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

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, dboy said:

The "share" income is on this year's balance sheet. It doesn't count next year.

Salford rely almost entirely on central funding = RFL hand-outs.

They are not sustainable.

An counter-example would be Leeds - they are probably self-sufficient financially.

The fly in the ointment would be a Huddersfield = don't rely on central funds, but do rely on a sugar grand-daddy.

It does to some extent because it is an average over the last 3 years.

The interesting thing Ive just realised is that some of the finance criteria can't actually change after this year, no matter what happens next year (obviously add 1 year to the years below when this is done next year):

This is for the three accounting (periods) prior to the current year i.e. in 2023, this would be an average of 2020, 2021 and 2022.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Damien

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Maybe try that IMG company , they're experts in sports marketing apparently 

Its the RFL that have engaged them. Would be nice if the clubs started doing similar.

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you don't know either , just admit it 

It’s not my job to know, I’m not an employee or an owner of a RL club.

But IMO clubs need to look at all aspects of the organisation and see how they can improve, marketing, community engagement, commercial and yes on the pitch.

[Derwent]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

How would that work? Where would you stop increasing the expectations?

I haven’t given the metrics any thought, it just seems wrong to me that a club could get maximum points at every assessment for something that they might be failing on. I can see why initially they’d get those points for potential market but at some point you have to assess whether the potential is being tapped into. E.g. if you have a catchment area of 250,000 and current crowds of 5,000 and in 3 years time you still have the same crowds then clearly that is failure and shouldn’t be rewarded. But under these criteria those points are already banked.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Fevrover said:

Well if your club hasn't got any grievances you aren't going to shout,it's not rocket science.

You’re kind of proving my point, those with grievances will be in the minority.

[Southern Reiver]

 

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Absolutely. If nothing else this should open some eyes and scare some butts into action.

Well the RFL need to sort out next years structure. How many teams in League 1, will those teams be playing more than once a month? Though not sure those teams have huge resources for marketing, stadium development etc to make improvements. Or will RFL fiddle with the Championship as well?

And does the rankings also work on basis of who is/isn’t in League 1 in 2025?

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its the RFL that have engaged them. Would be nice if the clubs started doing similar.

Maybe they could nick the staff from Leeds , our top scoring club , their crowds have been booming recently 

[Hello]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

That’s because those with grievences shout the loudest.

That's one way of looking at it.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Maybe they could nick the staff from Leeds , our top scoring club , their crowds have been booming recently 

Leeds are the best supported club in British RL, with the best commercial department, maybe they should be nicking or emulating their staff yes.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Derwent said:

I haven’t given the metrics any thought, it just seems wrong to me that a club could get maximum points at every assessment for something that they might be failing on. I can see why initially they’d get those points for potential market but at some point you have to assess whether the potential is being tapped into. E.g. if you have a catchment area of 250,000 and current crowds of 5,000 and in 3 years time you still have the same crowds then clearly that is failure and shouldn’t be rewarded. But under these criteria those points are already banked.

Like Leeds sort of thing ? 

[dboy]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

It does to some extent because it is an average over the last 3 years.

The interesting thing Ive just realised is that some of the finance criteria can't actually change after this year, no matter what happens next year (obviously add 1 year to the years below when this is done next year):

This is for the three accounting (periods) prior to the current year i.e. in 2023, this would be an average of 2020, 2021 and 2022.

No, the 3 year average is solely for on field metrics.

Financial metrics are year-on-year.

The Salford "share" money is already spent.

[Northern Eel]

12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

If they can’t figure out how to do it they might get overtaken by a club that does. We then might end up with more teams that know how to do it in the top tier of the sport, meaning better run clubs.

Absolutely spot on, and the rhetoric coming out of clubs is distinctly either 'can do' or 'can't do'. Those who think they can will improve, those who say they can't will dig their own grave. 

[Hello]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

You’re kind of proving my point, those with grievances will be in the minority.

OK so those who are in the majority are contributing far less on this thread and particularly with their voting on the BBC thread then.  In fact, they are strongly outnumbered in their contributions.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Hello

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Leeds are the best supported club in British RL, with the best commercial department, maybe they should be nicking or emulating their staff yes.

That's what I'm saying , because their crowds have grown massively over the last decade 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Like Leeds sort of thing ? 

Id have no issues with leeds losing points for failing to increase crowds

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

No, the 3 year average is solely for on field metrics.

Financial metrics are year-on-year.

The Salford "share" money is already spent.

It clearly does not say this and I have just quoted you one example. I mean here is another:

Average value calculated for the past three seasons. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Damien

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Hello said:

OK so those who are in the majority are contributing far less on this thread and on the BBC thread then.  In fact, they are utterly outnumbered.

Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. The majority won’t know this forum exists or that the BBC has a comments section let alone be commenting on them.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

It does to some extent because it is an average over the last 3 years.

The interesting thing Ive just realised is that some of the finance criteria can't actually change after this year, no matter what happens next year (obviously add 1 year to the years below when this is done next year):

This is for the three accounting (periods) prior to the current year i.e. in 2023, this would be an average of 2020, 2021 and 2022.

Accounting periods vary between clubs. The end of one club's previous 3 year period could easily differ by up to a year from another's.

[Northern Eel]

3 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

Absolutely spot on, and the rhetoric coming out of clubs is distinctly either 'can do' or 'can't do'. Those who think they can will improve, those who say they can't will dig their own grave. 

So you think a club who digs in their heals, sulk and make no effort to improve themselves against the criteria will be better clubs in the long-term than those who work to improve their grading? @GUBRATS

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Hello said:

OK so those who are in the majority are contributing far less on this thread and on the BBC thread then.  In fact, they are strongly outnumbered in their contributions.

It's the off-season. More rugby league fans are more concerned with who is playing centre half for Leeds United.

[paul hicks]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Id have no issues with leeds losing points for failing to increase crowds

its not failing to improve crowds i question as those who get reduced crowds 

[GUBRATS]

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its the RFL that have engaged them. Would be nice if the clubs started doing similar.

They are working on a ' bonus on results deal ' aren't they ? , do you know any good marketing companies who'd work for the clubs on a similar basis ? 

[Gates1]

19 minutes ago, dboy said:

The "share" income is on this year's balance sheet. It doesn't count next year.

Salford rely almost entirely on central funding = RFL hand-outs.

They are not sustainable.

An counter-example would be Leeds - they are probably self-sufficient financially.

The fly in the ointment would be a Huddersfield = don't rely on central funds, but do rely on a sugar grand-daddy.

Balance sheet is only worth 0.5 points (and everyone gets 0.25). 

Owner investment is tracked over three years and worth the same.

Turnover and profit are worth up to 3 points (dont see anything that suggests player sales and share income isnt included in this), its also a 3 year average. 

[Derwent]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Like Leeds sort of thing ? 

I wasn’t getting at any particular club but they’re as good an example as any. If you’re getting free points for catchment area then you should also be held accountable for demonstrating how you are leveraging it.

[paul hicks]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. The majority won’t know this forum exists or that the BBC has a comments section let alone be commenting on them.

if i may put it this way.

I'm looking at this thread but not complaining and i can't be bothered to look at the BBC or other sites as im happy enough with the results.

ah well time for a cuppa and more watching people trying to wring blood out of there club scarfs