IMG Grading Unveiled

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

I don't think anyone is questioning whether IMG are trying to increase income into the game.

The doubters are suggesting that the status quo will be maintained in terms of the clubs in the top flight, and that the criteria are likely to largely ensure that.

Why would IMG want to keep the status quo if they think there are teams outside of SL that would increase revenue?

They wouldn't have put criteria like location and potential in there if they thought the status quo was going to make them more money from the sport.

If they wanted to keep the status quo there would have been far easier systems to propose to do that than what they have.

[Dave T]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I was interested too and just had a look myself, this report is from 2019

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://harris-interactive.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2019/10/Sports-Participation-Viewing-and-Fandom-in-the-UK-A-Harris-Interactive-Report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiAwImWse_9AhWIasAKHT6yB2YQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3iw9uSGX8gNV3lv4Un9a3E

Thanks, my phone suggests I've already downloaded this once so will have a scan again

[Oxford]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It is arguable, we don't know how the grading system is set up, the IMG guy said it will be set up so that it is not based on someones opinion, now until we see how it will be implemented we can't say for sure whether he is correct.

It's a philosophical debate Chris, they could have criteria they think are set in stone a club side gets a B grading in some area and doesn't agree it's not difficult to see this happen.

I've already said that while all this is released piecemeal we're  all commenting in the dark about the colour black.

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

The doubters are suggesting that the status quo will be maintained

And although the worry for Championship sides is SL status quo it's far nore worrying where I cut your phrase off.

I can see nothing in the grading system that guarantees a better club though I do appreciate that making the whole  experience more exciting and enjoyable is paramount but these are not the same thing.

[GeordieSaint]

34 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Right

So as you state its only SL teams on Sky and smaller clubs are not on TV.

Then its solely down to the SL clubs that the Money from Sky was reduced - nothing to do with the smaller clubs not being as good or playing as attractive rugby which has been said on here previously.

So do you think that's because Sky are getting bored with watching the same teams week in and every year??

Or is it just not as good to watch as you think??

The SKY money has dropped for a whole host of reasons - economic pressures to the company being one. The perceived drop in quality of rugby league in the northern hemisphere another as top players have left for the NRL (nor the ability to attract top southern hemisphere talent) is another. The changing cultures in RL communities (and across the country) in relation to sport is another. The lack of inward investment ie capital into the sport is another. All contributing to the perception the sport is struggling. 

So how does 2 up 2 down with no minimum criteria address those issues? 

Edited March 22, 2023 by GeordieSaint

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Thanks, my phone suggests I've already downloaded this once so will have a scan again

The last page is good for the demographics point. The report generally explains well a few things, particularly RU, though it is 4 years out of date now.

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

And that's fine if you feel that way Harry, that is your prerogative. But it might not be can't, it might be filled with two other people because your club has put effort into making the club vibrant and sustainable.

As for your take on sport, again that's fine that's your prerogative. but any sport anywhere will have fixtures where the result isn't paramount and people still watch it because they enjoy watching sport.

I think we have posed this question before Chris, and you agreed when I said watching 'sport' and watching the club you call 'your own' has a completely different meaning, in watching you are an observer, if it's your club you are part of, chalk and cheese.

[Barley Mow]

11 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Why would IMG want to keep the status quo if they think there are teams outside of SL that would increase revenue?

They wouldn't have put criteria like location and potential in there if they thought the status quo was going to make them more money from the sport.

If they wanted to keep the status quo there would have been far easier systems to propose to do that than what they have.

Is potential a criterion?

I'm not sure why. But it does appear that there's likely to be a strong incumbency bias.

In my opinion, the likes of Toulouse, Bradford, Widnes, Halifax and Featherstone could be swapped with Wakefield, Salford and Leigh with little change to the overall picture in SL. From the information published so far, it seems that IMG think that clubs already in SL have some characteristics which are more valuable to their aims.

In terms of easier ways to keep the existing clubs in SL, I imagine a straightforward block on P&R would have resulted in greater objection.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Barley Mow

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I was interested too and just had a look myself, this report is from 2019

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://harris-interactive.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2019/10/Sports-Participation-Viewing-and-Fandom-in-the-UK-A-Harris-Interactive-Report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiAwImWse_9AhWIasAKHT6yB2YQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3iw9uSGX8gNV3lv4Un9a3E

Obviously this is for adults only, but from eyeballing it, I don't see anything that suggests we over-index in older populations. 

For years we have had dirt cheap tickets for kids too, and those 18-35 year old are coming through the pipeline from somewhere. I do see a problem with strategy around kids tho - cheap tickets, family game, yet heavy alcohol use and Thursday/Friday night games. We need to be careful. 

[Oxford]

13 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

why would IMG want to do that? the whole point is that if the sport grows they get more money.

There are obviously arguments that would hold this to be correct. Say fo the sake of argument that the blueprint is based on certain clubs considered brand names above and beyond the rest and the goal is to widen RL into new areas The top of SL would be maintained and new larger conurbation markets introduced. This would sustain those considered A at present and could increase income streams for the sport and IMG. The sport would not be the same but the status quo would be.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think we have posed this question before Chris, and you agreed when I said watching 'sport' and watching the club you call 'your own' has a completely different meaning, in watching you are an observer, if it's your club you are part of, chalk and cheese.

But personally I think you are looking at it from the wrong angle, you keep talking about very game mattering, but you only seem to be seeing that from the bottom, maybe its because that's where your team has been in the last few years - as in relegation and promotion placings. Let's say for example Leigh progress from the excellent start they have had and keep progressing off the field (because as you owner is saying because of the gradings) and Leigh are constantly in the playoffs and pushing for the grand final.

Are you honestly telling me that you will give the game up if there isn't automatic P&R at the bottom of SL?

 

And anyway I didn't fully agree with you as I said I would still go watch my club even if the result of the games are 'meaningless' I have done that for many years because I enjoy watching my team play, I also think due to the nature of the game its pretty impossible (and possibly dangerous) to play the game half hearted, that's one of the beauties of RL.

[Oxford]

The saddest thing is that while everyone is concerned with what is best for the sport while indulging in huge us and them ideas based on their own preferences. And I think this may get even worse as the process progresses.

[Dave T]

We do like to protray SL as a bit of a closed shop and existing clubs having a huge advantage etc. 

I would absolutely challenge this. The ones there and doing well are there because they are the strongest clubs. Broadly speaking we have had relatively open P&R. 

Out of the current 12 clubs, 7 of them have spent time outside of Super League I believe. Neither Hull club was included at the start. 

Of course there are some cases where clubs may feel hard done to, with Keighley being a clear case of that 28 years ago, but broadly speaking, clubs have had plenty of opportunity to get into SL and establish themselves. 

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

 

In terms of easier ways to keep the existing clubs in SL, I imagine a straightforward block on P&R would have resulted in greater objection.

I said keep the status quo, the easiest way would be to keep the current P&R situation.

To be honest I wouldn't have objected to that, personally I don't think the structure is the biggest part of why RL isn't progressing as it should.

I think the reason IMG want the grading system is to force clubs to look at the other reasons that it is - i.e fan engagement,  marketing, facilities etc etc

[Barley Mow]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We do like to protray SL as a bit of a closed shop and existing clubs having a huge advantage etc. 

I would absolutely challenge this. The ones there and doing well are there because they are the strongest clubs. Broadly speaking we have had relatively open P&R. 

Out of the current 12 clubs, 7 of them have spent time outside of Super League I believe. Neither Hull club was included at the start. 

Of course there are some cases where clubs may feel hard done to, with Keighley being a clear case of that 28 years ago, but broadly speaking, clubs have had plenty of opportunity to get into SL and establish themselves. 

...and long may it continue! 

[Barley Mow]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I said keep the status quo, the easiest way would be to keep the current P&R situation.

To be honest I wouldn't have objected to that, personally I don't think the structure is the biggest part of why RL isn't progressing as it should.

I think the reason IMG want the grading system is to force clubs to look at the other reasons that it is - i.e fan engagement,  marketing, facilities etc etc

Then we were at crossed purposes over the status quo element - I'd responded to one of your earlier posts saying that critics of the scheme think it would be status quo with regard to the specific clubs in SL, I had just carried on on that basis.

I agree that structure isn't the biggest issue. Lack of a consistent structure has been the issue over the recent past. IMG have a good reputation for increasing interest and income - that is what I had hoped their focus would be on. If that is the purpose of the grading, I just feel it is a shame to do away with on field P&R because in general terms I prefer it.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

 

I think the reason IMG want the grading system is to force clubs to look at the other reasons that it is - i.e fan engagement,  marketing, facilities etc etc

Yep.....gives clear KPIs that can be checked 

It MUST come from the clubs themselves 

I am not in the marketing game so wouldn't know the best way to go about it.  However I am sure having KPIs and clear targets will make sure the good clubs are forced to find out the best strategies to do it 

Clubs opting to a spend the family silver on 8 year contracts for star players they can't really afford will get found out .......investing that money in marketing to grow the fan base and facilities would be money better spent 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Then we were at crossed purposes over the status quo element - I'd responded to one of your earlier posts saying that critics of the scheme think it would be status quo with regard to the specific clubs in SL, I had just carried on on that basis.

I agree that structure isn't the biggest issue. Lack of a consistent structure has been the issue over the recent past. IMG have a good reputation for increasing interest and income - that is what I had hoped their focus would be on. If that is the purpose of the grading, I just feel it is a shame to do away with on field P&R because in general terms I prefer it.

I don't mind P&R and I can totally understand why especially in this country it is sort of expected. The issue I have with it in RL is I don't think carrying on as we are is ultimately best for the game at this point, but as I say if IMG came out and said P&R will stay as it is, I wouldn't be crying into my beer.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Yep.....gives clear KPIs that can be checked 

It MUST come from the clubs themselves 

 

 

This is one of the points I think gets lost, IMG cannot do the clubs work for them, neither is it in their remit.

[Barley Mow]

13 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Yep.....gives clear KPIs that can be checked 

It MUST come from the clubs themselves 

I am not in the marketing game so wouldn't know the best way to go about it.  However I am sure having KPIs and clear targets will make sure the good clubs are forced to find out the best strategies to do it 

Clubs opting to a spend the family silver on 8 year contracts for star players they can't really afford will get found out .......investing that money in marketing to grow the fan base and facilities would be money better spent 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I don't mind P&R and I can totally understand why especially in this country it is sort of expected. The issue I have with it in RL is I don't think carrying on as we are is ultimately best for the game at this point, but as I say if IMG came out and said P&R will stay as it is, I wouldn't be crying into my beer.

I am very happy for IMG to set targets/areas for improvement for clubs and all of the categories except 'catchment' are things that clubs can improve on. I'm also happy for there to be rewards for these improvements.

What I dislike is that the reward is a place in the top tier competition, I'd prefer that to be the reward for on the field success (subject to meeting financial and ground requirements).

So my off the wall alternative would be for clubs to get the amount of central funding received based on their grading. The higher the grade, the higher the amount of funding. For most clubs this would be a great incentive to improve, and with that increased funding on field success and promotion is likely to follow.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Barley Mow

[Derwent Parker]

40 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

So what are you arguing? What do you want? Your team to be in the top tier? I assume that you are a Workington fan, well I could actually see this system working more in your favour than straight forward p and r.

Yes you assume correct.

Please explain how this system will work more in your favour than straight forward p and r for a League one team

[Chrispmartha]

18 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Yes you assume correct.

Please explain how this system will work more in your favour than straight forward p and r for a League one team

Because it widens the criteria on which those clubs can achieve top flight status. At the moment theres only one.

I agree with the assertion that it gives teams like the one you support a greater chance.

[glossop saint]

8 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Yes you assume correct.

Please explain how this system will work more in your favour than straight forward p and r for a League one team

As has been discussed earlier there is plenty of reasons why an investor might be more interested in putting money into a club now. There is an issue with Workington and Whitehaven sharing a similar catchment area of fans but there is also no doubt that there is a definite catchment area up in West Cumbria. There are strong local players who have maybe opted for careers in other sectors due to a lack of stability in part time rugby. Whilst there is a strong local core it is difficult to attract players from elsewhere in the country to make that journey to train and play 3 times a week. Going full time would potentially solve that issue.

Granted Derwent Park might not be the smartest ground at the moment and I can't claim to know too much about it but this was a ground that hosted a WC game less than a decade ago.

So, Greater ability to attract investment (both individuals and potential industry up there), a strong potential fandom, a catchment area not shared by many clubs (unlike some areas of West Yorkshire).

In fact if we put our tin foil hats on and say that IMG were picking and choosing clubs to have in SL I would say that a Cumbria club would be a must and personally would be pushing for Workington.

It has been a while since Workington were last threatening SL, can you realistically see it happening again soon with P&R?

[Archie Gordon]

25 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

...

So my off the wall alternative would be for clubs to get the amount of central funding received based on their grading. The higher the grade, the higher the amount of funding. For most clubs this would be a great incentive to improve, and with that increased funding on field success and promotion is likely to follow.

I had precisely the same thought. 

[RP London]

57 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

 

I am very happy for IMG to set targets/areas for improvement for clubs and all of the categories except 'catchment' are things that clubs can improve on. I'm also happy for there to be rewards for these improvements.

What I dislike is that the reward is a place in the top tier competition, I'd prefer that to be the reward for on the field success (subject to meeting financial and ground requirements).

So my off the wall alternative would be for clubs to get the amount of central funding received based on their grading. The higher the grade, the higher the amount of funding. For most clubs this would be a great incentive to improve, and with that increased funding on field success and promotion is likely to follow.

I can see the logic in your suggestion and think it is definitely a good alternative. The one big issue on that is time. 

Let's say it works perfectly and a couple of teams in the champ do this..  they now need to attract players happy to play in the champ and enough to get promoted.. fine with full time money that might happen, but it takes time to build that arguably.. more of a but is there could be 2-3 teams like that so now you have a bottle neck to get up to super league. Even if all do get up year after year that's 3 years wait to get the super league you want/need but equally the wait could cause issues for a team holding on to players or the relegated team just investing everything into the team to bounce back (but doing nothing else) or another challenger popping up so could be 4-5 years

IMG and Rugby League don't want or need to be waiting that long for those clubs to rise to the top... get them in and get RL leveraging them for the extra exposure etc that their success can bring. 

If 5 teams do well and get up to the standard get them in above those that don't, let's not wait for 1 up 1 down or even 2 and 2 to work its way through to get the best to the top, fast track them and reward them that way.. let's get the game as strong as possible as fast as possible. 

Edited March 22, 2023 by RP London

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

12 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

What I dislike is that the reward is a place in the top tier competition, I'd prefer that to be the reward for on the field success (subject to meeting financial and ground requirements).

I think Salford is an argument against this isn't it? 

A club that has not focussed enough on growing it's fan base but has achieved some good on field success (reached play offs and finals)

If Salford and other clubs concentrated on growing their fan base more and star players less they could have a better funded and more sustainable model going forward ....and eventually have more money for the star player contracts. .....long termism not short term