IMG Grading Unveiled

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Stanley30 said:

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.

Which other clubs have done that without significant outside support from either a council or big box retailer?

Even Leeds/YCCC's recent major redevelopment was in part underwritten by the local council.

Would you prefer they were like Oldham?

[Monkeymagic22]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Which other clubs have done that without significant outside support from either a council or big box retailer?

Even Leeds/YCCC's recent major redevelopment was in part underwritten by the local council.

Would you prefer they were like Oldham?

Featherstone Rovers developed their ground. Probably some support from the council, but hence it shows that this was possible by any other club, prepared to put the effort in.

[Adelaide Tiger]

1 hour 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.

The new structure means that the team in 12th has to pull their finger out and keep improving to retain their place in SL.

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

The new structure means that the team in 12th has to pull their finger out and keep improving to retain their place in SL.

Indeed. But it offers no certainty of tenure and, worse, introduces huge risk where a club invests in a multi-year development plan and then gets demoted.

[glossop saint]

7 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Indeed. But it offers no certainty of tenure and, worse, introduces huge risk where a club invests in a multi-year development plan and then gets demoted.

But it is something that is mostly reliant on controllables. Not a bad injury record or inconsistent agung Aussie. 

[Monkeymagic22]

7 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Indeed. But it offers no certainty of tenure and, worse, introduces huge risk where a club invests in a multi-year development plan and then gets demoted.

As I keep saying, one up, one down with an associated parachute payment. Even if relegated a team can still develope and there’s less financial risk. However, I can see the SL teams getting rid of these, to further feather their own nests.

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours 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.

Im not sure the new system changes anything in that respect. Presuming teams know grading before the end of the season and a number of clubs are close to each other then the mad scramble to gain points in to the end of the season creates even more uncertainty than P & R would. Usually by 3/4 of the way through the season we know who is likely to get relegated and that team can put plans in place. If we end up with 3 or 4 teams close it is going to mean nobody can really plan anything and it could be a big surprise for a SL team(Could be more than one) to find they are dropped from the top division, will lose half their squad, and will have no CF to fall back on. It has the potential to be a mess that is unless its already known that due to the scoring there won't be that many teams that are close to each other.

[Archie Gordon]

10 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

But it is something that is mostly reliant on controllables. Not a bad injury record or inconsistent agung Aussie. 

Not really. If you're Club #12, you can't control Clubs #10, 11, 13, 14, 15 - the other rats in your sack (see MjM).

We seem to be setting up a system where you can actually improve your rating and then get demoted, putting at risk any multi-year plan you might have started. It's no more investment-friendly than now.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

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.

Yes, it's a total coincidence. As is the fact that the same production arm of IMG made the promos for Super League this season on behalf of, er, RL Commercial, the IMG/RFL partnership. Sharing some of the content. But there's no connection. Purely coincidental. Someone really should let them know, left hand clearly unaware of what the right hand is doing.  

[Adelaide Tiger]

3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Indeed. But it offers no certainty of tenure and, worse, introduces huge risk where a club invests in a multi-year development plan and then gets demoted.

Being the club rated as 12th does introduce an element of risk and risk in the new structure should drive improvement at all clubs.  Importantly, IMHO, the new structure should offer a better outcome to a team that is replaced under the new grading system.

For example - in previous years we have seen full time clubs relegated and revert to part time status as those clubs did not have the off field operations to bring in income to retain full time status.

Whereas as from yesterday all clubs now have two years to start improving their off field operations before the first season in 2025 takes place.  If a SL club is indeed replaced at the end of 2025 that club should have improved its income generation to ‘cushion’ the gap between funding in SL and the Championship.  It should also provide a sufficient base to continue to improve in an effort to retain SL status.

[HawkMan]

Is it possible that Sky might have been consulted about the proposed changes? They're important partners, and they surely must consider these changes as a factor in renewing contract.

Edited April 20 by HawkMan

[glossop saint]

49 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Not really. If you're Club #12, you can't control Clubs #10, 11, 13, 14, 15 - the other rats in your sack (see MjM).

We seem to be setting up a system where you can actually improve your rating and then get demoted, putting at risk any multi-year plan you might have started. It's no more investment-friendly than now.

Controversial I know but I'd love for a team to improve their rating and get demoted. It means the standard has gone up. It raises the bar of where we are as a sport.

I also don't see what the fuss is about that clubs can get relegated/demoted? Isn't that what people wanted? And it would mean another stronger club taking their place? 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

55 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Im not sure the new system changes anything in that respect. Presuming teams know grading before the end of the season and a number of clubs are close to each other then the mad scramble to gain points in to the end of the season creates even more uncertainty than P & R would. Usually by 3/4 of the way through the season we know who is likely to get relegated and that team can put plans in place. If we end up with 3 or 4 teams close it is going to mean nobody can really plan anything and it could be a big surprise for a SL team(Could be more than one) to find they are dropped from the top division, will lose half their squad, and will have no CF to fall back on. It has the potential to be a mess that is unless its already known that due to the scoring there won't be that many teams that are close to each other.

I think the strategy is that this is transitional, we're sending a clear market signal to club owners that if they do X, Y and Z they'll get an A licence and a guaranteed spot. That should create a race to get there, as once we have 12 A's it's a de-facto closed league without any of the P&R challenges. It also means anyone already with an A-grade can approach their business planning differently right away. Even long-term top-half-of-the table sides still have jeopardy at present, see Hull FC this season. 

Once we have that semi-closed model additional clubs will likewise be able to join if they meet A standards, as we grow commercial revenues enough to be able to fund more than 12 teams.  

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

17 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Is it possible that Sky might have been consulted about the proposed changes? They're important partners, and they surely must consider these changes as a factor in renewing contract.

This doesn't get enough attention. They will have been consulted throughout. That's not to guarantee an improved contract, but I think we can be pretty certain we'd be on dangerous ground if we'd voted 'no' yesterday. Sky sent a very strong "get a new vision or this might not work out next time" message at the last TV deal. This whole process, from looking at Private Equity, to the Hearn nonsense, then into IMG all started as a result of that. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

18 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

 

What has happened is there's a misinterpretation that has spread through some clubs and some journos. Matt may well stand by his story but all it means is he got it wrong back then, probably because he'd spoken to a club Chairman who was himself wrong. 

here's Gary Hetherington from an interview published by the Press Association 2 days ago:

“There were one or two areas of concern that I shared with a number of other clubs,” Hetherington told the PA news agency.

“But RFL Commercial and IMG have listened and provided clarity and if any club is still unsure they need to ask themselves why.

“The answer we received on the issue of promotion and relegation was a comprehensive one and it is clear that the chances of that happening [the Championship Grand Final winners being denied promotion] are very remote.”

Do you think Hetherington has "misinterpreted" things?

 

[Archie Gordon]

12 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

here's Gary Hetherington from an interview published by the Press Association 2 days ago:

“There were one or two areas of concern that I shared with a number of other clubs,” Hetherington told the PA news agency.

“But RFL Commercial and IMG have listened and provided clarity and if any club is still unsure they need to ask themselves why.

“The answer we received on the issue of promotion and relegation was a comprehensive one and it is clear that the chances of that happening [the Championship Grand Final winners being denied promotion] are very remote.”

Do you think Hetherington has "misinterpreted" things?

 

Wow! That muddies the waters to the point that this is becoming a farce.

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Wow! That muddies the waters to the point that this is becoming a farce.

why?

loads of people on here dont want teams being punished for being in the lower leagues. This surely shows that that is not going to be the case and therefore the small point margin gains and losses for the league are still massivly important. It doesnt mean the bottom club will be the one that goes down (there may be one further up that is in a worse state) but it shows that the "best of the rest" will be given a chance to prove what they could do, which has been the sticking point for many.

 

I am sure part of the in depth conversation about this would have been loads of models and what ifs that will have been done by IMG using the grading rules... showing that each time the grand final winner should be in a good enough position to go up (unless it is a proper out there team I am sure, for example if sheffield won this year or next we shouldnt be allowed up with the ground.. )

Edited April 20 by RP London

[HawkMan]

34 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

This doesn't get enough attention. They will have been consulted throughout. That's not to guarantee an improved contract, but I think we can be pretty certain we'd be on dangerous ground if we'd voted 'no' yesterday. Sky sent a very strong "get a new vision or this might not work out next time" message at the last TV deal. This whole process, from looking at Private Equity, to the Hearn nonsense, then into IMG all started as a result of that. 

I asked that because currently Sky are bigging up the P+R in football,  quite rightly,  who's coming up from Championship,  who's getting relegated from EPL etc, all down the leagues in fact.  They're sort of able to that with SL now though Wakefield means there's not much mystery as to who's going down. From 2025 will Sky be able to big up a tasty relegation 4 pointer if gradings are a factor not yet determined.

Brian Carney " well there you have it an exciting battle at the bottom,  Salford lose big match and could be down,  they're hope is Featherstone don't get the stadium improvements done in time,  and their fan engagement figures fall short,  we'll keep you posted."

Doesn't quite have the same " zing" as straight ,lose and you're down.

Edited April 20 by HawkMan

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

I asked that because currently Sky are bigging up the P+R in football,  quite rightly,  who's coming up from Championship,  who's getting relegated from EPL etc, all down the leagues in fact.  They're sort of able to that with SL now though Wakefield means there's not much mystery as to who's going down. From 2025 will Sky be able to big up a tasty relegation 4 pointer if gradings are a factor not yet determined.

Brian Carney " well there you have it an exciting battle at the bottom,  Salford lose big match and could be down,  they're hope is Featherstone don't get the stadium improvements done in time,  and their fan engagement figures fall short,  we'll keep you posted."

Doesn't quite have the same " zing" as straight ,lose and you're down.

Sky promote their sports with those sports and events selling points.

Who gets relegated from The Masters in Augusta?

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

I asked that because currently Sky are bigging up the P+R in football,  quite rightly,  who's coming up from Championship,  who's getting relegated from EPL etc, all down the leagues in fact.  They're sort of able to that with SL now though Wakefield means there's not much mystery as to who's going down. From 2025 will Sky be able to big up a tasty relegation 4 pointer if gradings are a factor not yet determined.

Brian Carney " well there you have it an exciting battle at the bottom,  Salford lose big match and could be down,  they're hope is Featherstone don't get the stadium improvements done in time,  and their fan engagement figures fall short,  we'll keep you posted."

Doesn't quite have the same " zing" as straight ,lose and you're down.

No one gets relegated in the NFL but they show that and big it up. 

No one gets relegated from the IPL yet they pay good money to show that. 

The narrative will just be a bit different. Thing with football is that there are still big teams up and down the leagues and with the odd small team in the EPL the league still works due to the immense size of others (and small is still relative).. we just dont have the strength to balance.. nor the sharp fall off to the division below. There is no coincidence that the clubs so keen on the European Super League were in divisions where there is a stark contrast between the big 2-3 teams and the bottom 5-8 teams.. some middles that could step up but the bottom being really way below the standard of the big 2-3. The English Football pyramid is a bit of an outlier in so many things. 

 

[The Phantom Horseman]

20 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Wow! That muddies the waters to the point that this is becoming a farce.

Indeed. I mean, I think he's completely wrong, to the extent that it suggests he doesn't understand the system he has voted in - if Batley had beaten Leigh in the Final last season does anyone think under the new points system that has been unveiled that they would even be close to any of the current SL teams? In fact they would probably have been well behind some of the Championship teams that didn't reach the final.

This is the Chief Executive of one of the biggest teams in SL saying that the chances of the Championship Grand Final winners not making SL are "very remote". As he says himself, "if any club is still unsure, they need to ask themselves why".

I can see those quotes getting a lot of mileage in a couple of years' time.

[Monkeymagic22]

17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sky promote their sports with those sports and events selling points.

Who gets relegated from The Masters in Augusta?

Don’t players miss the cut after two rounds?. Not that golf is a particularly good example to use.

[HawkMan]

16 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sky promote their sports with those sports and events selling points.

Who gets relegated from The Masters in Augusta?

Well I could be pedantic and say there's stories about players failing to qualify for The Masters  and players failing the cut at halfway.

But yeah, Sky will have to forget about bigging up SL relegation because of the haziness and uncertainty and concentrate on the top part. That's what it's all about after all, so long as they're happy that.

[David Shepherd]

21 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sky promote their sports with those sports and events selling points.

Who gets relegated from The Masters in Augusta?

Roughly half the entrants at the end of round 2?

[phiggins]

59 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I think the strategy is that this is transitional, we're sending a clear market signal to club owners that if they do X, Y and Z they'll get an A licence and a guaranteed spot. That should create a race to get there, as once we have 12 A's it's a de-facto closed league without any of the P&R challenges. It also means anyone already with an A-grade can approach their business planning differently right away. Even long-term top-half-of-the table sides still have jeopardy at present, see Hull FC this season. 

Once we have that semi-closed model additional clubs will likewise be able to join if they meet A standards, as we grow commercial revenues enough to be able to fund more than 12 teams.  

But I thought one of the main arguments against P&R was that it took away the stability that clubs would require to be able to improve? If that is the case, then won't B graded clubs still have the same issues with the threat of relegation, hindering their efforts to become A graded?