IMG Grading Unveiled

[MattSantos]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

It has been the highest single value for a while and look at the state of some of the clubs and the game as a whole.. that is why IMG are doing this. Its the reason they were brought in, something HAS to change.. they have decided that its the fact the clubs HAVE to be incentivised to change how they work, they shouldnt and its sad that they do but hey ho.

Something has to change, i agree. Performance should still be a significant part of how a club is graded. Using this publication and making some assumptions, it's now not. 

I don't agree with this as we're still a sport as far as i could tell.

 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

But it's not. It absolutely isn't.

I'm purposefully selecting this to quote as the rest i agree with.

Club X and Club Y finish 12th and 13th respectively. Club X only has to outperform Y by 0.15 points to remain in Super League. 

2 equally weighted teams and performance does knacker all to promotion and relegation.

This doesn't sit right.

which bit of equally weighted isnt quite working out here... they score the same up until performance.. therefore its performance that puts them over the edge. 

the aim is that everyone reaches equal parity.. except no one can be equal on the pitch.. therefore the team that finishes 12th will always go down to the team that finished top of the division and wins the title.. 

until we get all teams to an equal footing then yes the better run clubs will do better.. and that should incentivise team Y to make sure that they are better than team X in other areas.. something they control 100%

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

And league performance is awarded even fewer points given the assumed sliding scale down from 4

I think those are the 'bonus' points you get for winning those leagues and cups.

So, my reading, is "up to 4" points directly for on-field performance *plus* the bonus points for the tournaments listed.

[The Phantom Horseman]

18 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Callum Walker reports on Three rugby league clubs that could benefit most from IMG plans — London Broncos, York Knights and Newcastle.

Unsurprisingly, that looks an especially dodgy hot take. For instance, look carefully at the scoring system and tell me where London are going to score highly other than getting 2 out of 2 for location?

[RP London]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

Something has to change, i agree. Performance should still be a significant part of how a club is graded. Using this publication and making some assumptions, it's now not. 

I don't agree with this as we're still a sport as far as i could tell.

 

performance is a significant part of the grading.. but clubs need to understand they are businesses in sport.. its not just a sport that can rest on P&R and hope that everyone just does the right thing and invest in the right things for the good of the sport.. we have proven that for many years and you agree with that.. we have to reset and this is it.. once this reset is done onfield will once again dominate. 

I like P&R and I really dont want to lose it, my team is down in the champ, but I also get that for the betterment of the sport this change in mindset is probably needed and will help fix some of the major problems.. you can already see some of this in action with what Leigh are doing IMHO

[MattSantos]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

which bit of equally weighted isnt quite working out here... they score the same up until performance.. therefore its performance that puts them over the edge. 

the aim is that everyone reaches equal parity.. except no one can be equal on the pitch.. therefore the team that finishes 12th will always go down to the team that finished top of the division and wins the title.. 

until we get all teams to an equal footing then yes the better run clubs will do better.. and that should incentivise team Y to make sure that they are better than team X in other areas.. something they control 100%

Better by 0.15...and you stay in Superleague. That's 0.15 points earned by being in Superleague and having more opportunities to diversify revenue, to increase regular turnover, to engage more people on Social Media because you're on SKY rather than on a Monday night. 

I'd say thats pretty equal. 

 

[Madrileño]

57 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Interesting that turnover has a 45% weighting and profit only 10%. What's the old expression, 'turnover is vanity, profit is sanity'? Of course, if it was the other way around it would rule out quite a few of the big boys.

But sports teams operate differently from other businesses in that success is not measured by profit.

Most successful clubs reinvest massive percentages of any "profit" back into the team. Therefore turnover becomes far more relevant, as income is used to build a stronger team, via players, infrastructure etc. 

[MattSantos]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think those are the 'bonus' points you get for winning those leagues and cups.

So, my reading, is "up to 4" points directly for on-field performance *plus* the bonus points for the tournaments listed.

Yes. Thats 4 for Saints and work your way down by 0.11 per league position.

0.25 for winning champ. That's the equivalent of finishing 3 places higher in league 1.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

Yes. Thats 4 for Saints and work your way down by 0.11 per league position.

0.25 for winning champ. That's the equivalent of finishing 3 places higher in league 1.

Maybe, just maybe, deciding who forms the elite professional arm of the sport which brings in the lions share and then some of the revenue the rest of the sport depends on, shouldn't be 100% about winning a second tier competition.

[Roughyed Rats]

2 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Better by 0.15...and you stay in Superleague. That's 0.15 points earned by being in Superleague and having more opportunities to diversify revenue, to increase regular turnover, to engage more people on Social Media because you're on SKY rather than on a Monday night. 

I'd say thats pretty equal. 

 

There are club chairmen frantically googling how to fabricate social media followers and likes

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Yes. Thats 4 for Saints and work your way down by 0.11 per league position.

0.25 for winning champ. That's the equivalent of finishing 3 places higher in league 1.

Better get everything else in order then.

[Man of Kent]

If people are criticising this because it favours the big, successful clubs, they've spectacularly missed the point.

This is a race to the top where Bs are given the carrot of investing in becoming and remaining As in return for a protected place in Super League.

At the same time it has an escape hatch for clubs who are failing on & off the field (think Bradford) and cannot sustain A-grade status.

On the flip side, it says to clubs like Keighley and Dewsbury: don't bother dreaming of Super League. After 128 years, however, those clubs should already have a fair idea of their standing. 

I like it.

[MattSantos]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Maybe, just maybe, deciding who forms the elite professional arm of the sport which brings in the lions share and then some of the revenue the rest of the sport depends on, shouldn't be 100% about winning a second tier competition.

Can you point me to where i've said it should be 100% of the criteria?

[MattSantos]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Better get everything else in order then.

Come on. Be better. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Maybe, just maybe, deciding who forms the elite professional arm of the sport which brings in the lions share and then some of the revenue the rest of the sport depends on, shouldn't be 100% about winning a second tier competition.

Especially when, every year for the last *forever*, when there has been direct promotion, *however that has been done*, there has been endless moaning about how, *for some reason*, that is also biased against the team being promoted.

Almost like there actually isn't a way to make the system as is work and A WHOLE GAME SOLUTION is now required.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Can you point me to where i've said it should be 100% of the criteria?

I didn't say that you had. But 25% purely on that (which is massive given the other 25% have subcategories) also seems fair enough as a compromise.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Especially when, every year for the last *forever*, when there has been direct promotion, *however that has been done*, there has been endless moaning about how, *for some reason*, that is also biased against the team being promoted.

Almost like there actually isn't a way to make the system as is work and A WHOLE GAME SOLUTION is now required.

Quite. 

They have put forward a whole game solution that enables clubs to aim to be the best versions of themselves and actually helps them to achieve that. It wouldn't surprise me if the work in this is the most in depth research into the workings and potential of our (semi)professional clubs that most have ever had.

[Agbrigg]

The one that interests me is catchment area and albeit only 2 Pts  I am intrigued how they will calculate that one.

 

 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Unless I've missed it nothing here says player development, academies etc?

And it shouldn't, the departed Mr Rimmer would have denied some clubs of gaining any points.

[Man of Kent]

3 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

The one that interests me is catchment area and albeit only 2 Pts  I am intrigued how they will calculate that one.

Says in the PDF.

Catchment area = Area population ('defined as the population of all cities and towns (i.e. of built-up areas or their subdivisions', data taken from the 2021 census) divided by the number of clubs in that area.

[Jughead]

There’s absolutely no way London Broncos, London Skolars or Newcastle are getting 8 points plus. Callum Walker strikes again. 

[Jughead]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

Says in the PDF.

Catchment area = Area population ('defined as the population of all cities and towns (i.e. of built-up areas or their subdivisions', data taken from the 2021 census) divided by the number of clubs in that area.

But what is “that area” defined as? Saints are close to Liverpool, yet are only eight miles from Wigan, is that one point or two? London Broncos are SW London and Skolars very N London, are they a point each or two each given the distance between the two? 

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

The one that interests me is catchment area and albeit only 2 Pts  I am intrigued how they will calculate that one.

 

 

Its certainly interesting yes. For example, do they just go whole hog and say "West Yorkshire plus" for the 11 teams here, or do they go on districts, or do they look at where clubs target and currently get fans from?

Its a very interesting and subjective dynamic, which is probably why its only worth 2 points. 

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, Jughead said:

There’s absolutely no way London Broncos, London Skolars or Newcastle are getting 8 points plus. Callum Walker strikes again. 

London might scrape a B based on catchment area, TV viewing, stadium and owner investment but it's a long long road to an A from there.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Says in the PDF.

Catchment area = Area population ('defined as the population of all cities and towns (i.e. of built-up areas or their subdivisions', data taken from the 2021 census) divided by the number of clubs in that area.

But which area do you use?

West Yorkshire? Leeds? Wakefield city or MDC? Greater Leeds catchment area? Sheffield City region?

Of course the data sets are all there, but that doesn't mean the definitions are.