The IMG Gradings Thread - Post all your IMG Gradings related questions or comments here

[DemonUK]

2 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Isn't the 1895 cup just a lottery based on avoiding any SL sides in the draw?

The idea of that settling promotion is hilarious.

err No SL sides in the 1895 cup.  Even with 0.1 pts they get for it and the closeness of 8 to 13, it could quite easily be the difference

[phiggins]

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It does give certainty to those clubs that achieve the status that grants them that it also gives a clear indication on where clubs need to improve to achieve that status.

 

That is a nice concept in theory. I personally don't think that this system achieves that aim in practice. 

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, DemonUK said:

err No SL sides in the 1895 cup.  Even with 0.1 pts they get for it and the closeness of 8 to 13, it could quite easily be the difference

You have to progress to a certain stage of the Challenge cup to make the 1895 semi final I think. So have a better chance if you avoid SL sides in the last 16 of the CC.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, DemonUK said:

err No SL sides in the 1895 cup.  Even with 0.1 pts they get for it and the closeness of 8 to 13, it could quite easily be the difference

Last year to qualify it was the last 4 championship sides in the CC. 

So SL sides are not in it - but impact on who gets to the semi finals.

I don't know if the system has changed.

[Guest]

Just now, phiggins said:

You have to progress to a certain stage of the Challenge cup to make the 1895 semi final I think. So have a better chance if you avoid SL sides in the last 16 of the CC.

Yes.

So if Wakefield get Wigan away in RD1 - they aren't going anywhere in the 1895.

Get 3 Championship sides back to back and you go far.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

That is a nice concept in theory. I personally don't think that this system achieves that aim in practice. 

Well seeing has its not actually happened yet we will have to find out, but we have seen clubs putting the effort already.

[wiganermike]

9 minutes ago, binosh said:

So if Salford finish bottom next year, and Bradford finish top of the championship then nobody moves leagues?

No. The finishing positions do not determine whether a club moves up or down between SL and Championship, the grading scores of the clubs do. The 12 clubs with the highest grading scores will make up SL in any given year. The relative finishing positions only count in so much as they provide a performance score that contributes to a club's overall grading score. The clubs that make up SL in 2025 will constitute the 12 clubs that achieved the 12 highest grading scores. The scores released today are only an indication of where each club stands relative to others and whether they are likely to make the cut for SL in 2025 should nothing change. The scores that will be released next year will decide the 12 clubs that compete in SL in 2025.

Using the indicative scores we have now, if the order in which the clubs have been ranked was to stay the same when the next set of grades are calculated, then after the 2024 season London and Castleford would be relegated (as they would fall outside the top 12 highest grading scores) and Toulouse and Wakefield would be promoted (as they would be among the 12 highest ranked clubs based on the grading scores). It wouldn't matter whether or not any of those had finished 12th in SL or won the Championship GF as much as it has in the past. It is the grades and whether that puts a club in the top 12, not the finishing positions in the league table that determines if a club will play in SL (or not) for the following season.

[Phil]

I know I’ll get shot down by the usual suspects but how the chuff are bradford 14th, their ground is a huge dump, their pitch is below the regulation size and in the last few years have gone bust x number of times, and yet they’re rated above Fev who have a nice tidy ground, are financially sound and who finished above bradford in the league 

I thought IMG could be a new dawn for the game but it’s just a load of old b*ll*cks 

[marklaspalmas]

Taking this year's final league table positions in order from 1 to 35 through SL-Ch-L1 and comparing this with their IMG provisional grade, here are the big winners & losers on 2023 form (from winners to losers):
 

Newcastle	8
Leeds	7
Doncaster	6
Widnes	5
Oldham	5
Rochdale	5
Hull FC	4
Toulouse	4
Barrow Raiders	4
Warrington	1
Wakefield	1
Bradford	1
York	1
Midlands	1
Cornwall	1
St Helens	0
Huddersfield	0
Halifax	0
Dewsbury	0
Workington	0
Wigan	-1
Salford	-1
Hunslet	-1
Catalans	-2
Castleford	-2
Featherstone	-2
Batley	-2
Hull KR	-3
North Wales	-3
Swinton	-4
Keighley	-5
Sheffield	-6
Leigh	-7
London	-7
Whitehaven	-8

[Martyn Sadler]

15 minutes ago, RP London said:

what did he say?

perhaps he didn't think it necessary when you are dealing with private company financial data I would have thought it wouldn't even be a question to be honest, if someone even hinted at something from our financials that I hadnt said they could (as a private company) I'd be livid.

Matt didn't say anything.

Tony Sutton took the question, even though it was primarily directed at Matt, and said that in his view it's a matter for the clubs but that he believes in transparency and therefore they may decide to reveal the figures when they have completed a review of the process.

On the subject of private data, in this context the clubs would have had to agree to the subsequent use of the data they supplied in the process, otherwise the process itself would be unworkable.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

I know I’ll get shot down by the usual suspects but how the chuff are bradford 14th, their ground is a huge dump, their pitch is below the regulation size and in the last few years have gone bust x number of times, and yet they’re rated above Fev who have a nice tidy ground, are financially sound and who finished above bradford in the league 

I thought IMG could be a new dawn for the game but it’s just a load of old b*ll*cks 

Questions like that are why I believe we should be seeing the details behind the grading scores.

[The Blues Ox]

5 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Yes.

So if Wakefield get Wigan away in RD1 - they aren't going anywhere in the 1895.

Get 3 Championship sides back to back and you go far.

Wakefield can't get Wigan in RD1 as SL teams don't come in to the competition until the semi finals or whatever they voted for to avoid as much chance of an upset as possible. 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Matt didn't say anything.

Tony Sutton took the question, even though it was primarily directed at Matt, and said that in his view it's a matter for the clubs but that he believes in transparency and therefore they may decide to reveal the figures when they have completed a review of the process.

On the subject of private data, in this context the clubs would have had to agree to the subsequent use of the data they supplied in the process, otherwise the process itself would be unworkable.

Use by specific people yes but not to be shared far and wide and made public knowledge. That's why it's up to the clubs to share otherwise they would do it, it's daft not to. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

Wakefield can't get Wigan in RD1 as SL teams don't come in to the competition until the semi finals or whatever they voted for to avoid as much chance of an upset as possible. 

Grade A sides get a 50 point start to recognise the quality of the Christmas tree lights around the boards and selection of falafel wraps.

[Northern Eel]

33 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

If the announcement is made on Live TV, the pubs will be packed!

https://share.synthesia.io/a1e5c780-e6dd-467d-87b1-f6802a0e9cbf

[WakefieldCityLoyal]

Pleased with our grading, plenty to work on and I’m sure we will.

Up the Trin 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Wakefield can't get Wigan in RD1 as SL teams don't come in to the competition until the semi finals or whatever they voted for to avoid as much chance of an upset as possible. 

Did they ensure Cats were deducted points because they meet the "we don't want you" criteria?

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

Use by specific people yes but not to be shared far and wide and made public knowledge. That's why it's up to the clubs to share otherwise they would do it, it's daft not to. 

I don't agree. The whole concept underlying this process is that it will become public knowledge, even if that knowledge is delayed.

The clubs will have had to agree to this after having voted for it.

[Gooleboy]

5 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Questions like that are why I believe we should be seeing the details behind the grading scores.

And, what do these IMG people know about Rugby League?

[Bulls2487]

8 minutes ago, Phil said:

I know I’ll get shot down by the usual suspects but how the chuff are bradford 14th, their ground is a huge dump, their pitch is below the regulation size and in the last few years have gone bust x number of times, and yet they’re rated above Fev who have a nice tidy ground, are financially sound and who finished above bradford in the league 

I thought IMG could be a new dawn for the game but it’s just a load of old b*ll*cks 

The Bulls haven't had any financial issues for approaching 7 years.

The IMG report is based on the past 3 seasons I believe.

Featherstone didn't finish above Bulls on 2023 IMG points are based on where you finished after the playoffs so Bulls and Fev were losing semi Finalists.

The IMG stadium rules mean Bulls score highly(not the fault of the Bulls)

We also score highly on fan base.

[OdsalBull]

15 minutes ago, Phil said:

I know I’ll get shot down by the usual suspects but how the chuff are bradford 14th, their ground is a huge dump, their pitch is below the regulation size and in the last few years have gone bust x number of times, and yet they’re rated above Fev who have a nice tidy ground, are financially sound and who finished above bradford in the league 

I thought IMG could be a new dawn for the game but it’s just a load of old b*ll*cks 

Hi Phil, you clearly haven’t read the handbook

[OdsalBull]

Can’t believe how many people are rattled and were only 14th

[Fevrover]

38 minutes ago, OdsalBull said:

Well it seems they are guilty for this themselves, so they won't. Fev fans are great apparently they don't watch games they just count crowds

What because ONE said it? We aren't all saying. Hope you  can carry that chip on your shoulder with no trouble.

[Griff]

56 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

No. 12th placed team could be replaced by a team that finishes bottom of the Championship. But that same 12th placed team could keep their place if they scored more than any of the teams above them. Or something like that. 

 

Had to edit as I presume we are talking actual on the field league placings as if a team is placed twelth in the rankings they would be in SL anyway.

Wow.  How far can we go?  Can a club finish bottom of League One and get promoted to Superleague?

What about the Pennine League?

[glemiln]

13 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

Newcastle 8 Leeds 7 Doncaster 6 Widnes 5 Oldham 5 Rochdale 5 Hull FC 4 Toulouse 4 Barrow Raiders 4 Warrington 1 Wakefield 1 Bradford 1

 Yes please, for at least the Championship in 2025!