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

[Barley Mow]

8 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).

I was going to say that it is interesting that they are only seeking to replicate their existing grade for performance (having just finished 11th in SL).

But with their 2021 score (7th place finish) dropping out of consideration next year, they actually have to make a significant improvement on this year to achieve that. Their current performance grading is based on 7th, 7th, 11th.

[glossop saint]

10 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).

I have thought this in the past. I'd like to see A B C and D categories. Only A and B can be in SL but using a more traditional PandR with the grade B clubs. Or just a higher threshold for B as you suggest.

[Chrispmartha]

11 minutes ago, RP London said:

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. 

The only thing I remember was that it was stated Grade B clubs could still drop out of SL and only Grade A were exempt.

which is still the case.

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

39 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

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

 

Well Batley thought that's what was going to happen until the meeting back in March;

Like other clubs, Nicholas was of the understanding that a Grade B licence would make clubs eligible for promotion. But in a key difference, the twelve clubs that are scored highest annually will make up the top flight. 

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/batley-img-super-league-bias-26432345

[del capo]

36 minutes ago, 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.

As well as  for on field issues, such as taking a fine instead of raising a reserve side . The effect can be devastating. Persist for two years and a club stands to lose a whole grade.

Spectator experience is reflected elsewhere.  If the facility is a dump people will vote with their feet ( and money ). Attendances and non central finances directly rely on that experience and are measured accordingly....

 

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I have thought this in the past. I'd like to see A B C and D categories. Only A and B can be in SL but using a more traditional PandR with the grade B clubs. Or just a higher threshold for B as you suggest.

If you did that and cut the Bs in half at the grading point, you'd get 11 as the cutoff. As it stands that would have the 14 clubs in SL

[Archie Gordon]

6 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I have thought this in the past. I'd like to see A B C and D categories. Only A and B can be in SL but using a more traditional PandR with the grade B clubs. Or just a higher threshold for B as you suggest.

I would like to see that 

I would then share half the TV money according to ABCD status and the other half according to division (SL, Ch, L1). 

P&R remains with minimum standards and clubs are rewarded for investing in ABCD status.

[glossop saint]

Or 12 with promotion and relegation but only a couple of clubs actually meeting the standards that would be required to be in SL, and those 2 clubs not necessarily the ones who will win the division. 3 more clubs almost 'good enough' (1 point off) to make tweaks to be able to challenge for SL and another 3 that are a bit more work away but not too far off (2 points off). That's not necessarily too far off where I think we are anyway. 

Edit. Sorry was a response to Tommy's post a couple above.

Edited October 26, 2023 by glossop saint

[RP London]

12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The only thing I remember was that it was stated Grade B clubs could still drop out of SL and only Grade A were exempt.

which is still the case.

 

indeed, i just seem to remember (but might be wrong) it was the phrasing around how they would drop out as a B that was vague and people interpreted it to be P&R between Bs but actually it wasnt, then there was something about P&R but only if the B that won the champ also had more points than the B at the bottom of Super League etc.. I think it was more people reading what they wanted to into the statement but they needed to clarify it.. 

As I say though a lot of time has gone by and a lot of pages on a lot of threads so I may not be remembering it quite right. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

indeed, i just seem to remember (but might be wrong) it was the phrasing around how they would drop out as a B that was vague and people interpreted it to be P&R between Bs but actually it wasnt, then there was something about P&R but only if the B that won the champ also had more points than the B at the bottom of Super League etc.. I think it was more people reading what they wanted to into the statement but they needed to clarify it.. 

As I say though a lot of time has gone by and a lot of pages on a lot of threads so I may not be remembering it quite right. 

It’s also kind of irrelevant, the clubs knew exactly what they were voting for at the time they voted.

[Hopie]

So we have 6 or 7 clubs who will likely get A's and guaranteed spots, then we have 7 or 8 high Bs scrambling for the remaining SL spots, spending cash reserves/borrowing money to get those fractions of a grading point here and there. If another club joins London in being relegated next year, they are going to have a huge gap in their budget going forwards, and unlike the system being replaced it won't just be a short term gap.

 

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It’s also kind of irrelevant, the clubs knew exactly what they were voting for at the time they voted.

oh I agree but its the one bit I understand the confusion on on here as its not easily found unlike the entire grading document. 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Hopie said:

So we have 6 or 7 clubs who will likely get A's and guaranteed spots, then we have 7 or 8 high Bs scrambling for the remaining SL spots, spending cash reserves/borrowing money to get those fractions of a grading point here and there. If another club joins London in being relegated next year, they are going to have a huge gap in their budget going forwards, and unlike the system being replaced it won't just be a short term gap.

 

unlike every other year where teams spend loads of money they dont have or use their cash reserves on players that dont perform and they end up getting relegated or missing out on promotion leaving them with a huge gap in their budget going forwards?

[Adelaide Tiger]

25 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).

In my 50 years of following Cas this is the first time that I have ever seen a clear ‘snapshot’ of the clubs operations ranked against a set of ‘pillars’ with identified actions to move the club forward towards a Grade A.

In the past I have been to presentations that simply said ‘Over the next five years we are looking to be in the play offs every year; reach one Grand Final; win the CC’ with no planned approach, apart from hope, as to how the off-field and on-field operations would help achieve those aims.

There is now accountability at the club and supporters will now be able to see how the club progresses over the next twelve months.

 

[Archie Gordon]

4 minutes ago, Hopie said:

So we have 6 or 7 clubs who will likely get A's and guaranteed spots, then we have 7 or 8 high Bs scrambling for the remaining SL spots, spending cash reserves/borrowing money to get those fractions of a grading point here and there. If another club joins London in being relegated next year, they are going to have a huge gap in their budget going forwards, and unlike the system being replaced it won't just be a short term gap.

 

Yes.

We ought to be introducing a system that removes or alleviates the cliff edge. The IMG system retains it - and then some.

[DI Keith Fowler]

22 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Well Batley thought that's what was going to happen until the meeting back in March;

Like other clubs, Nicholas was of the understanding that a Grade B licence would make clubs eligible for promotion. But in a key difference, the twelve clubs that are scored highest annually will make up the top flight. 

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/batley-img-super-league-bias-26432345

A few clubs did. IMG didn't put anything out to the effect that it was just straight P&R between B's but some clubs were adamant that's what they were told. I highly suspect someone from the RFL didn't understand the system they were buying into and started spreading misinformation. 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

Yes.

We ought to be introducing a system that removes or alleviates the cliff edge. The IMG system retains it - and then some.

not in the long term it doesnt to be fair.. the aim is to get 12 and close the league maybe add 2 more when they are ready and make it 14... 

They are doing exactly what you are asking

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

not in the long term it doesnt to be fair.. the aim is to get 12 and close the league maybe add 2 more when they are ready and make it 14... 

They are doing exactly what you are asking

They absolutely aren't because once you are demoted from SL you will take a hit on fandom and finances that you can't claw back. It's the argument put forward since day 1.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

They absolutely aren't because once you are demoted from SL you will take a hit on fandom and finances that you can't claw back. It's the argument put forward since day 1.

Quite - grading will largely be a self fulfilling prophecy of the league you start in.

[phiggins]

40 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I was going to say that it is interesting that they are only seeking to replicate their existing grade for performance (having just finished 11th in SL).

But with their 2021 score (7th place finish) dropping out of consideration next year, they actually have to make a significant improvement on this year to achieve that. Their current performance grading is based on 7th, 7th, 11th.

Would've thought that the performance scores could be published by the RFL. It's only an aggregate of publically available data anyway. Looking at the scores available, and the comments from Cas about maintaining a score of 3.09, I'm guessing that they will have been ranked 9th or 10th. Not sure what they will have to do to maintain that, as not sure where other clubs have finished in that ranking. Leigh might havebeen propped up above them by the CC win, but seems unlikely given the positions in 2021/22.

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, Leonard said:

Quite - grading will largely be a self fulfilling prophecy of the league you start in.

Even more so, the league you started in, given it is being judged on previous years. Hence the ridiculous position that London are in and how vulnerable Leigh's place looks.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Even more so, the league you started in, given it is being judged on previous years. Hence the ridiculous position that London are in and how vulnerable Leigh's place looks.

Well yes. The idea - unless a meteor hits the LSV - that Leigh should be anywhere near being relegated is plain daft.

And that if they were and went to central funding of c.£100k, part time and crowds more than halved that it would be simple to make changes and pop back up on grading versus an incumbent is equally as odd.

But that's the system we have.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Leonard

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, JonM said:

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. 

I think I saw one club complaining about clubs cheating crowd numbers, and another club moaning that they used excel wrong. 

It almost feels like there is an indication why we are where we are as a sport. 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think I saw one club complaining about clubs cheating crowd numbers, and another club moaning that they used excel wrong. 

It almost feels like there is an indication why we are where we are as a sport. 

Yeah its all very bald men fighting over a comb thats actually a pair of hair straightners that they don't know needs electricity...

A shocking development!

[Click]

5 hours ago, Fevrover said:

They can't possibly be any worse. 

I haven't been to Castlefords stadium in a long time, but for the final in Toulouse - the womens toilets were literally a hole in the ground for them to squat over, so I wouldn't be surprised if Cas's were better ...