IMG Grading Unveiled

[Jughead]

10 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Now that I do agree with, they need to confirm this detail ASAP.

I would be astounded if there isn't weighting to be honest, I imagine this is more or less what they're referring to when they use buzzwords like machine learning, a calculation that says a 3,000 attendance in the Championship equates to 5,000 in SL based on previous trends. 

If they could be explicit on this point a lot of complaints just fall away.

Has there been anything that says that a team with a 5k average will automatically score higher than say a team with a 3k average? What if the team with the 3k average have grown that from 1.5k whereas the 5k has stayed constant? What if the team with 3k have a good digital footprint? 

[gingerjon]

Just now, RP London said:

even if we believe the doom mongers on here that they are desperate for Newcastle and London to be shoe horned in they HAVE to use weighting to get them anywhere near. 

Paranoid doom mongers don't have to be consistent.

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

The reason I declared you a hypocrite is because you avoided the question , you knew the answer , so why not state that at the begining , you know how the UK sporting culture is , you maybe ' holier than thou ' in your desire for the ' sport ' to thrive , that's fine , just remember that the sport isn't just your club or the ones you play 

you may want to re read that last bit... there are a lot of people on here who are being very "that wouldnt suit me/my club" and basing everything off that.. 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

I agree, the key question here most certainly is "how do we get more persons to watch rugby league?".  And I daresay that your assumption that it can be done as things stand is wrong.

As you say, there are groups of persons in the North who work in those "new money" fields.  Chances are good that many of them know about RL but aren't interested now.  The idea that clubs like Wigan, St Helens and the rest which display small time ways and attitudes by things such as worrying about "away fans" and wanting the French clubs to pay their way over there to play can be converted from the small time outfits they are into big time outfits able to appeal to the broader public is fanciful.

Geography is the core issue, as I explain below.

You're overlooking a key, fundamental difference between RL and those bigger sports here.

Their leagues are strong because they're based in big cities which anchor those leagues and show them to be big time major pro leagues, while the clubs in smallish towns are appendages to that.  The latter are accepted because they've earned a place in a league alongside the former, in the same way that Green Bay is accepted because the Packers are part of a league with that big time major pro structure.

RL is weak because its setup is exactly the opposite of that.  A few big city teams being the appendages of small town teams is simply backward compared to what the broader public knows and understands.

If only we could start again from the begining ? , But we can't , so it's all a moot point 

[glossop saint]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

The reason I declared you a hypocrite is because you avoided the question , you knew the answer , so why not state that at the begining , you know how the UK sporting culture is , you maybe ' holier than thou ' in your desire for the ' sport ' to thrive , that's fine , just remember that the sport isn't just your club or the ones you play 

There you go making assumptions yet again.  At no point am I looking out just for my club.  I have said on multiple posts my reasons for supporting this proposal as well as my reservations.  Honestly, if the sport outgrows St Helens I would love it. I would love to see the players who put their bodies on the line week in week out to be properly recompensed, I'd love for RL to regularly be the first article on the sports news, I'd love to see numerous clubs all over the country with pros and amatuers running out of a weekend. I think that this offers the best chance to get anywhere near that.

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Good for them.

What have they done?

Had a photo, put out a press release, handed out some photocopies.

you also think that if they were that worried they would try to get a meeting with IMG... we would know if they had asked and got rejected because.. well just look at them at the moment they would shout it from the rooftops (rightly so)... so they arent talking to the one set of people that can REALLY do something about it... interesting.

[Dovster]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Good for them.

What have they done?

Had a photo, put out a press release, handed out some photocopies.

Stood by what they believe to be right and taken it to the highest level that's all

[DI Keith Fowler]

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Has there been anything that says that a team with a 5k average will automatically score higher than say a team with a 3k average? What if the team with the 3k average have grown that from 1.5k whereas the 5k has stayed constant? What if the team with 3k have a good digital footprint? 

No they've not explained that yet.

I doubt they would extrapolate out, you'd probably average it over a period in any case so being 1.5k the previous season wouldn't be counted as a good thing.

That's a different criteria, I don't really follow?

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Your club is already benefitting from the proposals - your club's owner has even said so, all the great work off the field (I'm not classing the logo in that because it's horrendous) is because your club knows it needed to work on this areas.

You've said you'll stop watching if automatic P&R goes, what if your club is constantly in the playoffs searching for a SL title? I bet you will still go then.

I said that when results become insignificant, look Chris I am a realist, I have been watching the professional team from my town for over 60 years and in the scheme of things I put us about in 10th to 14 place in the pecking order, we have had the odd "season in the sun" and many underperforming ones and I have been to more than I have missed. I don't expect that will ever change to be constantly in the play-offs, so if you think that answer is a selfish one too right it is, I dont want to attend games that are of little consequence.

And yes our owner has bought into the IMG concept and it is a good time to be following the club, but we are still in a competition this season and next and I hope it stays that way.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

I said that when results become insignificant, 

So just insignificant for your club then?

Im sure you said if automatic P&R goes then that's you done, so Im asking even if Leigh aren't in relegation spots for years to come and are challenging for the playoffs you'll stop going if automatic P&R goes?

[Jughead]

Just now, DI Keith Fowler said:

No they've not explained that yet.

I doubt they would extrapolate out, you'd probably average it over a period in any case so being 1.5k the previous season wouldn't be counted as a good thing.

That's a different criteria, I don't really follow?

I was just curious whether it was going to be as black and white as “Club A - 5k average = good, Club B - 3k average = bad” when you can look into the data a bit further and whether clubs will be rewarded for growth against those with signs of stagnation. 

The digital footprint is part of the fandom criteria. York’s YouTube channel has nearly 2k subscribers and 400+ videos, Huddersfield have less than 600 subscribers and 85 videos online, for example, so York would score better you’d imagine. 

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

That's not my assumption. I'm not saying that this can be achieved without changing the way the sport does things, but that those changes are well within the sport's capabilities with the appropriate strategies, carrots and sticks. 

Is it that those people aren't interested, or is it that RL isn't offering what those people want? Or that RL isn't engaging with those audiences? Just because they aren't coming now, it doesn't mean that they cannot and will not ever come. Why do we think affluent audiences in distant cities will flock to RL when we aren't appealing to those under our noses in Alwoodly, Sandal and Cheshire?

This doesn't address the fundamental issue of how we make RL something that more people want to dedicate their time and money to. 

Let's start from a basic premise that we want to increase the number of "ABC1" audiences watching RL (because we have plenty of ABC1 people within our heartland) - what evidence is there that the lack of city-based teams is the reason they aren't buying RL in one way, shape or form? Why have we concluded that that is the reason, as opposed to the many other potential reasons - facilities, image, advertising, matchday experience, merchandise, branding, etc?

If we address those issues first and we don't move the needle, then maybe the city argument stands to scrutiny but until then, arguing about geography is simply moving the problem somewhere else. If the real reason we don't attract more ABC1 audiences is the poor quality perception of the league, then putting a team in London or Bristol or Milton Keynes doesn't really change that - we just end up looking for more "people like us" in areas where there likely are fewer of those people than what we have now.

Re those ABC1 types living on the game's doorstep so to speak, I think we can discount the possibility that they don't know what RL is.  Surely they've heard enough about from locals and/or local media to know what it is.

I think we can discount a failure to try reaching them too, the chronic lack of money in the game would practically force clubs to try reaching everyone in their vicinity.

That would suggest that RL isn't offering something they want.  The lack of city-based teams at the top of the pyramid is one difference between RL and other sports, so are the facilities (in some cases), image, advertising, match day experience, merchandise, branding, etc which you mentioned.  The lack of city-based teams at the top of the pyramid contributes to image and almost certainly in a negative way, and the lack of money is an obstacle to providing a match day experience, merchandise, etc. comparable to what other, bigger sports offer.

And the top of the pyramid lacking city-based teams and instead being full of teams from smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged towns is the primary reason for that lack of money.  Those current clubs simply can't access the sort of money needed to put on something comparable to what bigger sports offer, and their matches don't rate well enough on TV to retain the money the game was getting before, let alone generate an increase.

That's why I conclude that the problems can not be solved within the game's current structure.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Jughead said:

I was just curious whether it was going to be as black and white as “Club A - 5k average = good, Club B - 3k average = bad” when you can look into the data a bit further and whether clubs will be rewarded for growth against those with signs of stagnation. 

The digital footprint is part of the fandom criteria. York’s YouTube channel has nearly 2k subscribers and 400+ videos, Huddersfield have less than 600 subscribers and 85 videos online, for example, so York would score better you’d imagine. 

Im sure I heard an interview where they have said they will take previous 3 years into account on certain measures

[Big Picture]

21 minutes ago, RP London said:

But it wouldn't.. this country just doesnt care if it is a city or a small town... that is the point you are missing..

And your evidence for that is what exactly?

[Tommygilf]

I think what is being lost here is that IMG have come on board whilst the sport is in a serious moment of crisis. They aren't coming up with these plans because everything is going swimmingly. There is a genuine risk of the TV money going to a level even smaller than now and the top level regressing to partly semi pro status. 

[Big Picture]

21 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

If only we could start again from the begining ? , But we can't , so it's all a moot point 

The current structure and its clubs can't start again, that's true.  That does not mean that the game can't be given a fresh start with a clean slate by some one else, though of course many things would have to be different about any such venture including the name of the sport.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

And your evidence for that is what exactly?

Living here for my entire life and being consumed by sport in this country..  

We go over the same ground over and over again giving you examples but you just wilfully ignore them.. (i won't do it again before you ask)

Different structure I agree and that is what we are changing.. pins in maps and "big cities".. nope its irrelevant for growing from where we are now... as I've said umpteen times maybe down the line through evolution but it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference now and if you drop in big cities out of the sky then it will turn people away (Paris, London, Sheffield in the first super league didn't help them or the league). 

To be honest you roll this out on pretty much every thread..  your shown by loads of people (who live in the country you are trying to tell them works in a way it doesnt) why it's wrong but you ignore them thinking youre right... and won't budge.. 

The analogy of Playing chess with a pigeon springs to mind so I'm done going around that circle again. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by RP London

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

no one is denying anybody anything.... if you can get the infrastructure sorted out you can test yourself.. you just cant throw all your money simply at the team for 2 weeks at the top table and then the rest of eternity in oblivion.. 

there is going to be P&R but there are going to be standards association with it.. 

Why are people thinking anyone is being denied anything?? I understand people are allowed an opinion but not when it is just factually and provably incorrect! thats just idiocy.

Glossop Saint suggested fans of lower tier clubs should be happy to " remain at their level " rather than seek a higher one , all I did was ask why his club traveled all the way round the planet ?, The answer to that question is simple , to test themselves at a higher level , he chose not to answer despite 4 times being asked , he didn't answer because he knew the point he was making was the opposite of what his club were doing 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I honestly believe you have too much intelligence to actually agree with that statement you have made, this excersise is not to advance all the sport but those who can seemingly make a profit and in the long run be useful in making IMG a return, the opportunity you mention I believe will be little or non in the not to distant future for clubs to progress.

 

I disagree, but think one thing is certainly true: We've demonstrated pretty well that the current model hasn't worked for Championship clubs. Keighley are making a huge amount of noise about this, and they've not got near in the existing model for over 25 years. 

All you want to do is reward clubs who randomly get a sugar daddy. Personally I'd rather reward clubs who demonstrate they're progressive, ambitious and will add value to the sport.  

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Glossop Saint suggested fans of lower tier clubs should be happy to " remain at their level " rather than seek a higher one 

Did he?

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

That's really an unnecessarily agro post, and there is really no need.

Neither he nor IMG is denying clubs anything, they are just offering that chance in a different way.

He suggested fans ( and indeed owners ) should be happy to not have the option 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Next time you use the analogy , use ' the local ambulance chasing lawyer ' for a change 

Nah, not having it. We've discussed this before. You know my view, it's consistent regardless of club affiliation. If the search functionality on this site still works you can likely find plenty of pre-2006 posts which are wholly in line with my progressive, expansionist, "sport before club" mindset to rugby league. I've got the battle scars with London Broncos to prove it, and ticket stubs from random matches around the world. 

So tough. Just because your only priority is the short-term interests of your own club, don't assume we all share those values. 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

indeed but with P&R the same is true.. you could throw money at the team on the pitch and they may not perform, someone else could do the same, you have a team coming down from Super League the year before with a parachute payment.. 

and talk about overwhelmingly loaded.. theres only 1 place each year available at the table. 

with this though if you can get those things that are written down right then you are in... you know what you are doing.. you can spend all the money you would like on a team and still not get promoted because there are many variables in that. 

This is by no means a perfect system, i think everyone would admit that, but neither is P&R and in fact that one is not helping us at the moment.. 

Just how much money would a Championship club have to spend to " get those things that are written down right " ? , Seriously ? , Who has that kind of money ? , And then there is still points required to finish in a prominent position in the League table , 10 million ? , 20 ?

[Oxford]

10 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

chasing promotion is as damaging as getting relegated isn't it ?

Yes the only difference is the first one's a fools game and the second a game made by fools.

[Chrispmartha]

17 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

He suggested fans ( and indeed owners ) should be happy to not have the option 

Did he?