IMG Grading Unveiled

[MattSantos]

Just now, gingerjon said:

But it does.

The central funding that every club outside Super League gets? That comes primarily from the Super League TV deal and sponsorships.

I have no idea of the numbers, anyone have them to hand? 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

Are you a..  Was "Are you against doing FX at spot?." I'm operating 2 screens and frankly, i don't have the skills for 1. 

I have a different view on whether the cash trickles down. I don't believe it does. I believe it gets wasted by incompetence. Look at Wakey's and Cas's stadiums... 

The cold hard cash coming in from Internationals is rubbish, yes. A 'whole game solution' aims to fix this and puts a plan in place to ensure sustainability and the distribution of wealth to promote growth. This plan isnt this and to your own point is to make the game elite level richer. There's nothing wrong with that, i just take umbridge at the notion that this is good for the whole game*

 

*Caveat, it may be good for the game as getting rid of clubs like Swinton, Oldham, Dewsbury et al from the 'professional' pyramid may be actually good for the game in the long run... that's a different debate. 

Fair enough, its all about what you like and are used to. I'm sat here with 4 screens om and I love it but I've grown up with that as a norm.

I think trickle down economics is usually bull, because its implicit and hidden. In this instance however it is explicit. Super League had a big contract, the 2nd and 3rd division got the most money they've ever had. Super League's money gets cut massively, basically to the bone, the lower leagues end up with nothing. 

I think given the above that this is the best way to benefit "the whole game". Nobody is locked out of the top tier except by their own limitations, that is best for the clubs and for the game as a whole.

On your caveat, I do think there is a discussion to be had about the place of "professional" clubs that seem to do little more, or indeed less, than their local amateur sides. That is a tough discussion that hopefully won't be needed if the game grows around them.

[MattSantos]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

I have no idea of the numbers, anyone have them to hand? 

Quick thought, didn't you suggest earlier that league 1 get absolute peanuts.. Is this Tommy Sexy Grandad's point when he says that a stronger SL equals a stronger sport?

I'm off to pub

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Unscrupulous or not. They absolutely matter, hence the nature in which they were achieved.

I'd rather not be flippant about the 10 and do both.. 

Its not being flippant at all, its just apportioning one's attention appropriately. Some people find themselves fixated on things that, in the grand scheme of things or the bigger picture, don't warrant that level of attention. That isn't a positive.

The 1%ers are for the teams at the very top. Those that are really bothered by the 10% probably won't be doing well on anything else, but won't focus on that.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

I have no idea of the numbers, anyone have them to hand? 

It was, at one point under the previous TV deal, £75k to every league one club, for example. 

The rest you'll have to google but numbers were published for the (incredibly uneven) Championship. 

Now Super League's deal has collapsed by 40%, those figures are miniscule by comparison.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not being flippant at all, its just apportioning one's attention appropriately. Some people find themselves fixated on things that, in the grand scheme of things or the bigger picture, don't warrant that level of attention. That isn't a positive.

The 1%ers are for the teams at the very top. Those that are really bothered by the 10% probably won't be doing well on anything else, but won't focus on that.

I'm sorry, but I've just read the whole thread and agree with Matt completely on this point. That 10 is huge when we're going to be talking about teams getting into SL or not by margins of less than 1 and possibly as low as 0.1. The grading is practically pointless for the grade A club outside of an appendage waving competition.

In a grading system like this that purports to still have P&R, where being incumbent in SL is a massive advantage in the financial and on field categories, the other categories (well all categories) need to be squeaky clean. That means highly transparent, tangible grading criteria.

Waving it off as insignificant and 'it'll be reight' doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Hopefully, they have, or will, produce some well though out criteria for grading. Subjectivity is not your friend in this instance.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

The catchment area should really a circle around the club with the radius being an agreed reasonable distance a club could draw the majority of their fans from, say 10 miles (i'm making that up). The population and clubs within that circle is how you measure it. Using districts or towns is massively flawed. Regions might work but still has a very slapdash feel too it.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

I'm sorry, but I've just read the whole thread and agree with Matt completely on this point. That 10 is huge when we're going to be talking about teams getting into SL or not by margins of less than 1 and possibly as low as 0.1. The grading is practically pointless for the grade A club outside of an appendage waving competition.

In a grading system like this that purports to still have P&R, where being incumbent in SL is a massive advantage in the financial and on field categories, the other categories (well all categories) need to be squeaky clean. That means highly transparent, tangible grading criteria.

Waving it off as insignificant and 'it'll be reight' doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Hopefully, they have, or will, produce some well though out criteria for grading. Subjectivity is not your friend in this instance.

If you think that 10% will decide whethere you're in or not then it will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

The other 90% will decide it for most. Indeed, if you think you'll score poorly on that 10%, then you'll hope the other 90% is what you can do well on.

[Tommygilf]

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/img-rugby-league-criteria-2023-26435058?utm_source=leeds_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=rugby_league_lve_newsletter&utm_medium=email

IMG on Sky before tonights game.

[RP London]

3 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

I've just got to add here, I'm really impressed with how Featherstone are already trying to work this metric:

 - Loads of new houses going up around the ground & a planning application to build more on their car park: Looking to increase the population of their 'catchment area'.

 - Following Joe Westerman around with a camera phone and then spoofing Lee Radford with fake NRL job offers: Trying to send Cas' down the pan and reduce the number of clubs in the 'catchment area'.

It might not work, but it's thinking outside the box! 

Which, to be fair, is what we've been asking for for ages from club chairman... just think differently  

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

58 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

I'm sorry, but this is pish.

I've just gone through a very similar grading process with work and in partnership with a Corporate, offered their banking piece to a new bank who won the 'tender' by around 3%. it's the small stuff that won it for them. That's billions of dollars of flow and millions of revenue per year to that bank.

% points matter. They hugely matter. 

We're not talking a 3 hour window here in which clubs have to get stuff right. Again, % points matter. Ask Dave Brailsford.

 

It's even more important than a tender selection exercise. What IMG are doing here is sending market signals. Saying to participants "these are the things you get rewarded for doing better". That way even people who don't "win" the bid to get an elite spot, have at least done some things which may well add value to the sport's value overall.

We need all clubs to do certain things better, and prioritise the things we want them to for rugby league overall. Rather than just spend more money on wages, to beat another bunch of people spending more money on wages. 

[RP London]

Been thinking about the catchment thing. 

If GJ is right (to an extent) with it being about where your selling tickets etc.. then clubs can influence this by their community outreach into areas not served by clubs, expansion areas perhaps.. so helping community clubs, looking at junior set ups and scouting etc... 

Is this actually a very clever move to make clubs actually act outside of their "home area" and actually doing something many of us have been saying they should do for years and help expansion by looking for talent in new areas??

 

Just a thought.

[The Blues Ox]

There is no point looking at new areas for talent when they can just keep taking talent from other teams catchment areas who have a history of producing top drawer talent.

[GUBRATS]

Just read the first 3 pages , can't be bothered even trying to figure it all out 

A other day , same bollux 

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

There is no point looking at new areas for talent when they can just keep taking talent from other teams catchment areas who have a history of producing top drawer talent.

But could that be the point... stop fishing in the same pond and look elsewhere increasing your "catchment" and therefore your points... 

[The Blues Ox]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

But could that be the point... stop fishing in the same pond and look elsewhere increasing your "catchment" and therefore your points... 

It sounds good but teams like fev and Fax are not even allowed to fish in their own ponds so god knows how they would afford to spread their nets wider. I guess if they were given an extra couple of million in funding that might make it a little easier.

[GUBRATS]

Any mention of baby changing facilities ? 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

35 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

What can you sell as the sports big games? Saints vs Pies Hull/KR Leeds/Bulls Catalan/Toulouse. It seems as if an element of geographical proximity is essential.

Let's be honest, one element that rugby league doesn't need to worry about is clubs having a high degree of geographic proximity. The whole sport is geographically proximate! That's why the measures are focused on moving the dial on other elements, things we actually need more of. 

[Jamie_]

20 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Just read the first 3 pages , can't be bothered even trying to figure it all out 

A other day , same bollux 

Keighley owners said you needed a PhD to understand it but I don't know what is so confusing about it? Like what is it that people don't understand about it exactly? This is just the simplified presentation... god help Keighley when they send them the data requirements document 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Salford have no derby , Catalan neither . Our most sellable games our derbies and since IMG have zero to offer on the international front as their plan is the same failed one as rfl’s for 20 years , I fail to see what they are actually offering here. 

We have plenty of derbies. That's a non-issue, we certainly don't particularly need more.

The grading is a red herring, that isn't what IMG are here to offer the sport. It's just the element that people here, and in the rugby league media, choose to focus on because it's the most similar aspect to what's been done before (rugby league, of all sports, loves a restructure!).

What IMG are here to do is help clubs take the right, iterative steps to improve the product, the customer experience and the selling of that experience in many areas. All in order to enable us to grow. All these grading criteria do is say "these are the things we need to focus on". They're a signal, or a framework. IMG will now help us execute plans to focus on them over several years, but ultimately it is going to be down to which clubs lean into that and do it well, and which clubs won't or can't.  

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

31 minutes ago, Jamie_ said:

Keighley owners said you needed a PhD to understand it but I don't know what is so confusing about it? Like what is it that people don't understand about it exactly? This is just the simplified presentation... god help Keighley when they send them the data requirements document 

If people can't be bothered to engage with this, understand it and try to succeed then frankly they don't deserve to expect to make progress. We're not writing down "strategic plans" on a beer mat in a smoky room anymore, before ripping it up after a season because some random stakeholder has had another brilliant idea and we write that one down instead. 

I'm fed up of rugby league being run like the Phoenix Club, based on Brian's latest wheeze. People like that have had their go, for decades, so let's try another way for a bit eh. 

[dboy]

29 minutes ago, Jamie_ said:

Keighley owners said you needed a PhD to understand it but I don't know what is so confusing about it? Like what is it that people don't understand about it exactly? This is just the simplified presentation... god help Keighley when they send them the data requirements document 

OK.

You can get 4 points for "performance". 

Let's assume you get 4 points for being ranked #1 over 3 seasons - that seems straight forward...but how many do you get for finishing 12th?

How does a team not featuring on TV much score as many as Leeds who are every week (it feels)?

At least I know Wakey have .5 points for Primacy, LED floodlights, and a big screen! Don't know how the other 2.5 are worked out though.

These are not detailed criteria.

[EggFace]

This thread is like reading the Rugby Union rule book ...hurting den head and eyes.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

22 minutes ago, dboy said:

OK.

You can get 4 points for "performance". 

Let's assume you get 4 points for being ranked #1 over 3 seasons - that seems straight forward...but how many do you get for finishing 12th?

How does a team not featuring on TV much score as many as Leeds who are every week (it feels)?

At least I know Wakey have .5 points for Primacy, LED floodlights, and a big screen! Don't know how the other 2.5 are worked out though.

These are not detailed criteria.

No, but the clubs will get the detailed criteria. There's already people in this thread saying "my head hurts" and "I haven't got a PhD", so they're hardly going to put every rivet into the initial briefing. 

We know enough for now. People forget the objective is to get to a semi-closed, invitation league. One that adds new teams as additional ones, as revenues grow, rather than shares an ever-smaller cake. These are just criteria to manage the transition - to enable marginal clubs to focus on the right things, to give them the best chance of success.

  

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

No it doesn’t because the criteria and your success is overwhelming dependent on whether you are in or out of SL when we start counting .

growing crowds in a meaningless comp? Gaining more sponsors in a como that doesn’t matter so no one will televise or care? Delusional 

Not delusional, I just disagree with you. I don't think you're delusional, you've a view you're entitled to and I'm sure have reasons. That's fine. 

I have reasons too, and the sport seems to think similarly because we've signed a 12-year partnership to try another route. The strategy we've used previously certainly hasn't worked that well, so why not eh?