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

[dkw]

10 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Ffs it's a fact of life when considerable sums of money are involved. 

So why just Toulouse, all the English clubs are also involved with money, but you seem to think it will be different because theyre Frnech?

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Not sure what your point is here? That some people in Toulouse don't know about the rugby league club? Is that a surprise? Is that a problem?

Maybe if they were in the SL for a prolonged period of time then they would be able to raise their profile locally and nationally.

Just that for many on here , they see the name Toulouse and automatically think ' massive ' club because it's in a big city 

Think London Bronco's in relation to London , and that's about where they are 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Can you buy some in Wigan Warriors ?

Talking of auditing figures

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/jul/26/rugbyleague.sport

The personal favourite lines:

"It emerged yesterday that the Rugby Football League, which had initially blocked that deal until it was given a personal assurance by Wigan's chairman, Maurice Lindsay, that it would not lead to a salary cap breach, would not have allowed Fielden to move had it been aware of the way in which Lindsay would attempt to wriggle off the hook."

Edited October 26, 2023 by Leonard

[glossop saint]

1 minute ago, dkw said:

Why will they be less strict, because theyre in France? 

It's like they're just wanting to confirm your previous claim of xenophobia.

[RP London]

43 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Glad to hear a court of auditors will be appointed.

Or will the figures just be audited 'in house' as and when something they don't like crops up? 

I dont know why people ask questions like this.. its like your talking without reading the document. 

Appendix 3 tells you what you need to know on this.. 

The RFL will audit the data... I dont understand why there isnt an outside auditor appointed to do this and I would like to see that happen.. but your answer is right there as is the process.

[glossop saint]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Just that for many on here , they see the name Toulouse and automatically think ' massive ' club because it's in a big city 

Think London Bronco's in relation to London , and that's about where they are 

I still don't understand why you are making this point. From nowhere you have just started telling stories about how you have visited Toulouse and encountered people who aren't familiar with the RL club. Why? What on here has prompted that? And what is the problem with that? And how does enabling them to have some consistency to promote themselves make this situation worse?

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Come on Dave, surely those extra 20 fans at Colwyn Bay will make all the difference to the sport?

20 X £ 15 is a start , the point being if you can actually show them how you did it , it then proves the point , or are you saying they aren't worth anything ? , if so , dump them now , they are of no use to RL 

[glossop saint]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

20 X £ 15 is a start , the point being if you can actually show them how you did it , it then proves the point , or are you saying they aren't worth anything ? , if so , dump them now , they are of no use to RL 

It is a start. And if NWC can manage that then that would be fantastic. However is that best use of the partnership?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

I dont know why people ask questions like this.. its like your talking without reading the document. 

Appendix 3 tells you what you need to know on this.. 

The RFL will audit the data... I dont understand why there isnt an outside auditor appointed to do this and I would like to see that happen.. but your answer is right there as is the process.

Technically it can't be an audit. Auditing standards aren't relevant and nor is the information published in a manner that requires company account presentation, also being part of an audit process. ICAEW is very clear on this.

So, it is simply the use of the word in the "vernacular" and could mean a wide range of things, from a full examination to a lighter touch review.

But all described as an "audit".

 

 

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, dkw said:

Why will they be less strict, because theyre in France? 

I said the suspicion will be there , sorry but that is just human nature 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

9 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

The evidence suggests otherwise with investment being withdrawn already exactly because of this system. The Keighley owners pulled out and Campbell has reduced investment at Fev. If I was an investor I’d be much more comfortable knowing my team could be promoted by winning on the field, it’s black and white. This process is pretty murky. 

I assume he means as happened during the 6 years of licencing, oh hang on ......

[Smudger06]

7 minutes ago, dkw said:

So why just Toulouse, all the English clubs are also involved with money, but you seem to think it will be different because theyre Frnech?

Not 'just Toulouse'..... clearly and obviously same applies to all clubs 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Just that for many on here , they see the name Toulouse and automatically think ' massive ' club because it's in a big city 

Think London Bronco's in relation to London , and that's about where they are 

Well no its not just that at all. They are also stronger than London in every facet, the IMG ratings show that.

[Tubby]

22 hours ago, Pulga said:

I still think catchment should have been weighted slightly more heavily.

 

Absolutely, the number of people who live in the municipal district in which your ground is situated should be more important than how many of them come through the gates and how well the team plays etc.

[OdsalBull]

Wow, great from the bulls being the first to publish their figures. I am sure that some on here and social media will no doubt use this as a stick to beat them with but things feel really positive right now 

[redjonn]

17 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Yes it's basically a yes/no with essentially no demarcation or reward for steady improvement until all 9 criteria are met.

seems that way, doesn't make sense. Although I can see it give freedom as to where a club prioritise.   I must admit being amused by Cas statement on specific point for example, Cas say we are OK on having a corporate/hospitality lounge so thats good. Yet the facility itself is poor but given the grading they won't focus on that even though they may find by doing a focus their it brings extra revenue following the investment needed.

A minor point but I would hope that the IMG standards change over time to be more exacting and hence continuous improvement rather that 0.5 v 1.5 hence no reward no matter what improvements are made over time till you get to 1.5

[GUBRATS]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

I dont know why people ask questions like this.. its like your talking without reading the document. 

Appendix 3 tells you what you need to know on this.. 

The RFL will audit the data... I dont understand why there isnt an outside auditor appointed to do this and I would like to see that happen.. but your answer is right there as is the process.

They ' audited ' last time under licencing 

[Nothus]

Bradford's breakdown is out:

 

Performance 2.17/5

Fandom 3.95/5

Finances 2.75/4.5

Stadium 0.89/3

Community 2.25/2.5

[Chrispmartha]

31 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Looking at the ' League Table ' there isn't much there we didn't already know , and I doubt much will change , clubs just don't have the resources ( money ) to improve drastically 

You have wonder why we've bothered ? , now if IMG were to now start to work with the clubs on an individual basis , starting right at the bottom , I'd be Impressed , especially if they were able to come up with improvements that didn't cost a fortune , I somehow doubt it 

Its not IMGs job to work with individual clubs they are to there to hold clubs hands.

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

It is a start. And if NWC can manage that then that would be fantastic. However is that best use of the partnership?

A better use than telling somebody what they already know 

[glossop saint]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

seems that way, doesn't make sense. Although I can see it give freedom as to where a club prioritise.   I must admit being amused by Cas statement on specific point for example, Cas say we are OK on having a corporate/hospitality lounge so thats good. Yet the facility itself is poor but given the grading they won't focus on that even though they may find by doing a focus their it brings extra revenue following the investment needed.

A minor point but I would hope that the IMG standards change over time to be more exacting and hence continuous improvement rather that 0.5 v 1.5 hence no reward no matter what improvements are made over time till you get to 1.5

One of many areas that the grading could be improved. It seems a bit if an all or nothing tick box at the moment. A very blunt instrument. It should be more nuanced and allow for incremental grading.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Nothus said:

Bradford's breakdown is out:

 

Performance 2.17/5

Fandom 3.95/5

Finances 2.75/4.5

Stadium 0.89/3

Community 2.25/2.5

That's very good. Clearly stadium and finances are probably linked - but that was always the circle to be squared for many clubs outside SL.

[Barley Mow]

3 minutes ago, OdsalBull said:

Wow, great from the bulls being the first to publish their figures. I am sure that some on here and social media will no doubt use this as a stick to beat them with but things feel really positive right now 

At least one club (Hunslet) published them yesterday.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Well no its not just that at all. They are also stronger than London in every facet, the IMG ratings show that.

Not on the pitch , the players showed that 

[OdsalBull]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

At least one club (Hunslet) published them yesterday.

Ok must have missed that, apologies