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

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, Tubby said:

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.

Not if you are incapable of getting them through the gates 

[OdsalBull]

3 minutes 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

You have to say it's impressive considering we are hampered by not being in SL currently. Interesting statement from the club really calling out the council. Touching distance, hopefully the council and club can get on the same page and make something happen 

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

They ' audited ' last time under licencing 

They fudged everything last time under licencing.

I get the impression some were hoping they would again this time.

[glossop saint]

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

A better use than telling somebody what they already know 

They aren't just telling them. They are incentivising them. 

[phiggins]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That would genuinely be a terrible plan. We'd waste time scraping around working individually with the smallest clubs in the game? 

I thought we wanted clubs to grow? In which case, the smallest clubs are those in most need of help.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a simpler scoring system, with more weighting given to performance and revenues, and less noise around LED screens, web hits etc, where clubs could potentially be given points for doing something, even if they do it badly. E.g. Pay for LED screens, but fail to sell the space, or the example that has already been given of Cas' social media engagement being boosted by Joe Westerman attempting to eat a second hand steak bake.

Rather than scoring some of these areas, some guidance would be better. Maybe even go as far as assistance on those areas, where clubs work as a collective. So, agree a collective deal for LED screens, which may mean an overall saving. The challenge for each club is then to sell that space. For online, I've never really understood why there isn't a central content management system, with shared templates allowing clubs to focus on producing good content and products. 

Ultimately, this system measures the sum of a club's parts, rather than the whole of the club. When you want the opposite. 

[redjonn]

37 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 

Have to agree with your comment. The RFL together with IMG should have a support team that can be provided to clubs to help shape improvement.

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Not on the pitch , the players showed that 

In a one off game, yes, the IMG system is about longer term thinking.

[Smudger06]

3 minutes 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 needs to be audited and verified.

We will believe it when its stamped up and signed off by a chartered accountant and a solicitor with no links to the league or any clubs, many thanks.

[gingerjon]

So by “percentage of available score”, Bradford’s lowest is the ground criteria?

Now, will that change anyone’s perception of favouritism towards the Bulls and their ground?

[JohnM]

29 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

     I can't understand why clubs outside SL voted for the IMG plan.

One reason might be that they understand and agree with the whole plan over the next 12 years, including the first step, the grading scheme. I realise that it's preposterous to think that the clubs are better placed in this than those fans whose default position is "the game's gone".

That's not to say that the questions being asked - and answered - on here are not valid, but there seems to be a hard core of naysayers who will never be satisfied.

[Damien]

3 minutes 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

Looking at that Bradford there is plenty of scope for Bradford to get enough to really put the cat amongst the pigeons if they got a backer.

I wouldn't have thought it would take much to get another point for stadium (they obviously got the minimum 0.5) and a backer would also improve finances slightly. It probably wouldn't take much to get Bradford on 13+ points.

[glossop saint]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They fudged everything last time under licencing.

I get the impression some were hoping they would again this time.

Purely as an excuse to moan about it.

[GUBRATS]

Just now, glossop saint said:

They aren't just telling them. They are incentivising them. 

" find a multi millionaire " is what they are saying to them 

Anyway work to do , unlike a lot of here , I don't get paid for chatting online every day   

[glossop saint]

4 minutes ago, OdsalBull said:

You have to say it's impressive considering we are hampered by not being in SL currently. Interesting statement from the club really calling out the council. Touching distance, hopefully the council and club can get on the same page and make something happen 

Also shows how much of a millstone around the neck Odsal is. Something which everyone seems to agree about, suggesting good accuracy. One in the eye for the conspiracy theorists. If it had been full marks for facilities then they might potentially have a point.

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

I.....

Personally, I'd prefer to see a simpler scoring system, with more weighting given to performance and revenues, and less noise around LED screens, web hits etc, where clubs could potentially be given points for doing something, even if they do it badly. E.g. Pay for LED screens, but fail to sell the space, or the example that has already been given of Cas' social media engagement being boosted by Joe Westerman attempting to eat a second hand steak bake.

.....

mmm up late this morning and currently eating breakfast when your post came in.... you need to be a litle more careful what you write... I've been put off breakfast

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

but there seems to be a hard core of naysayers who will never be satisfied.

And they were generally the ones who were saying the games gone, even before anything to do with IMG.

 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Not on the pitch , the players showed that 

Well that wasn't your point so its a pretty pointless reply.

In the performance criteria I'd imagine that Toulouse outscored London anyway.

[JohnM]

4 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

That needs to be audited and verified.

We will believe it when its stamped up and signed off by a chartered accountant and a solicitor with no links to the league or any clubs, many thanks.

We? Who is this "We"?

[OdsalBull]

1 minute ago, glossop saint said:

Also shows how much of a millstone around the neck Odsal is. Something which everyone seems to agree about, suggesting good accuracy. One in the eye for the conspiracy theorists. If it had been full marks for facilities then they might potentially have a point.

It's really frustrating but seems they know what needs to be done, if the council had anything about them they would get behind this with the city of culture thing also coming in 2025 it could really give the city a boost. Fingers crossed 

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

mmm up late this morning and currently eating breakfast when your post came in.... you need to be a litle more careful what you write... I've been put off breakfast

Sorry. Forgot to start with a safety warning.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Looking at that Bradford there is plenty of scope for Bradford to get enough to really put the cat amongst the pigeons if they got a backer.

I wouldn't have thought it would take much to get another point for stadium (they obviously got the minimum 0.5) and a backer would also improve finances slightly. It probably wouldn't take much to get Bradford on 13+ points.

The thing is it really shouldn't be that hard.

They're an already well supported club in a large RL heartland city with minimal professional competitors. 

If a wealthy backer can come in, and the council really get behind a redevelopment or a move, then they have all the ingredients there to be taken advantage of. 

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Have to agree with your comment. The RFL together with IMG should have a support team that can be provided to clubs to help shape improvement.

Something I suggested 20 years ago 

[The Future is League]

19 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

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?

I have been in a pub on match day in Wakefield and some people weren't even aware that Wakey were playing at home that day, and that pub was less than a mile from the ground

[glossop saint]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Well that wasn't your point so its a pretty pointless reply.

In the performance criteria I'd imagine that Toulouse outscored London anyway.

Moving goalposts, laughing emoji at anything that they don't agree with and making comments about going to work with the thinly veiled implied insult. Par for the course unfortunately. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

The thing is it really shouldn't be that hard.

They're an already well supported club in a large RL heartland city with minimal professional competitors. 

If a wealthy backer can come in, and the council really get behind a redevelopment or a move, then they have all the ingredients there to be taken advantage of. 

Odsal may be a dump but I really don't think it would cost much to tick the criteria needed for another point. The really expensive things like capacity and seats are obviously there. I'd imagine all it would take is a bit of cosmetic and reconfiguration work. That certainly shouldn't be unachievable in a year.