IMG Grading Unveiled

[redjonn]

23 hours ago, gingerjon said:

The top five boroughs for disposable income are all in London. Three are in inner London.

Yep I note that, but disposable income may well be almost used up in those area's by rent and mortgage... I guess all depends on definition of disposable income.  Whilst I may have lowish income coming in and my disposable income from that is relatively low I have no mortgage or rent to pay so my actual leisure spending power is relative high compared to average. 

[Big Picture]

55 minutes ago, steve oates said:

What? Windsor, Weybridge, sevenoakes, Beaconsfield and Henley?? We have had a presence in those areas through Harlequins, London Broncos, Fulham Kent invicta etc.........

There's no interest in those places, they have been tried and failed......

There's no interest in those places under the current M62-based setup and its small time ways, yes that has been tried and failed.  It failed because that wasn't enough to offer the locals something to spark their interest and never will be.

[Big Picture]

10 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Yep I note that, but disposable income may well be almost used up in those area's by rent and mortgage... I guess all depends on definition of disposable income.  Whilst I may have lowish income coming in and my disposable income from that is relatively low I have no mortgage or rent to pay so my actual leisure spending power is relative high compared to average. 

No, disposable income won't be almost used up anywhere by rents and mortgages.  By definition disposable income is income in excess of the income required for necessities like that.

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

No, disposable income won't be almost used up anywhere by rents and mortgages.  By definition disposable income is income in excess of the income required for necessities like that.

so it ain't this definition then:

income remaining after deduction of taxes and social security charges, available to be spent or saved as one wishes.

e.g. "the rents of tenants in work reached 21 per cent of disposable income"

[DI Keith Fowler]

Just now, redjonn said:

so it ain't this definition then:

income remaining after deduction of taxes and social security charges, available to be spent or saved as one wishes.

e.g. "the rents of tenants in work reached 21 per cent of disposable income"

That's one definition which gets used in academia but there's a more every day definition which is everything after the basic necessities are covered i.e. rent, bills, food. 

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Yep I note that, but disposable income may well be almost used up in those area's by rent and mortgage... I guess all depends on definition of disposable income.  Whilst I may have lowish income coming in and my disposable income from that is relatively low I have no mortgage or rent to pay so my actual leisure spending power is relative high compared to average. 

It’s a government definition and, at a quick glance, does seem to track with the places where you’d expect to find rich people being at the top and those where you wouldn’t being at the bottom.

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

It’s a government definition and, at a quick glance, does seem to track with the places where you’d expect to find rich people being at the top and those where you wouldn’t being at the bottom.

it just that some on this thread were using the ONS disposable income as to compare certain boroughs/regions etc.

Hence I just quoted in my response the ONS definition which is:

Disposable income is arguably the most widely used household income measure. Disposable income is the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after direct taxes, such as Income Tax, National Insurance and Council Tax, have been accounted for. It includes earnings from employment, private pensions and investments as well as cash benefits provided by the state.

I gave my example of having no mortgage or rent that whilst my disposable income as per that definition is relatively lower than some but that my monies for leisure spending was relatively higher than many.

 

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

That's one definition which gets used in academia but there's a more every day definition which is everything after the basic necessities are covered i.e. rent, bills, food. 

In effect ' beer money ' ?

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

it just that some on this thread were using the ONS disposable income as to compare certain boroughs/regions etc.

Hence I just quoted in my response the ONS definition which is:

Disposable income is arguably the most widely used household income measure. Disposable income is the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after direct taxes, such as Income Tax, National Insurance and Council Tax, have been accounted for. It includes earnings from employment, private pensions and investments as well as cash benefits provided by the state.

I gave my example of having no mortgage or rent that whilst my disposable income as per that definition is relatively lower than some but that my monies for leisure spending was relatively higher than many.

 

And beer is cheaper up north

[Oxford]

That's a very political thread you've got going there.

If you're interested in that sort of thing the BoE says Britons will have to get used to being poorer, so I hope you're ready.

For what it's worth I think the question of profit chasing inflation is the single most important issue for RL and it's future. The rise in crowds does suggest some see TGG as a fundamental necessity though.

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Oxford

[Oxford]

Watching the NRL?Fox coverage on Sky there's more than a simple qualitative difference in the media output. There's still a tendency to see some games as more exciting than others but nothing like the huge difference Sky pundits place on one match rather than another. Then there's the role of main sponsor and MacDo's advert during the process is a good one for them and the sport and something that could be worked on here. In fact if IMG doesn't have a direct input into things like this little will change. It's no use selling the game as a whole and ignoring the parts. Even if it's not substantially correct every game needs to be sold like it's the most important thing on the menu.

[Man of Kent]

Here it all is in full:

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Grading Handbook (Final Version).pdf

[Agbrigg]

21 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Here it all is in full:

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Grading Handbook (Final Version).pdf

I wonder if any other sports will use this model or sets of criteria in their development plans

[Man of Kent]

16 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

I wonder if any other sports will use this model or sets of criteria in their development plans

Maybe, maybe not but we have a history of leading where others follow.

From a Wakefield POV, it’s interesting that the difference between finishing 11th and 12th is a mere 0.111 grading points. 

[MattSantos]

It'd be great if the gradings for every club are published. Will they be?

[GUBRATS]

I'm so excited I could crush a grape 

[Chris22]

It does seem very heavily skewed towards Super League clubs.

For one, you get points for viewing figures on TV. There's no amount of work that a Championship club could do to achieve that. Also, for Super League clubs, Channel 4 gets higher viewing figures than Sky as its free to air.

So if a particular club happens to be on Channel 4 more often, they will gain more points than a side that isn't, simply because of TV picks.

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

It does seem very heavily skewed towards Super League clubs.

For one, you get points for viewing figures on TV. There's no amount of work that a Championship club could do to achieve that. Also, for Super League clubs, Channel 4 gets higher viewing figures than Sky as its free to air.

So if a particular club happens to be on Channel 4 more often, they will gain more points than a side that isn't, simply because of TV picks.

You seem surprised ? 

[Man of Kent]

7 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

It does seem very heavily skewed towards Super League clubs.

Of course. It’s about making Super League more Super.

[Damien]

Typically underwhelming and heavily favours those already in the club. It's hard to see any change to the currrent makeup of SL.

[EggFace]

21 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I'm so excited I could crush a grape 

I could jump off a Doll's House.

[David Shepherd]

43 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Maybe, maybe not but we have a history of leading where others follow.

From a Wakefield POV, it’s interesting that the difference between finishing 11th and 12th is a mere 0.111 grading points. 

Add in the 0.1 bonus for winning the championship and there's nowt in it. Win both the GF and 1895 and you score more.

Seems reasonable.  In fact the whole document seems reasonable.

My only concern is the TV viewing metrics, that's heavily skewed towards SL clubs.

 

And from a Fev point of view, I think we score at around the same as our neighbours overall.

[Hello]

Their lowest rated in terms of importance:-

COMMUNITY • Clubs awarded for foundation - participation growth and  community engagement • Indicator of club fanbase potential • Incentivises investment in large potential markets • Foundation activity reflects a clubs impact in its community

Worth just 12,5 % 

This is why, for example,  the cricket and Union world cups are watched my many many times more people than the RL world cup, not even thinking about football.  This is why other sports such as basketball are expanding globally and we are not.  Fanbase potential/ Incentivises investment in large potential markets are an afterthought.  IMG seens to be same old RL, never growing.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Hello

[yipyee]

On 24/04/2023 at 17:44, steve oates said:

1. Wigan Saints  and Leeds monopolised the grand finals trophy but as we know Leeds have fallen from their once mighty perch.... However many times Saints have met Wigan in the final is a red herring. You know that...

What we are seeing happening is less talent coming into the game as less grass roots RL is played, which seems to escape this forum. They aren't coming through at Leeds like they used to any more, so it's down to a two horse race. Quality young players that we do still have and overseas stars are bound to want to go to the biggest clubs.

The basics of how to "sort it" was already there when the clubs decided there should be an even salary cap, but having said that there is also the way in which overseas stars come for the money, but also want to win something and will take less money to be heading for a winning team. Top youngsters often look to go to the academies of the best clubs. If you were a superstar Wakey youngster ready to join an academy and I was your dad  I'd be driving you to Saints or Wigan

 

Leeds were given a low score for their academy a few years ago and I commented on here they had a job for the boys mentality dragging their academy down, think it was an old player who was in charge at the time and he didn't even have a coaching badge (from memory so I could have remembered wrongly) I was laughed at , but now it would appear that the issue certainly isn't that kids are not playing, junior rugby is actually thriving. It appears to be an issue at academy level in Yorkshire. How Hull does not have a conveyor belt of talent coming through is beyond me !

Bradford was certainly a very good academy and RL allowed Bradford to fail.

Infact under licencing the lack of relegation actually encouraged player development so maybe this will improve under IMG rules

[Barley Mow]

So we all need to stop looking at social media posts and YouTube videos from clubs we dislike. It will help them gain points, possibly to the detriment of the team you support 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Barley Mow