IMG Grading Unveiled

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, glossop saint said:

I think it is better for the game long term to have Toulouse in the top tier as opposed to Leigh so would expect and hope to see Toulouse ranked higher.

Presumably that would be based on 'POTENTIAL' other than reallity.

Considering the discussion as been about measuring Toulouse with Leigh, the only real accurate measurement we can use is '22 Toulouse in SL and '23 (or part of) Leigh in SL, doing that there is only one winner in my opinion at it sits with the Heartlands club.

I think your sentance above has one major flaw in it's you say "I think" when what you really mean is "I hope", are you nan enough to admit it?

[RP London]

11 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Rugby League isn't played around the world....it's played in England.
Name me a popular sport in England that doesn't have P&R.

Rugby Union, Cricket, Football........even Darts have P&R in one for or another.

AND........ How can any team develop a long term plan outside SL, with the minimal funding, exposure and 'fandom' you get at that level without knowing that winning matches would get them promoted.

IMO the sport should have a traditional P&R model other sports/fans easily recognise and IMG should use their expertise to rebrand and market the sport.  They need to revitalise the game at International level and generate excitement.

Al they have done so far create arguments over structures......there's nothing new or exciting about that.

Rugby Union's P&R is heavily standards based, no one can get promoted this year IIRC as no one meets the standards.. Doncaster Knights are the closest but (again IIRC) need to get some planning permission sorted for their stands before being allowed in and then will need to break ground within x time or get relegated.. Trailfinders are talking of merging with Ospreys to join the United Rugby Championship because they have repeatedly been blocked from promotion due to their ground. 

Cricket has P&R between division 1 and 2 but that is relatively new and was a sop to the counties.. what they really wanted to do was cut the county game down to about 8 strong counties which would help the international team. Due to the voting structure of the game they couldn't do this so they put in 2 divisions hoping that the "talent" would all go to Division 1 making it stronger and therefore produce better players.. but due to this voting they had too many P&R places meaning players didn't move when relegated and just waited a year before they bounced back.. they then had to totally rethink how to get the international game strong because the counties scuppered the original plans.. and the county game is still a horrific mess that is propped up by the internationals (they would all be bust without them) oh and the top 2 divisions are totally ringfenced with no P&R at all.. as the game was previously.

So in short, your first example is incorrect, your second one is a failing "club" sport where the "popularity" of the sport is purely based on the international team. 

But again.. P&R is not being got rid of.. it is just heavily standards based. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by RP London

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Rugby League isn't played around the world....it's played in England.
Name me a popular sport in England that doesn't have P&R.

Rugby Union, Cricket, Football........even Darts have P&R in one for or another.

AND........ How can any team develop a long term plan outside SL, with the minimal funding, exposure and 'fandom' you get at that level without knowing that winning matches would get them promoted.

IMO the sport should have a traditional P&R model other sports/fans easily recognise and IMG should use their expertise to rebrand and market the sport.  They need to revitalise the game at International level and generate excitement.

Al they have done so far create arguments over structures......there's nothing new or exciting about that.

The most popular forms of cricket in this country do not have P&R.

Football has rigidly enforced standards throughout the pyramid. You can't just get promoted.

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

With all due respect Tommy I think that statement is a load of Bolux.

In time IMG are going to be recompensed not just if SL shows a profit but the game as a whole. IMG are a buisness and in every buisness there are factions that make money and those that are loss makers, those loss makers get ejected in time simply because they impact on the bottom line of the balance sheet.

I think - just my opinion - That IMG have purposely set the parameters to 'build strength' to far away for many of the '36' clubs that are going to be graded in the hope that they will fall by wayside and get left on the side of the road whilst those clubs who are purposeful to the venture can carry on regardless. If this is true it won't half please a lot of the fans of SL clubs who consider that the lower divisions are simply surplus to requirement.

Maybe just maybe, that Fev being one of the strongest clubs outside of SL and are now publishing a reaction that is in conflict with IMG's 'vision', will it carry some weight and influence some other clubs to really go through the proposals with a fine tooth comb and see how their own clubs measure up in the larger picture?

 

 

 

I don't think the IMG project is not going to come with some stark realities being presented to some clubs H about the difference between a commercially successful top flight and their own position.

People shouldn't be kept in delusions about their position. Some clubs will likely never be A grade, just as some kids will never get A*s in their A levels. Its fine to be self aware of this. Its the opposite sort of thinking that leads to clubs collapsing because what they are selling is ultimately unachievable. 

As ever in RL we have a major problem of about 6 or so English clubs who think they should be in the top flight by virtue of being, in their view, "just as bad" as some clubs in Super League. Its a negative mindset from the start that doesn't encourage growth. It also doesn't recognise how different a semi pro and full time set up actually runs.

Fundamentally we do not have the financial position to afford the luxury of thinking like that. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

The most popular forms of cricket in this country do not have P&R.

Football has rigidly enforced standards throughout the pyramid. You can't just get promoted.

Indeed and that has led to excellent growth in Football whereby full professionalism extends down past 6 tiers in some cases.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

The system was set up to have the clubs they wanted in the top tier 

This system will be the same 

Exactly so Gubby, Sylvan Houles is hoping for an 'A' grade, who has put that idea into his head I wonder?

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly so Gubby, Sylvan Houles is hoping for an 'A' grade, who has put that idea into his head I wonder?

Probably the directors!

[Harry Stottle]

43 minutes ago, steve oates said:

SORRY "graded!" ................. and I have to ask this straight... Are Leigh under any threat here?

 

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly so Gubby, Sylvan Houles is hoping for an 'A' grade, who has put that idea into his head I wonder?

Could be Steve

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The most popular forms of cricket in this country do not have P&R.

Good!

[Chrispmartha]

21 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Depends how they weight the grading.........you would hope they take into consideration the limited ability to grow certain aspects of a club outside SL........I've heard that isn't the case.

Heard from who/where?

[redjonn]

18 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

Even more reasons to stop half way for some refreshments then?

chuckle... 

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

6 or so English clubs who think they should be in the top flight by virtue of being, in their view, "just as bad" as some clubs in Super League. Its a negative mindset from the start that doesn't encourage growth.

You are a good linguist Tommy, exchange the word 'bad' for good, and then you change negative mindset for positive mindset, and ultimately it does encourage growth.

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

The system was set up to have the clubs they wanted in the top tier 

This system will be the same 

Not necessarily as they used things like the "Framing the Future" document which included criteria like stadia. While some clubs chose to push on and build new stadia (or move the new ones and share), others chose to completely ignore the criteria knowing the RFL would never have the balls to kick them out or impose other sanctions, which they didn't, instead changing the criteria so those clubs could stay in and pay no penalty at all.

If they had administered the licensing criteria properly last time instead of constantly changing it then we'd have a lot more clubs now who would be a lot further on with their development and a chance of achieving an A grade under the proposed new IMG system.

[GUBRATS]

46 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Which clubs do you foresee coasting along under the new proposals? And how does that compare with the clubs that for the last 5 years have been aiming for not being the worst? Which is potentially an easy task given the disadvantages faced when being promoted.

You did it earlier , try it again 

Why did your club bother flying to the other side of the Planet a few weeks ago ? 

[Archie Gordon]

Standards-based P&R - enforced - would seem to satisfy most people on both sides of this debate.

[GUBRATS]

36 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Not necessarily. There is no one-size-fits-all solution here. Some clubs will invariably question how well their branding translates across social media but, frankly, they probably need to. 

Personally, I'd replace the word "fandom" with "audience" and then you probably get a more balanced view of what I suspect IMG is looking for here. 

They're looking for more diverse audiences watching the game - ones that go beyond our typical demographics and may be tempted to buy different things at different times. This is something the sport needs to do for its long-term future. 

They're looking at how clubs are making it easier for people outside their typical catchment area to "buy into" the club - through mediums like merchandise, media and memberships. This is important when you have much more transient populations - especially for a sport based largely around towns where young people are likely to leave for career or study. 

They're looking at how clubs can keep their audiences engaged once they've got them - how they ensure people remain connected to the club when there are competing factors that may break that engagement (the aforementioned moving away from the town, poor team performances, other distractions in the leisure industry, etc).

They're looking at how clubs can build audiences that can be monetised through means beyond just ticket sales - for example, building an engaged digital audience that becomes something sponsors are willing to pay to reach. This is a revenue stream that RL has historically neglected, and why we can only sell these sorts of rights for a delivery of pepperoni stuffed-crusts. 

They're looking at what clubs are doing to fill their grounds, but also what they're doing to get people engaging with them generally - whether that is getting more people to watch them on Sky/C4, watch their social media content or otherwise buy into the club and/or sport. This is key to proving to media and commercial partners that our rights really are worth as much as we think we should be getting for them. 

These are the sorts of things I mean when I argue that "expansion" isn't a geography problem - every club can do this, and it doesn't require any pins in any maps. 

As I'm not an expert here , can the numbers of this ' fandom ' be manipulated ?

[Harry Stottle]

21 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think the IMG project is not going to come with some stark realities being presented to some clubs H about the difference between a commercially successful top flight and their own position.

Then tell them, don't use the mushroom syndrome of keeping them in the dark and feeding them sh.t.

There must be some reality going on in these lower clubs, I am eagerly awaiting the proper vote.

[whatmichaelsays]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

As I'm not an expert here , can the numbers of this ' fandom ' be manipulated ?

It's like any other marketing metrics - a lot depends on what you're measuring and how. 

To use a simple example: Can you manipulate your social media followers? Yes - you can just buy them if you really wanted to. Can you manipulate your social media engagement? That's a lot harder - the followers you buy likely aren't going to be engaging with your content and there's not much you can do to make them. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by whatmichaelsays

[redjonn]

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed and that has led to excellent growth in Football whereby full professionalism extends down past 6 tiers in some cases.

you are not really connecting just those standards to the growth. 

I would say P&R and the competitive landscape has meant clubs up their game and improved the overall situation. Plus brought in new investment.

Anyway I always thought SL/RL had minimum stadium standards.

How do the football standards compare to IMGs and does the top team in a league not get promoted if club below has a higher grading mark.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

40 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Rugby League isn't played around the world....it's played in England.
Name me a popular sport in England that doesn't have P&R.

Rugby Union, Cricket, Football........even Darts have P&R in one for or another.

AND........ How can any team develop a long term plan outside SL, with the minimal funding, exposure and 'fandom' you get at that level without knowing that winning matches would get them promoted.

IMO the sport should have a traditional P&R model other sports/fans easily recognise and IMG should use their expertise to rebrand and market the sport.  They need to revitalise the game at International level and generate excitement.

Al they have done so far create arguments over structures......there's nothing new or exciting about that.

Union doesn't really...thier biggest secon tier clubs like Cornwall and Ealing will never be promoted due to their grounds.....they are also getting rid of P and R 

Cricket doesn't really have it....there is a meaningless split in the 4 day game for the major counties.....the minor counties cannot be promoted (Durham many years ago was but got there on an IMG style list if things it needed)....the main fan competetions of one day games and T20s/100 don't have P and R as far I'm aware 

British basketball, ice hockey and hockey don't have it 

It's really only football that does 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[glossop saint]

28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Presumably that would be based on 'POTENTIAL' other than reallity.

Considering the discussion as been about measuring Toulouse with Leigh, the only real accurate measurement we can use is '22 Toulouse in SL and '23 (or part of) Leigh in SL, doing that there is only one winner in my opinion at it sits with the Heartlands club.

I think your sentance above has one major flaw in it's you say "I think" when what you really mean is "I hope", are you nan enough to admit it?

No. I think it is better for the game. I hope they are ranked higher. I don't hope it is better for the game for Toulouse to be higher. I stand by what I said. I'm interested to see if you are 'nan' enough to admit you read it wrong.

[redjonn]

8 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Not necessarily as they used things like the "Framing the Future" document which included criteria like stadia. While some clubs chose to push on and build new stadia (or move the new ones and share), others chose to completely ignore the criteria knowing the RFL would never have the balls to kick them out or impose other sanctions, which they didn't, instead changing the criteria so those clubs could stay in and pay no penalty at all.

If they had administered the licensing criteria properly last time instead of constantly changing it then we'd have a lot more clubs now who would be a lot further on with their development and a chance of achieving an A grade under the proposed new IMG system.

I agree with your observation.  Unfortunately the fudging of criteria to suit reminds me it can happen again. and no doubt will.

[redjonn]

3 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Union doesn't really...thier biggest secon tier clubs like Cornwall and Ealing will never be promoted due to their grounds.....they are also getting rid of P and R 

Cricket doesn't really have it....there is a meaningless split in the 4 day game for the major counties.....the minor counties cannot be promoted (Durham many years ago was but got there on an IMG style list if things it needed)....the main fan competetions of one day games and T20s/100 don't have P and R as far I'm aware 

British basketball, ice hockey and hockey don't have it 

It's really only football that does 

mind you its football that is the highly successful one. Continuing to go from strength to strength right down the league pyramid - although that may eventually change with government plans for a regulatory body impacting.  Maybe one of the factors is the competitive edge of P&R meaning clubs have to strive to improve.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Then tell them, don't use the mushroom syndrome of keeping them in the dark and feeding them sh.t.

There must be some reality going on in these lower clubs, I am eagerly awaiting the proper vote.

They're doing a whole year as a trial run to give an indication.

On the vote, ironically I reckon the likes of Fev and previously, Toronto, Toulouse and Leigh will drive a fair few clubs towards voting in favour because they financially blew everyone else out of the water leaving them with basically no hope under the current system.

[GUBRATS]

34 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Not necessarily as they used things like the "Framing the Future" document which included criteria like stadia. While some clubs chose to push on and build new stadia (or move the new ones and share), others chose to completely ignore the criteria knowing the RFL would never have the balls to kick them out or impose other sanctions, which they didn't, instead changing the criteria so those clubs could stay in and pay no penalty at all.

If they had administered the licensing criteria properly last time instead of constantly changing it then we'd have a lot more clubs now who would be a lot further on with their development and a chance of achieving an A grade under the proposed new IMG system.

Indeed , and Saints probably wouldn't have got a licence 

Or maybe they wouldn't ? 

Edited March 29, 2023 by GUBRATS