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

[Archie Gordon]

Just now, Spidey said:

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 

Ok, true - but I am making the strong assumption that using 4 DPs in the handbook means that they used 4 DPs in the calculation. But you are right if that assumption is wrong.

Anyway - odd. And possibly important where several clubs are fighting over fractions of a point.

[Spidey]

3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Ok, true - but I am making the strong assumption that using 4 DPs in the handbook means that they used 4 DPs in the calculation. But you are right if that assumption is wrong.

Anyway - odd. And possibly important where several clubs are fighting over fractions of a point.

I completely agree. It’s bad maths doing it the way I suggested, I’m unsure given everything is in multiple decimals why you’d round before an average taking place. But then we did have a club who couldn’t even fill out the form correctly

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

14 minutes ago, Spidey said:

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 

Except you don't

2.2222 -> 2.2

1.7778 -> 1.8

2.3333 -> 2.3

2.2 + 1.8 + 2.3 = 6.3

6.3/3 = 2.1

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Except you don't

2.2222 -> 2.2

1.7778 -> 1.8

2.3333 -> 2.3

2.2 + 1.8 + 2.3 = 6.3

6.3/3 = 2.1

I went off some numbers quoted to get to 2.16666.  Either way rounding to start off with is bad and should not be encouraged

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

Just now, Spidey said:

I went off some numbers quoted to get to 2.16666.  Either way rounding to start off with is bad and should not be encouraged

I'm really wondering how much due diligence has been put in to checking the submitted scores? If it really is intended as a dry run the auditing process to be used when things go live should have been used but then again maybe we're seeing that in action?

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

I'm really wondering how much due diligence has been put in to checking the submitted scores? If it really is intended as a dry run the auditing process to be used when things go live should have been used but then again maybe we're seeing that in action?

I'm more worried those in charge of our clubs don't know basic arithmetic

 

[Just Browny]

Nobody can read the last few pages of this thread and argue we've not added a new layer of excitement to RL.

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

I'm really wondering how much due diligence has been put in to checking the submitted scores? If it really is intended as a dry run the auditing process to be used when things go live should have been used but then again maybe we're seeing that in action?

I would guess the one thing this "dry run" has shown up is that they need to look at everyone's data with a lot more care next year.. Although depending on what it is and what exactly they missed out how easy is it for someone outside of the club to actually spot its missing?!?

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Nobody can read the last few pages of this thread and argue we've not added a new layer of excitement to RL.

I must admit, I didn't see this coming. 

I didn't realise that the thing the sport was missing was another table. I mean, two tables to track - twice as good as any other sport!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Nobody can read the last few pages of this thread and argue we've not added a new layer of excitement to RL.

For sure engagement figures are up.

IMG can point to this thread when trying to bring in Aston Martin as the headline sponsor.

[DI Keith Fowler]

40 minutes ago, phiggins said:

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

Makes me shudder to think of this document. Some cells with conditional formatting, others just coloured in, filters added that don't cover the range of the data, formulas dragged down that definitely shouldn't be dragged down, merge and centre everywhere.

I assume the real reason for all of this is that someone went to make a last minute change and the file was locked for editing so they made a copy and started working in that one. 

 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Makes me shudder to think of this document. Some cells with conditional formatting, others just coloured in, filters added that don't cover the range of the data, formulas dragged down that definitely shouldn't be dragged down, merge and centre everywhere.

I assume the real reason for all of this is that someone went to make a last minute change and the file was locked for editing so they made a copy and started working in that one. 

 

Now I'm slightly worried that you may be a work colleague of mine....

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Makes me shudder to think of this document. Some cells with conditional formatting, others just coloured in, filters added that don't cover the range of the data, formulas dragged down that definitely shouldn't be dragged down, merge and centre everywhere.

I assume the real reason for all of this is that someone went to make a last minute change and the file was locked for editing so they made a copy and started working in that one. 

 

On the flip side, they got extra fandom points when they got #VALUE trending on their X account.

[Monkeymagic22]

I’d never agree with this process. But at least if you are doing it, make it robust and a transparent process. Some clubs are saying that they haven’t even been visited by anyone as part of the process. Are there no checks, or are the clubs own submission’s just being accepted?. As would be expected if RL, to me, so far this has been pretty shambolic, as illustrated by the Cas farce.

[Damien]

Time for a laugh:

 

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

12 minutes ago, RP London said:

I would guess the one thing this "dry run" has shown up is that they need to look at everyone's data with a lot more care next year.. Although depending on what it is and what exactly they missed out how easy is it for someone outside of the club to actually spot its missing?!?

It should have been done this year not least to iron out any unforeseen issues on the auditing side of things. As for clubs' submissions, any genuine mistakes (and it's likely that's what they are rather 'fiddling') need to be flagged up now before being repeated next year and potentially making the whole process look tinpot.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Monkeymagic22 said:

I’d never agree with this process. But at least if you are doing it, make it robust and a transparent process. Some clubs are saying that they haven’t even been visited by anyone as part of the process. Are there no checks, or are the clubs own submission’s just being accepted?. As would be expected if RL, to me, so far this has been pretty shambolic, as illustrated by the Cas farce.

I think you would get short odds betting a suit from IMG never bothered to go Whitehaven or Workington. Deeming it pointless no doubt given the likely grading.

[DI Keith Fowler]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Now I'm slightly worried that you may be a work colleague of mine....

Don't get me started! I work with a lot of engineers who I think are by far the worst for this. Really methodical and rational thinkers in some aspects who then completely lose their minds when they have to do a schedule, and they love doing a schedule. They love it so much they'll divide apposite information over 3 different places, duplicate it another 3 places and then update this suite of documents at differing random intervals. 

When I say why don't you have one schedule for this which is consistent and updated regularly they look at me like a dog that's been shown a card trick. 

[Taffy Tiger]

2 hours 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 ...

Yes they are , we now have 2 holes in the ground

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Don't get me started! I work with a lot of engineers who I think are by far the worst for this. Really methodical and rational thinkers in some aspects who then completely lose their minds when they have to do a schedule, and they love doing a schedule. They love it so much they'll divide apposite information over 3 different places, duplicate it another 3 places and then update this suite of documents at differing random intervals. 

When I say why don't you have one schedule for this which is consistent and updated regularly they look at me like a dog that's been shown a card trick. 

So the problem with Cas all along was they are run by engineers?

Would have thought they could have at least whipped up a new toilet block though. 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

38 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

I'm really wondering how much due diligence has been put in to checking the submitted scores? If it really is intended as a dry run the auditing process to be used when things go live should have been used but then again maybe we're seeing that in action?

Can't imagine the clubs are calculating their performance scores. Surely the RFL or IMG have done that. Thing is, if I'm right about Bradford and they've messed up just about the easiest calculation what else is out there?

[Taffy Tiger]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

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.

Hi Phiggins , to maintain a score , the team in question would have to match their finishing position in 2021 , as the averages are taken on a rolling 3 year basis , therefore Cas would need to finish 7th (big ask) to maintain their 3.09 score , unless of course they win CC 

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, Ragingbull said:

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. 

Looking at the Bradford scores I reckon they are nearly "maxed out" as to the scores they can get other than the Stadium score which they may be able to increase slightly. So even given the massive advantage they have been handed for the Community score they are very unlikely to be near when it comes to the final gradings. It looks great now for them like they are really close but I don't expect much movement if any in their scores.

3 hours 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.

I hate to say it but when Cas seem so close to been graded as a Cat A club I feel the bar has been set way too low. I'm sorry if they were to do what they have said then using them as a benchmark club feels absurd.

23 minutes ago, Damien said:

Time for a laugh:

 

 

Shouldn't they be calling the RFL out instead of the council given that the RFL own the lease for the next god knows how many years. There is literally no incentive at all for the council to do anything with that ground. Maybe the RFL knew this was coming hence them trying to offload the lease.

[RP London]

41 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Makes me shudder to think of this document. Some cells with conditional formatting, others just coloured in, filters added that don't cover the range of the data, formulas dragged down that definitely shouldn't be dragged down, merge and centre everywhere.

I assume the real reason for all of this is that someone went to make a last minute change and the file was locked for editing so they made a copy and started working in that one. 

 

broken macros and a random pivot table... 

[RP London]

31 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

It should have been done this year not least to iron out any unforeseen issues on the auditing side of things. As for clubs' submissions, any genuine mistakes (and it's likely that's what they are rather 'fiddling') need to be flagged up now before being repeated next year and potentially making the whole process look tinpot.

totally agree on both those points.