IMG Grading Unveiled

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

My point of view is that to move the sport forward we need to make the top end of the sport better and I believe the grading system gives the lower clubs a blueprint on how to join that top end.

 

38 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Exactly you don’t grow the sport by making your premium product worse.

The problem is that by bending over backwards to make the top end better over the last god knows how many years all it has done is left us with a very stale product with the same 2 or 3 teams winning everything. Ive said a few times that once you get past half way point of the season half of the games televised really are not worth watching if you take away some form of relegation. 

Now obviously this would never happen but in a perverse way by reducing funding by position but from top down you would probably end up with a better competition. The top teams would find otherways to bring in income so they could still compete and the worse teams would have more money to spend on contracts which in theory should raise their standard and then all of a sudden you could end up with a very even competition. Its kind of similar to a draft system but using money instead of players. More even competition leads to more competitive games and could possibly lead to more people watching the game. Something like that could never happen because too many people do not have the best interests of the game at heart.

I probably should have added thats only my thoughts regards SL and not thought about the championship.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

35 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Irony?

I think my thoughts on the matter seem quite rational. Two clubs in a city are fine, rivalries can add value to a comp, three seems somewhat overkill. I’m happy to support any two of Wakey, Fev and Cas within our Top 12 comp. 

If you can find some inconsistency in there I’m open to the insight. Every day is a school day and all that. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

51 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I haven't suggested cutting one of the two Wakefield sides, so your implied charge of hypocrisy doesn't hold water. I make you a firm commitment: If someone starts up a 3rd pro team in Hull, I will relentlessly oppose their entry to the top 12. 

It doesn't matter whether it's cutting three to two or two to one, the principle's the same. What is it about having three teams in the borough of Wakefield in SL that negatively impacts "broadcast attractiveness" that having two teams in Hull doesn't? If you want, say, London in SL instead of (say) Wakefield for geographical diversity, or "broadcast attractiveness" why would you not want, say, Midlands Hurricanes in instead of Hull KR for the same reason?

[Route66]

Really hope img can help the game overall but just reading the variety of opinions in this thread and the self interest of all clubs we will probably end up with little change. My personal opinion is the game can be a magnificent spectacle and deserves more exposure but watching the NRL game this morning is like watching a totally different sport in every way. 

 

[LeeF]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Is this £2m figure you keep stating the actual figure?

or the £20k for that matter

It’s not £2m and he has been corrected before on this thread but is on transmit and obsessed about “Super Greed”

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

It doesn't matter whether it's cutting three to two or two to one, the principle's the same. What is it about having three teams in the borough of Wakefield in SL that negatively impacts "broadcast attractiveness" that having two teams in Hull doesn't? If you want, say, London in SL instead of (say) Wakefield for geographical diversity, or "broadcast attractiveness" why would you not want, say, Midlands Hurricanes in instead of Hull KR for the same reason?

I'm offering no opinion on this but I'm putting this here as a reminder: literally no one outside the heartlands has any real clue how close most of our teams are to each other.

Nobody(*) once you leave the north and head southwards has any idea about where towns and districts are. It's all just "the north".

So, no, for a TV deal, it's going to make very little difference for casual viewers if it's Featherstone v Wakefield as opposed to Farawayteam v Wakefield. But, for the game, it may make a lot of difference if our spread of teams is more diverse than one where, potentially, a quarter of the top tier comes from one council area.

 

(* - pedantry not required)

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I'm offering no opinion on this but I'm putting this here as a reminder: literally no one outside the heartlands has any real clue how close most of our teams are to each other.

Nobody(*) once you leave the north and head southwards has any idea about where towns and districts are. It's all just "the north".

So, no, for a TV deal, it's going to make very little difference for casual viewers if it's Featherstone v Wakefield as opposed to Farawayteam v Wakefield. But, for the game, it may make a lot of difference if our spread of teams is more diverse than one where, potentially, a quarter of the top tier comes from one council area.

 

(* - pedantry not required)

Quite. 

The density of locales generally speaking doesn't mean too much for most people outside the heartlands; "its all the north" afterall. I would caveat that with the major cities of the North however, which do have some recognition at least in a way that the many RL towns do not.

However it does have an impact on more local advertisements of the game, particularly in snobbery (both in terms of class and urban status) towards some teams. Wigan and St Helens being prime examples of that, though obviously there are others. Rightly or Wrongly, Wigan vs Warrington probably has more negative connotations in Manchester and Liverpool than in London. 

For a TV deal however, what makes a geographically limited competition less valuable is that less people overall are interested and therefore watching. Super League can do just fine with 2 teams in Hull, or Wakefield MDC, or Wigan Borough, but it can't just offer that - there isn't enough people that are interested in it.

[whatmichaelsays]

59 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

 

The problem is that by bending over backwards to make the top end better over the last god knows how many years all it has done is left us with a very stale product with the same 2 or 3 teams winning everything. Ive said a few times that once you get past half way point of the season half of the games televised really are not worth watching if you take away some form of relegation. 

The other way of framing that is that, since 2015, all but two of the current Super League teams (one of which has yo-yo'd between SL and the Championship in that time) have either won one of the three trophies on offer, or made a major final. That feels like a competitive competition to me

[glossop saint]

57 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

 

The problem is that by bending over backwards to make the top end better over the last god knows how many years all it has done is left us with a very stale product with the same 2 or 3 teams winning everything. Ive said a few times that once you get past half way point of the season half of the games televised really are not worth watching if you take away some form of relegation. 

Now obviously this would never happen but in a perverse way by reducing funding by position but from top down you would probably end up with a better competition. The top teams would find otherways to bring in income so they could still compete and the worse teams would have more money to spend on contracts which in theory should raise their standard and then all of a sudden you could end up with a very even competition. Its kind of similar to a draft system but using money instead of players. More even competition leads to more competitive games and could possibly lead to more people watching the game. Something like that could never happen because too many people do not have the best interests of the game at heart.

I probably should have added thats only my thoughts regards SL and not thought about the championship.

There hasn't been any bending over backwards to make the top end better. There has been a reintroduction of P&R after licencing, there has been super 8s to create excitement in mediocrity and in real terms there has been a reduction in salary cap.

I accept that more could be done to help teams to challenge those top few teams and I actually believe that the IMG proposals will allow that to happen. In fact a lot of the arguments and suggestions otherwise (multiple p and r places and different funding) would ingrain those top 3 or 4 clubs even more! (Not saying that it is you saying this ideas but other people who have similar concerns.)

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

 

The problem is that by bending over backwards to make the top end better over the last god knows how many years all it has done is left us with a very stale product with the same 2 or 3 teams winning everything. Ive said a few times that once you get past half way point of the season half of the games televised really are not worth watching if you take away some form of relegation. 

Now obviously this would never happen but in a perverse way by reducing funding by position but from top down you would probably end up with a better competition. The top teams would find otherways to bring in income so they could still compete and the worse teams would have more money to spend on contracts which in theory should raise their standard and then all of a sudden you could end up with a very even competition. Its kind of similar to a draft system but using money instead of players. More even competition leads to more competitive games and could possibly lead to more people watching the game. Something like that could never happen because too many people do not have the best interests of the game at heart.

I probably should have added thats only my thoughts regards SL and not thought about the championship.

I still think it's a ridiculous idea to try make the top worse to help the bottom (even more than they do now with the SC). But that's just my opinion. And there really hasn't been any bending over backwards.

The top clubs at the moment are all the top clubs because of the infrastructure they have built, that's what clubs should be striving for, not just buying a squad to win a title.

Take Leeds for example - they were well and truly in the brown stuff in 1996. Fortunately the current owners saw potential and after years and years of trying to buy a team to win things they looked long term started planning and investing in the academy, had a plan to upgrade the facilities, Leeds didn't become the organisation they are overnight it took a long time.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

There hasn't been any bending over backwards to make the top end better. There has been a reintroduction of P&R after licencing, there has been super 8s to create excitement in mediocrity and in real terms there has been a reduction in salary cap.

I accept that more could be done to help teams to challenge those top few teams and I actually believe that the IMG proposals will allow that to happen. In fact a lot of the arguments and suggestions otherwise (multiple p and r places and different funding) would ingrain those top 3 or 4 clubs even more! (Not saying that it is you saying this ideas but other people who have similar concerns.)

Agreed. take the idea that's been floated on here of giving Cat A clubs most money then Cat B clubs all the same, that really is not going to make the SL a better competition, it will make it far worse in terms of competition

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

It doesn't matter whether it's cutting three to two or two to one, the principle's the same. What is it about having three teams in the borough of Wakefield in SL that negatively impacts "broadcast attractiveness" that having two teams in Hull doesn't? If you want, say, London in SL instead of (say) Wakefield for geographical diversity, or "broadcast attractiveness" why would you not want, say, Midlands Hurricanes in instead of Hull KR for the same reason?

Well, it's not quite the same though is it? In fact, it's not the same at all.

- Having one team gives you geog coverage

- Having two teams creates a rivalry which intensifies that geog coverage, and strengthens the 1st team through it too. You gain something you didn't otherwise have with one team.

- Having three teams takes you into the land of diminishing returns. You don't gain something you didn't already have with two teams. 

The strategy of the sport is to grow broadcast revenues, and over time add extra teams to the comp so there will be more than 12 in it. Within that, new teams will be assessed on what they bring to the overall league, and relatively under-represented markets are part of that assessment. 

If my original point was we should only ever have one team per city, then you'd have a case against me. But it wasn't, so you don't!

 

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, steve oates said:

IMG may be necessary, but certainly not for preventing us "cocking it up".  We haven't done too badly over the 27 years of Superleague in terms of organising the clubs into whatever league formats we have decided to try, go with, or reject. The expertise is certainly not with IMG, so what use are they really?

For some on here they are the Messiah, who will solve all our ills and organise the game such that crowds and TV revenues will go on an upward trend. No chance. For me they are there as supposedly third party "experts" to cast an un-bias eye over game, and steer it in the best direction for all, probably because the clubs are at a stage where they maybe can't agree anything on their own. 

But the idea from IMG the game may not promote a club from the Championship if they didn't score well enough off the pitch and someone else will be picked (say from 6th place) blows a big hole in the whole thing. Not that the A clubs would care, except for Hetherington. That madness should be enough to signal IMG aren't the ones to solve the games "problems"............

As you can read in this report in The Guardian, IMG and their expertise are needed to bring in more income from TV rights.

Quoting what Wakefield Chairman Michael Carter said about the situation: "It’s not going to be easy moving forwards and I don’t think anyone expects it to be, but I think being part-time again is a possibility. If the TV deal keeps going the way it is, certainly that could be the case. Unless you’ve a wealthy benefactor that will fund every single club, I think you’re looking at the future and wondering what it holds. There are massive challenges and difficulties for the sport.

"We’ve given them [i.e., IMG] our faith to say we’ll work as well as we can with them to get the sport to a better place because we’ve no other option,” he said. “We’ve got to trust them, give them as much help as possible to get on and do what they do. Without them, there’s nothing else. We’ve tried to go off on our own and it hasn’t worked. Sky are saying that viewers and subscribers have remained stagnant so we’ve got to break the mould somehow.” (emphasis added)

In short, the game's administrators have already tried everything they can think of to boost its audience and failed every time.  If the failure was due to their ineptitude then IMG could possibly find a way to boost that audience; if instead it's because the game has remained stuck along the M62, in smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged towns then nothing IMG comes up with will change things.

I suggest that the latter is the truth.

[The Phantom Horseman]

12 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Well, it's not quite the same though is it? In fact, it's not the same at all.

- Having one team gives you geog coverage

- Having two teams creates a rivalry which intensifies that geog coverage, and strengthens the 1st team through it too. You gain something you didn't otherwise have with one team.

- Having three teams takes you into the land of diminishing returns. You don't gain something you didn't already have with two teams. 

 

This is totally illogical. "Having two teams close together creates a rivalry which intensifies that geog coverage, and strengthens the 1st team through it too. You gain something you didn't otherwise have with one team"

So by your logic having three teams close together should create three rivalries, which would presumably further intensify that geog coverage, and strengthen all three teams through it too.

I don't necessarily agree with the above btw, but your two-teams-good, three-teams bad outlook isn't very convincing in my view.

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The other way of framing that is that, since 2015, all but two of the current Super League teams (one of which has yo-yo'd between SL and the Championship in that time) have either won one of the three trophies on offer, or made a major final. That feels like a competitive competition to me

That’s actually a very good statistic. 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

24 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

This is totally illogical. "Having two teams close together creates a rivalry which intensifies that geog coverage, and strengthens the 1st team through it too. You gain something you didn't otherwise have with one team"

So by your logic having three teams close together should create three rivalries, which would presumably further intensify that geog coverage, and strengthen all three teams through it too.

I don't necessarily agree with the above btw, but your two-teams-good, three-teams bad outlook isn't very convincing in my view.

I’m not quite sure you’re understanding my point on diminishing marginal returns? The 2nd team adds value to the 1st team, as well as its own inherent value as a club. The 3rd team adds far less value to the 1st and 2nd team, as both already have a derby and whilst adding a new one does add something it doesn’t change things as much proportionally as moving from ‘zero’ to ‘one’. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

You don’t have to agree with me. But you can’t say my point of view on 2 teams in Wakefield and 2 teams in Hull has an inconsistency, which is my point. 

[Taffy Tiger]

6 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I think it's perfectly possible that Featherstone could be as strong as Cas or Wakefield had they been in Super League from the start, with the same funding. It wouldn't be fair to argue otherwise.

But I don't think the sport needs 3 teams from the same tight geographic area in a 12 team league, if it is to maximise its broadcast attractiveness or commercial value. Complexities like that are what IMG are trying to factor in with the grading system. 

or 2 in the same city on that basis I presume? 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Taffy Tiger

[Derwent Parker]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

And you want to make that competition at the top worse not better.

I am thinking of the whole game, that’s the point, you are thinking of hobbling the top to benefit those at the middle, making the top tier better is better for the whole game, that’s exactly the point.

NO

My original comment of Giving "A"s - 2M  is not hobbling the top - Saints, Wigan etc will Probably be "A"s and therefore have same CFs. - i,e NOT HOBBLED AT ALL.

I said ALL "B"s should get the same whatever league they are in. and include P&R for "B"s

Also its  IMG who want the ABCs - Therefore if "A"s are better teams/standard/whatever than a "B" - why should "B"s get same money as "A"s?

For example [Random team Choices]

If Hull KR end up a "B" and Batley end up a "B" why should HKR get more money than Batley.  If they are on the similar gradings ??? and also on the plus side if they swap due to P&R in future they wont be any worse financially with "B" Grade CF

Why should a "B" in SL get more money than a "B" in Champ - if IMG have said they are of similar standing???

If the IMG grades ABC are more important than the leagues/P&R etc - then For example [Random team Choices] if Mr X [Billionaire] buys Cornwall, Mr Y [Billionaire] buys Swinton, and Mr Z [Billionaire] buys North Wales Crusaders, and moves them into local football stadium with a big screen and pretty LEDs and they have money to burn - then chances are they will be "A"s very quickly and the bottom 3 SL "B"s will be out of the elite at end of season whether they are bottom or not? - end of story, until they become "A"s - if they can

[Taffy Tiger]

4 hours ago, Derwent Parker said:

The top of the tree really isn't that competitive - only 4 teams have won in almost 30 years [and one of them is out of contention at present] so its usually between 3 teams!

I am thinking of the game as a whole - it appears you are not

8 teams have won the Super League , 4 have won the GF

[The Phantom Horseman]

2 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I’m not quite sure you’re understanding my point on diminishing marginal returns? The 2nd team adds value to the 1st team, as well as its own inherent value as a club. The 3rd team adds far less value to the 1st and 2nd team, as both already have a derby and whilst adding a new one does add something it doesn’t change things as much proportionally as moving from ‘zero’ to ‘one’. This is pretty straightforward stuff.

You don’t have to agree with me. But you can’t say my point of view on 2 teams in Wakefield and 2 teams in Hull has an inconsistency, which is my point. 

 I fully understand the principle of diminishing marginal returns. I just don't think it backs up your two-teams-good, three-teams bad suggestion. If an average SL game is a 7/10 game for creating interest, having one derby that creates a 9/10 interest level and another that "only" creates 8/10 interest is still a double positive.

 

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

My point of view is that to move the sport forward we need to make the top end of the sport better and I believe the grading system gives the lower clubs a blueprint on how to join that top end.

Just as a gentleman's wager between us, because most likely I may not be around (but I hope to be) I will bet you that by and including season 2030 i.e. 5 years after the initial first full season and the sorting of the teams for grading in 2025 to their respective divisions - and I know we have not yet been privileged to see the finished IMG article - that there will be no movement between the Top and Second League structures.

We can have a pint on it, to be drank in the absence of the other, OK

[Derwent Parker]

4 hours ago, glossop saint said:

Yet complains about Saints and Wigan winning everything and no variation at the top. The holes in the logic are obvious. In 90% of their arguments. 

I do not complain about Saints and Wigan winning everything - its a fact. 

I stated very early on this topic that Pre Sky - More different teams were in Finals and won leagues because every team were self funded - So teams had Natural Highs and Lows and there was 4 up and down every season - so more chance for different teams.-- NOW one third of the teams have an unfair advantage over the other two thirds Financially.  So now only those who receive that finance win anything. Therefore we have the same teams year in year out and out of those 12 only 3 have ever won. That's not a complaint its fact.

Ironically Wigan and Widnes had good runs pre Sky - but that was natural not because of an unfair money distribution.

I have no BEEF with Saints or Wigan just the fact of a massive Gap between leagues which is getting worse.

And we all know if IMG manage to earn us a bigger contract - that will be shared out to the elite and make the gap worse.

Over the pond in the NFL - they at least try to bring the lower teams up with the draft by giving the best new players to the lowest teams to improve them [wont work here] but at least they are trying to get everyone to the highest level - all they do over here is try to make the top third better.  RFL /IMG have done nothing to help L1 - in fact we only have 9 home games per season - so not much option of income from gates or money to spend on players . Whoops nearly forgot we do get around 20k CF but as hard as we try just doesn't do it.

[Oxford]

27 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

8 teams have won the Super League , 4 have won the GF

Now I've always seen these as the same comp. You win SL by winning the GF. The top club at the end of season win the league leaders trophy which is a self explanatory.

[Chrispmartha]

39 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

NO

My original comment of Giving "A"s - 2M  is not hobbling the top - Saints, Wigan etc will Probably be "A"s and therefore have same CFs. - i,e NOT HOBBLED AT ALL.

I said ALL "B"s should get the same whatever league they are in. and include P&R for "B"s

Also its  IMG who want the ABCs - Therefore if "A"s are better teams/standard/whatever than a "B" - why should "B"s get same money as "A"s?

For example [Random team Choices]

If Hull KR end up a "B" and Batley end up a "B" why should HKR get more money than Batley.  If they are on the similar gradings ??? and also on the plus side if they swap due to P&R in future they wont be any worse financially with "B" Grade CF

Why should a "B" in SL get more money than a "B" in Champ - if IMG have said they are of similar standing???

If the IMG grades ABC are more important than the leagues/P&R etc - then For example [Random team Choices] if Mr X [Billionaire] buys Cornwall, Mr Y [Billionaire] buys Swinton, and Mr Z [Billionaire] buys North Wales Crusaders, and moves them into local football stadium with a big screen and pretty LEDs and they have money to burn - then chances are they will be "A"s very quickly and the bottom 3 SL "B"s will be out of the elite at end of season whether they are bottom or not? - end of story, until they become "A"s - if they can

The top meaning the top league - if you give grade A teams more money than other teams in that league you are pretty much creating a 2 tier league where only As are going to be able to compete in that league.

You are making the mistake of thinking that the gradings are the league rather than them determining which league you play in and Also not all grade B teams will have the same points in the grading system so aren't automatically equal even though they are a grade B.

Im not sure what point you are making in your last paragraph to be honest.

 

 

[Chrispmartha]

30 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Just as a gentleman's wager between us, because most likely I may not be around (but I hope to be) I will bet you that by and including season 2030 i.e. 5 years after the initial first full season and the sorting of the teams for grading in 2025 to their respective divisions - and I know we have not yet been privileged to see the finished IMG article - that there will be no movement between the Top and Second League structures.

We can have a pint on it, to be drank in the absence of the other, OK

Id take that bet! but would like to see the actual final details of what's happening first