IMG Grading Unveiled

[Oxford]

44 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.

Interesting idea, but if a club is assured a cat A and does nothing new why would you reward inactivity?

If the aim is not just maintaining an unbalanced status quo the perfect way to do just that is to give more money to those clubs that already have more.

In all of this debate not only has it been assumed some clubs are not improving but also that they're not trying to improve.

 

[Barley Mow]

6 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

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 

Isn't fan numbers/engagement part of the criteria?

My suggestion, below the part of my post that you quote was that the criteria (except probably catchment) would be used and Salford (and the rest) would get part of their funding based on those criteria.

Growing fanbase would therefore give them an extra financial reward enabling them to spend on players.

[Barley Mow]

10 minutes ago, RP London said:

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. 

If enough clubs improved their squad enough, SL could still be increased in number. Otherwise, the standard of the Championship would be improved as well, which isn't a bad thing.

[Barley Mow]

7 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Interesting idea, but if a club is assured a cat A and does nothing new why would you reward inactivity?

If the aim is not just maintaining an unbalanced status quo the perfect way to do just that is to give more money to those clubs that already have more.

In all of this debate not only has it been assumed some clubs are not improving but also that they're not trying to improve.

 

I don't doubt that all clubs are trying to improve. My suggestion just gives them an extra financial incentive to do so.

In terms of rewarding inactivity, you would be rewarding the standard of facilities, number of fans, etc. If clubs maintain levels, they retain the funding.

Hopefully, eventually, there would be enough top graded clubs to raise what is required to achieve an A.

Anyway, it was just a spur of the moment thought, not something I've fully thought out.

[RP London]

44 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

If enough clubs improved their squad enough, SL could still be increased in number. Otherwise, the standard of the Championship would be improved as well, which isn't a bad thing.

Indeed, and I agree, but the first step is to get the best into super league as fast as possible.. the way suggested would risk this and IMHO that is too big a risk that can be mitigated with a bit of fast tracking. The rest can happen (and possibly more quickly) after that due to/thanks to getting those initial "winners" into the top league first to increase its commercial viability (therefore increasing the pie that needs to be divided and which can then be divided between more). 

[Oxford]

28 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I don't doubt that all clubs are trying to improve. My suggestion just gives them an extra financial incentive to do so.

In terms of rewarding inactivity, you would be rewarding the standard of facilities, number of fans, etc. If clubs maintain levels, they retain the funding.

Hopefully, eventually, there would be enough top graded clubs to raise what is required to achieve an A.

Anyway, it was just a spur of the moment thought, not something I've fully thought out.

The general idea seems to be they're not making any efforts. The number of references to big clubs being held back on other threads would also be evidence of this in spite of the fact there is no substantial evidence to that effect.

I think it's all spur of the moment jobs at the present.

 

[Nearenough]

3 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

The Bird is the word

everybodys talkin all about it 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Anyway, I asked why in todays modern world less people engage themselves directly in the stadiums from the time you described.

To which I replied that more people are engaged now, rather than less. We just want more still.  

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, Barley Mow said:

If enough clubs improved their squad enough, SL could still be increased in number. Otherwise, the standard of the Championship would be improved as well, which isn't a bad thing.

Investing a lot of money in a squad whilst not professionalising the structures behind it nor infrastructure and broader commercial revenues is a recipe for disaster… foundations built on sand.

[Barley Mow]

5 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

Investing a lot of money in a squad whilst not professionalising the structures behind it nor infrastructure and broader commercial revenues is a recipe for disaster… foundations built on sand.

My suggestion wasn't that though. It was encouraging clubs to develop their infrastructure and revenue by rewarding them financially through central funding.

They can then use that central funding however they wish and that could include investing in the squad of players with a view to gaining promotion on the field.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Barley Mow

[Barley Mow]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

Indeed, and I agree, but the first step is to get the best into super league as fast as possible.. the way suggested would risk this and IMHO that is too big a risk that can be mitigated with a bit of fast tracking. The rest can happen (and possibly more quickly) after that due to/thanks to getting those initial "winners" into the top league first to increase its commercial viability (therefore increasing the pie that needs to be divided and which can then be divided between more). 

No system is going to achieve every objective (especially one I thought up on the spur of the moment when I should have been working!)

Any system will prioritise different things: I like the idea of rewarding clubs for developing their infrastructure, fan base, etc, but think that on field P&R should be retained. Rewarding them financially through central funding achieves both of those aims, even though it may not prioritise others. That's as far as I got with the idea.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Barley Mow

[MattSantos]

3 hours 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

I'm not a fan of this report at all.. 

'Data suggests swimming merits a higher share of media coverage than it gets right now'

It suggests this despite understanding that swimming is so popular as an exercise, not a sport. What are Sky Sports news going to commentate on, the old dears blocking the swimming lanes. Again.

--

Live viewing suggests that more people watch swimming and gymnastics more than Rugby League. Do they? Do they really? Nonsense.

[Harry Stottle]

56 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

To which I replied that more people are engaged now, rather than less. We just want more still.  

Not in the stadiums they ain't, I am referring to the 50's, you?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not in the stadiums they ain't, I am referring to the 50's, you?

Nobody uses the 50's attendances as a benchmark for any sport, there was a huge postwar boom across all sports, which wasn't sustained across any of them. However, rugby league fell into huge decline across the 60's and 70's. We're in a far better place now. But we need to look forwards and grow from here, rather than look back to a time of part-time players and insular Yorkshire Cups won against a team 20 miles up the road. 

[Chrispmartha]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not in the stadiums they ain't, I am referring to the 50's, you?

You think comparing 70+years ago is a valid comparison?

There's quite a lot changed in the world since then.

[idrewthehaggis]

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

 

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 

Erm, I will let people Google the various club, veterans and Blue Light schemes that there is and has been at Salford.. 

https://salfordreddevils.net/bring-a-plus-1-50-off-to-the-huddersfield-tie/

As Oxford says there is this inaccurate and unhealthy mistaken narrative that portrays some senior clubs as being "held" back and others are somehow "failing" in their endeavours, when we all sensibly know there are multiple reasons are afoot here ranging to levels of on field success, local RL culture and intensity of "distractions" for people' leisure time and so on.

RL needs to unite and work together as a team. Too often it is a chaotic self interested headless ramble. This is possibly why an external body like IMG has been recruited.

Whilst there is opinion, there is also facts that should underpin them. I am happy to be corrected. More so if I leave more wiser. I hope others do.

 

 

 

[Derwent Parker]

4 hours 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. 

They are NOT all there just because they are the strongest clubs.

The Big ones like are Saints, Wigan etc are.

But the lower half of SL have a Financial advantage over the Top of Champ, and have had for years.

but if:- Hypothetically - IMG use an idea which I just read on here of awarding CF amount differently depending on A,B or C Status and the Top 6 say are cat A and get for example 2M each and all Bs get 1.3M each and there are 6 Bs in champ and 6 in bottom half of SL.          [numbers just used as example]

Then if after a few seasons of P & R between Bs we will see a true reflection of the strongest because all 12 Bs will have same CF funding.  No Biased between leagues.

And you could have 2 or 3 or 4 up and down cos they wont lose their CF [no parachutes reqd] and a great incentive to up your grade.

If you are a B you get B money regardless of which league you are in. Likewise with C

[Oxford]

59 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

No Bias between leagues.

But tons of it at the very top.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

They are NOT all there just because they are the strongest clubs.

The Big ones like are Saints, Wigan etc are.

But the lower half of SL have a Financial advantage over the Top of Champ, and have had for years.

This is exactly the griping I refer to. 

Halifax, Oldham, London, and Workington were in SL1, Hull and Hull KR weren't. Salford and Cas have been relegated, amongst others. 

The likes of Halifax and Fev haven't taken over these weaker clubs. Why not? 

Hull KR are in SL and Fev are not for a reason 

[Angelic Cynic]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is exactly the griping I refer to. 

Halifax, Oldham, London, and Workington were in SL1, Hull and Hull KR weren't. Salford and Cas have been relegated, amongst others. 

The likes of Halifax and Fev haven't taken over these weaker clubs. Why not? 

Hull KR are in SL and Fev are not for a reason 

Some clubs were successful during Licensing when promotion was not allowed.

Other clubs had dreadful owners.

Anyway,rally round the saviours of the game.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/22/rugby-league-could-go-part-time-again-warns-wakefield-trinity-chief-executive

Rely on pesky foreigners to save old Blighty.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is exactly the griping I refer to. 

Halifax, Oldham, London, and Workington were in SL1, Hull and Hull KR weren't. Salford and Cas have been relegated, amongst others. 

The likes of Halifax and Fev haven't taken over these weaker clubs. Why not? 

Hull KR are in SL and Fev are not for a reason 

Precisely this

Fev, Keighley etc. have failed to get promoted via the current "over-spend for one season" lottery system for nearly 30 years, if anything you'd have thought they and other Championship clubs would think a new model might offer more chance. It can scarcely offer them less chance than they've had to-date.  

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

You think comparing 70+years ago is a valid comparison?

There's quite a lot changed in the world since then.

Yes I know Chris but it wasn't me who brought up the era of Pints of Mild and smoking Woodbines, I just carried on the conversation saying they were the halcyon days of people going through turnstiles onto the grounds.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Yes I know Chris but it wasn't me who brought up the era of Pints of Mild and smoking Woodbines, I just carried on the conversation saying they were the halcyon days of people going through turnstiles onto the grounds.

Ok fair enough I missed the context.

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

Some clubs were successful during Licensing when promotion was not allowed.

That's one read. New clubs were admitted, clubs have moved out since. 

Again, if we look back at that period, the likes of London, Bradford, Crusaders, Widnes have moved out of SL despite all these benefits they apparently were given. 

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Precisely this

Fev, Keighley etc. have failed to get promoted via the current "over-spend for one season" lottery system for nearly 30 years, if anything you'd have thought they and other Championship clubs would think a new model might offer more chance. It can scarcely offer them less chance than they've had to-date.  

Don't forget that there was a period in the last 10 years that Fev would have been promoted but for the Closed Shop, so your 30 years does not really stack up.