IMG Grading Unveiled

[LeeF]

47 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

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

No offence taken. I just didn’t want you to think that they were my ratings. 

[The Blues Ox]

Its funny listening to the reaction on Sky about Wakey winning again to make it close at the bottom. Obviously we will lose that now but I wonder if they could do a weekly show where they could compare how each team has faired on social media each week. Maybe incorporate a live social media follower/engagement count to make it more exciting.

[LeytherRob]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Its funny listening to the reaction on Sky about Wakey winning again to make it close at the bottom. Obviously we will lose that now but I wonder if they could do a weekly show where they could compare how each team has faired on social media each week. Maybe incorporate a live social media follower/engagement count to make it more exciting.

Isn't P&R continuing providing it's a B replacing a B?

[The Blues Ox]

12 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Isn't P&R continuing providing it's a B replacing a B?

No, that would have been one way to possibly have kept a lot of people happy though.

[del capo]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

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.

There are 3 levels / thresholds. You may have misread my post. There is a difference between higher and highest.

All 4 clubs squeeze into the higher ie middle  bracket - in the case of the Hull clubs only just - simply by virtue of the 130k cut off and they will only get near another 0.5 if  one of them goes bankrupt to the advantage of the remaining one.

If the cut off had been at 250k as some on here have advocated  then their catchments would have been only worth 0.5...... a full point behind the likes of SL rivals such as  Leeds St Helens  Salford or Warrington - and even many in the Championship.

[Damien]

5 hours ago, del capo said:

There are 3 levels / thresholds. You may have misread my post. There is a difference between higher and highest.

All 4 clubs squeeze into the higher ie middle  bracket - in the case of the Hull clubs only just - simply by virtue of the 130k cut off and they will only get near another 0.5 if  one of them goes bankrupt to the advantage of the remaining one.

If the cut off had been at 250k as some on here have advocated  then their catchments would have been only worth 0.5...... a full point behind the likes of SL rivals such as  Leeds St Helens  Salford or Warrington - and even many in the Championship.

I didn't misread anything, it was quite obvious what you meant.

Wigan and Leigh do not squeeze into anything either, they are quite comfortably in that middle bracket with 35k to spare. More so than the Kirklees teams in Huddersfield, Batley and Dewsbury who with a 422,500 population split 3 ways are in the 130k bracket by a fine margin like the Hull teams.

St Helens Council Borough is considerably less than 250k and barely 15k more than Wigan metro even once that is split in two. Warrington is also less than 250k. If the cutoff was 250k then these clubs would be similarly affected so there would be no being a full point behind them.

As Salford only has a population of 269k then going by your logic it seems that this has been purposely done just so that Salford are in the highest bracket. Of course if the cutoff for the middle tier had been 250k and the top tier 500k then Salford would have only been 0.5 points better off anyway than Wigan, Leigh et al. The same applies to Leeds once that population is split into two. I think there's probably only 3 clubs in the Championship who would get into a 250k bracket, that is not many.

Im no fan of how the catchment criteria has been applied with regard to local authorities and clubs. However your arguments are all over the place to try and focus on 4 clubs and you are being awfully selective in an attempt to back up your view.

Edited July 8, 2023 by Damien

[The Phantom Horseman]

20 hours ago, Nothus said:

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

I've talked quite a bit about Bradford on this thread largely because some of what I believe are the most common misconceptions about how the IMG points will work might impact them more than most. For instance, a lot of people seem to think the state of Odsal itself will immediately rule them out of SL contention, but the stadium probably wouldn't have any negative impact on their IMG points tally at all. Maybe via minimum standards if they qualified for SL via IMG rankings but that's a different kettle of fish.

Conversely Bradford's biggest asset, their youth development, also won't count for anything in terms if IMG points (barring eligibility for an A grading), and that's equally "controversial" too, this time against Bradford.

I still think the seemingly-arbitrary thresholds in the catchment area section need a bit of justification/explanation, and not solely regarding their impact on Bradford.

[Damien]

I think London highlight the peculiarities of this catchment area model. If this model is strictly applied then they fall under Merton London Borough which has a population of only 215k. So London Broncos, with what I dont think anyone would dispute as the biggest catchment area in the UK, only has a population slightly more than Warrington by this measure and is in the same middle bracket. 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Damien

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think London highlight the peculiarities of this catchment area model. If this model is strictly applied then they fall under Merton London Borough which has a population of only 215k. So London Broncos, with what I dont think anyone would dispute as the biggest catchment area in the UK, only has a population slightly more than Warrington by this measure and is in the same bracket. 

It highlights how truly daft it is to even consider rubbish systems like this 

[Big Picture]

12 hours ago, Damien said:

I didn't misread anything, it was quite obvious what you meant.

Wigan and Leigh do not squeeze into anything either, they are quite comfortably in that middle bracket with 35k to spare. More so than the Kirklees teams in Huddersfield, Batley and Dewsbury who with a 422,500 population split 3 ways are in the 130k bracket by a fine margin like the Hull teams.

St Helens Council Borough is considerably less than 250k and barely 15k more than Wigan metro even once that is split in two. Warrington is also less than 250k. If the cutoff was 250k then these clubs would be similarly affected so there would be no being a full point behind them.

As Salford only has a population of 269k then going by your logic it seems that this has been purposely done just so that Salford are in the highest bracket. Of course if the cutoff for the middle tier had been 250k and the top tier 500k then Salford would have only been 0.5 points better off anyway than Wigan, Leigh et al. The same applies to Leeds once that population is split into two. I think there's probably only 3 clubs in the Championship who would get into a 250k bracket, that is not many.

Im no fan of how the catchment criteria has been applied with regard to local authorities and clubs. However your arguments are all over the place to try and focus on 4 clubs and you are being awfully selective in an attempt to back up your view.

As I suggested before then, they only get any A grades at all by fudging the criteria.

[glossop saint]

I'm a bit late to the party on discussion of the latest presentation and gradings and that generally the discussion has moved on on another thread to specific gradings for clubs but just thought I'd add my thoughts. 

I'm disappointed about a lack of weighting for Champ and League 1 clubs. Also I am disappointed by the quite blunt scoring with regards to fandom and facilities in particular. For example the viewership seems a bit ridiculous. I assume 0 points if not on TV then either 0.75 or 1 points depending on numbers. I'd like to see more range of possible points in attendance and the facilities. And I'm not particularly impressed by the all or nothing on stadium.

For me there is little incentive for gradually improving your attendance/facilities etc incrementally to improve your score. This, along with a lack of weighting on attendances, leads to a higher likelihood of a closed shop.

[TheReaper]

35 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

For me there is little incentive for gradually improving your attendance/facilities etc incrementally to improve your score. This, along with a lack of weighting on attendances, leads to a higher likelihood of a closed shop.

Except for the incentives that haven always been there - to bring in and keep more paying customers, improve your player's work environment so they perform better, and owning a more valuable asset.

 

[glossop saint]

6 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

Except for the incentives that haven always been there - to bring in and keep more paying customers, improve your player's work environment so they perform better, and owning a more valuable asset.

 

Of course. However part of the idea with the grading was to offer an incentive to become a stronger club, not just team, and be able to have a chance of gaining points to give you a better chance or even a guaranteed spot in SL. Having 0.1 point per criteria on the facilities or more possible scores for the attendance (including a higher threshold than 7500 for the top score) would give clubs more to aim for to gradually improve their standing. There seems too much all or nothing in the marking.

And actually having said that there is some all or something and even with a poor score you still get some points (attendance, viewership and catchment). This devalues actually working hard to get the top level.

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Of course. However part of the idea with the grading was to offer an incentive to become a stronger club, not just team, and be able to have a chance of gaining points to give you a better chance or even a guaranteed spot in SL. Having 0.1 point per criteria on the facilities or more possible scores for the attendance (including a higher threshold than 7500 for the top score) would give clubs more to aim for to gradually improve their standing. There seems too much all or nothing in the marking.

And actually having said that there is some all or something and even with a poor score you still get some points (attendance, viewership and catchment). This devalues actually working hard to get the top level.

The only thought I have, and i havent done the maths to work this out (and probably wont as i'm not really thinking about it that much) but does doing it in this way with less gradual gradings on off pitch stuff mean that actually the pitch becomes more important for relegation etc.. where as gradual gradings does mean you can get your 0.1 back by cordoning off a bit of the ground for the press etc??

maybe completely wrong but thought id pose it.

[Saint Toppy]

On 08/07/2023 at 09:00, The Phantom Horseman said:

I've talked quite a bit about Bradford on this thread largely because some of what I believe are the most common misconceptions about how the IMG points will work might impact them more than most. For instance, a lot of people seem to think the state of Odsal itself will immediately rule them out of SL contention, but the stadium probably wouldn't have any negative impact on their IMG points tally at all. Maybe via minimum standards if they qualified for SL via IMG rankings but that's a different kettle of fish.

Conversely Bradford's biggest asset, their youth development, also won't count for anything in terms if IMG points (barring eligibility for an A grading), and that's equally "controversial" too, this time against Bradford.

I still think the seemingly-arbitrary thresholds in the catchment area section need a bit of justification/explanation, and not solely regarding their impact on Bradford.

Not true on both the pints i've highlighted, both will impact their financial points scoring. The stadium negatively because of the Primacy of Tenure (plus not sure it meets all the other criteria set). The youth development positively because money invested in your youth development can be deducted from your profit calcs. So the more you invest the more profit you can report.

[The Blues Ox]

23 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Not true on both the pints i've highlighted, both will impact their financial points scoring. The stadium negatively because of the Primacy of Tenure (plus not sure it meets all the other criteria set). The youth development positively because money invested in your youth development can be deducted from your profit calcs. So the more you invest the more profit you can report.

Again begs questions of the weighting with some teams not allowed to run academies. I imagine Bradford won't have a problem on the Primacy of Tenue criteria though reading through what the requirements are.

[Tommygilf]

35 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Not true on both the pints i've highlighted, both will impact their financial points scoring. The stadium negatively because of the Primacy of Tenure (plus not sure it meets all the other criteria set). The youth development positively because money invested in your youth development can be deducted from your profit calcs. So the more you invest the more profit you can report.

Primacy of Tenure is fine at Bradford. The RFL are their landlords and they are the primary tenants.

I don't know how many seats they have at Odsal, the minimum is 2000 for IMG. I assume with the "Coral Stand" they'll be fine on the corporate/sponsors area capacity, though whether that covers the directors box and seated capacity I'm not sure. As for media areas I'm assuming not great, but that may be wrong. 

[Saint Toppy]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Primacy of Tenure is fine at Bradford. The RFL are their landlords and they are the primary tenants.

I don't know how many seats they have at Odsal, the minimum is 2000 for IMG. I assume with the "Coral Stand" they'll be fine on the corporate/sponsors area capacity, though whether that covers the directors box and seated capacity I'm not sure. As for media areas I'm assuming not great, but that may be wrong. 

Are they prime tenants ?

The ground is owned by the council and the RFL are the leaseholders. As far as I know currently there's a joint tenancy agreement in place for the Bulls and the Motorsport. Also doesn't the Bulls current agreement end this year upon which they have to agree a new one ?

If an offer came in to host another event at the stadium do you seriously think the Council or the RFL wouldn't snap their hand off at the opportunity to make additional money even if it means the Bulls having to move one of their games ?

The Bulls will also fall a long way short for the IMG Utilisation scoring criteria and as far as I know they dont meet the LED advertising or Big Screen criteria either.

[Harry Stottle]

On 07/07/2023 at 20:18, Anita Bath said:

What would that be …because it sure aint winning rugby games.

Spread sheet Rugby!

Imminently we will be being advised what riches the TV contracts will bring and how it will effect the funding, If it is going to be a reduction of the 25M per year as we have had the last 2 years will this IMG criteria still be applicable or will the SL clubs go their own way?

[Barley Mow]

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Primacy of Tenure is fine at Bradford. The RFL are their landlords and they are the primary tenants.

I don't know how many seats they have at Odsal, the minimum is 2000 for IMG. I assume with the "Coral Stand" they'll be fine on the corporate/sponsors area capacity, though whether that covers the directors box and seated capacity I'm not sure. As for media areas I'm assuming not great, but that may be wrong. 

I'm not sure which is/was sponsored by Coral, but the east stand (main seated stand) holds 4,890. The south bank hospitality, incorporating corporate/sponsors/directors holds 620.

Although the media facilities aren't particularly luxurious, I think they do technically meet the requirements in terms of space and use, etc. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Barley Mow

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I'm not sure which is/was sponsored by Coral, but the east stand (main seated stand) holds 4,890. The south bank hospitality, incorporating corporate/sponsors/directors holds 620.

Although the media facilities aren't particularly luxurious, I think they do technically meet the requirements in terms of space and use, etc. 

I meant the big corporate end. Thanks for the info.

I agree it seems on the basic facilities point, which is worth 1.5 marks, they won't be that far off. I expect these specific points for the facilities will become more onerous quickly though. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

On 08/07/2023 at 05:17, Damien said:

I didn't misread anything, it was quite obvious what you meant.

Wigan and Leigh do not squeeze into anything either, they are quite comfortably in that middle bracket with 35k to spare. More so than the Kirklees teams in Huddersfield, Batley and Dewsbury who with a 422,500 population split 3 ways are in the 130k bracket by a fine margin like the Hull teams.

St Helens Council Borough is considerably less than 250k and barely 15k more than Wigan metro even once that is split in two. Warrington is also less than 250k. If the cutoff was 250k then these clubs would be similarly affected so there would be no being a full point behind them.

As Salford only has a population of 269k then going by your logic it seems that this has been purposely done just so that Salford are in the highest bracket. Of course if the cutoff for the middle tier had been 250k and the top tier 500k then Salford would have only been 0.5 points better off anyway than Wigan, Leigh et al. The same applies to Leeds once that population is split into two. I think there's probably only 3 clubs in the Championship who would get into a 250k bracket, that is not many.

Im no fan of how the catchment criteria has been applied with regard to local authorities and clubs. However your arguments are all over the place to try and focus on 4 clubs and you are being awfully selective in an attempt to back up your view.

Do me a favour Damien and explain how the catchment areas are designated, is it area authority or postcode applicable? 

I ask because Lowton which borders Leigh - approx 1/2 mile from the LSV - has a Warrington postcode but is under Wigan Metro for payable services, I am sure there must be further examples of this throughout the clubs/areas.

[David Shepherd]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Do me a favour Damien and explain how the catchment areas are designated, is it area authority or postcode applicable? 

I ask because Lowton which borders Leigh - approx 1/2 mile from the LSV - has a Warrington postcode but is under Wigan Metro for payable services, I am sure there must be further examples of this throughout the clubs/areas.

As far as I can see, it's based on local authority population, which is less than ideal.  As an example, both Fev and Cas have quite a decent following in the Selby area, Cas also have a following in Methley and Allerton Bywater (both Leeds CC) but that doesn't count because it's not within Wakefield MDC's borders. Wakefield themselves have more than a handful of fans in the Barnsley MDC area.

Bit of rethink required on this metric.

Edited July 13, 2023 by David Shepherd

[Barley Mow]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Do me a favour Damien and explain how the catchment areas are designated, is it area authority or postcode applicable? 

I ask because Lowton which borders Leigh - approx 1/2 mile from the LSV - has a Warrington postcode but is under Wigan Metro for payable services, I am sure there must be further examples of this throughout the clubs/areas.

 

1 minute ago, David Shepherd said:

As far as I can see, it's based on local authority population.

It is the local authority - so in Leigh and Wigan's case, take the population of the borough and divide it by 2 (the number of clubs in the borough).

[Anita Bath]

This sharing catchment population seems typically simple. So Wigan are not able to potentially draw on half the population?  No possibility that folks go to games of both teams?  Marketing will be limited to half the catchment population I suppose!

If you look at the example of the Dolphins in NRL one of the driving factors was the wish to have a game at suncorp every week to tap into the league loving public of Brisbane.