IMG Grading Unveiled

[Cheadle Leyther]

Aren’t we thankful we didn’t follow the path of rugby union with regards to the cash injection from C.V.C. an investment company? Not only that but they gained access to considerably higher Covid Loans from the government, yet 25% of their top flight clubs have gone bust.

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

Aren’t we thankful we didn’t follow the path of rugby union with regards to the cash injection from C.V.C. an investment company? Not only that but they gained access to considerably higher Covid Loans from the government, yet 25% of their top flight clubs have gone bust.

I was always vehemently against it. It was a terrible idea, particularly so for RL and the sums quoted. It made zero business sense.

I do remember one poster on here being all for it but he hasn't been around these parts for quite some time, at least in that guise anyway .

[Damien]

8 hours ago, Jughead said:

The evidence suggests otherwise. Your minimum standards would be as low as they are now and reserve games are cancelled semi-regularly as it is, so it suggests that we would struggle to have a potential 36 fixtures in one weekend. 

Very low standards for an elite competition are no better than no standards at all.

[Roughyed Rats]

22 hours ago, RP London said:

While I would love to see London back in Super League (just personally) the only thing this grading does is tell them what to improve, specifically, to get themselves back to the top. But then again it does that for everyone. It may help them to gain a new owner who can see that by investing right they can go up, but then again it does that for everyone.. there is nothing that can be rigged to get London in... and if they did it would be a massive mistake for IMG IMHO as they would alienate those who have been supportive of them (me included). 

Watch this space for history repeating itself. 5 years into a 10 year deal with european basketball, access to the competition from domestic leagues was removed. It was replaced with a 'wildcard' entry and full licensing. Do you really think their approach is going to be any different for RL? Then they welcome back London and we are back into another closed shop licensing era. The clubs outside of the closed shop have then got some tough decisions to make.

[The Blues Ox]

What am I missing with London? They don't look like they will be anywhere near to been included on the gradings set out do they? Bradford on the other hand look like they could end up been close especially with their creative accounting in regards to crowds gaining them extra points and the suspiciously set out area rankings.

[gingerjon]

21 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

What am I missing with London?

Nothing.

Nobody involved in the process has said anything at all about giving any club, let alone London Broncos, any dispensation, and there is nothing in the criteria that helps them jump the queue.

[sentoffagain2]

48 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

What am I missing with London? They don't look like they will be anywhere near to been included on the gradings set out do they? Bradford on the other hand look like they could end up been close especially with their creative accounting in regards to crowds gaining them extra points and the suspiciously set out area rankings.

   If Bradford are allowed into SL without earning the right on the field while still playing in that dump Odsal i am finished with the game.I have no objection to Bradford playing in SL but it must be from another ground in the city.Odsal is not fit for purpose by today's standards.

[The Phantom Horseman]

17 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   If Bradford are allowed into SL without earning the right on the field while still playing in that dump Odsal i am finished with the game.I have no objection to Bradford playing in SL but it must be from another ground in the city.Odsal is not fit for purpose by today's standards.

The gradings criteria make it clear that the state of stadia is pretty irrelevant other than 9 specific areas, most of which are related to TV and media access. You either get 1.5 points if you meet those 9 specific standards, or 0.5 if you don't. That's it. (There's the possibility of a 0.25 points deduction for things like breach of health and safety code, but that's couched in very vague terms).

Given that in the Catchment Area scoring Bradford (and Keighley, and Toulouse, and Hunslet, and London Skolars, and Sheffield etc etc) will score 1 point more than three of their likeliest rivals for a SL spot (Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone), that means that if they score equally on all other performance criteria, if they finish 9 places lower than those 3 teams in the performance rankings (eg 21st-ranked compared to 12th-ranked over the 3-year period) they will be put into SL ahead of that trio.

That's the impact of the catchment area points thresholds being set as they have, at 260k and 130k. This is a massive story but given there are 65 pages in the IMG document I don't think it has sunk in yet.

[gingerjon]

47 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

The gradings criteria make it clear that the state of stadia is pretty irrelevant other than 9 specific areas, most of which are related to TV and media access. You either get 1.5 points if you meet those 9 specific standards, or 0.5 if you don't. That's it. (There's the possibility of a 0.25 points deduction for things like breach of health and safety code, but that's couched in very vague terms).

Given that in the Catchment Area scoring Bradford (and Keighley, and Toulouse, and Hunslet, and London Skolars, and Sheffield etc etc) will score 1 point more than three of their likeliest rivals for a SL spot (Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone), that means that if they score equally on all other performance criteria, if they finish 9 places lower than those 3 teams in the performance rankings (eg 21st-ranked compared to 12th-ranked over the 3-year period) they will be put into SL ahead of that trio.

That's the impact of the catchment area points thresholds being set as they have, at 260k and 130k. This is a massive story but given there are 65 pages in the IMG document I don't think it has sunk in yet.

I think - but need to go back and check - that the IMG stadium criteria sit separately to the RFL’s minimum standards which all grounds in Super League are expected to meet?

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   If Bradford are allowed into SL without earning the right on the field while still playing in that dump Odsal i am finished with the game.I have no objection to Bradford playing in SL but it must be from another ground in the city.Odsal is not fit for purpose by today's standards.

Odsal may be a dump but in addition to the IMG requirements they still have to obtain an Annual Safety Certificate. This includes both a 'static inspection' ie. an inspection of al the facilities when the stadium is not in use, and a 'live matchday' inspection to ensure everything functions safely and that the club can operate safely. Any area that fails any part of the inspection can't be used and that part of the ground has to be closed off, reducing the capacity accordingly. Any serious failures will see the suspension of their certificate.

Clubs with old stadia like Bradford & Cas end up spending a fortune every year to maintain them and retain a safety certificate. I remember Eamon McManus saying the primary reason for needing to leave KR was that is was costing the club in the region of £1M a year just to maintain their safety certificate.

[del capo]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

The gradings criteria make it clear that the state of stadia is pretty irrelevant other than 9 specific areas, most of which are related to TV and media access. You either get 1.5 points if you meet those 9 specific standards, or 0.5 if you don't. That's it. (There's the possibility of a 0.25 points deduction for things like breach of health and safety code, but that's couched in very vague terms).

Given that in the Catchment Area scoring Bradford (and Keighley, and Toulouse, and Hunslet, and London Skolars, and Sheffield etc etc) will score 1 point more than three of their likeliest rivals for a SL spot (Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone), that means that if they score equally on all other performance criteria, if they finish 9 places lower than those 3 teams in the performance rankings (eg 21st-ranked compared to 12th-ranked over the 3-year period) they will be put into SL ahead of that trio.

That's the impact of the catchment area points thresholds being set as they have, at 260k and 130k. This is a massive story but given there are 65 pages in the IMG document I don't think it has sunk in yet.

The 130k is deliberate.

It allows Wigan/ Leigh and Hull/ Hull KR to squeeze into the higher bracket.

Continuing breach of standards  and criteria will though be serious and lead to a downgrade  and possible demotion - check the sanctions at the end of the guideline document.......

Foundation turnover is also important - figures for most can be found on the Companies House/ Charities websites and need to be audited/ certified if turnover exceeds £250k. Again pitched in favour of the 'established ' outlets. Loss of Sky Try monies could be critical though.  Could some Foundations consider acquiring local community clubs to rapidly improve turnover?

Leeds will score highly . Their Foundation turnover exceeds £1 million and community footprint , stadium and catchment scores  huge. Definite A but I doubt as many as 6 will make it initially if the rules are applied properly.

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

....that means that if they score equally on all other performance criteria, if they finish 9 places lower than those 3 teams in the performance rankings (eg 21st-ranked compared to 12th-ranked over the 3-year period) they will be put into SL ahead of that trio.

Bradford won't score equally on all other performance criteria, though,  because several of them such as fandom and financials massively favour Superleague incumbents, so the example of Bradford leapfrogging them from 9 places below isn't realistic.

However, if Bradford or any other Championship club are only a couple of places below a Superleague club, and those incumbents aren't racking up a lead in those grading areas, then they're not worth protecting anyway.      

[Nothus]

The obsession with Bradford on this forum is hilarious. I swear some posters on here talk about them more than their own team!

[Sammo]

Has anyone tried to go through and estimate how many points each club would get? I know these would be pure guesstimates, but interested in who the winners/losers are, and whether this is going to change anything at all in the short term

[Wire quin]

Whats going to change in the game? It seems SL will remain pretty much the same with similar teams. Im confused as to the purpose of the grading criteria. 

Is it indirect pressure to upgrade grounds etc like the franchise system we had previously?

[idrewthehaggis]

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Clubs with old stadia like Bradford & Cas end up spending a fortune every year to maintain them and retain a safety certificate. I remember Eamon McManus saying the primary reason for needing to leave KR was that is was costing the club in the region of £1M a year just to maintain their safety certificate.

Seemingly false economics?

Surely far better for the clubs, any stakeholders (ie the local authority/RFL) and the Game in general to have these Yorkshire grounds comprehensively re-developed and that money to be used to repay any loan? Aided by the addition revenues a new facility could provide. 

First it could be argued that those clubs arent in a position to do that or prioritize elsewhere.

And second I really do not think the IMG standards do anything to sufficiently pressure clubs to dramatically improve their grounds.

 

[Archie Gordon]

Unless I've misunderstood (it happens!), the grading is out of 18 and not 20 as everyone is gifted 2 points.

This means, e.g., TV viewership is worth 0.75 out of 18 and not 1.5 out of 20. All other ratios need adjusting. Very odd (if I have it right).

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Sammo said:

Has anyone tried to go through and estimate how many points each club would get? I know these would be pure guesstimates, but interested in who the winners/losers are, and whether this is going to change anything at all in the short term

I’m sure that you could give it a go but I’ll post the following link, without any comment, which will no doubt get a reaction or five 

 

[Damien]

5 hours ago, del capo said:

The 130k is deliberate.

It allows Wigan/ Leigh and Hull/ Hull KR to squeeze into the higher bracket.

Wigan metro is 329,330 and Hull is 267k so these clubs don't squeeze into the higher bracket once these figures are divided in two.

[The Blues Ox]

8 hours ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   If Bradford are allowed into SL without earning the right on the field while still playing in that dump Odsal i am finished with the game.I have no objection to Bradford playing in SL but it must be from another ground in the city.Odsal is not fit for purpose by today's standards.

Yeah to be fair I'm not a huge fan of this sort of system and I have been to less Fax games this season than I have in any of the previous 35 seasons and it will go down again next season with the new system. It's going to be funny to see teams scoring more points than some of the teams I really think deserve a shot at the top level but it won't surprise me. Obviously if a basket case club ends up near SL then it does beg the question of if these gradings are really going to work as they are supposed to.

[RP London]

9 hours ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Watch this space for history repeating itself. 5 years into a 10 year deal with european basketball, access to the competition from domestic leagues was removed. It was replaced with a 'wildcard' entry and full licensing. Do you really think their approach is going to be any different for RL? Then they welcome back London and we are back into another closed shop licensing era. The clubs outside of the closed shop have then got some tough decisions to make.

It depends what the general attitude to that move was. Different sports and different leagues will have a different opinion but with our history ofndoing this and of the club itself I don't see it being a popular move. 

[Anita Bath]

5 hours ago, LeeF said:

I’m sure that you could give it a go but I’ll post the following link, without any comment, which will no doubt get a reaction or five 

 

Interesting…..most of my rugby watching years I have focussed on the bottom, not the top….it comes with being born in Rochdale!
 

If your ratings were to be correct then Hornets creep into second tier while unbeaten Dewsbury, Oldham, Hunslet, Workington (all teams we have yet to beat) miss out. 

Seems to be no point in putting together a winning team or building up crowds. Just keep doing whatever it is that got you in the Grade B rating.

Will we be spending hours of TV time and pages of newspapers discussing the things that would help avoid ‘relegation’? What would that be …because it sure aint winning rugby games.

 

 

[LeeF]

20 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

Interesting…..most of my rugby watching years I have focussed on the bottom, not the top….it comes with being born in Rochdale!
 

If your ratings were to be correct then Hornets creep into second tier while unbeaten Dewsbury, Oldham, Hunslet, Workington (all teams we have yet to beat) miss out. 

Seems to be no point in putting together a winning team or building up crowds. Just keep doing whatever it is that got you in the Grade B rating.

Will we be spending hours of TV time and pages of newspapers discussing the things that would help avoid ‘relegation’? What would that be …because it sure aint winning rugby games.

 

 

They are most definitely not my ratings. The ratings creator has a particular club bias which I am sure you & most others can work out.

My own club are in the Rochdale area for ranking for what it is worth especially as it is touch & go whether they will be here next season. 

[Anita Bath]

2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

They are most definitely not my ratings. The ratings creator has a particular club bias which I am sure you & most others can work out.

My own club are in the Rochdale area for ranking for what it is worth especially as it is touch & go whether they will be here next season. 

I wasnt having a go at you, or the originator of the ratings….apologies if it read that way.

[wiganermike]

30 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

Interesting…..most of my rugby watching years I have focussed on the bottom, not the top….it comes with being born in Rochdale!
 

If your ratings were to be correct then Hornets creep into second tier while unbeaten Dewsbury, Oldham, Hunslet, Workington (all teams we have yet to beat) miss out. 

Seems to be no point in putting together a winning team or building up crowds. Just keep doing whatever it is that got you in the Grade B rating.

Will we be spending hours of TV time and pages of newspapers discussing the things that would help avoid ‘relegation’? What would that be …because it sure aint winning rugby games.

 

 

Although the grading scores will determine the 12 clubs in SL from 2025 it has been stated throughout that traditional P&R will continue to happen at the end of each season between Championship and League 1. As such I would consider that the grading scores (whether they are similar to Mick Gledhill's estimates or not) below the 12 highest rated clubs would be merely indicative of how much and where each club needs to improve to be capable of reaching SL rather than determining which league they play in. Performance on the pitch (and not a given club's grading score) would determine whether a club is in Championship or League 1 based on what we have been told.

If Doncaster for example were graded as one of the top 12 clubs going into 2025 they would be elevated to SL. If not they would stay in the league that their league performance had determined.