IMG Grading Unveiled

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Using postcode as a way to find where a stadium is is perfectly natural. But as per my post, I don't know the area, so of its in Merton, fine. But a search of the stadium postcode suggests Wandsworth (it looks like it's pretty much a border) hence my original question. 

I think we are being naive if we just think a London team has a huge catchmentt area because they have called themselves London Broncos. A little like not being able to fudge things by Wire just calling themselves Cheshire and saying we have a huge catchment area. 

There are clearly flaws with the metric (as there are with them all if we over-analyse them) - for example, Wire are deemed to have a higher number than some other clubs, but in reality we are surrounded by other clubs. As you point out, it doesn't reflect unique cities like London too well. But it absolutely will downgrade the small village teams. 

Ultimately the dry run will tease our anomalies if they are problematic, but I see no reason why these can't tease out the main points across the piece. I don't think many of the categories are problematic, but I suppose we'll see what changes over time. 

It's all BLX Harry , they think they can treat sport like Wether spoons run their business , it doesn't work like that , but they are too arrogant to understand it 

[Barley Mow]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Using postcode as a way to find where a stadium is is perfectly natural. But as per my post, I don't know the area, so of its in Merton, fine. But a search of the stadium postcode suggests Wandsworth (it looks like it's pretty much a border) hence my original question. 

I think we are being naive if we just think a London team has a huge catchmentt area because they have called themselves London Broncos. A little like not being able to fudge things by Wire just calling themselves Cheshire and saying we have a huge catchment area. 

There are clearly flaws with the metric (as there are with them all if we over-analyse them) - for example, Wire are deemed to have a higher number than some other clubs, but in reality we are surrounded by other clubs. As you point out, it doesn't reflect unique cities like London too well. But it absolutely will downgrade the small village teams. 

Ultimately the dry run will tease our anomalies if they are problematic, but I see no reason why these can't tease out the main points across the piece. I don't think many of the categories are problematic, but I suppose we'll see what changes over time. 

Re your final paragraph - are you saying that not only do IMG have specific outcomes (teams) that they favour in this fair and transparent process, but that they will also change the criteria/requirements if the current version don't produce those outcomes?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Barley Mow said:

Re your final paragraph - are you saying that not only do IMG have specific outcomes (teams) that they favour in this fair and transparent process, but that they will also change the criteria/requirements if the current version don't produce those outcomes?

I'd be stunned if the metrics don't change over time. And they absolutely should, particularly the tiers. 

For example, if we end up with 15 clubs all over 7.5k, then the top level should be say 10k. 

If anomolies are there in terms of the population piece they will be ironed out. As they should. 

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

It's all BLX Harry , they think they can treat sport like Wether spoons run their business , it doesn't work like that , but they are too arrogant to understand it 

I think people are getting a little too obsessed with the minute detail. People are being a little pedantic to pull it apart. 

What this is doing is demanding clubs have minimum standards and do the right things. I think that's to be applauded. 

I understand the frustrations around P&R for those who like it, and the comms has been poor, but the grading and demands of standards themselves look pretty sound tbh. 

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I'd be stunned if the metrics don't change over time. And they absolutely should, particularly the tiers. 

For example, if we end up with 15 clubs all over 7.5k, then the top level should be say 10k. 

If anomolies are there in terms of the population piece they will be ironed out. As they should. 

Yes. My post was a (mostly) tongue in cheek comment on the implication that changes to the metrics would be to ensure certain clubs were in/closer to the top 12.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Using postcode as a way to find where a stadium is is perfectly natural. But as per my post, I don't know the area, so of its in Merton, fine. But a search of the stadium postcode suggests Wandsworth (it looks like it's pretty much a border) hence my original question. 

I think we are being naive if we just think a London team has a huge catchmentt area because they have called themselves London Broncos. A little like not being able to fudge things by Wire just calling themselves Cheshire and saying we have a huge catchment area. 

There are clearly flaws with the metric (as there are with them all if we over-analyse them) - for example, Wire are deemed to have a higher number than some other clubs, but in reality we are surrounded by other clubs. As you point out, it doesn't reflect unique cities like London too well. But it absolutely will downgrade the small village teams. 

Ultimately the dry run will tease our anomalies if they are problematic, but I see no reason why these can't tease out the main points across the piece. I don't think many of the categories are problematic, but I suppose we'll see what changes over time. 

So it's now not a case of if we start to widen what we use as a potential audience then the benchmark just increases too either, as you said, either then.

Places like Batley and Dewsbury are the epitomy of small village teams and get the same London. Wigan, Saints, Huddersfield, Leigh, Warrington etc are all small enough towns, surrounded by clubs, and get the same points as London. I don't see your comparison between Londons catchment and Warrington at all. That's a hell of a stretch which I think most people would find absurd.

To me it's clear this metric is flawed and that local authority is a really poor measure and no where near nuanced enough. I think we may as well leave this as its pretty much covered and for some reason you are continue to argue while seemingly doing a 360 on your original post.

[Barley Mow]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

So it's now not a case of if we start to widen what we use as a potential audience then the benchmark just increases too either, as you said, either then.

Places like Batley and Dewsbury are the epitomy of small village teams and get the same London. Wigan, Saints, Huddersfield, Leigh, Warrington etc are all small enough towns, surrounded by clubs, and get the same points as London. I don't see your comparison between Londons catchment and Warrington at all. That's a hell of a stretch which I think most people would find absurd.

To me it's clear this metric is flawed and that local authority is a really poor measure and no where near nuanced enough. I think we may as well leave this as its pretty much covered and for some reason you are continue to argue while seemingly doing a 360 on your original post.

I agree that dividing the local authority's population by the number of clubs isn't a good way to measure potential fans - But am a bit surprised by Dewsbury and Batley falling under your definition of 'small village'

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

So it's now not a case of if we start to widen what we use as a potential audience then the benchmark just increases too either, as you said, either then.

Places like Batley and Dewsbury are the epitomy of small village teams and get the same London. Wigan, Saints, Huddersfield, Leigh, Warrington etc are all small enough towns, surrounded by clubs, and get the same points as London. I don't see your comparison between Londons catchment and Warrington at all. That's a hell of a stretch which I think most people would find absurd.

To me it's clear this metric is flawed and that local authority is a really poor measure and no where near nuanced enough. I think we may as well leave this as its pretty much covered and for some reason you are continue to argue while seemingly doing a 360 on your original post.

There is no 360 on my original post. If we start allowing the likes of Saints to include Merseyside and their numbers become huge, you have to completely change your benchmarking otherwise everyone makes a case for the higher banding. 

History has told us that clubs fish from their local areas, I don't think that is different just because Broncos have called themselves London. 

[gingerjon]

48 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Using postcode as a way to find where a stadium is is perfectly natural. But as per my post, I don't know the area, so of its in Merton, fine. But a search of the stadium postcode suggests Wandsworth (it looks like it's pretty much a border) hence my original question. 

It is right on the border. St George's Hospital, which is right in the same area, falls within Wandsworth.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There is no 360 on my original post. If we start allowing the likes of Saints to include Merseyside and their numbers become huge, you have to completely change your benchmarking otherwise everyone makes a case for the higher banding. 

History has told us that clubs fish from their local areas, I don't think that is different just because Broncos have called themselves London. 

More chance of catching fish in a small pond full of fish than an empty ocean

[Damien]

24 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I agree that dividing the local authority's population by the number of clubs isn't a good way to measure potential fans - But am a bit surprised by Dewsbury and Batley falling under your definition of 'small village'

I didnt mean literally, they are examples of places that people say shouldn't be in Super League as they are too small. I was replying to Dave and his use of small village. In reality the sport has no professional teams from small villages its just a term some use on here.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

Just think - if Huyton were still around we'd have a club with a negative rating!

[Click]

Doesn't matter how big the catchment area is for Merton/Wandsworth - We have 3 home grounds, so it is only fair to combine the 3 and that is our number …

Wimbledon is up for debate if that is Merton/Wandsworth... Rosslyn Park which I believe is in Wandsworth and Ebbsfleet which is Kent! 

We definitely have the catchment area covered.. Now just the rest....

[Spidey]

40 minutes ago, Click said:

Doesn't matter how big the catchment area is for Merton/Wandsworth - We have 3 home grounds, so it is only fair to combine the 3 and that is our number …

Wimbledon is up for debate if that is Merton/Wandsworth... Rosslyn Park which I believe is in Wandsworth and Ebbsfleet which is Kent! 

We definitely have the catchment area covered.. Now just the rest....

That does raise an interesting point - is this measure limited to one home ground?  Does this measure cater for those clubs who move about a bit (North Wales, Midlands, London)   Would an average be applied relative to how many times they use differing venues?

[Saint Toppy]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

So it's now not a case of if we start to widen what we use as a potential audience then the benchmark just increases too either, as you said, either then.

Places like Batley and Dewsbury are the epitomy of small village teams and get the same London. Wigan, Saints, Huddersfield, Leigh, Warrington etc are all small enough towns, surrounded by clubs, and get the same points as London. I don't see your comparison between Londons catchment and Warrington at all. That's a hell of a stretch which I think most people would find absurd.

To me it's clear this metric is flawed and that local authority is a really poor measure and no where near nuanced enough. I think we may as well leave this as its pretty much covered and for some reason you are continue to argue while seemingly doing a 360 on your original post.

I agree it isn't probably the best way to assess a 'catchment' and i'm sure its one that may well evolve. To me it should be your local authority area plus any adjacent areas that you can demonstrate that you are promoting the game & your club by having things such as a full time development officer covering that area.. As an example Saints already do development work in the neighbouring borough of Knowsley going into schools & clubs there. If there was an incentive to be able to include Knowsley into their Catchment area calculation then i'm sure they'd do even more work there.

[Toby Chopra]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'd be stunned if the metrics don't change over time. And they absolutely should, particularly the tiers. 

For example, if we end up with 15 clubs all over 7.5k, then the top level should be say 10k. 

 

I'm not sure that fits with IMG's thinking behind the system though. It's not really about a neverending process of assessment for decades to come, it about coming up with an NRL style elite product which can be marketed. But also recognising that we just don't have even 10, let alone 12, 14, 16 clubs that qualify for membership of such a set-up.

If we had 10 such clubs, we'd have probably gone straight to a closed shop for IMG to run with, but we don't so they've had to come up with this hybrid system.  

The bar that's been set is to qualify clubs for the set-up, and as we know should we ever reach 12 Cat As, the door will be closed except for Dolphins-style expansions. So I don't see a need to raise the grading thresholds. If we ever get to a point where 12 clubs have reached them - which I struggle to see happening within the term of the IMG contract - then we're winning big time anyway.          

[ATLANTISMAN]

If Ebbsfleet (Gravesend and Northfleet in my day) build their new stadium and the CEO stays (He is ex Sharks man) then i would expect the Broncos to relocate there in time.

However looks like for now a redevelopment of Rosslyn Park is on the cards its a real pig in a poke to get to terrible traffic 7 days a week.

 

P 

[gingerjon]

36 minutes ago, Spidey said:

That does raise an interesting point - is this measure limited to one home ground?  Does this measure cater for those clubs who move about a bit (North Wales, Midlands, London)   Would an average be applied relative to how many times they use differing venues?

The reality is that clubs who have to use multiple home grounds are often doing so because of a position of weakness relative to those with a stable single home ground.

I'd almost be tempted to make the calculation the population of the smallest borough divided by the number of home grounds used.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I'm not sure that fits with IMG's thinking behind the system though. It's not really about a neverending process of assessment for decades to come, it about coming up with an NRL style elite product which can be marketed. But also recognising that we just don't have even 10, let alone 12, 14, 16 clubs that qualify for membership of such a set-up.

If we had 10 such clubs, we'd have probably gone straight to a closed shop for IMG to run with, but we don't so they've had to come up with this hybrid system.  

The bar that's been set is to qualify clubs for the set-up, and as we know should we ever reach 12 Cat As, the door will be closed except for Dolphins-style expansions. So I don't see a need to raise the grading thresholds. If we ever get to a point where 12 clubs have reached them - which I struggle to see happening within the term of the IMG contract - then we're winning big time anyway.          

Imho it would be odd not to have continuous improvement as part of this process. 

If everyone is above 7.5k then you need to raise the bar to the next level. 

[Click]

7 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

If Ebbsfleet (Gravesend and Northfleet in my day) build their new stadium and the CEO stays (He is ex Sharks man) then i would expect the Broncos to relocate there in time.

However looks like for now a redevelopment of Rosslyn Park is on the cards its a real pig in a poke to get to terrible traffic 7 days a week.

 

P 

I think I would be done with the Club that I support called London Broncos, if they decided to move their home games to Kent full time.

Kent is not London, and if you want to give up on London, then do so. It can start again as a Kent club and then they can stay in the Championship/L1 which I am sure their level will be.

 

[Toby Chopra]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Imho it would be odd not to have continuous improvement as part of this process. 

If everyone is above 7.5k then you need to raise the bar to the next level. 

The way I interpret the system is the gradings are to drive improvement until, ideally, we get to 12 Cat A teams.  It's not impossible to imagine a situation where we could get close to 12 teams getting 7,500 attendance, but with some of them still lacking in other areas so they don't get to Cat A. No need to raise the attendance bar as it's the other areas that need working on. 

If we ever got to 12 Cat As and a closed shop, then of course we'd still like to see standards and performance continue to improve across the competition. But like in the NRL or NFL, there are other mechanisms to do that, not a constant numerical grading process.

Our IMG system is a means to an end and that end is primarily to drive up the performance of clubs 7-12 so we have a functioning elite competition that can move forward as one.         

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

The way I interpret the system is the gradings are to drive improvement until, ideally, we get to 12 Cat A teams.  It's not impossible to imagine a situation where we could get close to 12 teams getting 7,500 attendance, but with some of them still lacking in other areas so they don't get to Cat A. No need to raise the attendance bar as it's the other areas that need working on. 

If we ever got to 12 Cat As and a closed shop, then of course we'd still like to see standards and performance continue to improve across the competition. But like in the NRL or NFL, there are other mechanisms to do that, not a constant numerical grading process.

Our IMG system is a means to an end and that end is primarily to drive up the performance of clubs 7-12 so we have a functioning elite competition that can move forward as one.         

I'm not sure I agree tbh Toby. Even if 12 teams got maximum points by just hitting the top marks, it isn't a particularly impressive Super League. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

36 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The reality is that clubs who have to use multiple home grounds are often doing so because of a position of weakness relative to those with a stable single home ground.

I'd almost be tempted to make the calculation the population of the smallest borough divided by the number of home grounds used.

Or you could use percentage of home games played in that area and add together. Might encourage some clubs to take the odd game on the road to a bigger market.

Example with simple numbers (10 home games)...

9 home games at usual home in area of 100k population = 90k (90%)

1 home game in the road in area of 1m = 100k (10%)

190k reach.

 

Obviously not that simple, but could be reasonable calculation.

 

That then needs to offset other risks to attendance, profit margins, etc. to deduce whether it's worth it for the extra marks.

[Toby Chopra]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I agree tbh Toby. Even if 12 teams got maximum points by just hitting the top marks, it isn't a particularly impressive Super League. 

Indeed not, but improving overall league performance is a different challenge, one that many sports leagues face.

I'm just saying that having finally reached 12 Cat As, the purpose of the gradings system as currently devised and published would have reached its conclusion - a 12 club flagship competition for European rugby league. It's not mean to last forever, and I hope it doesn't. 

If we somehow got to 12 Cat As, I don't believe our approach would be to keep the public gradings system but to tighten the criteria so some clubs were immediately at risk of losing Cat A again. Indeed the concept becomes redundant once you have 12 clubs up to scratch. 

Clubs' performance would of course be policed and incentivised in other ways, just like in the other leagues as mentioned above, but that's a different matter.

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Click said:

Doesn't matter how big the catchment area is for Merton/Wandsworth - We have 3 home grounds, so it is only fair to combine the 3 and that is our number …

Wimbledon is up for debate if that is Merton/Wandsworth... Rosslyn Park which I believe is in Wandsworth and Ebbsfleet which is Kent! 

We definitely have the catchment area covered.. Now just the rest....

My point from earlier