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

[Griff]

1 minute ago, binosh said:

The answers to the questions being asked. Basically as a fan how can you track your clubs scoring progress through the season, or do you have to sit in the dark and wait until after the GF annually.

Yes.  Of course you do.

[Gomersall]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

A pretty wishy washy statement. Hughes should have been aiming for improvements in all these areas anyway, he shouldn't need this report to tell him the obvious. 8.07 may be a B on paper but its absolutely no where near what is needed.

At least he hasn’t spat his dummy out.

[BD20Cougar]

21 minutes ago, Rene_Artois said:

It's based on the last 3 years. 3 consecutive finals. Also there's a lot more to the ratings than that.

Yeah I had it in my head that it was 5 years for some reason. Actually makes it more puzzling to me from a Keighley perspective that we've ended up with a lower score than Oldham, Rochdale and Hunslet despite having a much better on field performance and attendances than all 3.

Presumably IMG aren't big fans of the facilities down at Cougar Park and also makes me wonder about our finances. 

[Ragingbull]

1 hour 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 

Tell me you dont understand the IMG scoring criteria with out actually  telling me you dont understand the IMG scoring criteria. 

Oh and the pitch size isnt below regulation size either. 

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Ragingbull

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think, although broadly I remain okay with the process, that the RFL got the IMG budget option rather than one that requires time, money and effort.

Right now, I have zero issues with where clubs fit in the grading scale. My concerns are far more to do with implementation - and the delivery detail on that is, I suspect, liable to change before things really happen.

Tbh the document has always looked like something produced from a project given to the interns or new graduates to keep them quiet and out of the way for a while.

[Rolymole]

I assume somewhere on this massive thread someone has explained Wakefield scoring higher than Leigh?  I’d guessed it was down to the “fandom” element.  In particular at RFL HQ.

[Guest]

Just now, Rolymole said:

I assume somewhere on this massive thread someone has explained Wakefield scoring higher than Leigh?  I’d guessed it was down to the “fandom” element.  In particular at RFL HQ.

It's all fair and no complaints can be had. Wakey even have a small stand now. 

[binosh]

8 minutes ago, Griff said:

Yes.  Of course you do.

Why?

[del capo]

20 minutes ago, Leonard said:

It says a lot for the RFL that they could not put together what is essentially a checklist of improvements and needed to pay someone to do it.

My understanding is that IMG get paid nothing until central funds income exceeds its current level. Only then is a divvy allowed.

SL broke away several years ago but couldn't make a go of it , returning to the fold with the RFL then introducing IMG as recognised management experts and creating RL Commercial to help satiate SL clubs ( they  will get 50% of the central funds income to spend as they wish)

The vast bulk of current SL clubs will be more than comfortable with their provisional gradings and can now afford a one off horror year without fear ( wasn't it squeaky bum time at one stage for both Warrington and Leeds recently ? ).

Most B grade clubs have a clear and better process for joining them and one which will improve the overall health of the game ( and club )  more than simply signing a squad on a s##t or bust strategy to get to the top....

It's meant to be a ten year journey and has been structured in such a way that any single cabal of clubs has little chance of changing it

[WakefieldCityLoyal]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

In all seriousness though it is not out of the question for a team to "sell" a lot of junior season tickets (The future of our game 0-7 get in for a penny) to boost numbers which means there has to be some way to actually audit the amount of people in attendance.

Don’t some clubs offer free season tickets for kids already?

[Smudger06]

This is a system for rating macdonalds managers not sports clubs. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Smudger06

[WakefieldCityLoyal]

9 minutes ago, Leonard said:

It's all fair and no complaints can be had. Wakey even have a small stand now. 

That’s not included in this score it will in the next one.

Up the Trin 

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, binosh said:

Why?

I can’t see it being possible to track progress on a constant basis, there are a lot of factors go into it, however clubs should be updating fans on what they are doing to improve their grade if they need to.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Smudger06 said:

This is a system for rating macdonalds locations not sports clubs. 

Its not that, but its a sensible step forward for a sport that needs to be selective.

[Toby Chopra]

21 minutes ago, Damien said:

A pretty wishy washy statement. Hughes should have been aiming for improvements in all these areas anyway, he shouldn't need this report to tell him the obvious. 8.07 may be a B on paper but its absolutely no where near what is needed.

 

24 minutes ago, Damien said:

A pretty wishy washy statement. Hughes should have been aiming for improvements in all these areas anyway, he shouldn't need this report to tell him the obvious. 8.07 may be a B on paper but its absolutely no where near what is needed.

It's still a way more grown up statement than what we've seen from some other clubs. He's not feigning surprise or offence, he's basically acknowledging there's a way to go until London can become an established superleague team again, and indicating he's going to stick around a bit longer to try to achieve that. Could have been a lot worse.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

I'd love to see the breakdown's of these scores to see how Toulouse scored so highly.

[Rene_Artois]

37 minutes ago, Rene_Artois said:

Doncaster are immediately below Sheffield. Both clubs are well run and I think it's an accurate reflection of where we can both go. I'd like to see closer ties as we both can offer genuine development in a fringe area. I think IMGs ratings reflect that

I'd go as far as to suggest the 2 clubs should apply for a joint academy if possible. There are enough junior teams in South Yorkshire for this to be possible. For me these ratings highlight where clubs need to improve. I'm certain The Dons and Eagles will respond to that.

[Toby Chopra]

29 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

No option satisfies everyone but this one seems to have been designed to upset folk.

Only the folk who were always going to get upset: ie 2 or 3 clubs on the fringes of SL who under the old system might have wangled a cheeky year in SL before going straight back down, and 2-3 clubs who are nowhere near that but suffer from a massive sense of entitlement. 

The majority knew what they were voting for when the decision was made and are quietly getting on with things today.

[KS09]

47 minutes ago, Griff said:

What's sensible about it?

Loads of people support clubs who are never, ever going to win the top prizes.

They have the remote possibility of doing so though. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, del capo said:

My understanding is that IMG get paid nothing until central funds income exceeds its current level. Only then is a divvy allowed.

SL broke away several years ago but couldn't make a go of it , returning to the fold with the RFL then introducing IMG as recognised management experts and creating RL Commercial to help satiate SL clubs ( they  will get 50% of the central funds income to spend as they wish)

The vast bulk of current SL clubs will be more than comfortable with their provisional gradings and can now afford a one off horror year without fear ( wasn't it squeaky bum time at one stage for both Warrington and Leeds recently ? ).

Most B grade clubs have a clear and better process for joining them and one which will improve the overall health of the game ( and club )  more than simply signing a squad on a s##t or bust strategy to get to the top....

It's meant to be a ten year journey and has been structured in such a way that any single cabal of clubs has little chance of changing it

Success and crowds.

Chicken and egg?

[sheddingswasus]

29 minutes ago, BD20Cougar said:

Yeah I had it in my head that it was 5 years for some reason. Actually makes it more puzzling to me from a Keighley perspective that we've ended up with a lower score than Oldham, Rochdale and Hunslet despite having a much better on field performance and attendances than all 3.

Presumably IMG aren't big fans of the facilities down at Cougar Park and also makes me wonder about our finances. 

Finances were a bit part of it, it seems

[Tex Evans Thigh]

Its horrible and I knew it would be, but seeing it documented is even worse. Even the spreadsheet diehards are struggling to defend this as it's plain as day that this approach is catastrophic and won't bring anything like the improvements some people are hoping it will.

How do you explain this abomination to a potential new fan of the sport in the UK? It's inexplicable and I'm sorry to say is going to turn existing fans away. The reality really hit when everyone saw where London were didn't it.

Two of the most exciting aspects of this season were the relegation battle in SL and the promotion play-offs in the Championship. Ripping that up for this is yet another hammer blow to the sport in the UK. IMG aren't taking this seriously either, the planning and execution are pathetic.

As we sit here today we still have no idea on structures in the lower leagues for next year, you have IMG saying SL might expand very soon and London planning a pointless expedition into SL for a year despite delivering something of a fairytale story last season. The sport in the UK is a shambles. 

[sheddingswasus]

51 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

This thread would be getting on for 200 pages by now. Small mercies...

He will be spitting venom onRL fans now

Edited October 25, 2023 by sheddingswasus

[Smudger06]

26 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not that, but its a sensible step forward for a sport that needs to be selective.

The proof will definately be in the pudding, we await the next restructure (3 to 8 seasons....?)

[MattSantos]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

For a start its not about fev but.

1. That’s up to you, if you only support your club because they might make it to SL by winning a GF, then don’t bother, extrapolating your point what’s the point in supporting a club that’s got no chance of doing that on the field? Only you can make that choice. I can’t make it for you.

2. You are aware the Grading system is there for all to see, if your club doesn’t keep its fanbase up to date with what they are doing to up their grade, that’s your clubs fault not IMG’s fault.

3. Seeing as though that currently seasons results have a bearing on the grades it doesn’t take a genius to work out final grades will be released at the end of the season.

4. If you are the chairman of a club that’s part of your remit, but you attract players by selling them what you are doing as a club, just as you do every season, even with P&R you would have this issue.

1. I'm a Fev fan. It seemed a logical question to ask; why should anyone continue to support their team if what happens when you support them, ie the actual rugby appears not to matter. If people are fans of the sport for the sports sake rather than winning and competing at the highest level possible, what happens when you lose? Are you sad at all, even for a moment? What happens when it's the World Cup. Do you want England to win or are folk not bothered because it's sport innit. I'm not asking anyone to make any choices for me. Relax babez

2. It's not all to see. I don't have a breakdown. I have no real factual insight into how a grade has been attained. If only we had a league table that valued wins, points scored and conceded. That'd work.. How often is the new grading league table updated?

3. So, the grades are revealed after the GF. In this scenario, we go to Toulouse with a week's notice of a venue and win in the last minute. #scenes #limbs. Nah, don't be stupid... we have to fly home and wait for the announcement to 4 twitter journalists on a Wednesday morning who has the higher grade. It's a horrific version of VAR.

4. See the above. I feel for the players. Some want to be part time, most want to play at the highest level and play at a club with similar ambitions.

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

It’s a strange question isn’t it.

See above. People can make it a strange question by being flippant and that's fine. 

56 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Good question.

For some fans, there won't be a satisfactory answer and we'll lose them. And for no obvious benefit. A hybrid 'standards plus P&R' would save us a lot of heartache.

Aye.

44 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think, although broadly I remain okay with the process, that the RFL got the IMG budget option rather than one that requires time, money and effort.

Right now, I have zero issues with where clubs fit in the grading scale. My concerns are far more to do with implementation - and the delivery detail on that is, I suspect, liable to change before things really happen.

Yep. I like the principles behind this whole shenanigans, the implementation scares the hell out of me though and as a fan of actual sport it's just saddening.