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

[M j M]

3 hours ago, Leonard said:

The first shares I ever bought were in a company called Albert Fisher - around late 90s.

One of the largest food producers in the UK at time. Profitable, but heavy debt burden due to poor acquisitions.

They hired McKinsey for some reason to tell them how to run their business and paid a small fortune.

6 months after the review they went bust.

The company I worked for was bought by a private equity house in 2015. Three years later we went bust.

In our best year we made profits of around £10-£15m. In the three years before going kaput we spent £18m on consultants, most of whom were amongst the most self-confident but, in the context of our business, utterly clueless people I have ever met. The combination of their costs and their recommendations were fundamental to our demise.

My view on this: I'm sure IMG have got some smart people on board and there's definitely value to be got out of working with them. But we definitely shouldn't assume they have a clue how to administrate, market and grow a hyper-regional sport like Rugby League.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

The company I worked for was bought by a private equity house in 2015. Three years later we went bust.

In our best year we made profits of around £10-£15m. In the three years before going kaput we spent £18m on consultants, most of whom were amongst the most self-confident but, in the context of our business, utterly clueless people I have ever met. The combination of their costs and their recommendations were fundamental to our demise.

My view on this: I'm sure IMG have got some smart people on board and there's definitely value to be got out of working with them. But we definitely shouldn't assume they have a clue how to administrate, market and grow a hyper-regional sport like Rugby League.

100% agree - the jury should be out and they have plenty to prove. 

People questioning why such analogies are relevant is simply asinine. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Click said:

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 ...

Toulouse play at the Ernest Wallon if they are in SL so Cas's toilets won't be better.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

Re the Bradford performance score of 2.17:

In 2021 Bradford finished 5th in the championship. In the play offs they went out in the first round as did the 6th place team Whitehaven. Therefore according to IMG (Appendix 1) as the higher placed team eliminated they finished the season in 5th place (17th overall) and scored 2.2222 points.

In 2022 Bradford finished 9th in the championship (21st overall) and scored 1.7778 points.

In 2023 Bradford finished 3rd in the championship. In the play offs they went out in the second  round as did the 1st place team Featherstone. Therefore according to IMG (Appendix 1) as the lower placed team eliminated they finished the season in 4th place (16th overall) and scored 2.3333 points.

Therefore 2.2222+1.7778+2.3333=6.3333 which when divided by 3 =2.1111 or 2.11, not 2.17.

So can someone better informed than me point out where I've gone wrong?

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Jill Halfpenny fan

[fearnowt]

Disappointed to see us at the bottom of this table but not really surprised after the ground issues we had this year, hopefully a full season of home games on our home ground will see an improvement in points scored, even if we don't move up this particular "table". It would also be interesting to see how we would compare with London Skolars and West Wales Raiders had they survived.

I have not looked at the criteria for this grading, but we do have a foundation which is growing, a women's team formed this year which I believe has attracted up to 40 players (the majority if not all of them Welsh players), and our wheelchair team won the Championship grand final, only to be denied promotion to Super League because is is apparently "invitation only".

Never mind, the squad building has started for next year so I for one am going to take this grading with a pinch of salt. The real issue for all the clubs in League 1 right now is what kind of league will be playing in next year.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, M j M said:

The company I worked for was bought by a private equity house in 2015. Three years later we went bust.

In our best year we made profits of around £10-£15m. In the three years before going kaput we spent £18m on consultants, most of whom were amongst the most self-confident but, in the context of our business, utterly clueless people I have ever met. The combination of their costs and their recommendations were fundamental to our demise.

My view on this: I'm sure IMG have got some smart people on board and there's definitely value to be got out of working with them. But we definitely shouldn't assume they have a clue how to administrate, market and grow a hyper-regional sport like Rugby League.

I wonder who the consultants were who came up with the Super 8s. I have had a quick google - but cannot find reference.

[Bulls2487]

9 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Re the Bradford performance score of 2.17:

In 2021 Bradford finished 5th in the championship. In the play offs they went out in the first round as did the 6th place team Whitehaven. Therefore according to IMG (Appendix 1) as the higher placed team eliminated they finished the season in 5th place (17th overall) and scored 2.2222 points.

In 2022 Bradford finished 9th in the championship (21st overall) and scored 1.7778 points.

In 2023 Bradford finished 3rd in the championship. In the play offs they went out in the second  round as did the 1st place team Featherstone. Therefore according to IMG (Appendix 1) as the lower placed team eliminated they finished the season in 4th place (16th overall) and scored 2.3333 points.

Therefore 2.2222+1.7778+2.3333=6.3333 which when divided by 3 =2.1111 or 2.11, not 2.17.

So can someone better informed than me point out where I've gone wrong?

 

Aren't all figures rounded up? So 2.3 1.8 and 2.4?

[RP London]

1 hour 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.

but they are closing the trap door, they're making sure that the strongest clubs are in there when they do it.. 

whether you agree with the process and the way its grading that is the aim of this and its to take this precipice away that you request, its just that it will take time to get to that point (though if they are correct, not as long as first thought).

[phiggins]

8 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Re the Bradford performance score of 2.17:

In 2021 Bradford finished 5th in the championship. In the play offs they went out in the first round as did the 6th place team Whitehaven. Therefore according to IMG (Appendix 1) as the higher placed team eliminated they finished the season in 5th place (17th overall) and scored 2.2222 points.

In 2022 Bradford finished 9th in the championship (21st overall) and scored 1.7778 points.

In 2023 Bradford finished 3rd in the championship. In the play offs they went out in the second  round as did the 1st place team Featherstone. Therefore according to IMG (Appendix 1) as the lower placed team eliminated they finished the season in 4th place (16th overall) and scored 2.3333 points.

Therefore 2.2222+1.7778+2.3333=6.3333 which when divided by 3 =2.1111 or 2.11, not 2.17.

So can someone better informed than me point out where I've gone wrong?

 

I thought (and this counts for nothing!) that it worked slightly differently. That their 17th, 21st and 16th placed positions would then be averaged out to 18th place on average. 18th place on the scoring chart is 2.11, so not sure if it's a direct score based on your own average (i.e. multiple teams can get the same score), or each average is ranked against each other and each team given a rank 1-36 with the relevant grading score then assigned. (If any of that waffle makes sense!)

[Tex Evans Thigh]

3 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

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

I was thinking that after I'd posted that response!

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, Bulls2487 said:

Aren't all figures rounded up? So 2.3 1.8 and 2.4?

What crazy maths are they using to round to one decimal place for the scores, but then 2 decimal places on the average

 

[Archie Gordon]

16 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Re the Bradford performance score of 2.17:

In 2021 Bradford finished 5th in the championship. In the play offs they went out in the first round as did the 6th place team Whitehaven. Therefore according to IMG (Appendix 1) as the higher placed team eliminated they finished the season in 5th place (17th overall) and scored 2.2222 points.

In 2022 Bradford finished 9th in the championship (21st overall) and scored 1.7778 points.

In 2023 Bradford finished 3rd in the championship. In the play offs they went out in the second  round as did the 1st place team Featherstone. Therefore according to IMG (Appendix 1) as the lower placed team eliminated they finished the season in 4th place (16th overall) and scored 2.3333 points.

Therefore 2.2222+1.7778+2.3333=6.3333 which when divided by 3 =2.1111 or 2.11, not 2.17.

So can someone better informed than me point out where I've gone wrong?

 

Good spot. I think you're right but would be good to have confirmation.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

Just now, Spidey said:

What crazy maths are they using to round to one decimal place for the scores, but then 2 decimal places on the average

 

They use 4 decimal places for positions

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I thought (and this counts for nothing!) that it worked slightly differently. That their 17th, 21st and 16th placed positions would then be averaged out to 18th place on average. 18th place on the scoring chart is 2.11, so not sure if it's a direct score based on your own average (i.e. multiple teams can get the same score), or each average is ranked against each other and each team given a rank 1-36 with the relevant grading score then assigned. (If any of that waffle makes sense!)

the way i read it its 17+21+16 = 54 then you sort in descending order the total points to get 1-36 and they get their grading points from that... 

[Spidey]

Just now, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

They use 4 decimal places for positions

Yeah - but following the other poster's logic you get to 2.17

Who published Bradford's scores?

[phiggins]

Just now, RP London said:

the way i read it its 17+21+16 = 54 then you sort in descending order the total points to get 1-36 and they get their grading points from that... 

Would be good if they could publish that 1-36 ranking. Can't be any privacy issues with that.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours 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.

Part of my agrees with this, it would certainly be simpler to have a load of A clubs who had guarantees, and B clubs who knew they were at risk and/or had the opportunity to get promoted.

But I guess they've gone down this route as the 'fear' of relegation might make B clubs act faster to improve in some areas. Ultimately once all clubs get the basics right (and the scoring system shows you what those are) then they'll be A grade clubs with security. IMG/RFL want clubs to focus more effort on that than the squad on the field, for now. I'm fine with that. 

Ultimately we need to remember that what IMG really wanted was a closed Super League with new entrants only coming in when they could demonstrably add value (expanding the league to do so). That's the goal. This is just a transitional model, partly to assuage some clubs so they'd vote for it, partly to create a window of time to incentivise some improvement. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 minute ago, Bulls2487 said:

Aren't all figures rounded up? So 2.3 1.8 and 2.4?

Leaving aside that you've not rounded correctly why would they be rounded up to 1 decimal place when published in the handbook to 4 and even Bradford quote to 2?

Plus even rounded to 2 dps (2.22, 1.78 and 2.33) they still give an average of 2.11 not 2.17 or to 1 dp (2.2, 1.8, 2.3) 2.1.

Maybe they used their attendance calculator?

[DI Keith Fowler]

45 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. 

Someone at Cas accidentally sent "Copy of Copy of Castleford Accounts Summary 2022 - FINAL [Autosaved] SG edit 20231024.xls" instead of "Copy of Copy of Castleford Accounts Summary 2022 - FINAL [Autosaved] SG edit 20231024 FINAL.xls"

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by DI Keith Fowler

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Someone at Cas accidentally sent "Copy of Copy of Castleford Accounts Summary 2022 - FINAL [Autosaved] SG edit 20231024.xls" instead of "Copy of Copy of Castleford Accounts Summary 2022 - FINAL [Autosaved] SG edit 20231024 FINAL.xls"

 

accounts summary final final final extra line added final v5 DO NOT SUBMIT.xls

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Someone at Cas accidentally sent "Copy of Copy of Castleford Accounts Summary 2022 - FINAL [Autosaved] SG edit 20231024.xls" instead of "Copy of Copy of Castleford Accounts Summary 2022 - FINAL [Autosaved] SG edit 20231024 FINAL.xls"

 

Surely Cas use Lotus notes?

Edited October 26, 2023 by Leonard

[Archie Gordon]

I'm not sure it's arithmetically possible to average 2.17 unless you average over 2 seasons. 

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I'm not sure it's arithmetically possible to average 2.17 unless you average over 2 seasons. 

I think you missed some posts further back.. its the RFL auditing the data.. anything is possible..

[Spidey]

7 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I'm not sure it's arithmetically possible to average 2.17 unless you average over 2 seasons. 

If you round each score to one decimal place individually then do an average you get to 2.166666 or 2.17.  A lot of heavy lifting by rounding 

[ELBOWSEYE]

56 minutes ago, M j M said:

 

My view on this: I'm sure IMG have got some smart people on board and there's definitely value to be got out of working with them. But we definitely shouldn't assume they have a clue how to administrate, market and grow a hyper-regional sport like Rugby League.

When has RL ever run by people who know how to market,grow and administrate the sport. We have held back clubs self interest, unqualified administration, we harm our interests more than the RFU have done.