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

[OdsalBull]

4 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

The problem with that is it might bring in some form of subjective opinion thus opening up to accusations of favouritism etc. I agree with you just not sure how it can be done. Also fully agree that player development should somehow be included.

This is what I think also. Can you see the pitch? Yes. Is there running water? Yes. Can you sit in a covered stand? Yes.

I can't see how it would work 

[LeytherRob]

I feel like a lot of issues with this system could be solved if they just went with the early suggested plan that grade A's are automatically in SL, grade B's have P&R as normal until there are 12+ grade A clubs. They've ditched straight P&R in order to get stability and ended up with a system where there will be 6/7 clubs sweating on what division they'll be in for 2025. It's going to be even more chaotic than the middle 8's next year and it'll be a nightmare for clubs recruitment plans.

[JonM]

We seem to have ended up in a fairly predictable place - the clubs in positions 10-15 or so issuing press releases and arguing the toss about minutia of whether the criteria have been applied correctly, whether they are the right criteria, whether other clubs have cheated the system by lying about crowds and so on. 

[JonM]

2 minutes ago, OdsalBull said:

This is what I think also. Can you see the pitch? Yes. Is there running water? Yes. Can you sit in a covered stand? Yes.

I can't see how it would work 

How often have there been attacks on visiting spectators, how many reports of racist chants, how many coaches have had bricks through the windows? Could work out quite badly for one or two clubs.

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Some form of independent assessment I would say. I just don't see how anyone can say that spectator experience shouldn't be a central component of any points-scoring system.

It is so subjective though.

The grounds I've been to this year are York, Odsal, Mount Pleasant & Craven Park (Barrow).

Most people would expect York (a new stadium) to come out top amongst those.

Although I've enjoyed my visits to York (and have been there more than the others because it's the closest club to where I now live), the all seater, more sterile, less characterful nature of the ground actually made it the worst 'spectator experience' of the lot (in terms of the stadium).

Now I prefer to stand on a terrace and York obviously doesn't provide that. Other people prefer to sit - all of the grounds I've been to provide that option.

York was the only ground where I didn't have the option of paying for food and drink by card or cash (they are card only)

These things impact spectator experience - but differently for different people.

York wins top points on the toilets - much nicer than the other three.

Spectator experience for me at Odsal was great - I might have thought differently on a wet day, but could have sat in the covered stand if that were the case. The distance between spectators and the field, and the muck on the terraces from the motorsport were the only downsides - but everywhere I went had its downside.

 

 

[The Phantom Horseman]

8 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

The problem with that is it might bring in some form of subjective opinion thus opening up to accusations of favouritism etc. I agree with you just not sure how it can be done.

Fair point. In a way it's a drawback of a points-based system if something so crucial is difficult to assess objectively.

[The Phantom Horseman]

3 minutes ago, JonM said:

How often have there been attacks on visiting spectators, how many reports of racist chants, how many coaches have had bricks through the windows? Could work out quite badly for one or two clubs.

Sure. If that's included in the score on spectator experience, no complaints from me.

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, LeytherRob said:

I feel like a lot of issues with this system could be solved if they just went with the early suggested plan that grade A's are automatically in SL, grade B's have P&R as normal until there are 12+ grade A clubs. They've ditched straight P&R in order to get stability and ended up with a system where there will be 6/7 clubs sweating on what division they'll be in for 2025. It's going to be even more chaotic than the middle 8's next year and it'll be a nightmare for clubs recruitment plans.

This is exactly right. My view is that IMG's input so far has been completely amateurish. However, they could immediately improve things by recommending the above in terms of P&R.

My own preference would be for funding to be based on something like the IMG criteria (but much simpler) rather than (almost) everything being handed to the top 12 clubs. It's bonkers to hand Club Y £1.5m and Club X £.25m because Club Y scores 12.55 against Club X's score of 12.45. The share should be much closer.

[glossop saint]

5 minutes ago, JonM said:

How often have there been attacks on visiting spectators, how many reports of racist chants, how many coaches have had bricks through the windows? Could work out quite badly for one or two clubs.

I honestly think that there should be some element of this involved. Maybe very minor but I do think that there could maybe be negative points for various disciplinary issues. This is about putting rugby leagues best foot forward, that should include minimising negatives.

[Smudger06]

1 hour 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?

Do I really.....and because they are French, OK. if you take a look at the rankings you can see they happen to be the ones that stand out along with Castleford in a critical position. Lol it could be any club French or not....

[Smudger06]

13 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

I feel like a lot of issues with this system could be solved if they just went with the early suggested plan that grade A's are automatically in SL, grade B's have P&R as normal until there are 12+ grade A clubs. They've ditched straight P&R in order to get stability and ended up with a system where there will be 6/7 clubs sweating on what division they'll be in for 2025. It's going to be even more chaotic than the middle 8's next year and it'll be a nightmare for clubs recruitment plans.

Absolutely  

[RP London]

DP

Edited October 26, 2023 by RP London

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Sure. If that's included in the score on spectator experience, no complaints from me.

10 minutes ago, JonM said:

How often have there been attacks on visiting spectators, how many reports of racist chants, how many coaches have had bricks through the windows? Could work out quite badly for one or two clubs.

Appendix 2 under Minimum standards there is a section on penalties for not meeting standards.. one of which is a breach of operational rules which includes off field issues that result in sanctions. 

Seriously people its all there.

[Ragingbull]

Good to see the Bulls open and honest with where we need to improve. 

Hope its answers some of the "how come bradford scored more than us" questions. 

[Chrispmartha]

14 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

I feel like a lot of issues with this system could be solved if they just went with the early suggested plan that grade A's are automatically in SL, grade B's have P&R as normal until there are 12+ grade A clubs.

Is that actually what they said, genuine question because I don't remember seeing it laid out that way.

 

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I honestly think that there should be some element of this involved. Maybe very minor but I do think that there could maybe be negative points for various disciplinary issues. This is about putting rugby leagues best foot forward, that should include minimising negatives.

Appendix 2.. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

Just now, RP London said:

Appendix 2 under Minimum standards there is a section on penalties for not meeting standards.. one of which is a breach of operational rules which includes off field issues that result in sanctions. 

Seriously people its all there.

Yes I was well aware of that, but also I don't think as the rules stand my club Featherstone (which was clearly the one being referred to) would have reached the fines threshold to lose points.

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Yes I was well aware of that, but also I don't think as the rules stand my club Featherstone (which was clearly the one being referred to) would have reached the fines threshold to lose points.

but its still in there and its punishing as people want, there has to be cut offs but they'll never satisfy everyone but the phrasing of some of the posts is that this sort of stuff doesnt exist or isnt clear, yet its all in there and all clear

edit: just to add as people are talking about player pathways etc... Appendix 2 also shows that there is a punishment for not having "Grade A & B to have a Talent and Performance Pathway that is approved annually by the RFL." so there is something in there that can cover that area.. and its a punishment that rises with each year you dont have one... I havent looked at what that performance pathway looks like or if the RFL have published it but, again, these things that people want are there, whether they are heavy enough or helpful enough (depending on what it is) is a different matter but they are there and many are acting like they arent. 

Edited October 26, 2023 by RP London

[Tommygilf]

https://castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=8803&fbclid=IwAR3PNPWMpOaZK_gCtbpAoc7rDbK8mLz4M0v0VltwI4zDZCWu7KulJNAb9M8

Much better from Cas, states their targets and explains their situation much better than their first statement did. Also has targets:

Our points for 2025

With the correct data included, we currently sit in 11th place with a grade B score of 12.91, our focus is to achieve the following extra points for the next round of grading:

• Performance – Maintain the score of 3.09.

• Fandom – Maintain the score of 4.20.

• Finance – increase our score by 0.75 to 3.8.

• Community – Maintain the score of 1.25.

• Stadium – increase by 1.35 points to 2.67

If we manage to achieve all the above it would give the club a grade A score of 15.01 points.

We are realistic in that there could be a chance that one of the scores may drop or we may not achieve every part of every target. If we can get to 14.25 points by the end of the 2024 season it sets us up really well around mid-table in Super League gradings and gives us the ability to push on to 15 points and a Grade A score by the end of the 2025 season.

[glossop saint]

18 minutes ago, RP London said:

Appendix 2.. 

Thanks. Missed that bit!

[LeytherRob]

17 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Is that actually what they said, genuine question because I don't remember seeing it laid out that way.

 

I believe so, though it's difficult to sift through all the various stories over the year to confirm. I think the fact that so many people still believe that's how it's going to work suggests there was something out there.

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

https://castlefordtigers.com/article.php?id=8803&fbclid=IwAR3PNPWMpOaZK_gCtbpAoc7rDbK8mLz4M0v0VltwI4zDZCWu7KulJNAb9M8

Much better from Cas, states their targets and explains their situation much better than their first statement did. Also has targets:

Our points for 2025

With the correct data included, we currently sit in 11th place with a grade B score of 12.91, our focus is to achieve the following extra points for the next round of grading:

• Performance – Maintain the score of 3.09.

• Fandom – Maintain the score of 4.20.

• Finance – increase our score by 0.75 to 3.8.

• Community – Maintain the score of 1.25.

• Stadium – increase by 1.35 points to 2.67

If we manage to achieve all the above it would give the club a grade A score of 15.01 points.

We are realistic in that there could be a chance that one of the scores may drop or we may not achieve every part of every target. If we can get to 14.25 points by the end of the 2024 season it sets us up really well around mid-table in Super League gradings and gives us the ability to push on to 15 points and a Grade A score by the end of the 2025 season.

This is the type of response we should be seeing... SMART goals and be held accountable by your fans for whom you are only the custodian of the club.. 

Rugby League needs to do better and this is how we get there IMHO. (I'd still tweak some of the grading criteria and I'd still look at some form of on field P&R between B grade clubs but I would cut that grade in half too as its far too wide).

Edited October 26, 2023 by RP London

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

The first thing to stick out for me in those numbers was the fandom score. I'm assuming they got 2 points for attendance, meaning they will have got either 0.95 or 1.2 for social media and online. But it is not translating into finances. I imagine that this conversion will be an area for Bradford to be looking at, but it may also point to maybe an overvaluation of some of those social and digital metrics.

The other standout figures are stadium and community, but the issues with Odsal have been well documented. They are clearly doing well on community metrics, and am guessing they scored maximum on catchment area, which poses similar questions as above. What can the club do to convert this into more revenue, but also, is the catchment area metric a valid thing to add points for versus being a figure that provides context to things like attendance?

They've had an 'every click matters' campaign going for a while so many of the engagements could well be reflex reactions rather than actual engagement with the topic suggesting as you say that that particular metric is over valued.

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

I believe so, though it's difficult to sift through all the various stories over the year to confirm. I think the fact that so many people still believe that's how it's going to work suggests there was something out there.

There has definitely been mention of it but IIRC their original wording was vague and could be read a number of ways and they clarified it later when they accepted that. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

This is the type of response we should be seeing... SMART goals and be held accountable by your fans for whom you are only the custodian of the club.. 

Rugby League needs to do better and this is how we get there IMHO. (I'd still tweak some of the grading criteria and I'd still look at some form of on field P&R between B grade clubs but I would cut that grade in half too as its far too wide).

Absolutely. I think some of the criteria will be refined going forwards (cue the cries of cheating/goalpost moving from fans of clubs that were nowhere near anyway), but the principle of looking at the criteria and investing in yourselves to meet them is exactly what clubs need to be doing.