IMG Grading Unveiled

[PREPOSTEROUS]

9 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

It probably is this, there's a bit of resentment because a lot of teams played the game and sorted their grounds while others made promises and didn't. 

Salford, given a new stadium for free, left their crumbling dump, Hull FC, given a new stadium for free, left their crumbling dump, Widnes, still play at their original home, renovated by the council, Wire, benefited from the Tesco mega store period which no longer exists. Let's not rewrite history that these clubs were dragged kicking and screaming from their crumbling dumps, many were absolutely delighted with the fact, and both Trinity and Cas would've changed places with those clubs for the good fortune that found themselves in a heartbeat.

[Monkeymagic22]

https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2015-03-03/no-room-for-standing-featherstone-rovers-christen-new-old-stands

[The Blues Ox]

Right thats done with lets crack on with the mock gradings, whens that happening? That should be good for another laugh.

[OnStrike]

2 hours ago, Stanley30 said:

It's the fact that teams like saints, Salford, Hull, Warrington, Widnes all had to give up their traditional grounds. All owned by themselves, great when packed with brilliant atmospheres and loved by their fans. 

They complied and had to move from these ground to their new ones in order to stay in super league. 

Many a tear shed by lots of fans at each club having to leave. But was seen as the correct thing to move the game forward. 

That's where the supposed "hatred"  comes from and why Cas and wakey should be both be removed from the league. 

Yeah I completely get fans being upset at losing their historic grounds. It's a blow most haven't really got over. Nomadic, insecure existence, demoralised fan base. It's not Castleford's fault though. 

Most clubs who moved felt that getting the ground up to H&S standard after Bradford and Hillsborough was too much. Castleford's ground obviously ticks those H&S boxes or it wouldn't be able to host games. Bit odd to say Cas should be demoted because Widnes/Hull/Salford or whoever moved grounds

[Monkeymagic22]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Right thats done with lets crack on with the mock gradings, whens that happening? That should be good for another laugh.

I’m surprised that no one has done a list already pal. For sure, Fev will be ranked 13. 

[Monkeymagic22]

9 minutes ago, OnStrike said:

Yeah I completely get fans being upset at losing their historic grounds. It's a blow most haven't really got over. Nomadic, insecure existence, demoralised fan base. It's not Castleford's fault though. 

Most clubs who moved felt that getting the ground up to H&S standard after Bradford and Hillsborough was too much. Castleford's ground obviously ticks those H&S boxes or it wouldn't be able to host games. Bit odd to say Cas should be demoted because Widnes/Hull/Salford or whoever moved grounds

Obviously I’m no fan of Cas, but that was the past, and people need to move on. Realistically Cas won’t be demoted under this format.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

2 hours ago, dboy said:

No, all it "clearly" states is that some funding is "there".

How much and where remains to be seen. Unless money is deposited in an account, it isn't "there"

Wakey fought the developer for years to get their dues, but I'd hope that WMDC have learned from that experience and Axiom will have to stump up BEFORE planning permission is given away on the M62 site.

Fingers crossed for Cas...

As you say release of the whole funding will almost certainly be a condition of granting full approval (I believe in the case of Wakefield construction and supply contracts for the ground development also had to be in place before planning was approved). Also worth pointing out that only outline planning for the Industrial Park has been applied for - the 'full' element is for the enabling work. The documentation makes it clear that full planning won't be submitted until (enough) tenants have been signed up and they then know what they actually need to build.

[OnStrike]

4 minutes ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

Obviously I’m no fan of Cas, but that was the past, and people need to move on. Realistically Cas won’t be demoted under this format.

Yeah I don't think so either, just found the argument strange. Cas and Wakefield should be relegated because [insert my club] had to leave our old ground and they still have their old ground

 

[bbfaz]

What's the point of this? How will it improve things? It looks exactly the same as 2008 but with a fancier PowerPoint presentation. Also, will the RFL stick by these impartial ratings or will they do whatever they want like last time?

 

The RFL love marketing agencies that charge them big money for very old rope.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, bbfaz said:

What's the point of this? How will it improve things? It looks exactly the same as 2008 but with a fancier PowerPoint presentation. Also, will the RFL stick by these impartial ratings or will they do whatever they want like last time?

 

The RFL love marketing agencies that charge them big money for very old rope.

I'm embarrassed for you if you think this is the same as 2008.

[bbfaz]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I'm embarrassed for you if you think this is the same as 2008.

I feel embarrassed for all of us wasting time on this sport. It's substantively the same proposals for substantively the same reasons. It didn't work before. In fact it had a detrimental effect on the entire sport.

[Monkeymagic22]

Surely it’s the marketing, and promoting the game to bring in more money which IMG we’re brought in to deal with. 
 

Just can’t see why removing automatic promotion and relegation improves anything. 
 

Have parachute payments and there’s less chance of boom and bust. 
 

Concentrate on more exposure like the C4 deal, which is the way forward.

[bbfaz]

IMG are perhaps their third or fourth choice of partner.  They wanted Matchroom and couldn't come to an agreement.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, bbfaz said:

What's the point of this? How will it improve things? It looks exactly the same as 2008 but with a fancier PowerPoint presentation. Also, will the RFL stick by these impartial ratings or will they do whatever they want like last time?

 

The RFL love marketing agencies that charge them big money for very old rope.

Except they’re not charging any money for it 

The RFL hasn’t spent any money on marketing for about 30 years. That’s one of our main problems. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

26 minutes ago, bbfaz said:

IMG are perhaps their third or fourth choice of partner.  They wanted Matchroom and couldn't come to an agreement.

If you think the Hearn jokers were a preferred option I’ve a bridge to sell you. Why on earth would we pick a couple of faux East End chancers over the most successful sports marketing business on earth?

Eddie Hearn is a good meme, I’ll give him that. But not much else. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

39 minutes ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

Surely it’s the marketing, and promoting the game to bring in more money which IMG we’re brought in to deal with. 
 

Just can’t see why removing automatic promotion and relegation improves anything. 
 

Have parachute payments and there’s less chance of boom and bust. 
 

Concentrate on more exposure like the C4 deal, which is the way forward.

Step 1 in marketing is optimise the product. That’s why structure came first. But it’s only step 1, and now we’ve got through this daft charade we can get on with the real stuff

PS: IMG produce the C4 programme (shhhh, don’t tell anyone)

[DACS]

Removing P&R does a couple of things. Firstly, when combined with the grading criteria it provides certainty to club owners. You want clubs to focus on youth development, improving facilities etc? Far easier to do if you know you'll still be in SL in  two, three or five years.  At present every club in SL would lose half their squad if relegated, and even more in terms of funding. Its a wicked drop which means that for a number of clubs the sole aim is survival.

No P&R also means you can clearly explain what you are selling to external investors (including sponsors and TV companies).  IMG's job now is to show us the money with respect to these external investors.

Thirdly, and this is the bit so many fans seem to struggle with on the basis that its 'not fair' is the fact that SL is not and never has been a league of equals. There are some big clubs and some smaller ones, and hardly any of the current clubs outside SL are capable of becoming big clubs. Relegating one of the few genuine 'big' teams and promoting a smaller club is a huge problem for our sport compared to say football where there are a lot of potentially big clubs (but even in football they have giants amongst big clubs).

Frankly its entirely unsurprising that IMG have moved back towards a form of franchising (call it whatever you want, but that's what it is). It was messed up last time, partly because too many compromises were made on how it worked, but I think you'd get similar recommendations from any impartial advisors to the sport. 

[Archie Gordon]

1 hour ago, DACS said:

Removing P&R does a couple of things. Firstly, when combined with the grading criteria it provides certainty to club owners. You want clubs to focus on youth development, improving facilities etc? Far easier to do if you know you'll still be in SL in  two, three or five years.  At present every club in SL would lose half their squad if relegated, and even more in terms of funding. Its a wicked drop which means that for a number of clubs the sole aim is survival.

...

If you are ranked 12th under this scheme - .24 points ahead of 13th - surely you don't have any certainty about the following year, never mind the next 2, 3, 5.

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

IMG produce the C4 programme (shhhh, don’t tell anyone)

Every time this gets noticed there's a stampede to say that IMG is a big company and there can't be any possible connection between the IMG producing Channel 4's coverage and the IMG working with the RFL.

[GUBRATS]

17 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

If you are ranked 12th under this scheme - .24 points ahead of 13th - surely you don't have any certainty about the following year, never mind the next 2, 3, 5.

Correct , this system protects those least needing protection 

[Man of Kent]

19 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Correct , this system protects those least needing protection 

Or to look it another way - from a commercial POV - it gives the least protection to the least desirable clubs and vice versa. 

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, bbfaz said:

They wanted Matchroom and couldn't come to an agreement.

If that's true then that shows remarkable common sense from the RFL.

The howling about closed shops and wrecking history would be nothing compared to what Matchroom would need to do to the game in order to fit how they work.

[Jughead]

You can really tell who has read the proposals from IMG at each stage and those who haven’t. 

[Stanley30]

10 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Salford, given a new stadium for free, left their crumbling dump, Hull FC, given a new stadium for free, left their crumbling dump, Widnes, still play at their original home, renovated by the council, Wire, benefited from the Tesco mega store period which no longer exists. Let's not rewrite history that these clubs were dragged kicking and screaming from their crumbling dumps, many were absolutely delighted with the fact, and both Trinity and Cas would've changed places with those clubs for the good fortune that found themselves in a heartbeat.

And yet here we are 27 years later and only now are wakey getting there backside in gear and Cas are still in what is a delapidated tin shed. 

I refuse to hide behind the woe is me attitude that they would swap place in a heartbeat. 

27 years for god sake to invest in either existing or new stadium and nothing. It's just pathetic that it's been allowed to carry on for so long. 

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, Jughead said:

You can really tell who has read the proposals from IMG at each stage and those who haven’t. 

By how they voted?