IMG Grading Unveiled

[RP London]

They may well be making it so its a forgone conclusion it's SL teams getting the majority but isn't that what most people want as up until now it's been sorted on the pitch so they are rewarding 125 years of on the pitch work with the first shot at higher grades? 

[David Shepherd]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

So what, you need 3 good years . If I win the champ then next year my best players are getting pinched by SL clubs and I am going down in the league. 

50% of the marks are already rigged and non central rev is a red herring because so much still comes from the opposition. When do saints get more non central rev, when they play Wigan or if they play Wakefield. Giants get more sponsorships and hospitality because of the league they are in.

No club outside of SL will be able to get a higher score than the clubs inside. York in SL would be ranked higher on crowds and commercial income than clubs inside SL but because they are outside the magic circle when we start counting they have no chance.

Non central revenue is about so much more than away fans.  Are clubs maximising their potential revenue from their home audience? (no).  Can that be improved (Yes - see Hull KR).

Are you renting your facilities to other organisations? Are you hosting amateur finals? Are you using your corporate facilities for weddings, conferences, meetings, live music, other sporting events (on tv) etc? Are there any other assets you can sweat on non matchdays?

Those clubs that just host a game of Rugby every other week for 3/4 of the year are never going to generate the extra revenue that growth requires.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

They said it was about categories and it was nothing to do with that and led clubs to believe that being the same category meant you were equal.

They talked about higher-ranked and lower-ranked B category sides. They've also talked about only A teams being exempt from relegation and that a B ranked team finishing in a relegation spot will be relegated and replaced by a B ranked team finishing in a promotion spot.

So I'm not sure where the idea of a locked-in cartel is coming from. Or that they've changed the rules they've talked about before.

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

They said it was about categories and it was nothing to do with that and led clubs to believe that being the same category meant you were equal. That was not true so why should anyone believe them otherwise. 

Again, the clubs I want in SL (Bradford and Toulouse) probably come off fine but even I can see this stinks then you can’t just say it is flat cappers in fev or keighley whining. 

Again the club I want in SL Sheffield Eagles do not come off fine and I still don't have an issue.. 

You can trust them or not but there is a much bigger document coming out with guidelines that we haven't seen (and may not) and until that comes out you are just assuming things (and we know the saying about that).. if you go back to the wording of the original stuff they never say promotion between cat B's purely on the pitch.. I assumed like many that it was but actually that is on us.. they haven't gone back on it from my understanding.. but again, and you can ignore this all you want but its still true, there is still consultation, if the champ clubs say "p&r on field between cat B clubs must stay" and that is the main sticking point I can see IMG taking that.. 

 

[David Shepherd]

5 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

If they think they are going up this season maybe not. But crowds they are lower than every SL club (because they arent in SL) , commercial income lower as they aren’t in SL. And now the year they could replace Wakefield on the field they will be behind Wakefield in facilities forever. 

The second categories didn’t matter and its just points on the spreadsheet clubs can see they will never be in the 12 and vote accordingly. 

Plus again, if this is about growing non central rev and we are still having 27 games why are we not going to 14 SL and see whether a York, a Bradford a Fev could grow their crowds and income in SL? Because it is designed to protect the 12 . 

Without wishing to turn this into a Rovers centric thread, their non central income is significant. There aren't many days in the year when the main asset isn't generating revenue.  Wakefield have got one new and one tarted up stand, which is a welcome improvement. 1/2 of it will still be ramshackle with no plans for improvement, overall I see the two stadiums as similar in terms of overall quality (also bear in mind that Fev haven't touched their £2m yet).

In all the categories there are clear metrics than can be improved. It's up to the clubs to work hard to achieve them. As with traditional P&R, it's not meant to be easy.

[The Phantom Horseman]

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

 

Again, the clubs I want in SL (Bradford and Toulouse) probably come off fine

I genuinely don't know why you keep saying Bradford are coming off fine out of this scoring system. It's a disaster for them isn't it? Their main selling points are catchment area and having an academy team - one of those is only 10% and the other is irrelevant unless you are in the ballpark of an A license, and Bulls will be nowhere near that. They'll do okay on fans, but no better than existing SL clubs, and they'll struggle mightily in the stadium category. Not sure they will do that well in the finance section either.

[dboy]

9 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

Not a free market without p and r. That’s a cartel so if you are going to try and use economic concepts within a cartel sport system might want to get them right

There is P&R, but on an evidence-based system. Players move all the time.

You are ###### because there's no way Bankrupt Bulls can ever get back in SL.

[dboy]

56 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Took the batley owner five minutes to see why this is woeful. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/batley-img-super-league-bias-26432345

I don’t think we are going to see any championship club bar maybe Toulouse vote for this, even then their crowds are half that of what they were in SL . 

But they don't need to be "better" than the worst SL club to go up - they need to be the best non-SL club, with a B grading.

[Barley Mow]

3 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I genuinely don't know why you keep saying Bradford are coming off fine out of this scoring system. It's a disaster for them isn't it? Their main selling points are catchment area and having an academy team - one of those is only 10% and the other is irrelevant unless you are in the ballpark of an A license, and Bulls will be nowhere near that. They'll do okay on fans, but no better than existing SL clubs, and they'll struggle mightily in the stadium category. Not sure they will do that well in the finance section either.

Of course if catchment area is to be worked out on a simple local authority basis, they'll be sharing that 50/50 with Keighley.

[Harry Stottle]

35 minutes ago, RP London said:

Are they? Have you seen the much larger document that outlines how all of this will be calculated and whether it will be weighted/handicapped in anyway? 

Until we see that you cannot possibly say the above IMO

Hi RP, isn't @ShropshireBull just doing what everyone else who has commented on this thread without has you say seeing the much larger document doing in just speculating, there is 13 pages of it.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They talked about higher-ranked and lower-ranked B category sides. They've also talked about only A teams being exempt from relegation and that a B ranked team finishing in a relegation spot will be relegated and replaced by a B ranked team finishing in a promotion spot.

So I'm not sure where the idea of a locked-in cartel is coming from. Or that they've changed the rules they've talked about before.

People need a straw man, because they struggle to argue that having current promotion criteria of "any small town that happens to have a bloke in it prepared to blow a year's profit from his chain of fried chicken shops to run a full time squad against part-timers for a couple of years" is somehow a better idea than this one.

The whole idea's nuts. 

[Harry Stottle]

32 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

I'd be amazed if Featherstone voted against.

Better hope you do win promotion this term David, I believe you will.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi RP, isn't @ShropshireBull just doing what everyone else who has commented on this thread without has you say seeing the much larger document doing in just speculating, there is 13 pages of it.

Absolutely.. except I said the same thing on page 1 and have ever since been saying the caveats.. Shropshire bull is just saying it with utter certainty and saying the whole thing is cack based on that utter certainty... others, from what I see, on both sides are being more restrained in a "on face value but we'll see how it actually turns out" style..

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Because the lowest ranked team and promotion spot everyone took to mean on the field . The owner of barley has already come out and said that is what he believed and now has been misled. 

Look at the criteria which is heavily weighted to not your work as a club but which division you are in and you can see why its a joke. 

But isn't that what people are cyring out for, that what you do on the pitch matters, yet this is rewarding on the pitch right now (where you are after 125 years) and its wrong?

I'm stirring with this but ffs they can't do right for doing wrong imo

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

We would have the highest chance of club outside SL getting in but yeah it is still ###### and you identified the obvious issue , that what you can achieve outside SL is meaningless for the criteria . 

Its why they want clubs to vote before they give scores. If it was cat b’s can go up and down on field I think it goes through as enough championship clubs would think “we are no worse than x y and z” now that it’s points that matter , clubs will know they have no chance and vote accordingly.

I don’t see championship clubs voting for it and if that happens we are back where we were before, with the game split in two and good luck selling challenge cup tickets or anything where the money goes to SL.

Did you answer when someone asked why you think Bradford have a better chance than others under this system?

Apologies if I missed it but I’m really not sure how the Bulls move to the front of the queue on any of the metrics.

[David Shepherd]

16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Better hope you do win promotion this term David, I believe you will.

As I've said before, I'll believe when there's 30 seconds of the grand final left and we're 2 scores clear. 

[MattSantos]

21 minutes ago, dboy said:

But they don't need to be "better" than the worst SL club to go up - they need to be the best non-SL club, with a B grading.

I don't believe this is accurate. You need to be ranked 12th to get in. If X are bottom and Y win the champ and X have more points, even by 0.1, they'll retain their SL position.

 

Batley fella and RP London have alluded to changes. I think if you win the Champ and are a B, you should be promoted to replace the lowest place B in SL. this however gets murky if an A club finishes bottom...

[David Shepherd]

22 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

 

You are in favour of rigging it because it benefits your club. It’s why a lot of Bulls fans will fancy this as well for the same reason but some of us can look beyond the selfishness of our own clubs to see why this stinks for the overall game. 

 

 

By the current metrics, the 12 in SL are the best in the game. I've no issue to there being a slight advantage in being in that division, they've contributed their bit to the major income stream that the sport has.  The obstacles to championship teams are not insurmountable. They just require hard work, as it should.

I've no idea why any Bulls fans would fancy it. You'd only score well on catchment, your performance has been poor, you've got a shocking financial track record and your stadium is #### poor.

Perhaps that's why you're so against these quite sensible proposals.

[dboy]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

I don't believe this is accurate. You need to be ranked 12th to get in. If X are bottom and Y win the champ and X have more points, even by 0.1, they'll retain their SL position.

 

Batley fella and RP London have alluded to changes. I think if you win the Champ and are a B, you should be promoted to replace the lowest place B in SL. this however gets murky if an A club finishes bottom...

 

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

You need to be ranked 12th to get in. If X are bottom and Y win the champ and X have more points, even by 0.1, they'll retain their SL position.

That's incorrect.

If X is graded B, and Y are graded B, Y will replace X.

The grading ranks clubs, but assigns a grade. It's the grade that's important.

[David Shepherd]

7 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

I don't believe this is accurate. You need to be ranked 12th to get in. If X are bottom and Y win the champ and X have more points, even by 0.1, they'll retain their SL position.

 

Batley fella and RP London have alluded to changes. I think if you win the Champ and are a B, you should be promoted to replace the lowest place B in SL. this however gets murky if an A club finishes bottom...

Don't forget that the grading happens every year. An "A" club finishing bottom (probably more than once) could be tipped into "B" territory if they suffer other calamities like falling crowd numbers.

[David Shepherd]

9 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Didn’t mention away fans.

 

"50% of the marks are already rigged and non central rev is a red herring because so much still comes from the opposition"

Erm, yes you did.

Edited March 10, 2023 by David Shepherd

[David Shepherd]

3 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

biggest team outside SL 

Seriously?

[dboy]

1 minute ago, ShropshireBull said:

I think Bradford do ok on lots of criteria. Are 1 million admins in 5 days is irrelevant as we only start counting from when it goes live, crowds are alright but your cheap attempt to make it about self interest as a deflection tactic makes my point:

if the biggest team outside SL with healthy crowds a good catchment area and (if we keep in top 4 when half the champ teams pack it in because they realize it’s worthless) can’t go up, then what hope does anyone else have? 

Why can't they go up?

 

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Can’t see Wigan Leeds Saints or Wire coming bottom tbh 

If Toulouse had had a level playing field last year Wire could quite easily have come bottom. 

[Eddie]

Just now, David Shepherd said:

Seriously?

Who would you say are bigger than Bradford, of all the non-SL clubs?