IMG Grading Unveiled

[Monkeymagic22]

I can see the big city idea, even places like St Helens are hardly massive and hence have limited growth potential. 
 

A more radical idea would be mergers of teams, perhaps Saints and Wire could become a Liverpool team, then you could look at Leeds, Bradford, London, Manchester, Newcastle, maybe a Calder team etc. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

Don't know what to say about this but nothing surprises me any more 

 

 

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Embarrassing

Why is that?

I shouldn't imagine it will get them anywhere, but if they feel that strongly about it then why not, have they anywhere else to vent their frustration?

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Why is that?

 

Answered in subsequent posts which you have had the opportunity to read.

[Monkeymagic22]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Why is that?

I shouldn't imagine it will get them anywhere, but if they feel that strongly about it then why not, have they anywhere else to vent their frustration?

Fair play to them, and we owners they put plenty into the sport.

[whatmichaelsays]

31 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

I agree, the key question here most certainly is "how do we get more persons to watch rugby league?".  And I daresay that your assumption that it can be done as things stand is wrong.

That's not my assumption. I'm not saying that this can be achieved without changing the way the sport does things, but that those changes are well within the sport's capabilities with the appropriate strategies, carrots and sticks. 

Quote

 

As you say, there are groups of persons in the North who work in those "new money" fields.  Chances are good that many of them know about RL but aren't interested now.  The idea that clubs like Wigan, St Helens and the rest which display small time ways and attitudes by things such as worrying about "away fans" and wanting the French clubs to pay their way over there to play can be converted from the small time outfits they are into big time outfits able to appeal to the broader public is fanciful.

Geography is the core issue, as I explain below.

 

Is it that those people aren't interested, or is it that RL isn't offering what those people want? Or that RL isn't engaging with those audiences? Just because they aren't coming now, it doesn't mean that they cannot and will not ever come. Why do we think affluent audiences in distant cities will flock to RL when we aren't appealing to those under our noses in Alwoodly, Sandal and Cheshire?

Quote

 

You're overlooking a key, fundamental difference between RL and those bigger sports here.

Their leagues are strong because they're based in big cities which anchor those leagues and show them to be big time major pro leagues, while the clubs in smallish towns are appendages to that.  The latter are accepted because they've earned a place in a league alongside the former, in the same way that Green Bay is accepted because the Packers are part of a league with that big time major pro structure.

RL is weak because its setup is exactly the opposite of that.  A few big city teams being the appendages of small town teams is simply backward compared to what the broader public knows and understands.

 

This doesn't address the fundamental issue of how we make RL something that more people want to dedicate their time and money to. 

Let's start from a basic premise that we want to increase the number of "ABC1" audiences watching RL (because we have plenty of ABC1 people within our heartland) - what evidence is there that the lack of city-based teams is the reason they aren't buying RL in one way, shape or form? Why have we concluded that that is the reason, as opposed to the many other potential reasons - facilities, image, advertising, matchday experience, merchandise, branding, etc?

If we address those issues first and we don't move the needle, then maybe the city argument stands to scrutiny but until then, arguing about geography is simply moving the problem somewhere else. If the real reason we don't attract more ABC1 audiences is the poor quality perception of the league, then putting a team in London or Bristol or Milton Keynes doesn't really change that - we just end up looking for more "people like us" in areas where there likely are fewer of those people than what we have now. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

56 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

How many times do people have to remind opponents that the new grading plans don't create a closed league? Other clubs still have the opportunity to progress.

I honestly believe you have too much intelligence to actually agree with that statement you have made, this excersise is not to advance all the sport but those who can seemingly make a profit and in the long run be useful in making IMG a return, the opportunity you mention I believe will be little or non in the not to distant future for clubs to progress.

 

[RP London]

32 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

I agree, the key question here most certainly is "how do we get more persons to watch rugby league?".  And I daresay that your assumption that it can be done as things stand is wrong.

As you say, there are groups of persons in the North who work in those "new money" fields.  Chances are good that many of them know about RL but aren't interested now.  The idea that clubs like Wigan, St Helens and the rest which display small time ways and attitudes by things such as worrying about "away fans" and wanting the French clubs to pay their way over there to play can be converted from the small time outfits they are into big time outfits able to appeal to the broader public is fanciful.

Geography is the core issue, as I explain below.

You're overlooking a key, fundamental difference between RL and those bigger sports here.

Their leagues are strong because they're based in big cities which anchor those leagues and show them to be big time major pro leagues, while the clubs in smallish towns are appendages to that.  The latter are accepted because they've earned a place in a league alongside the former, in the same way that Green Bay is accepted because the Packers are part of a league with that big time major pro structure.

RL is weak because its setup is exactly the opposite of that.  A few big city teams being the appendages of small town teams is simply backward compared to what the broader public knows and understands.

The big thing you need to remember (and thank god for this when you see the news!) the UK IS NOT THE US.... 

everything you moan about just isnt true here.. people really dont care as much as you seem to think. 

However, the big thing that I was saying and which you seem to want to ignore is that if you make the full change straight off then you kill the sport.. if you allow it to evolve out (if thats what happens) then you have a chance. To do that you need to work with what you have NOW.. what you keep badgering on about is changing it all now (which cannot work) or you then change to "but you need to be in cities".. ok but we're not, this is the first stage to get there (if thats where we go) so whats the problem?

IIRC American football started in places like Canton, which no one outside of the US has really heard of, and it slowly changed (then faster and faster as these things do) into the bigger city sport it is today (bar Green Bay)... let RL do the same then.. slowly but surely with a good base. 

I want expansion, I have worked with clubs in expansion areas (on a volunteer basis and a player) I live in a big city expansion area ffs... I am not against the idea that we need to grow away from the heartlands but every single "plan" i read from you is a death sentence for the game in this country, you want the movement too quickly and by doing that would kill the game and my god you do not understand the sporting landscape in the UK at all IMHO. 

 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

You still are avoiding the answer , so I will provide it for you 

It was to test yourself at a higher level , simple as , that's how sport works , but you want to deny other clubs , their players , their owners and their fans that opportunity 

Hypocrite 

no one is denying anybody anything.... if you can get the infrastructure sorted out you can test yourself.. you just cant throw all your money simply at the team for 2 weeks at the top table and then the rest of eternity in oblivion.. 

there is going to be P&R but there are going to be standards association with it.. 

Why are people thinking anyone is being denied anything?? I understand people are allowed an opinion but not when it is just factually and provably incorrect! thats just idiocy.

[RP London]

30 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Why is that?

I shouldn't imagine it will get them anywhere, but if they feel that strongly about it then why not, have they anywhere else to vent their frustration?

yes, there are meetings planned by IMG to have these discussions where they can actually get proper answers and properly influence the people that matter... how about do that first (like any normal person would) and then if you still dont like the further information or the answers to your questions THEN bleat and moan all over social media and to your MP.. surely that is the more sensible approach.

[Harry Stottle]

32 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Answered in subsequent posts which you have had the opportunity to read.

No, I read the opening posts on the subject and asked why then of both you and Mr C why the terse comments rom you both before I ventured further into the thread, both of your comments just made me think what have they done so wrong, and the subsequent posts have not changed my mind.

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

You still are avoiding the answer , so I will provide it for you 

It was to test yourself at a higher level , simple as , that's how sport works , but you want to deny other clubs , their players , their owners and their fans that opportunity 

Hypocrite 

That's really an unnecessarily agro post, and there is really no need.

Neither he nor IMG is denying clubs anything, they are just offering that chance in a different way.

[Chrispmartha]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I honestly believe you have too much intelligence to actually agree with that statement you have made, this excersise is not to advance all the sport but those who can seemingly make a profit and in the long run be useful in making IMG a return, the opportunity you mention I believe will be little or non in the not to distant future for clubs to progress.

 

You might believe that but its just an opinion based on limited information we have.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, RP London said:

yes, there are meetings planned by IMG to have these discussions where they can actually get proper answers and properly influence the people that matter... how about do that first (like any normal person would) and then if you still dont like the further information or the answers to your questions THEN bleat and moan all over social media and to your MP.. surely that is the more sensible approach.

But how would that make it all about them?

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

yes, there are meetings planned by IMG to have these discussions where they can actually get proper answers and properly influence the people that matter... how about do that first (like any normal person would) and then if you still dont like the further information or the answers to your questions THEN bleat and moan all over social media and to your MP.. surely that is the more sensible approach.

When is the official vote RP? Have IMG allowed time for any disagreements that may eventuate from their meeting with individual clubs to be taken further?

[RP London]

25 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

That's not my assumption. I'm not saying that this can be achieved without changing the way the sport does things, but that those changes are well within the sport's capabilities with the appropriate strategies, carrots and sticks. 

Is it that those people aren't interested, or is it that RL isn't offering what those people want? Or that RL isn't engaging with those audiences? Just because they aren't coming now, it doesn't mean that they cannot and will not ever come. Why do we think affluent audiences in distant cities will flock to RL when we aren't appealing to those under our noses in Alwoodly, Sandal and Cheshire?

This doesn't address the fundamental issue of how we make RL something that more people want to dedicate their time and money to. 

Let's start from a basic premise that we want to increase the number of "ABC1" audiences watching RL (because we have plenty of ABC1 people within our heartland) - what evidence is there that the lack of city-based teams is the reason they aren't buying RL in one way, shape or form? Why have we concluded that that is the reason, as opposed to the many other potential reasons - facilities, image, advertising, matchday experience, merchandise, branding, etc?

If we address those issues first and we don't move the needle, then maybe the city argument stands to scrutiny but until then, arguing about geography is simply moving the problem somewhere else. If the real reason we don't attract more ABC1 audiences is the poor quality perception of the league, then putting a team in London or Bristol or Milton Keynes doesn't really change that - we just end up looking for more "people like us" in areas where there likely are fewer of those people than what we have now. 

 

I've emboldened the bit that concerns me the most.. its just causation.. I want big city teams in and the fact there aren't and the sport is declining must mean its because of the small town teams.. Its hogwash and its distracting.. but its all that BP seems to have. 

IMG are getting proper evidence, they are doing the research, they are changing things which will give more evidence and statistics.. this is how it should be done, this is how change actually happens. I have years in process change and the first bit you are taught on any course is that "everything is an opinion until you have facts" and to be very very carful to stick away from causation.. do not just assume that because of one therefore the other. Everything is more complicated than that... 

But lets just throw teams into big cities, millionaires will come.. we will be rich.. Kevin Costner knows!

[RP London]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

When is the official vote RP? Have IMG allowed time for any disagreements that may eventuate from their meeting with individual clubs to be taken further?

All the information you need is in the documents that they have released and in the press releases they have given.. the general answer is yes but if you want more detail I suggest you go read those as it is all there.. i'm not going to keep posting the same stuff and the fact people are posting without knowing this sort of stuff does, sadly, show people are not talking from a position of knowledge which does show. (I do get what you are asking is slightly more obscure so I am not aiming that last bit at you... but it is all there in the documents)

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

But how would that make it all about them?

I am 100% sure they can sort that out!!

[The Phantom Horseman]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

 

The current model of promotion and relegation is far from the fair playing field people try and pretend it is. 

I agree with this, especially in terms of factors to avoid the yoyo effect. 

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

How many times do people have to remind opponents that the new grading plans don't create a closed league? Other clubs still have the opportunity to progress.

 

In theory, yes.

In practice, you need to think about the massive correlation between SL membership/funding, and being able to achieve high scores in many of the IMG data points.

For instance, Leigh had a magnificent season in the Championship last year, but despite their tremendous run and the best team we've ever seen in the division didn't draw a crowd of 3,500 in any of their last 5 home league games. This year they look set to average well over double that. That's the instant effect of having more attractive opponents and fewer obvious one-sided games.

Then there's the impact of those extra fans on things like merchandise sales. It's fairly logical to think they might double too, or at least increase significantly.

Then, there are things that cost money. Improving facilities? Installing a big screen and LED boards? Hiring extra social media personnel? Who do you think is going to be able to afford that more, the SL team on £1.5 million central funding or the Championship team on £150k?

Then there's the fact that you're guaranteed more performance points than the best team in the Championship even if you lose every game, and you're probably going to score more viewership points for your Sky/Ch4 appearances than a Championship team could hope to do on Viaplay.

Unless there is some thorough weighting involved, things are going to be overwhelmingly loaded in favour of the existing SL teams.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

You might believe that but its just an opinion based on limited information we have.

That is true Chris, but we all have been fed the same information and each of us has interpreted it the way we feel, those in favour have seen everything coming up smelling of roses, those more cautious can see things much differently.

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I agree with this, especially in terms of factors to avoid the yoyo effect. 

In theory, yes.

In practice, you need to think about the massive correlation between SL membership/funding, and being able to achieve high scores in many of the IMG data points.

For instance, Leigh had a magnificent season in the Championship last year, but despite their tremendous run and the best team we've ever seen in the division didn't draw a crowd of 3,500 in any of their last 5 home league games. This year they look set to average well over double that. That's the instant effect of having more attractive opponents and fewer obvious one-sided games.

Then there's the impact of those extra fans on things like merchandise sales. It's fairly logical to think they might double too, or at least increase significantly.

Then, there are things that cost money. Improving facilities? Installing a big screen and LED boards? Hiring extra social media personnel? Who do you think is going to be able to afford that more, the SL team on £1.5 million central funding or the Championship team on £150k?

Then there's the fact that you're guaranteed more performance points than the best team in the Championship even if you lose every game, and you're probably going to score more viewership points for your Sky/Ch4 appearances than a Championship team could hope to do on Viaplay.

Unless there is some thorough weighting involved, things are going to be overwhelmingly loaded in favour of the existing SL teams.

indeed but with P&R the same is true.. you could throw money at the team on the pitch and they may not perform, someone else could do the same, you have a team coming down from Super League the year before with a parachute payment.. 

and talk about overwhelmingly loaded.. theres only 1 place each year available at the table. 

with this though if you can get those things that are written down right then you are in... you know what you are doing.. you can spend all the money you would like on a team and still not get promoted because there are many variables in that. 

This is by no means a perfect system, i think everyone would admit that, but neither is P&R and in fact that one is not helping us at the moment.. 

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That is true Chris, but we all have been fed the same information and each of us has interpreted it the way we feel, those in favour have seen everything coming up smelling of roses, those more cautious can see things much differently.

while you say that, there are an awful lot of people wilfully ignoring information that has been put out into the public domain.. either that or they are just unwilling to believe it.. that isn't interpreting that is a bias surely. 

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I agree with this, especially in terms of factors to avoid the yoyo effect. 

In theory, yes.

In practice, you need to think about the massive correlation between SL membership/funding, and being able to achieve high scores in many of the IMG data points.

For instance, Leigh had a magnificent season in the Championship last year, but despite their tremendous run and the best team we've ever seen in the division didn't draw a crowd of 3,500 in any of their last 5 home league games. This year they look set to average well over double that. That's the instant effect of having more attractive opponents and fewer obvious one-sided games.

Then there's the impact of those extra fans on things like merchandise sales. It's fairly logical to think they might double too, or at least increase significantly.

Then, there are things that cost money. Improving facilities? Installing a big screen and LED boards? Hiring extra social media personnel? Who do you think is going to be able to afford that more, the SL team on £1.5 million central funding or the Championship team on £150k?

Then there's the fact that you're guaranteed more performance points than the best team in the Championship even if you lose every game, and you're probably going to score more viewership points for your Sky/Ch4 appearances than a Championship team could hope to do on Viaplay.

Unless there is some thorough weighting involved, things are going to be overwhelmingly loaded in favour of the existing SL teams.

I am sure that @Hull Kingston Bronco realises and knows all this, but it does not suit his agenda, so subconsciously he wraps it all up into every team has the same opportunity to progress, which is as far away from the truth as Wakefield winning the GF this season, albeit they still have the same opportunity as any other SL team.

[The Phantom Horseman]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

This is by no means a perfect system, i think everyone would admit that, but neither is P&R and in fact that one is not helping us at the moment.. 

I agree that there are flaws with the current P and R system but at least there are clubs willing to invest in having a crack at the moment.

Under the new system, if there isn't significant weighting (and yes that remains to be confirmed either way, but it's so much more than a detail!), I think there's a good chance Championship clubs will quickly become disillusioned when they realise they just can't get near the scores of the existing SL clubs, the quality of the Championship will fall rapidly, and the teams that are regularly at the bottom of SL will be able to rest on their laurels more than ever.

[GeordieSaint]

2 hours ago, Jughead said:

Rugby League can grow, if we focus, support, market, and build on our own turf.

Yet for 125yrs+, other than in some areas, it has failed to do so. This is despite the vast vast majority of resource and funding being in those areas. The Keighley owners are just repeating the same narrative we have heard time and time again. Why will the same approach work now when it hasn’t in the past? 

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I agree that there are flaws with the current P and R system but at least there are clubs willing to invest in having a crack at the moment.

Under the new system, if there isn't significant weighting (and yes that remains to be confirmed either way, but it's so much more than a detail!), I think there's a good chance Championship clubs will quickly become disillusioned when they realise they just can't get near the scores of the existing SL clubs, the quality of the Championship will fall rapidly, and the teams that are regularly at the bottom of SL will be able to rest on their laurels more than ever.

Totally agree with this, and my team may just be a beneficiary of the system, as yours could at the end of this season, but I don't want that security, I eant to play and fight for every point on the field.

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Harry Stottle