IMG Grading Unveiled

[Roughyed Rats]

2 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I don't think it was sorry, it's always been whoever has more points with performance being one criteria. I think there was a lot of misunderstanding at the outset but that was from journalists & clubs, from IMG they've been consistent throughout.

It was and it was changed. 

[idrewthehaggis]

Well I would not dispute we have some clarity, but some true transparency? 

It's great to know that 25% of the gradings will be devoted to say Fandom (sic).

But what exactly does: "encouraging clubs to attract more fans in stadia, both at home and digitally, and improve fan engagement, contributing to both club and central revenues," mean?

We only have recommendations. But personally I would prefer an open access working document with clear definitions of what and why each gradings are achieved.

And an industrial impartial agency to adjudge those gradings and a collective plan/support to upgrade.

Edited April 17, 2023 by idrewthehaggis

[gittinsfan]

56 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Now the business plans of Featherstone and Wakefield have been identified as not really viable, I do think it’s funny how they’ve both decided IMG are not the way to go. 

Purely self interest like every other club.The expected grade A clubs are'nt voting for the good of the game.

[Dave T]

Just now, gittinsfan said:

Purely self interest like every other club.The expected grade A clubs are'nt voting for the good of the game.

on the flipside, surely anyone who doesn't vote for a system that demands standards from all clubs to allow the sport to put its best foot forwards isn't voting for the good of the game?

These strong A clubs are all pretty much safe and can crack on with life anyway, many of the biggest improvements need to come lower down the table.

[DI Keith Fowler]

9 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

It was and it was changed. 

It absolutely wasn't, can you provide some evidence please. The only thing that has changed is some of the weightings and categories. From when they announced it to now it has always been the clubs with the highest B gradings making up the remaining Super League places. That's why we've had months of debate on "what if the bottom two in SL have more points than the top two in the Championship" or "what if a category A team finishes bottom" etc. 

[gittinsfan]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

on the flipside, surely anyone who doesn't vote for a system that demands standards from all clubs to allow the sport to put its best foot forwards isn't voting for the good of the game?

These strong A clubs are all pretty much safe and can crack on with life anyway, many of the biggest improvements need to come lower down the table.

I'm yet to be convinced this won't lead to a closed shop SL.Some on here seem to think this will be a good thing for the game but I am not one.

[RP London]

34 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Well I would not dispute we have some clarity, but some true transparency? 

It's great to know that 25% of the gradings will be devoted to say Fandom (sic).

But what exactly does: "encouraging clubs to attract more fans in stadia, both at home and digitally, and improve fan engagement, contributing to both club and central revenues," mean?

We only have recommendations. But personally I would prefer an open access working document with clear definitions of what and why each gradings are achieved.

And an industrial impartial agency to adjudge those gradings and a collective plan/support to upgrade.

There is much more detail and it has been sent to the clubs who are the ones that need it. Whether that should be public knowledge or not is debatable, I don't see why it should necessarily as it would open up what could be quite a complex set of information gathering etc to a whole level of amateur armchair detectives and I do think that would cause issues with "but I don't think this is right" when people are dealing with very limited knowledge etc. Things are bad enough when you look at complex (well not that complex really) decision making of referees and fans with a small amount of knowledge.

Agreed there should absolutely be an impartial agency... there normally is (like with the lottery etc) and I would not be surprised if this was a legal requirement on something like this. It should be made known but, again, perhaps that is in the document or perhaps that will come out later on. 

[Toby Chopra]

49 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Well I would not dispute we have some clarity, but some true transparency? 

It's great to know that 25% of the gradings will be devoted to say Fandom (sic).

But what exactly does: "encouraging clubs to attract more fans in stadia, both at home and digitally, and improve fan engagement, contributing to both club and central revenues," mean?

We only have recommendations. But personally I would prefer an open access working document with clear definitions of what and why each gradings are achieved.

And an industrial impartial agency to adjudge those gradings and a collective plan/support to upgrade.

I agree it would be nice to have every last detail in the public domain, but then I'm interested in these sorts of things. It's the same with the debate about publishing attendances.

However the clubs do have all the fine details in the handbook, so it may not be transparent to the fan, but it's totally transparent to the clubs. As for an impartial agency to adjudge, that's what IMG are doing.

There's no hidden stitch up, as some like to suggest, it's all happening in plain sight of club management, which is why some of them are objecting. Not because they don't understand the implications of it, but because they do.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Toby Chopra

[gingerjon]

30 minutes ago, gittinsfan said:

I'm yet to be convinced this won't lead to a closed shop SL.Some on here seem to think this will be a good thing for the game but I am not one.

It will lead to a closed shop in the professional game at the foot of what is now league one. I can see how a team outside SL becomes SL standard, I cannot see how any new team meets the requirements for what needs to be in place to join at the bottom.

[idrewthehaggis]

1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said:

I agree it would be nice to have every last detail in the public domain, but then I'm interested in all these sorts of things. It's the same with the debate about publishing attendances.

However the clubs do have all the time details in the handbook, so it may not be transparent to the fan, but it's totally transparent to the clubs. As for an impartial agency to adjudge, that's what IMG are doing.

There's no hidden stitch up, as some like to suggest, it's all happening in plain sight of club management, which is why some of them are objecting. Not because they don't understand the implications of it, but because they do.

Good to agree.

I hope IMG can be that impartial agency, although I'd prefer something wholly separate (with appropriate industrial knowledge). 

Two additional  issues I'd like people think about-

Should us fans have a say? I do.

Would it be better if there was an end plan for those regarded at B grade.

Clear identifiers what is needed to be an A.

And a collective support plan than rely on individual clubs to achieve this.

[redjonn]

44 minutes ago, Dave T said:

on the flipside, surely anyone who doesn't vote for a system that demands standards from all clubs to allow the sport to put its best foot forwards isn't voting for the good of the game?

These strong A clubs are all pretty much safe and can crack on with life anyway, many of the biggest improvements need to come lower down the table.

well yes but anyone can agree with a system that demands certain standards as per say IMG.  They can have disagreement over how precisely its implemented. for example, of how say a 0.1 extra point score in the IMG grading could decide a club finishing top of championship not being promoted over that bottom club.... or even the bottom SL club not being demoted but the 2nd bottom because the championship club and bottom club have a 0.1 extra grading point.

Surely it is valid to agree with the general grading structure but not with how small differences within a grade B club can determine the outcome.   A tweak of say a club has to be well above in the grading score to overcome being relegated for example or just all cat B are treated same when relation and promotion is consider.

You can agree the principle and disagree about some precise aspects, surely.

[Monkeymagic22]

2 hours ago, Jughead said:

Now the business plans of Featherstone and Wakefield have been identified as not really viable, I do think it’s funny how they’ve both decided IMG are not the way to go. 

What do you know about Fev’s business plan. For info the club owns its own ground and makes money from businesses who are based there. Plus there’s the potential at some stage for other land which the club own to be utilised to increase income. 

[redjonn]

Not that it will impact too much the grading but I am intrigued as to how Performance is rewarded with respect to league position versus say winning the GF,   Would a club finishing 5th in league but winning GF get more grading points than the clubs above them in the league   I say that as I note in presentation that bonus points are awarded for winning competitions but not the GF.

Just iasking as a matter of nterest..

[Toby Chopra]

9 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Good to agree.

I hope IMG can be that impartial agency, although I'd prefer something wholly separate (with appropriate industrial knowledge). 

Two additional  issues I'd like people think about-

Should us fans have a say? I do.

Would it be better if there was an end plan for those regarded at B grade.

Clear identifiers what is needed to be an A.

And a collective support plan than rely on individual clubs to achieve this.

Should fans have a say? In principle, absolutely. And I suppose they do through the pressure they can put on their club owners to reject them. That's not pie in the sky, see the way county cricket fans organised against the Strauss proposals and effectively killed them off. I haven't seen a similar effort by rugby fans, but then I think opinions are much more mixed. There was a fans consultation that many on here responded too, but it was pretty shoddy. But a formal say beyond that, I'm not sure. How would a "fans view" be determined? In the end, the number of season ticket holders at the handful of clubs at the SL/Championship boundary that are most affected by the proposals numbers in the few thousands. Should they be given some sort of veto? Not for me.

As for the plan for the Bs. Well, it's being made clear what the criteria they need to improve are, so they know exactly what they need to work on, and what they have to achieve to make it into SL. Again, we might not see the rankings breakdown in minute detail as some of it will be commercially sensitive, but the clubs will and all the criteria are measurable, so there will be no grey area.

IMG will be providing collective support in the areas of media, digital, broadcasting and branding which all clubs should be able to benefit from. Beyond that, I think it's just a case of clubs cracking on with it, with specific criteria goals in mind.

[Jughead]

7 minutes ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

What do you know about Fev’s business plan. For info the club owns its own ground and makes money from businesses who are based there. Plus there’s the potential at some stage for other land which the club own to be utilised to increase income. 

Their chairman has publicly spoke of how the investment is not being matched with attendance figures and income generated in home games. I don’t think it’s a shock that they’re now seeing IMG in a different light now this has been made public. 

[RP London]

22 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Not that it will impact too much the grading but I am intrigued as to how Performance is rewarded with respect to league position versus say winning the GF,   Would a club finishing 5th in league but winning GF get more grading points than the clubs above them in the league   I say that as I note in presentation that bonus points are awarded for winning competitions but not the GF.

Just iasking as a matter of nterest..

thats been laid out quite specifically in the documentation and the slides that have already been provided. 

points awarded for place in table

points awarded for GF win

points awarded for CCup win

points awarded for Champ GF win

points awarded for 1895 cup win

points awarded for League one GF win.

[RP London]

20 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Should fans have a say? In principle, absolutely. And I suppose they do through the pressure they can put on their club owners to reject them. That's not pie in the sky, see the way county cricket fans organised against the Strauss proposals and effectively killed them off. I haven't seen a similar effort by rugby fans, but then I think opinions are much more mixed. There was a fans consultation that many on here responded too, but it was pretty shoddy. But a formal say beyond that, I'm not sure. How would a "fans view" be determined? In the end, the number of season ticket holders at the handful of clubs at the SL/Championship boundary that are most affected by the proposals numbers in the few thousands. Should they be given some sort of veto? Not for me.

As for the plan for the Bs. Well, it's being made clear what the criteria they need to improve are, so they know exactly what they need to work on, and what they have to achieve to make it into SL. Again, we might not see the rankings breakdown in minute detail as some of it will be commercially sensitive, but the clubs will and all the criteria are measurable, so there will be no grey area.

IMG will be providing collective support in the areas of media, digital, broadcasting and branding which all clubs should be able to benefit from. Beyond that, I think it's just a case of clubs cracking on with it, with specific criteria goals in mind.

Things with fans is that we dont know the ins and outs of things and we, mostly, have jobs that take up quite a bit of time plus hobbies... to get to the real crux of what is going on and to understand it and expect the fans to have a proper chance to make an informed decision on the minutia of if this is a good idea or not is going to be very difficult and in the end will be driven by what their club feels. Its similar to party politics in that aspect. I could imagine a lot of responsibility (if it was a vote by all fans, though how you would do that is beyond me, who is a fan etc) would be dropped at the doors of the clubs to inform their fans. The clubs opinion would just be pushed down to the fans, therefore those with the biggest fan bases would get the biggest vote, basically you would get the same result if you said each club got 1 vote per thousand "fans" they have (or however you divvy it up).

 

[Dovster]

51 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Good to agree.

I hope IMG can be that impartial agency, although I'd prefer something wholly separate (with appropriate industrial knowledge). 

Two additional  issues I'd like people think about-

Should us fans have a say? I do.

Would it be better if there was an end plan for those regarded at B grade.

Clear identifiers what is needed to be an A.

And a collective support plan than rely on individual clubs to achieve this.

Fans will have their say eventually.

For now this appears to be overlooked and again fans are taken for granted.

[redjonn]

12 minutes ago, RP London said:

thats been laid out quite specifically in the documentation and the slides that have already been provided. 

points awarded for place in table

points awarded for GF win

points awarded for CCup win

points awarded for Champ GF win

points awarded for 1895 cup win

points awarded for League one GF win.

It still wasn't clear to me as it says on the slides:

- Teams are ranked 1–36 based on where they finish in the leagues and playoffs for the last three seasons.

- Teams are awarded bonus points for winning the league and cup competitions.

I guess they mean winning GF is the 0.75 as distinct from the wording of winning the league.

[Monkeymagic22]

40 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Their chairman has publicly spoke of how the investment is not being matched with attendance figures and income generated in home games. I don’t think it’s a shock that they’re now seeing IMG in a different light now this has been made public. 

But clearly Fev would get much higher crowds in SL, probably equivalent or most likely higher than Salford, Wakefield and the Giants. The comments made were in relation to this season, when we’ve heavily invested in the team, with minimal central funding.

[RP London]

13 minutes ago, redjonn said:

It still wasn't clear to me as it says on the slides:

- Teams are ranked 1–36 based on where they finish in the leagues and playoffs for the last three seasons.

- Teams are awarded bonus points for winning the league and cup competitions.

I guess they mean winning GF is the 0.75 as distinct from the wording of winning the league.

Yes. you get points for winning the league, you then get the extra bonus points.

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, Dovster said:

Fans will have their say eventually.

For now this appears to be overlooked and again fans are taken for granted.

I think this is the one time the fans are absolutely not taken for granted.. hence all the points that are on offer for fan engagement etc.. While they dont get a say in how the sport is run this whole IMG project shows that, at last, they get the fact you need to engage with the fans to keep them coming along. 

If anything shouted "taking the fans for granted" its been the last 10-15 years of abject apathy from the RFL and many clubs towards the fans and just expecting them to turn up at games because its their club, and turning up for internationals because you have decided to put some on IMHO

[GeordieSaint]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

I think this is the one time the fans are absolutely not taken for granted.. hence all the points that are on offer for fan engagement etc.. While they dont get a say in how the sport is run this whole IMG project shows that, at last, they get the fact you need to engage with the fans to keep them coming along. 

We also had a nice questionnaire for us to complete…!

[Jughead]

18 minutes ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

But clearly Fev would get much higher crowds in SL, probably equivalent or most likely higher than Salford, Wakefield and the Giants. The comments made were in relation to this season, when we’ve heavily invested in the team, with minimal central funding.

Which shows how unsustainable the whole thing is for Featherstone as a club (and anyone else who wants to do the same) and why change is desperately needed. Relying on “well, we’d get more fans next year” as a business model, while swimming in an already saturated pool, is as bad as “let’s throw loads of money at a playing squad to bank £1m in funding for a year”. 

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

We also had a nice questionnaire for us to complete…!

i felt so engaged i did it twice..