Toby Chopra Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 23 minutes ago, Man of Kent said: This is Matthew Shaw's attempt to work out the on-field points grading (based on the last three seasons). St Helens 4.75 Wigan Warriors 4.1389 Leeds Rhinos 3.7778 Catalans Dragons 3.6667 Huddersfield Giants 3.5556 Hull FC 3.4444 Warrington Wolves3.3333 Castleford Tigers 3.2222 Hull KR 3.1111 Salford Red Devils 3 Leigh Leopards 2.916 Wakefield Trinity 2.8889 Toulouse Olympique 2.7778 Featherstone Rovers 2.6556 Batley Bulldogs 2.4444 Halifax Panthers 2.3333 York Knights 2.2222 Bradford Bulls 2.1111 Sheffield Eagles 2 Widnes Vikings 1.8889 London Broncos 1.7778 Whitehaven 1.6667 Barrow Raiders 1.5556 Dewsbury Rams 1.4444 Swinton Lions 1.3333 Newcastle Thunder 1.2222 Workington Town 1.1111 Oldham 1 Doncaster 0.8889 Rochdale Hornets 0.7778 Keighley Cougars 0.7667 North Wales Crusaders0.5556 Hunslet 0.4444 Midlands Hurricanes 0.3333 London Skolars 0.2222 Cornwall 0.1111 Including a fair few educated guesses, I get Hull FC just over the 15 point threshold for Cat A, which means it's the expected 6 Cat As for me. I also reckon that if Wakey go down this year, it's not impossible for them to go back up at the end of 2024, given the 3-year calculation of many of the gradings. But only if they can maintain most of their fanbase for the year and Fev/Toulouse don't achieve much more than the 4.5k average T.O. had last year. However if they don't do it in 2024, then it becomes much harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREPOSTEROUS Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 Oh joy, I've really missed these threads where off field criteria is so heatedly debated. "My catchment area is bigger than yours" "Yeah, well I've got a big screen and 100k twitter followers, so there". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blues Ox Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 12 minutes ago, dboy said: On LED signs - does anyone know their cost? Is it worth the expenditure to gain 0.125 points? From a potential income point of view then it would pay for itself but the problem is for anyone with a shared ground its very unlikely to be a realistic proposition for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 2 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said: From a potential income point of view then it would pay for itself but the problem is for anyone with a shared ground its very unlikely to be a realistic proposition for them. Depends on who you share with surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raiders_1875 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 4 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said: Oh joy, I've really missed these threads where off field criteria is so heatedly debated. "My catchment area is bigger than yours" "Yeah, well I've got a big screen and 100k twitter followers, so there". It's sad/pathetic that this is what 'saving the game' has come too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, LeytherRob said: It is advertising boards Already noted. Keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, Man of Kent said: This is Matthew Shaw's attempt to work out the on-field points grading (based on the last three seasons). St Helens 4.75 Wigan Warriors 4.1389 Leeds Rhinos 3.7778 Catalans Dragons 3.6667 Huddersfield Giants 3.5556 Hull FC 3.4444 Warrington Wolves3.3333 Castleford Tigers 3.2222 Hull KR 3.1111 Salford Red Devils 3 Leigh Leopards 2.916 Wakefield Trinity 2.8889 Toulouse Olympique 2.7778 Featherstone Rovers 2.6556 Batley Bulldogs 2.4444 Halifax Panthers 2.3333 York Knights 2.2222 Bradford Bulls 2.1111 Sheffield Eagles 2 Widnes Vikings 1.8889 London Broncos 1.7778 Whitehaven 1.6667 Barrow Raiders 1.5556 Dewsbury Rams 1.4444 Swinton Lions 1.3333 Newcastle Thunder 1.2222 Workington Town 1.1111 Oldham 1 Doncaster 0.8889 Rochdale Hornets 0.7778 Keighley Cougars 0.7667 North Wales Crusaders0.5556 Hunslet 0.4444 Midlands Hurricanes 0.3333 London Skolars 0.2222 Cornwall 0.1111 But it's wrong! The SL tables I'm looking at show Wakey finishing 10th in each of the last three years = 10th average. Even if they finished 12 this year, that still averages as 11th. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 53 minutes ago, Man of Kent said: This is Matthew Shaw's attempt to work out the on-field points grading (based on the last three seasons). St Helens 4.75 Wigan Warriors 4.1389 Leeds Rhinos 3.7778 Catalans Dragons 3.6667 Huddersfield Giants 3.5556 Hull FC 3.4444 Warrington Wolves3.3333 Castleford Tigers 3.2222 Hull KR 3.1111 Salford Red Devils 3 Leigh Leopards 2.916 Wakefield Trinity 2.8889 Toulouse Olympique 2.7778 Featherstone Rovers 2.6556 Batley Bulldogs 2.4444 Halifax Panthers 2.3333 York Knights 2.2222 Bradford Bulls 2.1111 Sheffield Eagles 2 Widnes Vikings 1.8889 London Broncos 1.7778 Whitehaven 1.6667 Barrow Raiders 1.5556 Dewsbury Rams 1.4444 Swinton Lions 1.3333 Newcastle Thunder 1.2222 Workington Town 1.1111 Oldham 1 Doncaster 0.8889 Rochdale Hornets 0.7778 Keighley Cougars 0.7667 North Wales Crusaders0.5556 Hunslet 0.4444 Midlands Hurricanes 0.3333 London Skolars 0.2222 Cornwall 0.1111 That's all well and good, but those figures are based on the last 3 completed seasons being the '20, '21 and '22 seasons if I have that correct, but going into the first full season it is compiled for with complete meaning being season 2025, the points accumulated/lost for '20 and '21 to be replaced by '23 and '24 could create a different ladder, especially considering '20 was Covid ravaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 5 minutes ago, raiders_1875 said: It's sad/pathetic that this is what 'saving the game' has come too Well yes, but that is because we are quite literally that desperate. And frankly we need an outside voice to give some people a reality check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Toppy Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 4 minutes ago, raiders_1875 said: It's sad/pathetic that this is what 'saving the game' has come too Reading this entire thread I wouldn't say its this at all. There's been a few bitter & twisted posters, largely supporters who's clubs are never going to get into SL under the IMG proposals (ignoring the fact they were highly unlikely to under straight P&R anyway), but by & large this thread has just sparked some healthy debate on the specifics of the grading criteria. The vast majority of people can see the game is in trouble (though many disagree to the extent of it), but most also seem to be in agreement that something has to change. The majority also seem to be generally in favour of IMG's proposals in principal with the main disagreements just being over individual criteria & scoring systems. I also suspect that much of that disagreement is biased towards the position their own clubs would find themselves in under the proposals. Any criteria that disadvantages their club is bound to be opposed by the fans of that club. 2 St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Toppy Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 15 minutes ago, dboy said: But it's wrong! The SL tables I'm looking at show Wakey finishing 10th in each of the last three years = 10th average. Even if they finished 12 this year, that still averages as 11th. They are wrong. Can't be bothered to work them all out but Saints would have a score of 4.8333 not 4.75 2020 they score 4.75 for winning the GF 2021 they score 5 for winning GF and CC 2022 they score 4.75 for winning the GF Average is then 4.8333 St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonM Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, binosh said: Cmon I’m sat here waiting for someone to grade every club. Not really possible to do that is it? I guess someone could get all of the relevant accounts and work out turnover and club foundation turnover and so on and perhaps use google analytics etc. to get the social media data - a lot of work though. Not all the data is in the public domain though. The short-form company accounts wouldn't typically give details of expenditure on academy or facilities that contributes to the "adjusted profit" calculation, or the terms of any director loans used in the calculation of "owner investment" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonM Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 (edited) The 130 000 catchment area population is an interestingly chosen figure. On the 2020 ONS population data, neither Hull club would score any points (population 259K). On the 2021 ONS data, they both get a point. If I were being cynical, I might wonder why a figure of 260K was chosen rather than 250K. Edited July 5 by JonM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derwent Parker Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 2 hours ago, raiders_1875 said: They could have promoted Leigh, Toulouse and Fev, had 1 up, 1 down so at least 2 of the promoted teams are guaranteed 2 seasons in the SL, then focus on improving the growth of the game instead of ranking teams based on arbitrary points given out for having a number of people following them on facebook & instagram... and go to 14 SL and have to share the CF You will get kicked off here using offensive language like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 (edited) 49 minutes ago, RP London said: you may think that and I understand why. But there is buy in for this and that would suggest they all understand the situation they are in now has to change and it could take that long to do it.. and they would be right. I am more confident that they will stick with this, as long as it is seeing some results of course, than I have with any of the other stuff in the past as there is research underpinning it.. again whether it works fully or not is a different matter but I do think they will stick with it. Not to sound like an echo, but I have said on a few occasions RP how at games I have attended this season I have taken my own 'straw poll' in asking fans of the game - that being those in attendance - what is their opinion of the IMG stratergies I may has well been asking the question in pure Swahili such was the looks I was given, they were simply not aware who or what IMG are and don't forget these are people who attend games and not the ones that are the primary target to increase attendances, it is those who do not attend who are the target. I think that my town and club Leigh will be a good barometer in how this will work out, we have exceeded all expectations so far this season and Mr Beaumont has added the 'razzamatazz' with the branding and match day experience (so many on this site claim is essential to be increasing crowds) but yet even though all the towns folks know what is going on and how the team is faring the home support attendances are not much better than in '17 when we were relegated from SL, my calculations say that we have increased home support by about 500 comparing this and the '17 season, there is no better way to increase crowds than on field success, that is why or where I see this IMG falling down, all clubs can not be successful and not many prospective fans will give a hoot about IMG's criteria - once they become- if ever - aware of it. Edited July 5 by Harry Stottle 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 15 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said: They are wrong. Can't be bothered to work them all out but Saints would have a score of 4.8333 not 4.75 2020 they score 4.75 for winning the GF 2021 they score 5 for winning GF and CC 2022 they score 4.75 for winning the GF Average is then 4.8333 No, you can't average yearly points scores, just overall finishing position. So Saints are 1,1,1 = ave 1 = score 4. Plus .75, .75, .75, .25 = 2.5. (.75 for winning each GF and .25 for CC). Total performance score - 6.5. Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said: Not to sound like an echo, but I have said on a few occasions RP how at games I have attended this season I have taken my own 'straw poll' in asking fans of the game - that being those in attendance - what is their opinion of the IMG stratergies I may has well been asking the question in pure Swahili such was the looks I was given, they were simply not aware who or what IMG are and don't forget these are people who attend games and not the ones that are the primary target to increase attendances, it is those who fo nof attend who are the target. I think that my town and club Leigh will be a good barometer in how this will work out, we have exceeded all expectations so far this season and Mr Beaumont has added the 'razzamatazz' with the branding and match day experience (so many on this site claim is essential to be increasing crowds) but yet even though all the towns folks know what is going on and how the team is faring the home support attendances are not much better than in '17 when we were relegated from SL, my calculations say that we have increased home support by about 500 comparing this and the '17 season, there is no better way to increase crowds than on field success, that is why or where I see this IMG falling down, all clubs can not be successful and not many prospective fans will give a hoot about IMG's criteria - once they become- if ever - aware of it. Surely part of the point of the matchday experience stuff (which in fairness IMG aren't even directly measuring), is that when you start not winning all the time, that the drop off isn't actually that much. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Horseman Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 31 minutes ago, dboy said: But it's wrong! The SL tables I'm looking at show Wakey finishing 10th in each of the last three years = 10th average. Even if they finished 12 this year, that still averages as 11th. Wakefield may have finished 10th in SL last year, but they wouldn't have finished in 10th place in the IMG rankings. Finishing in 10th place in SL scores you 3.00 points...but Leigh would have scored 2.6667 points for finishing top of the Championship, plus 0.25 bonus points for winning the Championship (Grand Final), plus 0.1 bonus points for winning the 1895 Cup. That would give Leigh a score of 3.0167, leapfrogging them narrowly above Wakefield, meaning Leigh would have finished 10th in the IMG rankings for 2022 and Wakefield 11th. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, dboy said: No, you can't average yearly points scores, just overall finishing position. So Saints are 1,1,1 = ave 1 = score 4. Plus .75, .75, .75, .25 = 2.5. (.75 for winning each GF and .25 for CC). Total performance score - 6.5. Probably. Performance score is capped at 5. ST's calculations are how it will be done. I think Matt Shaw's didn't include the cup scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said: Wakefield may have finished 10th in SL last year, but they wouldn't have finished in 10th place in the IMG rankings. Finishing in 10th place in SL scores you 3.00 points...but Leigh would have scored 2.6667 points for finishing top of the Championship, plus 0.25 bonus points for winning the Championship (Grand Final), plus 0.1 bonus points for winning the 1895 Cup. That would give Leigh a score of 3.0167, leapfrogging them narrowly above Wakefield, meaning Leigh would have finished 10th in the IMG rankings for 2022 and Wakefield 11th. Where did Leigh finish in 20 and 21? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RP London Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said: Not to sound like an echo, but I have said on a few occasions RP how at games I have attended this season I have taken my own 'straw poll' in asking fans of the game - that being those in attendance - what is their opinion of the IMG stratergies I may has well been asking the question in pure Swahili such was the looks I was given, they were simply not aware who or what IMG are and don't forget these are people who attend games and not the ones that are the primary target to increase attendances, it is those who fo nof attend who are the target. I think that my town and club Leigh will be a good barometer in how this will work out, we have exceeded all expectations so far this season and Mr Beaumont has added the 'razzamatazz' with the branding and match day experience (so many on this site claim is essential to be increasing crowds) but yet even though all the towns folks know what is going on and how the team is faring the home support attendances are not much better than in '17 when we were relegated from SL, my calculations say that we have increased home support by about 500 comparing this and the '17 season, there is no better way to increase crowds than on field success, that is why or where I see this IMG falling down, all clubs can not be successful and not many prospective fans will give a hoot about IMG's criteria - once they become- if ever - aware of it. but it doesnt matter whether the fan knows anything about IMG, their plan or the criteria really.. its going to be about whether the sport gets more commercial and whether it grows. No one will care why or who was behind it except for a few people like us. A straw poll on the terrace of who knows who IMG is and what they are planning doesnt make any difference to whether the clubs stick to it or to whether it is a success. You, at the moment, as a club, are a stand out, the sport needs the buzz adding back to it and that is not going to happen overnight, that should then add even more to the individual buzz that the teams can bring. You have done good things and if you continue then you should see that build as the game as a whole, and other clubs, build. Without being overly dramatic either, and take the emotion out of it, but some clubs will have a ceiling, once reached you wont get more fans through and that is fine.. but if clubs that can come along they will overtake those clubs, again that is fine that is growth. But every club should be looking to get to that ceiling, whether that is with IMG or not. Basically I dont really understand what your Straw poll is supposed to prove/show.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboy Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 2 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said: meaning Leigh would have finished 10th in the IMG rankings for 2022 and Wakefield 11th. But not 12th then, as he suggests... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henson Park Old Firm Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 It's good to see that IMG have outsourced the voting criteria to this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Chopra Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said: They are wrong. Can't be bothered to work them all out but Saints would have a score of 4.8333 not 4.75 2020 they score 4.75 for winning the GF 2021 they score 5 for winning GF and CC 2022 they score 4.75 for winning the GF Average is then 4.8333 Saints is right, as it's the 3-year average of league position plus any trophy bonus for the most recent year only. so 4 + 0.75. I think Wakey might still be wrong though. EDIT: yes, Wakey should be 3.00 as they finished 10th in each of the the last three years. Edited July 5 by Toby Chopra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derwent Parker Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 3 hours ago, Tommygilf said: I think the grading criteria is very interesting. Whilst its true some areas can be manipulated, imo from the suggestions I've seen of how this could be done it would harm a club in another aspect to do this. Initially, and I think I said this from the start, this grading will be a reality check for a lot of clubs and fans about the difference between full time super league clubs and part time outfits. Likewise, it will reflect the fact that the sport simply cannot afford for some clubs to be relegated on the whim of one bad season. We are not football, we have to be more strategic. We've tried a straight p/r, that hasn't grown crowds and interest in Super League, nor has it grown crowds and interest in the championship by enough to justify its continuation in the face of alternative options. This criteria is elitist, though I appreciate it won't be elitist enough for many. As I said this will be a reality check. A club may have a nice small, botique even, ground, and will probably score well on the utilisation criteria for that, but if it doesn't have the media facilities or required broadcasting setup, then of course its going to be critiqued for that. The Local authority thing is a bit crude. I think its telling of the state the sport is in that they chose 7.5k as their benchmark for the highest grade in attendances. It will be a reality check for all the teams below SL [with few] exceptions that will now realise they wont ever get in SL without a rich benefactor because the gradings are that biased towards SL - they will stop P & R. Dont know what they were all promised at the meetings to vote it in - Sold down the river to protect the chosen few. You are wrong about P & R -If this had started last year we might not have seen Leigh go up and they are a breath of fresh air for SL and are great to watch. Hope they win it! Your idea of stopping P & R means we just see the same old teams week in week out [year in year out]etc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now