IMG Grading Unveiled

[Barley Mow]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

Sorry if this has been covered before, but I'm not rereading 92 pages, but if in some future season we have a SL of 11 Cat A teams and 1 Cat B, does that mean the Cat B team is doomed before even the first game? No matter where they end in the league they'll be in danger of relegation. Depending of course on who wins the Championship , so they might be okay.  Is this right or have I got this wrong ?

As I understand it, in that scenario the SL grade B team's on field performance would matter to the extent that it would be factored into their overall IMG grade.

They would be competing with the other grade B teams from outside of SL to see who has the best IMG score at the end of the season. If they have a better overall score than all of the none-SL teams they would stay up, if they didn't they would be relegated, even if they didn't finish bottom.

[JM2010]

54 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

As I understand it, in that scenario the SL grade B team's on field performance would matter to the extent that it would be factored into their overall IMG grade.

They would be competing with the other grade B teams from outside of SL to see who has the best IMG score at the end of the season. If they have a better overall score than all of the none-SL teams they would stay up, if they didn't they would be relegated, even if they didn't finish bottom.

I thought it was that if a B grade club wins the Championship then they automatically replace the bottom finishing B grade club in SL

[Damien]

 

 

[HawkMan]

25 minutes ago, Damien said:

 

 

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Sorry if this has been covered before, but I'm not rereading 92 pages, but if in some future season we have a SL of 11 Cat A teams and 1 Cat B, does that mean the Cat B team is doomed before even the first game? No matter where they end in the league they'll be in danger of relegation. Depending of course on who wins the Championship , so they might be okay.  Is this right or have I got this wrong ?

Yes

[gingerjon]

12 hours ago, Damien said:

 

 

So they'll abstain.

[Jughead]

It would be interesting to understand what the “key issues” that need “resolving” actually are. 

[The Blues Ox]

This vote has the potential to go totally belly up for IMG. Maybe they should give Super League clubs 2 votes again to get the desired result.

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

This vote has the potential to go totally belly up for IMG. Maybe they should give Super League clubs 2 votes again to get the desired result.

Superleague clubs do have two votes - or 2.18 to be precise. 

Wakefield voting against doesn't actually make any difference at this point.

To pass, the rules say the motion needs at least 4 votes from the Championship/L1 clubs to vote in favour, so if it gets those -and I'm pretty sure it will - then that more than cancels out the Wakey vote.

It's if we get more SL opponents - say, Cas and SRD? - then things get a bit more sticky.

[Roughyed Rats]

17 hours ago, JM2010 said:

I thought it was that if a B grade club wins the Championship then they automatically replace the bottom finishing B grade club in SL

That was in the original proposal from IMG but is now not the case. Put simply, whoever has more points gets the SL place. Therefore, you can win the Championship play-off and the B grade team finishing bottom of SL could still stay up. 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Roughyed Rats

[The Blues Ox]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Superleague clubs do have two votes - or 2.18 to be precise. 

Seems about right for Rugby League. 

4 Votes from Champ teams should be pretty easy to get as I imagine teams like Bradford/York/London who all have very little chance of normal promotion any time soon will see this as their best option and then it should be easy enough to pick up one more.

[Toby Chopra]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Seems about right for Rugby League. 

4 Votes from Champ teams should be pretty easy to get as I imagine teams like Bradford/York/London who all have very little chance of normal promotion any time soon will see this as their best option and then it should be easy enough to pick up one more.

Yes, I'd imagine all the non-heartland clubs would vote for it, plus Bradford and York as you mention. That would just about be enough to overcome even three Superleague 'no' votes. If there's anymore objections from Superleague than that, then it's dead in the water anyhow.

Crazily, West Wales Raiders still get a vote, while Catalans don't!

[The Phantom Horseman]

24 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

This vote has the potential to go totally belly up for IMG.

Unless Matt Shaw has got this badly wrong in this piece from 10 days ago (and I think he's very unlikely to have done so given he has more of a handle on these things than most) it will sail through.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-clubs-accepted-harsh-26648311

"In two weeks, stakeholders across rugby league will vote on IMG's 'Reimagining Rugby League' proposals. Spoiler - they'll be approved. You might be deceived into believing the grading process mapped out is unpopular among clubs. The dissenting voices from Cougar Park and Mount Pleasant have been met by unusual silence across the rest of the game.

In reality, the majority support it and most on the fence largely agree with the proposals. Anyone hoping for a rebellion to triumph on April 19th will be bitterly disappointed. "

[GeordieSaint]

14 hours ago, Damien said:

 

 

Probably done their own assessment with the conclusion they are at least 13 stronger clubs than them at this present time…

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

14 hours ago, Damien said:

 

 

 

"Key issues" being.... "oh s###, we're about to get relegated"

 

 

 

[Toby Chopra]

14 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

 

"Key issues" being.... "oh s###, we're about to get relegated"

 

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Probably done their own assessment with the conclusion they are at least 13 stronger clubs than them at this present time…

I mean, purely from their perspective, it's the rational thing to do. I suspect we'd have seen the same from 2 or 3 of the other weaker SL sides if they were in the same boat.

But it shines a light on how weak their fundamentals are such that a single season in Tier 2 would immediately render them behind Fev or Toulouse in the gradings with no way back. Or so they must have calculated and they're probably not wrong, especially as they haven't had time to benefit from the new stand yet.

[DI Keith Fowler]

2 hours ago, Roughyed Rats said:

That was in the original proposal from IMG but is now not the case. Put simply, whoever has more points gets the SL place. Therefore, you can win the Championship play-off and the B grade team finishing bottom of SL could still stay up. 

I don't think it was sorry, it's always been whoever has more points with performance being one criteria. I think there was a lot of misunderstanding at the outset but that was from journalists & clubs, from IMG they've been consistent throughout.

[gittinsfan]

I'm sure most clubs will vote in favour.But I wonder how many will regret that decision when the gradings are finally announced.

[Toby Chopra]

2 minutes ago, gittinsfan said:

I'm sure most clubs will vote in favour.But I wonder how many will regret that decision when the gradings are finally announced.

It's quite transparent how the gradings will be calculated. It may be rational for some clubs to vote against because they disagree with the system, or where it might place them, but no club should be blindsided by their eventual grading number. If they are, it's because they haven't done their homework.

[idrewthehaggis]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

That was in the original proposal from IMG but is now not the case. Put simply, whoever has more points gets the SL place. Therefore, you can win the Championship play-off and the B grade team finishing bottom of SL could still stay up. 

So essentially that would-

Replace an objective test (league win points) with the subjective (Grading points decided by a committee).

Done purely likes would in my opinion breed allegations of unfairness, strengthen the thought the Sport has a proclivity for random, chaos coupled with dysfunctional, parochialism for a handful of clubs.

I suspect gradings will be a proviso for where a club is placed, but secondary to on field form. 

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

So essentially that would-

Replace an objective test (league win points) with the subjective (Grading points decided by a committee).

Done purely likes would in my opinion breed allegations of unfairness, strengthen the thought the Sport has a proclivity for random, chaos coupled with dysfunctional, parochialism for a handful of clubs.

I suspect gradings will be a proviso for where a club is placed, but secondary to on field form. 

while I know many dont like comparisons to other sports but:

There have been quite a few instances in other sports in the UK where it has gone down to the last matches of a season and if team A wins the league below there will be P&R but if team B or C win then there will not and the bottom team of the league above get a reprieve. (its also happened in RL (early 2000s IIRC) when Huddersfield and others (?) have managed to finish bottom and not go down)

While its not ideal its also not unique. 

[gittinsfan]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

It's quite transparent how the gradings will be calculated. It may be rational for some clubs to vote against because they disagree with the system, or where it might place them, but no club should be blindsided by their eventual grading number. If they are, it's because they haven't done their homework.

I'm not trying to argue here,but have'nt I read on here that certain weightings will come into play.Are they transparent? Or have I misread?

[Jughead]

Now the business plans of Featherstone and Wakefield have been identified as not really viable, I do think it’s funny how they’ve both decided IMG are not the way to go. 

[Toby Chopra]

10 minutes ago, gittinsfan said:

I'm not trying to argue here,but have'nt I read on here that certain weightings will come into play.Are they transparent? Or have I misread?

The link at the bottom of this RFL article lays out all the different weightings, and clubs have been given an even more detailed handbook. They should have a good idea what score they'll end up with. Whether they agree with that approach and the weightings is a different matter.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61498/rugby-league-club-grading-criteria-recommendations-unveiled

Edit: A couple of the weightings have since been tweaked, but I haven't seen an updated public chart. But the clubs will have it, and they're pretty minor anyway 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Toby Chopra

[Roughyed Rats]

44 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

The link at the bottom of this RFL article lays out all the different weightings, and clubs have been given an even more detailed handbook. They should have a good idea what score they'll end up with. Whether they agree with that approach and the weightings is a different matter.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61498/rugby-league-club-grading-criteria-recommendations-unveiled

Edit: A couple of the weightings have since been tweaked, but I haven't seen an updated public chart. But the clubs will have it, and they're pretty minor anyway 

 

As I understand it, the complaint that some clubs have is that actual marking criteria that sits behind this has not been provided to them and won't be ahead of the vote. They are therefore being asked to vote on the principle rather than with the exactly how it would work. The RFL/IMG have this info, so why not provide it to the clubs?