IMG Grading Unveiled

[gingerjon]

22 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

 

Thanks, that's really interesting.

So, basically, it is assumed that you will have a bunch of things *before* these things we're reading about today kick in.

Slightly changes my original assessment - neither good or bad, just different.

[Roughyed Rats]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

In the overall scheme of the grading it's not a huge deal but it's clearly going to favour the likes of Bradford over Featherstone. 

So basically we don’t know. Let’s hope at the very least the clubs have been provided with the actual criteria; even if we haven’t.

[Man of Kent]

5 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Two for performance? Based on what? 2020 didn’t happen, 2021 they were 7th and 2022 they were 11th. They’d need to  win the comp to even get close to that, surely?

What TV figures? They probably haven’t been shown more than twice since relegation in 2019. 

It says 'Teams are ranked 1–36 based on where they finish in the leagues and playoffs for the last three seasons' with a maximum four points on offer. Two points seems plausible on that basis.

We're told Londoners are a big portion of TV viewership for RL, so I wouldn't be surprised if that counts in their favour. 

 

[The Phantom Horseman]

15 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

It's 7.5 for B.

2 for performance, 2 for catchment, 1.5 for stadium, 1 for TV viewing figures/social media, 1 for David Hughes' millions. A plausible scraping.

It may be 7.5 points for B but I very much doubt 7.5 points will get you anywhere near SL. In IMG's own mock-up (which is obviously only for illustrative purposes) the lowest-ranked B team to make SL had 12 points

[gingerjon]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

We're told Londoners are a big portion of TV viewership for RL, so I wouldn't be surprised if that counts in their favour. 

I assume TV viewership points go to the teams featured.

[Jughead]

Just now, Man of Kent said:

It says 'Teams are ranked 1–36 based on where they finish in the leagues and playoffs for the last three seasons' with a maximum four points on offer. Two points seems plausible on that basis.

We're told Londoners are a big portion of TV viewership for RL, so I wouldn't be surprised if that counts in their favour. 

 

There’s no way they’re getting two points without a huge season this year, which is unlikely. 

I think that viewership would be a little harsh on others. 

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

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?

don't know if what you say is true but imho surely a club shouldn't get much reward for being in a particular location. Surely it must be about how much interest in RL or it potential interest in RL their is.   Using data from where fans come from, TV viewing figures from that area, and other data points.

I mean I could be the only Liverpool based club where their is little interest in RL nowadays, totally consumed by soccer, and hence should not be getting any points towards location grading. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by redjonn

[Man of Kent]

2 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

It may be 7.5 points for B but I very much doubt 7.5 points will get you anywhere near SL. In IMG's own mock-up (which is obviously only for illustrative purposes) the lowest-ranked B team to make SL had 12 points

Oh yeah, totally. London are miles off.

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

The way it is set out in the information released so far it seems like a very simple calculation which will probably be based on local authority boundaries. With varying types of local authorities and some clubs being regional rather than locally orientated, etc, I don't think that would be the best approach. 

Clubs are likely to hold data on the location of people buying tickets and merchandise. Using that would give a much better idea of each club's catchment area.

How does that square with the "built up area" point and multiple clubs with different named teams in the same Council area?

 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, redjonn said:

should not be getting any points towards location grading. 

It should, but it will only get a max of 2, which is nice, but not going to overturn everything else either.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

How does that square with the "built up area" point and multiple clubs with different named teams in the same Council area?

 

It's area population divided by number of clubs, isn't it?

Not about exclusivity.

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

How does that square with the "built up area" point and multiple clubs with different named teams in the same Council area?

 

I'm not sure to be honest.

I'm still reserving judgement on the grading system as a whole - but then in general terms I do still favour on field based P&R.

Catchment is probably the element I'm struggling with most:

Performance - I'm all for that being important, it's competitive sport.

Finances & Stadium - Even within on field P&R I would favour strict standards for clubs' finances and facilities which should have to be met for progression.

Fandom - Accepting that this isn't on field P&R, we all want more fans for our sport. Encouraging clubs to increase numbers is sensible.

Catchment - All of the others are things that clubs can improve upon. That is supposed to be the aim of the proposed system, clubs are to be encouraged to improve themselves through these criteria. However the catchment areas are ultimately defined, without relocating, a club can't really do anything to improve their score on this. 

[Madrileño]

52 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Oh another point, Although Gary Hetherington is probably glad Bramley is no more,

Bramley??? 

Didn't they disappear from the league like 20 odd years ago??

In other news Hetherington is also glad that the Northern clubs split from the rugby union, and that the creation of Super League in 1995 led to a summer playing season. 

[MattSantos]

30 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Thanks, that's really interesting.

So, basically, it is assumed that you will have a bunch of things *before* these things we're reading about today kick in.

Slightly changes my original assessment - neither good or bad, just different.

It is and it makes sense.

Have these minimum criteria been published? Is there an indicative date as to when they will be?

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's area population divided by number of clubs, isn't it?

Not about exclusivity.

My point was rather how do you state what an area is, for example could Wakefield use all the MDC or just the bits defined as Wakefield proper on the census map, likewise would Fev be a Wakefield club or a club restricted to Fev? 

Hull for example would be divide by 2, but the question is divide what? The city? East Riding? Humberside?

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

My point was rather how do you state what an area is, for example could Wakefield use all the MDC or just the bits defined as Wakefield proper on the census map, likewise would Fev be a Wakefield club or a club restricted to Fev? 

Hull for example would be divide by 2, but the question is divide what? The city? East Riding? Humberside?

If it were me and it has to be based on reality not potential ...

then, as I put earlier, I would be doing a little formula based around which postcode areas could be shown to have X number of regular ticket purchasers/season ticket holders for the club in question and then, roughly, adding up the population totals of those areas and dividing by the number of clubs who can also show the same in the same areas.

It's not perfect but I think it's more based in reality than alternatives based on allocating council areas or whatever.

[Tommygilf]

14 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I'm not sure to be honest.

I'm still reserving judgement on the grading system as a whole - but then in general terms I do still favour on field based P&R.

Catchment is probably the element I'm struggling with most:

Performance - I'm all for that being important, it's competitive sport.

Finances & Stadium - Even within on field P&R I would favour strict standards for clubs' finances and facilities which should have to be met for progression.

Fandom - Accepting that this isn't on field P&R, we all want more fans for our sport. Encouraging clubs to increase numbers is sensible.

Catchment - All of the others are things that clubs can improve upon. That is supposed to be the aim of the proposed system, clubs are to be encouraged to improve themselves through these criteria. However the catchment areas are ultimately defined, without relocating, a club can't really do anything to improve their score on this. 

I can see what you mean with Catchment, but to a certain extent that is forcing clubs to both outdo eachother, and rewarding those working as "outposts" with little to no support from anyone else. For example, ultimately the historic importance of Hunslet RLFC and others of course have built long standing popular environment for the game which now the vast majority of the benefits of go to Leeds Rhinos and others. 1000s of people at Headingley every week had parents and grandparents who at one stage or another supported Trin, Hunslet, Bramley, Cas, Batley, you name it. That legacy is part of the fabric of the sport and the nature of the times.

Its easier in a lot of ways to build in an area where there is already a solid grounding of the sport. All this catchment criteria does is recognise that, and reward appropriately, not overwhelmingly. In the overall score a club could, the maximum based on this is just 10%.

[Barley Mow]

13 minutes ago, Madrileño said:

Bramley??? 

Didn't they disappear from the league like 20 odd years ago??

In other news Hetherington is also glad that the Northern clubs split from the rugby union, and that the creation of Super League in 1995 led to a summer playing season. 

23 years ago unfortunately.

I think the point behind @Agbrigg's comment is that under the catchment area calculation, the demise of a club will benefit other clubs in the same area. Outside of this, having local rivals is usually a benefit in building sporting narratives, fan numbers, competition.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If it were me and it has to be based on reality not potential ...

then, as I put earlier, I would be doing a little formula based around which postcode areas could be shown to have X number of regular ticket purchasers/season ticket holders for the club in question and then, roughly, adding up the population totals of those areas and dividing by the number of clubs who can also show the same in the same areas.

It's not perfect but I think it's more based in reality than alternatives based on allocating council areas or whatever.

I agree. For example I think its unfair not to give Cas the fact that they do draw from parts of North Yorkshire and Leeds outside of the Wakefield MDC.

Personally I think the best way that keeps it simple is to go broad, I mean as broad as possible as in County, County plus or even regional levels in some cases. That way you cover the out of council area fans whilst recognising that clubs have the potential to draw on a large area.

Edit: potentially I could see an argument to split West Yorkshire into Eastern (Leeds and Wakefield) and Western (Calderdale, Bradford and Kirklees) areas. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Tommygilf

[MattSantos]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

23 years ago unfortunately.

I think the point behind @Agbrigg's comment is that under the catchment area calculation, the demise of a club will benefit other clubs in the same area. Outside of this, having local rivals is usually a benefit in building sporting narratives, fan numbers, competition.

That's an interesting point.

Catchment Area. It is assumed by IMG that having no neighbours is a positive.

In reality, Hull having KR and vice versa is good for the game; see attendances and media activity comparisons between a Hull derby and a Hull club versus Warrington for example.

[Barley Mow]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I can see what you mean with Catchment, but to a certain extent that is forcing clubs to both outdo eachother, and rewarding those working as "outposts" with little to no support from anyone else. For example, ultimately the historic importance of Hunslet RLFC and others of course have built long standing popular environment for the game which now the vast majority of the benefits of go to Leeds Rhinos and others. 1000s of people at Headingley every week had parents and grandparents who at one stage or another supported Trin, Hunslet, Bramley, Cas, Batley, you name it. That legacy is part of the fabric of the sport and the nature of the times.

Its easier in a lot of ways to build in an area where there is already a solid grounding of the sport. All this catchment criteria does is recognise that, and reward appropriately, not overwhelmingly. In the overall score a club could, the maximum based on this is just 10%.

Yes, I see the reasoning behind it. Just not entirely convinced on what we've seen so far - I'm sure there'll be more info to come.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

That's an interesting point.

Catchment Area. It is assumed by IMG that having no neighbours is a positive.

In reality, Hull having KR and vice versa is good for the game; see attendances and media activity comparisons between a Hull derby and a Hull club versus Warrington for example.

Its a positive worth at best 10%. Having massive average attendances and following is worth 25%. Its clear to see which is more important.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Barley Mow said:

Yes, I see the reasoning behind it. Just not entirely convinced on what we've seen so far - I'm sure there'll be more info to come.

I think ultimately there's no need to split hairs on this one, whilst I do find it interesting its only worth 10%.

[MattSantos]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Its a positive worth at best 10%. Having massive average attendances and following is worth 25%. Its clear to see which is more important.

I don't like the flippant nature of people saying it's only 10% etc.

It matters. It could be the different between promotion and relegation. 25%, 10%, 0.11 points per league position. It all matters.

You've also not replied to the content of the message. Is having clubs around you, Fev, Wakey, Cas etc a good thing or bad? I would argue good, IMG are presenting bad. I'd like to understand the rationale behind their decision.

[Barley Mow]

20 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

23 years ago unfortunately.

I think the point behind @Agbrigg's comment is that under the catchment area calculation, the demise of a club will benefit other clubs in the same area. Outside of this, having local rivals is usually a benefit in building sporting narratives, fan numbers, competition.

I've just got to add here, I'm really impressed with how Featherstone are already trying to work this metric:

 - Loads of new houses going up around the ground & a planning application to build more on their car park: Looking to increase the population of their 'catchment area'.

 - Following Joe Westerman around with a camera phone and then spoofing Lee Radford with fake NRL job offers: Trying to send Cas' down the pan and reduce the number of clubs in the 'catchment area'.

It might not work, but it's thinking outside the box! 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Barley Mow