IMG Grading Unveiled

[The Phantom Horseman]

13 minutes ago, RP London said:

you can think that. I dont agree and I would say the word "presumably" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

I agree with your views/opinion on the grounds' quality etc and obviously the attendances.

What I dont agree with you on is the conclusions you are drawing from looking at those factors alone. we dont know is how they are going to be brought together statistically. We also dont know how they will score on many other facets that are being scored and what other information is going to be brought together from 3rd parties. All of that is mentioned in the presentation.

If we are going to take clubs on face value and form an opinion then we are missing a large amount of the grading areas. 

you have an opinion based on what you can see.. Hetherington has come to his based on the information given to him and modelling presented (one would assume) by IMG.. that has more weight to me than your opinion, sorry.

We know that winning the Championship Grand Final only gains you 0.25 points. That's a really, really negligible amount when you consider the score is out of 20.

If Hetherington is confident that getting those 0.25 points means there is only a "remote chance" of not being promoted, that can only mean that all the other areas are going to be marked in such a way that there won't be more than 0.25 points between those at the foot of the SL table and those at the top of the Championship.

So you may be right, and the devil may be in the detail.

For instance, under "attendance" there are 2.5 points up for grabs. If those points are allocated lomething ike this:
average of over 10k 2.5 points
average 1k-9.99k 2 points
average under 1k 1 point

Then yes, there's a chance Championship teams could be competitive under this type of scoring system. But as it is, I can't see too many areas amongst the scoring categories listed by IMG where Championship clubs might have a realistic chance of scoring higher than, or as high as, SL ones.

[sentoffagain2]

35 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

And yet Degsy himself has said he's put money into the club (not just the playing roster) because of the IMG partnership.

 

   Yes now Leigh are in SL and under the current points system would be a strong B grade.With the SKY money and increased attendances i don't think he will have to put extra money into the club.Top Championship clubs needed that extra investment around £1 million to gain promotion.

[RP London]

14 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

What Hetherington is describing in his quotes is effectively P&R as we have it now. So either IMG have completely reneged on their entire system and gone against all the documentation they themselves have put out, or Hetherington for whatever reason has an inaccurate view of the system he's just voted in. 

If I had to wildly speculate I would say someone at the RFL/RL commercial didn't understand the proposals and in answering queries from the clubs has led them a merry dance. 

I dont see how you are reading it like that, sorry.. he is just saying under the IMG grading it is unlikely the grand final winner in the championship would not be promoted.. thats still all about the points.. it doesnt say the bottom team will be relegated it could be any of the previous Bs that go down etc.. just that the grand final winner most times (but they key is not all) will have gained the points to be promoted. 

[RP London]

15 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

We know that winning the Championship Grand Final only gains you 0.25 points. That's a really, really negligible amount when you consider the score is out of 20.

If Hetherington is confident that getting those 0.25 points means there is only a "remote chance" of not being promoted, that can only mean that all the other areas are going to be marked in such a way that there won't be more than 0.25 points between those at the foot of the SL table and those at the top of the Championship.

So you may be right, and the devil may be in the detail.

For instance, under "attendance" there are 2.5 points up for grabs. If those points are allocated lomething ike this:
average of over 10k 2.5 points
average 1k-9.99k 2 points
average under 1k 1 point

Then yes, there's a chance Championship teams could be competitive under this type of scoring system. But as it is, I can't see too many areas amongst the scoring categories listed by IMG where Championship clubs might have a realistic chance of scoring higher than, or as high as, SL ones.

Bingo.. yes 0.25 points can absolutely be the difference.. there are loads of areas with loads of points on offer.. 15+ gets you a cat A.. then they'll be some strong Bs in there too the rest will be fighting over small points differences.. completely.. and yes the devil is in the detail which is why we can only hold an opinion and a limited one at that, the documents produced by IMG talk about 3rd party information, uniformed information but always with "more information to be given to clubs" its transparent but not to us.. which is fine but it means we cannot have anything more than an opinion. 

Its also why so many of us have talked about why there can be investment, because a little bit of investment off the pitch into the right things can really push your points up and away from relegation and potentially a defacto cat A before actually being able to step up and get one. There will be about 8 clubs I'd guess that are all around the same level (not necessarily a 4 and 4 split between the leagues) and they will be trying to get those legs up to get them to be away from that 8.. if anyone from outside that 8 has a good season on the pitch then thats when they may not get promoted, but hey they may get some investment by someone thinking "hang on if i just get them upgraded here and here this could fly".. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by RP London

[DI Keith Fowler]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

I dont see how you are reading it like that, sorry.. he is just saying under the IMG grading it is unlikely the grand final winner in the championship would not be promoted.. thats still all about the points.. it doesnt say the bottom team will be relegated it could be any of the previous Bs that go down etc.. just that the grand final winner most times (but they key is not all) will have gained the points to be promoted. 

As was noted above, it's 0.25 points out of 20 for winning the GF. On your reading that means in more years than not, 0.25 points will be enough to put a high Championship team above a low SL team. 

Or to put it another way, there's less than 0.25 points to pick between in the gradings of the bottom half of SL and the top half of the Championship and this 0.25 points is the only real variable.

In which case they may as well have thrown out the notion of ranking grade Bs and just made the B criteria the minimum criteria and then promote whoever wins the Championship. 

[bromleybulldog]

I'm  looking forwards to the 2024 Championship grand Final between Batley and Wakefield when Batley win by 20 clear points and somehow Mr Hetheringtons words of not being able to foresee a situation where the Championship winner doesn't get promoted gets tested. Instead Featherstone or Castleford are relegated and London Broncos are promoted after finishing 10th in the Championship but scoring very highly in other non performance rated categories. Sounds like the future.

[RP London]

13 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

As was noted above, it's 0.25 points out of 20 for winning the GF. On your reading that means in more years than not, 0.25 points will be enough to put a high Championship team above a low SL team. 

Or to put it another way, there's less than 0.25 points to pick between in the gradings of the bottom half of SL and the top half of the Championship and this 0.25 points is the only real variable.

In which case they may as well have thrown out the notion of ranking grade Bs and just made the B criteria the minimum criteria and then promote whoever wins the Championship. 

Arguably, except that there will be some of the grade Bs (as was noted above) that will be nowhere near this on either end of the scale, but one lucky or unlucky season could see them promoted or relegated both of which could plunge that club into horrific financial difficulties/set the club back for years in their off field development as they plunge all resource on to the pitch. This is about putting a bit of security to both sides of that luck. 

Again, as has been said before, this is a short term transition while we get the teams into Super League who can really grow while they are there. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by RP London

[The Phantom Horseman]

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

 

Its also why so many of us have talked about why there can be investment, because a little bit of investment off the pitch into the right things can really push your points up and away from relegation and potentially a defacto cat A before actually being able to step up and get one. There will be about 8 clubs I'd guess that are all around the same level (not necessarily a 4 and 4 split between the leagues) and they will be trying to get those legs up to get them to be away from that 8.. if anyone from outside that 8 has a good season on the pitch then thats when they may not get promoted, but hey they may get some investment by someone thinking "hang on if i just get them upgraded here and here this could fly".. 

Indeed. Do you think this "little bit of investment off the pitch into the right things" is more likely to be achieved by a SL club with £1.5m+ central funding, or a Championship club with £150k?

 

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Indeed. Do you think this "little bit of investment off the pitch into the right things" is more likely to be achieved by a SL club with £1.5m+ central funding, or a Championship club with £150k?

 

at the moment the super league club.. because at the moment there is no reason for anyone else to invest from the outside because there is no guaranteed return on that investment so it has to be internal funding. Going forward with the new system I think there are some Championship clubs that could be ripe for some good investment from outside that you could make a massive difference to with a "little bit of investment" and therefore get some really good return on the money you put in.

Its one of the reasons I do like this set up, and have more confidence in it than i have had in any of the previous set ups we've looked at.

In all honesty, and I really am not saying this just because it backs up my argument, but if I had the sort of money to look to invest in sport i'd want to see IMGs other plans in private (ie how they plan to grow the game as a whole, to know that the funding model will show increased income to spread in the future etc) but I would say that money invested into a Championship club or indeed the money to buy a champ club would see a larger return than doing so to a current Super League club. I think the top end of the Champ looks to have clubs in a healthier potential position than the bottom end of Super League in all honesty. 

(side note: if i had that sort of money my first look would be womens sport as there is some real growth potential there, again, for little relative expenditure). 

Edited April 20, 2023 by RP London

[phiggins]

3 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

No, the point is to tell owners what long-term investments to make, as they'll be rewarded with protection or promotion. 

At present, the only way to defend your position or be confident of promotion is to blow money you don't have on an out-sized playing budget. Look at what is happening with Wakey this season, now their budget is more to their means. Look how Leigh guaranteed promotion last year. 

Much better owners spend money on facilities, pathways and audience generation. 

Your last sentence is absolutely correct. But if it is the case that to go up, you have to win the grand final, and to go down, you have to finish bottom, the priority of investment is always going to go to the short term, because there is so little money in the game. Virtually none outside the top flight.

If Fev go up this year, and Leigh go down, then Leigh will probably spend plenty on the first team again, because they'll need to beat Toulouse to have a chance of going back up.

Unless I'm reading the P&R aspect of these proposals incorrectly.

[gittinsfan]

11 minutes ago, RP London said:

Arguably, except that there will be some of the grade Bs (as was noted above) that will be nowhere near this on either end of the scale, but one lucky or unlucky season could see them promoted or relegated both of which could plunge that club into horrific financial difficulties. This is about putting a bit of security to both sides of that luck. 

Again, as has been said before, this is a short term transition while we get the teams into Super League who can really grow while they are there. 

And how many decades is this short term transition going to last?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

 

What they're effectively saying is we can't or won't change but we still expect to be able to have an opportunity to play in SL.

 

Exactly this ^^

If they "won't" then its on them, if they "can't" then I sympathise. But whether one or the other, neither are reasons for the wider game to lower the standards it wants its elite league to move to. 

We've had far too long working to the lowest common denominator, now it's time to try and step up. No guarantees, but it's worth striving for something at least. 

[Chrispmartha]

So those against the IMG system, what would you propose instead?

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, gittinsfan said:

And how many decades is this short term transition going to last?

not even one hopefully.. because IMG need to have a more commercially viable sport within 12 years of the contract being signed to get paid, the more commercially viable the more they will get paid. They cannot, of course, do everything for everyone but they are giving very good pointers to how to get your club up there.. but I am sure their aim is a full 12 cat A clubs by the end of their agreement, but that is not in their control, that down to how much the clubs actually want to help themselves in the end. 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

So those against the IMG system, what would you propose instead?

and surely it really cant be.. stay as we are.. because thats proven not to be moving the game forward 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

So those against the IMG system, what would you propose instead?

I think an unbalanced Championship where funding is distributed based on factors that can be gamed and the richest clubs are rewarded with more money than others is the best way.

Or, as I like to call it, what we have now but people moaning about IMG seem to ignore …

[tim2]

9 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

So those against the IMG system, what would you propose instead?

Their team in Super League.

[Monkeymagic22]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

So those against the IMG system, what would you propose instead?

I’d have minimum standards for entry to SL, whilst retaining promotion/relegation and retaining the parachute payments to relegated clubs. Ideally I’d have increased funding for Championship/League 1 Clubs, but this will never happen.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

Sorry don't know who you support so cannot comment on individual circumstances but your comment of "it is the hope that drives investors" is completely wrong IMHO... it is the hope that drives the current crop of "fan investors" which is what we are attracting... in business (and like it or not sport at the top level is a business) it is the ROI that drives investors. Now we are giving them this route and this almost guarantee of "invest wisely and here is your reward" and we may just (and it is a may I totally agree) attract a different calibre of investor with a very different size of wallet.

This is key. For example, rugby league TV rights are at a low base. Sometimes people look at this "problem" as if only 10% or 20% growth was the aim. But it's totally different. If we can get the product, positioning and promotion right it's perfectly possible to see the TV rights values triple, maybe more, in time. That would still not be an expensive contract for a media platform, still loose change. 

So we have a lot of theoretical upside, especially in a salary-capped sport with semi-ringfenced team numbers so you can control your major cost line. That can attract investors, if we get forward momentum to show the way. The current fan-owners are not investors, they're people looking to secure the clubs they love, and if possible have an enjoyable weekend - and give their community one. 

Rugby league needs to think beyond that. There is a business opportunity here. 

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

I’d have minimum standards for entry to SL, whilst retaining promotion/relegation and retaining the parachute payments to relegated clubs. Ideally I’d have increased funding for Championship/League 1 Clubs, but this will never happen.

How would you grade the minimum standards? And what would happen if a club won the championship but didn't reach the standards?

 

Also what would you do with the current SL clubs if they didn't make the standard?

Edited April 20, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

I’d have minimum standards for entry to SL, whilst retaining promotion/relegation and retaining the parachute payments to relegated clubs. Ideally I’d have increased funding for Championship/League 1 Clubs, but this will never happen.

not without increasing the funding across the game.. so how do you do that? 

minimum standards would have to be very low so as to be almost pointless otherwise youd have to be kicking teams out (basically what they are doing now... but with minimum standards being the best 12 on scoring up until the point they all meet the minimum standard which is cat a).. 

they are hoping doing that will increase the pot therefore increase the ability to send more money to the champ and league 1.

 so what you want is happening, bar maybe the parachute payments, but they have to do a few things to be able to get there first. 

[Gav Wilson]

9 minutes ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

I’d have minimum standards for entry to SL, whilst retaining promotion/relegation and retaining the parachute payments to relegated clubs. Ideally I’d have increased funding for Championship/League 1 Clubs, but this will never happen.

You do realise that will likely happen should IMG manage to help secure an improved TV deal yes?

[Saint Toppy]

12 minutes ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

I’d have minimum standards for entry to SL, whilst retaining promotion/relegation 

So you do agree with IMG's proposals then as this is essentially what they're doing, as a Grade B Championship club can replace a Grade B SL club if they match or exceed that SL club in terms of overall grading standard.

[Monkeymagic22]

6 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

So you do agree with IMG's proposals then as this is essentially what they're doing, as a Grade B Championship club can replace a Grade B SL club if they match or exceed that SL club in terms of overall grading standard.

No, it’s achieving a set of standards which are known, rather than having to compete with other clubs. 

[gittinsfan]

50 minutes ago, RP London said:

not even one hopefully.. because IMG need to have a more commercially viable sport within 12 years of the contract being signed to get paid, the more commercially viable the more they will get paid. They cannot, of course, do everything for everyone but they are giving very good pointers to how to get your club up there.. but I am sure their aim is a full 12 cat A clubs by the end of their agreement, but that is not in their control, that down to how much the clubs actually want to help themselves in the end. 

I think 12 cat A clubs within 12 years is a pipedream.Some SL clubs will realise that to stay safe they can spend more on infrastructure than the team.Therefore the product on the field will suffer.As usual self  preservation will take over.I have seen on here teams already criticised for not spending the full cap.