IMG Grading Unveiled

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

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.

IMG couldn't do anything about West Wales folding. They aren't responsible for your 9 home games per season. The NFL is a closed shop and the most popular sport in a country of 300+ million plus a huge international following. They can afford to give lower ranked teams a lot of help. All if their teams are based in densely populated urban areas. Green Bay are the exception but they act as the team for Wisconsin.

Edited March 23, 2023 by NW10LDN

[Harry Stottle]

5 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Fair point, I'll take that on board and adjust my argument: I believe well-run, progressive Championship clubs have a greater than "once in 28 years" chance of making the elite comp under the new proposals, and so it is not a disadvantage for them. 

I disagree Bronco, OK without seeing the finished IMG proposals this is just pure speculation on my part as is yours of Championship clubs being able to traverse the great divide to the elite comp once the system begins.

What I have seen from the disclosures up to now, I think the carrot of advancing may well be out of reach, and instead of trying to grasp the prize they may just bend down and eat the grass.

 

[Harry Stottle]

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. 

How about 4 teams, Wigan, Saints, Wire and Leigh.

Not much hope for Leigh then Bronco, if we draw a line between the towns where the lines cross 7.0 miles would be the distance separating the farthest two, I think someone from IMG should do the honourable thing and tell Mr Beaumont of their intentions so he can save a few pennies.

[Taffy Tiger]

Under the new IMG proposals , which are clearly a points based system, there is no way that every Category B club should be treated the same . You have to be able to distinguish between the Top Cat B clubs and the rest . In a system where you need 7.5 points to be an SL eligible Cat B club, but you only need 15 points (suggested) to be a Cat A club , why should a club who has 14 points be treated the same as a club who has 7.5 points . They are clearly more deserving of their SL place and the extra funding that comes along with that. 

 

I think that the problem here , and understandably as it is human nature, is that we tend to look at things in the short term and then judge our own side on that and see where we will feature in the inaugural 2025 SL under the new gradings , rather than looking further down the line in 5 or 10 years time . Under the current system only 1 team comes up with P&R , and more often than not they are relegated the following season , although Leigh may well buck that trend this year .

If we take a moment to look more closely at the IMG proposals then we will see that it is already a much fairer and a more level playing field for all clubs . You could argue that lower division clubs have an advantage over their current SL counterparts , as the IMG system is based on improvement and growth on a year by year basis , especially long term. It is true that the current SL incumbents will be at an advantage now and perhaps for the next 3-5 years , but how much room for improvement will they be afforded when you consider all of the 'advantages' you say they have had over the last 30 years just by being in the higher tier. A team in the Championship , will have so much more scope for improvement in the coming years , admittedly not straight away , but let's be honest about this , if we went back to P&R , how many different clubs would there be in SL in 5-10 years time .Admittedly , we may have the the odd 'Leigh' success  , but history tells us that SL in 10 years wouldn't look too different to SL now . The new IMG proposals give every team the chance , irrespective of CL fundings , as CL funding isn't taken into account in the P/L and sustainability of the club . As I understand it, any team that can prove themselves to be sustainable in the lower leagues will score more than a SL club who have big debts owing in loans to their board of directors , or are clearly living hand to mouth from CF . If your profit/loss sheet is healthier than a SL club , you will receive more points than they do on that section . 

I take on board that being in SL will give higher attendances and more points available for performance at the start of the season , but a strong team in the Championship should still be able to outperform a much weaker SL team under the IMG gradings . Indeed , as I understand it , the team in 13th will score more than the team in 12th for performance every season, as they will lose 0.11 points for finishing a place below (if this is confirmed later by IMG) , but will gain a 0.25 bonus points for winning the Championship GF , putting them slightly ahead of their SL rivals for that season , always presuming of course , that the SL team doesn't win the CC . As for the attendance part of the equation , there may be some disparities in a straight head to head average attendance for that season , but surely it's not unreasonable to expect the team winning a Championship GF to have a similar average , if not better , than a team finishing bottom of SL , especially considering extra crowds for a Championship play-off semi and GF. If the Championship teams are not on a par with their SL counterparts , then I think there would be a valid argument to say that the Championship GF winners shouldn't score more points on attendance . We also need to take into account the IMG statement with any proposed new stadium / Stadium improvements , where they have clearly stated that points will only be awarded when there is an actual stadium built . Is it not reasonable therefore, to expect the same criteria for all of the other categories as well . With that in mind , I don't think weighting should be given to attendances in lower leagues . It should be actual average attendance , as these are what a club has proven that it can get , not what it may get if they get to SL . A factor increase to allow for lower attendances could become farcical if you see how that may work . On average attendances in SL to Championship , you could argue that a factor of 5 (ie multiplying all Championship attendance by 5 to bring parity between the 2 leagues) would be fair , however , think how ludicrous this would be with a team like Fev , who already average around 3k , and with success this season this could be nearer 4k . Multiply by 5 and you have 15k-20k average , or put another way the whole population of fev and twice the capacity of their ground . Things have to be taken into perspective and let's be honest , even with promotion to SL , how many Championship teams are going to increase their attendances by so much more . They should be able to show they can match other SL clubs while in Championship , which takes us back to the above mentioned IMG specifications of proof , rather than speculation.

There is always going to be the big difference in CF , it's the way things work , and let's be perfectly honest , the majority if not all of the £2M (or whatever the figure is) awarded for being in SL , will go towards players and the salary cap . Take this one factor out , and SL clubs and the lower leagues aren't that far away from parity in funding received as things stand .

 

Clubs not currently in SL should really be embracing this new format . As mentioned they have so much more scope to improve their gradings than some of the SL clubs . It's not going to happen straight away , but it wouldn't have under the old regime , but what this will do is give you a better chance of rising the ladder and staying there, which has to be better for long term prosperity for each individual club , and the game as a whole.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Taffy Tiger

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

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.

I totally get where you are coming from on this and Leeds are a good example of that but will any of the changes that IMG are proposing change that any more than P & R would? Up until this season Wakefield had very little incentive to do anything as they were in total cruise control happy to take their money every year without making many, if any, improvements. This year facing relegation for the first time, and they probably had a decent idea this would be the case from early last season the way Leigh had spent, and we are seeing movement from them. I think Wakefield/Fev will be the most intriguing battle when it comes to the gradings as you would imagine Fev will be in SL by then and Wakefield will be very badly hit by relegation but at this point are making improvements off the field. As it stands though Wakefield will struggle with the infrastructure to bring in young players especially once relegated and that is the area they have most struggled with anyway.

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Yes. They're paid a packet of crisps and two lemon sherberts, and they give one of the lemon sherberts to League One.

It may as well be Bronco as I remember from last season when Leigh were in the Championship it is a pittance they clubs recieve, in fact I don't think it stretches to buy a packet of crisps and two lemon sherberts.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How about 4 teams, Wigan, Saints, Wire and Leigh.

Not much hope for Leigh then Bronco, if we draw a line between the towns where the lines cross 7.0 miles would be the distance separating the farthest two, I think someone from IMG should do the honourable thing and tell Mr Beaumont of their intentions so he can save a few pennies.

Saints are in Merseyside and can reach into Liverpool. Warrington is its own borough with more than 200,000 people. Widnes are next door and they may be taken into account.

[Taffy Tiger]

57 minutes ago, Oxford said:

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.

That's fair enough , but to me regular season is winning the league , but, on reflection , your argument makes more sense

[Derwent Parker]

4 hours 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 agree fully apart from your last comment - IMG have included grading for all 36 teams CM and HKB are only concerned about their league and their CF but if all 36 are in the grading plan then if IMG were Hypothetically to run with you staggered finance plan it should be for all 36.

Thais why I suggested As all get same and Bs all get same - which as upset a few SL supporters worried about their CF

[The Blues Ox]

12 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Clubs not currently in SL should really be embracing this new format . As mentioned they have so much more scope to improve their gradings than some of the SL clubs . It's not going to happen straight away , but it wouldn't have under the old regime , but what this will do is give you a better chance of rising the ladder and staying there, which has to be better for long term prosperity for each individual club , and the game as a whole.

Nice post just wanted to comment on this part.

Ive tried to look at this objectionally rather than from a Fax point of view but these comments are from a Fax point of view. I think we will be there or there abouts when it comes to the gradings but I still think we have more chance of gaining promotion on the field rather than off it. Like this season theres a chance we make the final and then all we would have to do is win a one off game to gain promotion but how would we go about gaining 2 or 3 points off the field that takes us above the worst SL team? We ain't going to have a big backer and anyone with money is going to see that making a gain of 2 or 3 points is going to be difficult where as on the pitch bringing in 1 or 2 players to make a difference just feels a bit easier and a bit more worthwhile.

[Chrispmartha]

15 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I totally get where you are coming from on this and Leeds are a good example of that but will any of the changes that IMG are proposing change that any more than P & R would? Up until this season Wakefield had very little incentive to do anything as they were in total cruise control happy to take their money every year without making many, if any, improvements. This year facing relegation for the first time, and they probably had a decent idea this would be the case from early last season the way Leigh had spent, and we are seeing movement from them. I think Wakefield/Fev will be the most intriguing battle when it comes to the gradings as you would imagine Fev will be in SL by then and Wakefield will be very badly hit by relegation but at this point are making improvements off the field. As it stands though Wakefield will struggle with the infrastructure to bring in young players especially once relegated and that is the area they have most struggled with anyway.

Wakefield are a good example to pick.

Why do you think they are investing in off field stuff?

Id suggest that’s because of the gradings, if the only criteria to get back into SL is on field they wouldn’t need to it. I heir outgoing owner has said we should be taking their recommendations on board because the current system isnt working

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

 

Thais why I suggested As all get same and Bs all get same - which as upset a few SL supporters worried about their CF

Because not all category B teams will have the same grading points.

 

 

[The Blues Ox]

1 minute ago, Derwent Parker said:

I agree fully apart from your last comment - IMG have included grading for all 36 teams CM and HKB are only concerned about their league and their CF but if all 36 are in the grading plan then if IMG were Hypothetically to run with you staggered finance plan it should be for all 36.

Thais why I suggested As all get same and Bs all get same - which as upset a few SL supporters worried about their CF

A few of those teams simple won't be able to afford any drop in CF and thats why there is so much self interest from the teams and their fans. Most Championship teams have got used to having very little money, I know Fax were planning on zero CF back in 2021 and put things in place that would allow them to continue without any CF. Now you take 250k off some SL teams and they could fall apart.

[The Blues Ox]

9 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Wakefield are a good example to pick.

Why do you think they are investing in off field stuff?

Id suggest that’s because of the gradings, if the only criteria to get back into SL is on field they wouldn’t need to it. I heir outgoing owner has said we should be taking their recommendations on board because the current system isnt working

Again its self interest from individual clubs though. No club has really said anything thats not expected, I mean if I were chairman of a club that is about to get relegated then I would favor gradings rather than P&R. 

[Taffy Tiger]

22 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Nice post just wanted to comment on this part.

Ive tried to look at this objectionally rather than from a Fax point of view but these comments are from a Fax point of view. I think we will be there or there abouts when it comes to the gradings but I still think we have more chance of gaining promotion on the field rather than off it. Like this season theres a chance we make the final and then all we would have to do is win a one off game to gain promotion but how would we go about gaining 2 or 3 points off the field that takes us above the worst SL team? We ain't going to have a big backer and anyone with money is going to see that making a gain of 2 or 3 points is going to be difficult where as on the pitch bringing in 1 or 2 players to make a difference just feels a bit easier and a bit more worthwhile.

Hi Blues Ox , thanks for the reply . I understand your predicament , and this is short term . I think Halifax are in a very strong position to prosper in the future , even without automatic promotion this season , although that would make it much easier of course. It may not be 2 or 3 points , and in a direct comparison to some teams already in SL , it is probably much less than you may think . You may even be already ahead of some teams without realising it, or at the very least , very close , as long as your other areas are strong . If your balance sheet is good and you have a good engagement with supporters , then even if your attendance is smaller . the possibilities of growth in the coming years look good . Performance on the pitch isn't going to be that far away from the lower SL teams , even if you don't finish top 2 . We don't know the finer points of the IMG proposals , but I think a team like Fax are in a much stronger position going forward than they would be without IMG proposals , even though you may be on the brink of automatic promotion this season . The problem we have seen in the past is that fringe clubs , and I mean that with no disrespect , I merely mean clubs that aren't favourites for automatic promotion , but are on the next level , can often blow hot and cold , and the following year may fall down the ladder and struggle to get back up . These new proposals seem to take that factor out of the equation, at least a little , and mean that a club like Fax can grow in all areas , so that when the opportunity arises, they can take full advantage and hopefully have some longevity at the top table, rather than promoted one season only to be relegated the next . I genuinely believe that SL will expand in the next 5-10 years , and it is teams like Fax that need to have things in place for when that happens . Good luck!

Edited March 23, 2023 by Taffy Tiger

[GeordieSaint]

Got my vote…

(Not that it is worth anything!)

[Derwent Parker]

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

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.

Do you not think that Sky are saying that viewers and subscribers have remained stagnant is because its virtually the same 12 teams every year and possibly because the bulk of the viewers of RL are from those Towns?

There are 36 Teams from Towns/Cities in RFL but only 12 are ever shown!

Reverting back to 4 up/down could get 4 more Towns/cities viewing. Plus others from elsewhere who mayhave stopped Sky sports to save money and just be tired of watching same teams.  Even if Sky showed some of the other champ L1 matches even if at Stupid o clock they might get a few other teams supporters signed up. And stop it being Stagnant.

I would guess but have no proof that there may be a few more people in the Leigh area watching Sky sports this year?

A few on here [me too] have been saying boring a lot - Stagnant is a better word - and you can ignore or disagree with me as much as you wish - But its costly as you know if Sky think that way.

Also bring back the Biff - making RL timid doesn't help. Safety always first but gone too far now.

 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

Do you not think that Sky are saying that viewers and subscribers have remained stagnant is because its virtually the same 12 teams every year and possibly because the bulk of the viewers of RL are from those Towns?

There are 36 Teams from Towns/Cities in RFL but only 12 are ever shown!

Reverting back to 4 up/down could get 4 more Towns/cities viewing. Plus others from elsewhere who mayhave stopped Sky sports to save money and just be tired of watching same teams.  Even if Sky showed some of the other champ L1 matches even if at Stupid o clock they might get a few other teams supporters signed up. And stop it being Stagnant.

I would guess but have no proof that there may be a few more people in the Leigh area watching Sky sports this year?

A few on here [me too] have been saying boring a lot - Stagnant is a better word - and you can ignore or disagree with me as much as you wish - But its costly as you know if Sky think that way.

Also bring back the Biff - making RL timid doesn't help. Safety always first but gone too far now.

 

So the game is stagnant whilst we have P&R, which is what you want to keep isnt it?

From what I remember the biggest viewing figures are for the top teams, be cause people want to watch a quality product, making the quality of the product worse is not going to help.

I bet there are more people in Leigh watching SL this year, I’ll bet there’s fewer people watching it in Toulouse though.

[Derwent Parker]

4 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

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

It will make the step from Champ to SL achievable and far more competitive - which is more than likely why you are against it.

Which should force some of the SL Bs to get to As quicker.

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

....... 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.

Couldn't agree more BP, I don't know why we don't just accept and be proud of what we have and look after the sport in it's birthplace in this country and make it as strong as it can be there.

I have been involved with and in this game for 60 years, and quite simply in my experience it does not travel in its Professional form of any note beyond it's 'spiritual home' of Lancs, Yorks and Cumbria, in its 'economically disadvantaged towns' I have lost count of how many clubs have come and gone in those 60 years, and that is not including all those that came and went before. It will be no different in the next 60 years - should it last that long, the game is simply not wanted beyond it's boundaries, it wasn't when Rugby League was at it's height when there wasn't much else going on, now there are far to many other distractions, past times, alternatives and the popularity of that behomoth that is Association Football to attract even moderate attendances of say 5000 in any area for a new Professional club.

It simply is as people like to mock "a local game, for local people" 

Putting on my tin hat now and getting into my Anderson Shelter to take cover !.

[Archie Gordon]

29 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Got my vote…

(Not that it is worth anything!)

That does make me smile.

I've heard a few clubs say something along the lines of "now we know what we need to deliver as a club" as if increasing fans, and improving facilities and finances is a shock new reveal to how you progress.

But I really hope TO are a Cat A within the next 10 years.

[Derwent Parker]

2 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:

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

that's nit picking grand final is currently what counts.

I personally dont agree with that.

The old way was better you win the league that's the biggee - used to be over 30 matches.

winning 3 games for GF is not as good. Premiership trophy fair enough.

Theoretically 

saints could go unbeaten and have a chaotic injury crisis at season end and lose GF - that's just wrong.

[Chrispmartha]

12 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

It will make the step from Champ to SL achievable and far more competitive - which is more than likely why you are against it.

Which should force some of the SL Bs to get to As quicker.

Im FOR a more competitive SL, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying.

If I wanted a less competitive SL id agree with you wanting to give A teams more of the money.

[Derwent Parker]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

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.

 

Well IMG have stated that ALL A teams are guaranteed SL, agreed? 

So i said hypothetical situation of 3 Billionaires taking over 3 L1s and throwing money at them and therefore making them As - then if you are a SL B at the bottom end you are OUT - until you become an A.

That is what has been stated. Dont think that was too hard?

 

[gingerjon]

16 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

as if increasing fans, and improving facilities and finances is a shock new reveal to how you progress

Turns out if you can go up without addressing those things though then they don't get addressed.

As, to be blunt, the present state of the London Broncos pretty much attests.