Jump to content

IMG Grading Unveiled


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

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.

Its good if you're getting packed houses every week because everywhere around you is Rugby League mad.

Its bad if crowds are declining or stagnant because too many clubs are fighting over too few people to attend.

To achieve the former, all clubs will have spread out their support bases (see football in London or the North West, for example). RL doesn't have to do it to that extent of course, but even modest enlargement of catchment areas would represent a relatively significant growth.

That is the dynamic IMG are rewarding here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I commend them for publishing their proposals in the detail that they have. But I'd like to see how a team actually earns points in each section/sub section - for instance for the 2.5 pts allocated to crowds, are there raw numbers to be reached for each additional half point or is every points category essentially going to be divided into 36, and teams ranked within each each category, with the top ranked team getting a full allocation?

Until we see in more detail how the points are allocated it hard to come to a firm view. But looking at the broad outline distribution it's hard not conclude that SL incumbency will confer great advantages which will be very difficult for a Championship club to overcome. It doesn't feel they've got the balance quite right here, it would need a SL club to be collapsing and the top Championship club to be massively outperforming for a switch to take place. I don't see this helping growth in the sport, it'll just reward mediocrity as we see now.

In principle, I'm supportive of a grading structure, but I think on field performance needs a much higher weighting than just 25% - and winning the Championship needs a higher bonus. The Championship winner should be in pole position to go up, UNLESS they have massive weaknesses in some areas which would drag their score down.

I think a lot of Championship clubs will be having second thoughts, unless the weightings are revisited.                 

Edited by Toby Chopra
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Daddy said:

The recommended grading criteria cover five areas, with each element contributing to a percentage of the overall weighting, including: 

  • Fandom (25%): encouraging clubs to attract more fans in stadia, both at home and digitally, and improve fan engagement, contributing to both club and central revenues.
  • Performance (25%): incentivising clubs to perform on the field and drive fan awareness and engagement. Teams will be ranked between 1 and 36 based on where they finish in the leagues for the previous three seasons. Bonus points will be awarded to teams who win league and cup competitions in the previous season.
  • Finances (25%): reflecting the success of fan engagement and business performance and rewarding sustainable investment, as well as diversified revenue streams and sound financial management.  
  • Stadium (15%): based on a number of factors, including facilities and utilisation, which add value to the fan and broadcast or digital viewer experience, and match or exceed competition from other sports and events.
  • Catchment (10%): based on area population and the number of clubs in the area, with a view to maximising growth of the sport in the largest markets to generate new fan bases and incentivise investment. 

Nobody can seriously complain about this

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its good if you're getting packed houses every week because everywhere around you is Rugby League mad.

Its bad if crowds are declining or stagnant because too many clubs are fighting over too few people to attend.

To achieve the former, all clubs will have spread out their support bases (see football in London or the North West, for example). RL doesn't have to do it to that extent of course, but even modest enlargement of catchment areas would represent a relatively significant growth.

That is the dynamic IMG are rewarding here.

A pertinent example.

Brisbane. Massive catchment area. Lets give the area another club and talk about giving the wider Brisbane area another club in Ipswich.

Sydney. Too many clubs? People will say yes. I think it's about right.

It's a very nuanced argument on either side and IMG seem to be 'punishing' clubs with neighbours and it'd be interesting to see why they arrived at their conclusion.

  • Like 1

Running the Rob Burrow marathon to raise money for the My Name'5 Doddie foundation:

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/ben-dyas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I commend them for publishing their proposals in the detail that they have. But I'd like to see how a team actually earns points in each section/sub section - for instance for the 2.5 pts allocated to crowds, are there raw numbers to be reached for each additional half point or is every points category essentially going to be divided into 36, and teams ranked within each each category, with the top ranked team getting a full allocation?

Until we see in more detail how the points are allocated it hard to come to a firm view. But looking at the broad outline distribution it's hard not conclude that SL incumbency will confer great advantages which will be very difficult for a Championship club to overcome. It doesn't feel they've got the balance quite right here, it would need a SL club to be collapsing and the top Championship club to be massively outperforming for a switch to take place. I don't see this helping growth in the sport, it'll just reward mediocrity as we see now.

In principle, I'm supportive of a grading structure, but I think on field performance needs a much higher weighting than just 25% - and winning the Championship needs a higher bonus. The Championship winner should be in pole position to go up, UNLESS they have massive weaknesses in some areas which would drag their score down.

I think a lot of Championship clubs will be having second thoughts, unless the weightings are revisited.                 

Excellent summary

Running the Rob Burrow marathon to raise money for the My Name'5 Doddie foundation:

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/ben-dyas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

Bluntly, who cares about A license if you are scrabbling round to get enough points in b to be above overs? Funding other clubs performance? Newcastle are better off binning it and just spending the money on free tickets. 

With on field performance only worth 25% there's not much of a difference in being an A and 'Strong B -  if you're strong enough B you're protected too. I think "Cat A" was a great idea, but they've diluted it by making the rest of the SL places so dependent on off field factors too.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not really anything that wasn't expected and it was always going to be front loaded toards current Sl clubs. Ive had a skim over the criteria and obviously it needs some more fine detail but in my opinion it makes promotion from the championship this season more vital than it has ever been because it appears really difficult for a Championship club to outscore a SL club. It will also be interesting what is said regarding funding as I have said many times you could swap some SL teams for a few of the Championship teams and give them the 2m funding or whatever it is now and they would do no worse than those teams.

Exciting though isn't it and I cant wait for the actual points announcements where people work out their clubs have got 14 points and enough to get in to SL only to then find out that officially they only scored 5 points and are actually a Cat C club. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

It’s far from “awful” if you take your blinkers off for more than 5 seconds. There will still be movement between what is now the SL and the Championship but hopefully far less “boom and bust” and some longer term planning.

Without the exact specific detail but applying a reasonable amount of common sense I  can easily see where a top Championship side would have scored higher than the bottom SL side in some recent years. 

So with this system there will be no playoffs for championship, [pointless] you cant have SL promotion play offs when its not guaranteed.

Last year Leigh won MPG and new immediately that they were up.

Now with this plan the Top teams in champ will have to wait until all the numbers are added up to see if any teams at top of Champ are higher than any in bottom of SL [that are not 'A's-- How long will that take ??

If not fast then all contracts will be sorted and promoted team [if any] is gonna struggle

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

No because noone is going to put money into those championship clubs, or sponsor them, or watch them or show them on tv because the league is now meaningless. You´ve won an extra 0.5 but because Huddersfield get the benefit of being on Sky and away crowds they still outperform you. This actually kills clubs like York having a real chance to get there because it will tank the champ to a level no club will get higher than SL teams,. So any club outside the SL should take one look at this and say F*ck off. 

Case in point, Leigh are now racking in the crowds thanks to being in SL but if they were outside when this started they would have no chance. It´s bollo*ks

Crowds should just be worked out with comparison to the league you are in or the increase of your own crowd year on year, but like everything in RL its all done to favour SL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

So with this system there will be no playoffs for championship, [pointless] you cant have SL promotion play offs when its not guaranteed.

Last year Leigh won MPG and new immediately that they were up.

Now with this plan the Top teams in champ will have to wait until all the numbers are added up to see if any teams at top of Champ are higher than any in bottom of SL [that are not 'A's-- How long will that take ??

If not fast then all contracts will be sorted and promoted team [if any] is gonna struggle

You'd have play offs to determine the winner of the competition???? Like they do in SL.

Also, in your last point this literally already happens that's why 90% of the time the promoted team goes straight back down. In this system they'd get similar points for performance as the top Championship side and therefore wouldn't be automatically relegated if they finish bottom if they maintained the other off the field standards they got promoted on.

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

A pertinent example.

Brisbane. Massive catchment area. Lets give the area another club and talk about giving the wider Brisbane area another club in Ipswich.

Sydney. Too many clubs? People will say yes. I think it's about right.

It's a very nuanced argument on either side and IMG seem to be 'punishing' clubs with neighbours and it'd be interesting to see why they arrived at their conclusion.

That is what I was thinking of as I was writing - it can be mutually beneficial, strong interest in the game in all facets etc, or it can be cannibalistic. 

Its fair enough to say that about Sydney vs Brisbane, but it doesn't rate well for RL in this country by comparison.

Its roughly 60km from Sydney CBD to Penrith in the West, and 40km from Manly to Cronulla's ground in the south, 12,367.7 km2 encompassing over 5.2 million people. 

By contrast in West Yorkshire its roughly 38km from Castleford in the East to Halifax in the West, and 30km from Keighley in the North to Huddersfield in the South, 2,029 km2 encompassing over 2.3 million people.

One has 9 teams allowed in its top flight (who all play multiple home games away from their "home grounds" or have multiple home grounds), the other has 11 teams.

That is catchment areas in play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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. 

I take it that on the 3 year perfromance period that will be '22, '23 and '24 as this statem only comes in properly in 2025.

Edited by Harry Stottle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I see Keighley's chairman has "blasted" the plans for the elite of the game as elitist...

Yep, Keighley (the owners) have started a campaign to 'Retain' promotion and relegation 

 

Edited by The Daddy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I see Keighley's chairman has "blasted" the plans for the elite of the game as elitist...

You're mocking, but yourself and GJ were saying that we're looking at a .. what was the phrase.. "Whole game solution".

So, are IMG's proposals the whole game or the elite?

  • Like 3

Running the Rob Burrow marathon to raise money for the My Name'5 Doddie foundation:

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/ben-dyas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MattSantos said:

You're mocking, but yourself and GJ were saying that we're looking at a .. what was the phrase.. "Whole game solution".

So, are IMG's proposals the whole game or the elite?

He's blasting the elite part, because whilst this is a whole game solution, this won't turn Apples (eg Hunslet) into Oranges (eg Wigan).

If clubs buy into reaching the criteria for each then they will improve their positions on every front. But everywhere has a ceiling.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something?

' Non centralised funding '   to me means showing sound finances without  the up to £2 mil  RFL handouts currently available to SL clubs.

On that basis will  not more than a few Championship clubs who over the last couple of years  have had to cut their cloth accordingly  outscore SL ones ?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, del capo said:

Am I missing something?

' Non centralised funding '   to me means showing sound finances without  the up to £2 mil  RFL handouts currently available to SL clubs.

On that basis will  not more than a few Championship clubs who over the last couple of years  have had to cut their cloth accordingly  outscore SL ones ?

You would think so yeah. Which is a good thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MattSantos said:

You're mocking, but yourself and GJ were saying that we're looking at a .. what was the phrase.. "Whole game solution".

So, are IMG's proposals the whole game or the elite?

I use the phrase "whole game solution" more as a personal in-joke these days as there were a high percentage of *some clubs' fans* who, back in the day, believed that the Middle 8s qualified as a whole game solution because it meant that the same three or four Championship clubs could cream off more money than the rest of the division in the interests of something or other whilst ignoring that the Super League itself was made less attractive and investment in the community game diminishing.

So, is it a whole game solution? Yes, probably. Because it is designed with a rigid focus on income and growth. That means more money for the RFL to invest in growing and safeguarding the game - which is its purpose. It isn't pretty. It is a bit brutal. It is absolutely essential or else we won't have a game at all.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.