forum must be going to the dogs - you people need to seriously up your game. Where's Dutoni when you need him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agh, duplicating as this ended up at bottom on previous page 😕

Some great points made, I'm struggling to know which way is best as arguments on each side are strong and convincing 😁

Would really appreciate if you could copy and paste your thoughts onto the YouTube comments section, oddly enough comments and thumbs up or down all increase the video engagement score far more than views and this helps push it up the searches 👍

So pls leave a comment there, subscribe and like of you can.

More engagement hopefully encourages more clubs to get in touch.

And for those who may not have seen the link a few pages ago.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Workington won the cup and the league inside 6 years, of joining the league and they had brilliant players already playing at amateur level in Cumberland, and big crowds, so there is no comparison.

It's more the down south clubs who the Keighley lads say "haven't worked", they appear to resent as travel costs can be high. On the longest costly Journey to Cornwall they argue there is no real  "expansion" and crowds are in reality a few hundred. 

Anyway it will sort itself out if lower division clubs lose their TV funding ....

Thanks

Yeh it was easier back then because teams had to do their thing on their own merits - teams weren't given 2 Million a season "just for being there" it was a different/ fairer world back then.

The Sky money has ruined the game.

Sky are not to blame he RFL are, for not sharing it out more equally from the start.

Every team should have been given money for teams and money for grounds equally. and brought everyone up together.

Sky bought the rights to show matches - they didn't buy the rights to say which teams got millions and which teams got nowt?

For that money they could have picked which matches and how many they wanted to show - but they did it wrong.

The matches back in 70s/80s /90s pre sky were just as good to watch [actually better IMO] .

The Wigan team and Widnes /Saints etc were brilliant to watch pre Sky money - they still are but the unfair share of money as made the gap to all the other teams that dont get that money ridiculous.

And boring

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:

Keighley Cougars have made their comments based on sports-centric observations.

They have experience of not being allowed access to the inaugural season of Super League in the 1990's.

It was the 'incompetents' at the RFL who initiated the broadcast deal with Sky,on which Super League has been dependent for all the past years.

As I type this it is IMG who are bungling along with no plans which doesn't benefit anyone form top to bottom as the whole sport requires a very serious root and branch review.

What is the long term plan that you mention? What are the benefits to the sport, as it seems any money goes to IMG?

How do young players benefit? Will coaching improve? Should I expect the national side to win a World Cup in the future?

 

I agree with you on most,

BUT

IMG do have plans, but they are only to enhance the rich teams [the grading are biased toward them]

The 2 guys from Keighley should be respected [i do] they are looking after a team that isn't given a 2 Million start every season and they are there and they are concerned about the game as  whole - not just themselves?

How many of the SL directors etc will still be there if Sky eventually pulls the plug and they have to put their hands in their pockets to make up the 2 Million shortfall?????

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I thought the Keighley chaps made some good points. Maybe because I am sceptical  of the IMG proposals so far announced. I like to believe I listened intently to their specific queries and opinions. I tried not to box them into a category, tried not to allow my own bias to be interpretative nor allow any attribution bias twist any of their specific points.

They raised their concerns plus provided a top level alternative approach. Yes they questions of how expansion has been done to-date plus outlined a view of London and its local boroughs that should be listened too. They also made a point about what they called organic growth - that is provide funding for a geographical local lead to work to create more clubs in Cornwall and have a local based league to create growth from. They mentioned the same for other area's.  As distinct from selecting a single club in an area as previously done with success. etc etc etc. They of course made the point about RL being mainly a "town" and small locality sport that we shouldn't be embarrassed about and which if we embraced could be a USP.   

I note though that some commentators in this thread seem to twist what was specifically said, I guess to dismiss them as anti something. As distinct from answering their specific points that they rightly have.

I also noted the specific point about the analogy of the winning team in a play-off would not be promoted, whilst the losing team would if it had a small percentage point higher in grading. That being confirmed by IMG spokesperson. 

I don't think 2 up 2 down would work, indeed it would only entrench the teams at the very top, whilst screwing the majority of teams who are up for relegation each year (and of course the promoted teams, who would be even more likely to go straight back down). The only way that doesn't happen is if you heavily restrict the top sides to a level that the likes of Keighley think they can compete with.

The small town game thing is tosh, but I can see why it would suit the owners Keighley to believe it.

"Organic growth" is also tosh. London and the south east has as many RL clubs as parts of the "heartlands" do, yet they still aren't accepted.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

The whole thread has descended into paranoia and nonsense

By which ones Ginger, the supporters or doubters of the rudiments of the grading system? 

But really that question does not need posing.

21 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Next level delusional stuff indeed. 

C'mon guy's I thought you are both better than that, isn't this a platform to voice one's opinion without being belittled because there are those who do not agree with their train of thought simply because they are so obviously very correct - well at least in their own minds !.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

C'mon guy's I thought you are both better than that, isn't this a platform to voice one's opinion without being belittled because there are those who do not agree with their train of thought simply because they are so obviously very correct - well at least in their own minds !.

IMG and the clubs do not want a 10 team Super League. That is proper tin foil hat stuff Harry. 

Keighley's owners are indulging the fact they are the only openly anti-IMG club with even more tin foil hat stuff.

It's easy to fall into a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories in all walks of life at the moment H. Its important to challenge them, sometimes through discussing how objectively silly they are, when possible.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think 2 up 2 down would work, indeed it would only entrench the teams at the very top, whilst screwing the majority of teams who are up for relegation each year (and of course the promoted teams, who would be even more likely to go straight back down). The only way that doesn't happen is if you heavily restrict the top sides to a level that the likes of Keighley think they can compete with.

The small town game thing is tosh, but I can see why it would suit the owners Keighley to believe it.

"Organic growth" is also tosh. London and the south east has as many RL clubs as parts of the "heartlands" do, yet they still aren't accepted.

It was a Town comment, not small Town comment.  I don't see any issue with having a club like Warrington which is basically a Town club (I am not considering any technical and historical aspects that may determine whether a place is a Town or City). Particularly given the potential to attract commercial sponsorship/revenues because of the business environment of the Town. In fact looking mid to long term I would think that Warrington should be in over a St Helens given their much better economic circumstances and resultant wealthier demographics.  I use that as an example just to note that local or area economy isn't a factor in grading.

I guess Keighley think that if they has had the advantage of some of the SL clubs then they would be able to compete and maybe do better that a number of lower SL clubs.

Whether as a Sport that's what is wanted then maybe not, they should be explicit. In fact they should be explicit in what they see as the goal. Give the ideal target as to which clubs should be in the top league that would in their eyes best command the greatest revenues for increasing the financials of the sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

IMG and the clubs do not want a 10 team Super League. That is proper tin foil hat stuff Harry. 

Keighley's owners are indulging the fact they are the only openly anti-IMG club with even more tin foil hat stuff.

It's easy to fall into a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories in all walks of life at the moment H. Its important to challenge them, sometimes through discussing how objectively silly they are, when possible.

maybe, although must admit why is digital advertising so important. I know Leeds have it but it didn't prevent them being relatively highly successful with their commercial revenues prior to having it.  Surely why should that at this stage be so important as I guess anything in the grading is important otherwise why put it in. 

I don't see that as a tin foil hat stuff comment. Nor having a view that their is a pre-ordained outcome that IMG and RFL are looking for and hence that has influenced some of the criteria.  Whether you want to call me a tin hat loon for thinking they may have a point, I do think it was very poor comment to say that if you don't approve the our IMG grading approach then you have given up the sport. Their are alternatives or their are adjustments that could and maybe should be made to the current proposals.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, redjonn said:

maybe, although must admit why is digital advertising so important. I know Leeds have it but it didn't prevent them being relatively highly successful with their commercial revenues prior to having it.  Surely why should that at this stage be so important as I guess anything in the grading is important otherwise why put it in. 

I don't see that as a tin foil hat stuff comment. Nor having a view that their is a pre-ordained outcome that IMG and RFL are looking for and hence that has influenced some of the criteria.  Whether you want to call me a tin hat loon for thinking they may have a point, I do think it was very poor comment to say that if you don't approve the our IMG grading approach then you have given up the sport. Their are alternatives or their are adjustments that could and maybe should be made to the current proposals.

Surely that comment on digital advertising, which is actually digital footprint, must be in jest? 

Perhaps that explains a lot. The world is so far removed from how it was 25 years ago that some cannot get with that.

As it stands, Keighley, along with a couple of others who have been less public, have taken the approach that the IMG plan will not benefit them and therefore they will rail against it in whatever way suits at that moment. Their proposals are unworkable, dumbing down, and arguably the antithesis of what IMG and the RFL are trying to achieve for the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, redjonn said:

It was a Town comment, not small Town comment.  I don't see any issue with having a club like Warrington which is basically a Town club (I am not considering any technical and historical aspects that may determine whether a place is a Town or City). Particularly given the potential to attract commercial sponsorship/revenues because of the business environment of the Town. In fact looking mid to long term I would think that Warrington should be in over a St Helens given their much better economic circumstances and resultant wealthier demographics.  I use that as an example just to note that local or area economy isn't a factor in grading.

I guess Keighley think that if they has had the advantage of some of the SL clubs then they would be able to compete and maybe do better that a number of lower SL clubs.

Whether as a Sport that's what is wanted then maybe not, they should be explicit. In fact they should be explicit in what they see as the goal. Give the ideal target as to which clubs should be in the top league that would in their eyes best command the greatest revenues for increasing the financials of the sport.

"If Keighley had the advantages of some of the SL clubs" does sound an awful lot like "if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle" (for the gen z social media fans).

If IMG and the RFL wanted to cut off these clubs in favour of certain others, they could do it in a far easier way than their proposals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

IMG and the clubs do not want a 10 team Super League. That is proper tin foil hat stuff Harry. 

Keighley's owners are indulging the fact they are the only openly anti-IMG club with even more tin foil hat stuff.

It's easy to fall into a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories in all walks of life at the moment H. Its important to challenge them, sometimes through discussing how objectively silly they are, when possible.

I never said IMG wanted a 10 team league, I think its pretty obvious that they don't. Do you really think many SL teams would complain though if SL was reduced to 10 teams and it meant getting their grubby little hands on some more cash?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.