IMG Grading Unveiled

[redjonn]

18 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Why is it unfair? You seem to want to make the elite league of the sport worse to benefit the lower leagues?

Isn't  that what we do with the salary cap - we don't allow the financial strong to spend to their financial ability, we keep it to suit the lowest common denominator.

Some will say its to make it more competitive for the weaker financial clubs.

Isn't that making the elite league a lower standard.  

It seems a similar argument to me.

Edited March 22 by redjonn

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

Saints wouldn't be a B club.

So A clubs get the full £2million?

But B clubs in SL get £1m to compete against the clubs who get £2m?

Thats not really going to work out well is it.

[Moove]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's a terrible idea.

But I'm sure you'd just complain that it is still unfair because clubs get bigger crowds because they play the bigger teams, and Sky show these games, so they get more sponsors. 

There will always be excuses. 

Redistribute all supporters equally across all 36 teams. Force them to relocate them to even up the gate receipts too. Anyone new goes into a draft to see where they go.

Seems fair. Next!

[redjonn]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Would St Helens be current World Champions if they had a £1m cut in funding in previous years?

Maybe... I think their financially strong enough but of course it helps.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

Isn't  that what we do with the salary cap - we don't allow the financial strong to spend to their financial ability, we keep it to sort the lowest common denominator.

Some will say its to make it more competitive for the weaker financial clubs.

Isn't that making the elite league a lower standard.  

It seems a similar argument to me.

Yes it is, and there’s an argument that the cap is way too low.

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Yes it is, and there’s an argument that the cap is way too low.

I guess its done to help the weaker clubs... One reason to provide some sort of fairness across that competition. Isn't that top level argument what some are saying that should be considered across the league structure.

[GeordieSaint]

9 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Sky sports pay that money to cover the elite league of the sport, do you think they would be happy if that Elite league was made worse to benefit a league that they don’t show?

The irony that the bloke whinging about the ‘supposed’ handouts is wanting a handout for his club… 

… your opening sentence is the cold hard reality. SKY (and CH4) pay millions every year for SL - to see the biggest clubs in the sport on their channels. Not to fund League 1 et al. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

I guess its done to help the weaker clubs... One reason to provide some sort of fairness across that competition. Isn't that top level argument what some are saying that should be considered across the league structure.

The lower division clubs getting even a single penny of SLE's TV deal is done to help the lower teams. 

[Derwent Parker]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Would St Helens be current World Champions if they had a £1m cut in funding in previous years?

Probably - but at least now you can see why all the others are held back?

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

So A clubs get the full £2million?

But B clubs in SL get £1m to compete against the clubs who get £2m?

Thats not really going to work out well is it.

No, that's not what was said. Some club might get £1.7m, another £1.4m, someone else £0.8m etc. The more worthy of investment they are, the more the RFL invests in them. All the while, we keep P&R and there's no financial disaster on being relegated.

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, GeordieSaint said:

The irony that the bloke whinging about the ‘supposed’ handouts is wanting a handout for his club… 

… your opening sentence is the cold hard reality. SKY (and CH4) pay millions every year for SL - to see the biggest clubs in the sport on their channels. Not to fund League 1 et al. 

Do SL clubs gain no benefit from the lower league clubs and what they may contribute to the sport.  

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Derwent Parker said:

Probably - but at least now you can see why all the others are held back?

So you do want to make the elite weaker just do your club gets some money from a TV deal that doesn’t show your club?

[Derwent Parker]

9 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

So A clubs get the full £2million?

But B clubs in SL get £1m to compete against the clubs who get £2m?

Thats not really going to work out well is it.

That's similar to what is happening now with champ but with a lot less??

BTW i did not say 1M 

Wont be nice for bottom of SG but will be ok for Champ

[redjonn]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The lower division clubs getting even a single penny of SLE's TV deal is done to help the lower teams. 

I guess as SLE see the benefit of those lower league clubs to benefit the sport.

The question then is how much should be shared, assuming the premise that they see value.  I'm guess in they see little value given the little amount. I would suggest that is not a fair reflection of what they offer. 

 

[NW10LDN]

2 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I guess as SLE see the benefit of those lower league clubs to benefit the sport.

The question then is how much should be shared, assuming the premise that they see value.  I'm guess in they see little value given the little amount. I would suggest that is not a fair reflection of what they offer. 

 

Premier League share 15% with the EFL which would be 156,250 per club if replicated in RL.

[whatmichaelsays]

2 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I guess as SLE see the benefit of those lower league clubs to benefit the sport.

The question then is how much should be shared, assuming the premise that they see value.  I'm guess in they see little value given the little amount. I would suggest that is not a fair reflection of what they offer. 

 

The counter argument to that is whether the central funding that does go to the lower leagues generates a sufficient return on investment - or at least, a greater return than other funded projects - to merit more funding.

With respect, it feels like a not insignificant amount of that central funding goes towards keeping journeymen players in full-time sport - and I'm not sure that is necessarily the best use of resources. 

[bobbruce]

8 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I guess as SLE see the benefit of those lower league clubs to benefit the sport.

The question then is how much should be shared, assuming the premise that they see value.  I'm guess in they see little value given the little amount. I would suggest that is not a fair reflection of what they offer. 

 

Don’t SL clubs currently give away just over a fifth of their TV deal to the RFL to be distributed. Hardly a little amount. 

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I guess as SLE see the benefit of those lower league clubs to benefit the sport.

The question then is how much should be shared, assuming the premise that they see value.  I'm guess in they see little value given the little amount. I would suggest that is not a fair reflection of what they offer. 

 

What is the amount? 

[Oxford]

Thread after thread, page after page, post after post bringing out the best in people and their supposed shared passion.

If IMG had decided to create a disunified sport, which they didn't of course, it couldn't have been more successful.

IMG is necessary so that we don't keep cocking it up, but there's no guarantee they won't or haven't already.

 

[Archie Gordon]

Just to add that I think it's wrong to see funding well-run clubs in the Championship as "funding the Championship". 

[GUBRATS]

6 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

You think comparing 70+years ago is a valid comparison?

There's quite a lot changed in the world since then.

Some are happy to cite 125 years in their arguments , is that valid ? 

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Some are happy to cite 125 years in their arguments , is that valid ? 

Not when it comes to spectators at games, no.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The counter argument to that is whether the central funding that does go to the lower leagues generates a sufficient return on investment - or at least, a greater return than other funded projects - to merit more funding.

With respect, it feels like a not insignificant amount of that central funding goes towards keeping journeymen players in full-time sport - and I'm not sure that is necessarily the best use of resources. 

taking that principle

I guess within SL apart from say approx 6 clubs one could apply the last paragraph.

I don't think Sky to take someone else's argument pay for SL because of the weaker 4 or 5 clubs. Its the top/stronger clubs they pay for, the weaker one's gain from that.  Sky don't care if some of the weaker SL clubs were replaced by others.  How many is up to debate.

I can see why giving clubs area to focus on and give grading on how well they are doing. I guess an analogy would be a Ofsted. I am just of the opinion that the individual grading points should not determine promotion where clubs are of a similar grade B assuming we have P/R.

We shackle the strong financial clubs via the salary cap to the lowest denominator, yet prevent a grade A from being relegated if they finish bottom. On the one hand we shackle them, on the other we protect them.

Although as I've said earlier in this thread my fundamental  dislike is the score card approach. Having experienced such in the company I worked following consultant input to then realise it was a major distraction focusing time and effort and was ripped up to focus on the basics of growing our subsequently more and highly successful business.  Of course this is a sport.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

What is the amount? 

I would allocate based upon position in league, with top 4 of championship not being much different than bottom 4 of SL as an example.  That would be my starting point but as to how much at each position I'd have to do more analysis and wouldn't be worth working out, as the principle is the key.

Some on the one hand worry about the sport being in a narrow corridor, yet on the other hand consequences may be that whilst still same corridor their is less clubs or at least less interest. 

For me at this stage we have to strengthen the sport within its current base, from which to expand. Well in the business I worked we always expanded from a position of strength within our core. All-be-it that core at each stage expanded and strengthened before the next stage of expansion. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that approach but we we became the highest market cap company in the world.  We lost that position and I contend our way when the scorecard metrics became an industry of itself with the company consuming time, energy and focus. We tore them up and went back to basics.

Anyway maybe my experience gets in the way of me seeing the IMG proposals and the associated detail to-date as the only approach to stand behind. I await more detail and any adjustments following clubs further input..

[GeordieSaint]

2 hours ago, redjonn said:

Do SL clubs gain no benefit from the lower league clubs and what they may contribute to the sport.  

Yes they do - hence why they get a chunk of the money already. The vast majority however, rightly remains in SL.