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

[Neil_Ormston]

2 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Thanks. @Spidey posted the link to the Twitter (sorry X) post above so I've seen it now - saved me from cranking up the calculator and having Mrs S muttering away as I trawled through past league tables!

Yes, I’ve just seen. Thanks @Spidey.

[Guest]

Salford scored 4.15 from 5 on fandom, 3.43 from 5 on performance, 2.15 from 4.5 on finance, 1.83 from 3 on stadium and 2.25 from 2.5 on community.

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Leonard

[Gates1]

20 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Salford scored 4.15 from 5 on fandom, 3.43 from 5 on performance, 2.15 from 4.5 on finance, 1.83 from 3 on stadium and 2.25 from 2.5 on community.

 

 

4.15 on fandom , what are their attendances again?

Add the 1.5 points for the post code!

Edited October 26, 2023 by Gates1

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Gates1 said:

4.15 on fandom , what are their attendances again?

Add the 1.5 points for the post code!

Well, quite. Great strides recently, but still, seems a bit punchy. 

Club	Home Games	Total	Average	Highest	Lowest
Castleford Tigers	13	93,237	7,172	10,062	5,788
Catalans Dragons	13	117,808	9,053	10,786	6,933
Huddersfield Giants	13	68,086	5,237	7,737	4,070
Hull FC	13	160,617	12,355	20,985	9,937
Hull KR	14	114,010[a]	8,770	[b] 12,225	7,250
Leeds Rhinos	13	164,354	13,696	16,140	11,717
Leigh Leopards	13	94,303	7,254	10,308	5,423
Salford Red Devils	13	64,603	5,383	7,854	3,836
St Helens	14	179,979	12,782	17,088	10,304
Wakefield Trinity	13	51,443	4,287	4,710	3,348
Warrington Wolves	13	141,575	10,890	15,026	8,981
Wigan Warriors	13	175,462	13,497	24,275	11,451

Edited October 26, 2023 by Leonard

[phiggins]

22 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Salford scored 4.15 from 5 on fandom, 3.43 from 5 on performance, 2.15 from 4.5 on finance, 1.83 from 3 on stadium and 2.25 from 2.5 on community.

 

 

The records mentioned by @Neil_Ormston showed them getting 3.37 for performance. But the good news for them is they finished 11th in 2021 so there’s scope for increasing that score 

[Gates1]

10 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Well, quite. Great strides recently, but still, seems a bit punchy. 

Club	Home Games	Total	Average	Highest	Lowest
Castleford Tigers	13	93,237	7,172	10,062	5,788
Catalans Dragons	13	117,808	9,053	10,786	6,933
Huddersfield Giants	13	68,086	5,237	7,737	4,070
Hull FC	13	160,617	12,355	20,985	9,937
Hull KR	14	114,010[a]	8,770	[b] 12,225	7,250
Leeds Rhinos	13	164,354	13,696	16,140	11,717
Leigh Leopards	13	94,303	7,254	10,308	5,423
Salford Red Devils	13	64,603	5,383	7,854	3,836
St Helens	14	179,979	12,782	17,088	10,304
Wakefield Trinity	13	51,443	4,287	4,710	3,348
Warrington Wolves	13	141,575	10,890	15,026	8,981
Wigan Warriors	13	175,462	13,497	24,275	11,451

So nearly 2000 less than Cas but the same score for attendances. 

Still get an extra point for catchment though, even though having that great catchment doesn't help their attendances.....

Maybe next year is the year that all the Man Utd fans realise what they have been missing.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Gates1

[phiggins]

9 minutes ago, Gates1 said:

4.15 on fandom , what are their attendances again?

Add the 1.5 points for the post code!

Shows how ridiculous the fandom metrics are. Especially the digital and social media ones 

[Guest]

Just now, Gates1 said:

So nearly 2000 less than Cas but the same score for attendances. 

Still get an extra point for catchment though, even though having that great catchment doesn't help their attendances.....

Yup. Feels like bollards. 

Say Leeds score 5 for Fandom, that's not a huge difference given the actual massive difference. 

Catchment area or not.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Shows how ridiculous the fandom metrics are. Especially the digital and social media ones 

Yup, but people will be dying on the hill of Appendix XYZ. 

I assume the social media is potentially sponsor led. So will be interesting to see what sponsors they pull.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Leonard

[Zilla Budgie]

Just goes to show how clueless IMG really are. Well done the RFL in paying for these clowns to (basically) say how our club game is run in the next 12 years.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Zilla Budgie

[Gates1]

45 minutes ago, Gates1 said:

So nearly 2000 less than Cas but the same score for attendances. 

Still get an extra point for catchment though, even though having that great catchment doesn't help their attendances.....

Maybe next year is the year that all the Man Utd fans realise what they have been missing.

Just to add to this, your attendances are still that low despite having Wigan, St Helens, Warrington and Leigh within 30 minutes (which no doubt adds travelling support).  Keep the catchment point though.

[Hopie]

4 hours ago, Spidey said:

 

Great that somebody worked it out, comparing this table (adjusted with the bonuses) and the final gradings list shows who is graded above/below/at their playing ability.

1 hour ago, Leonard said:

Well, quite. Great strides recently, but still, seems a bit punchy. 

Club	Home Games	Total	Average	Highest	Lowest
Castleford Tigers	13	93,237	7,172	10,062	5,788
Catalans Dragons	13	117,808	9,053	10,786	6,933
Huddersfield Giants	13	68,086	5,237	7,737	4,070
Hull FC	13	160,617	12,355	20,985	9,937
Hull KR	14	114,010[a]	8,770	[b] 12,225	7,250
Leeds Rhinos	13	164,354	13,696	16,140	11,717
Leigh Leopards	13	94,303	7,254	10,308	5,423
Salford Red Devils	13	64,603	5,383	7,854	3,836
St Helens	14	179,979	12,782	17,088	10,304
Wakefield Trinity	13	51,443	4,287	4,710	3,348
Warrington Wolves	13	141,575	10,890	15,026	8,981
Wigan Warriors	13	175,462	13,497	24,275	11,451

Hopefully IMG don't use Wikipedia, and playoff crowds aren't included in total crowds!

[Neil_Ormston]

3 hours ago, phiggins said:

The records mentioned by @Neil_Ormston showed them getting 3.37 for performance. But the good news for them is they finished 11th in 2021 so there’s scope for increasing that score 

I have queried this, as my calcs were done based on the official explanation I was given. Salford and Wire are actually level on placings, and as I covered above, my understanding was this meant they would share the points for 6th and 7th; Salford seem to have been awarded the points for 6th, whilst Wire haven’t declared there’s publicly yet. Regardless, it’s not immediately obvious why this is the case, but as soon as I find out, I’ll share

[paul hicks]

6 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

I don't think you need to actually spend it, but simply use the mechanism to gain extra points.

so really, it's a con you just rest a bit of money in the club accounts but lay it aside not to use .  

it's also a waste of money if it's not earning.

could you just put it in say this month and then take it out next month and claim it was a short-term investment 

 

[paul hicks]

6 hours ago, M j M said:

I agree, it penalises self-sufficient clubs. Here's the official logic behind it.

 

 

but in reality, its just keeping a club going by pushing more money in rather than rather than running a business that can stand on its own two feet without external investment.

is there not a section where you get points for been self-sufficient and not needing more external money pumping in as that would show a sound profitable business and surely should be rewarded. instead, you reward business for needing more external money because it can't increase its internal profitability through good business management. 

[JohnM]

5 hours ago, Zilla Budgie said:

Just goes to show how clueless IMG really are. Well done the RFL in paying for these clowns to (basically) say how our club game is run in the next 12 years.

How much have the RFL actually paid IMG? 

Once again, it has to be said that it's the clubs who are in charge and who have agreed to the whole scheme. If they don't know what is going on, how it works etc, it says more about the capability of the clubs than it does about IMG or the project 

Calling IMG "clowns"?  Every metric proves their competence, in my view.

Fortunately, others on here are engaged in examining and debating the detail and although it feels to me like discussing how many angels can dance on the point of a needle, at least it is evidence-based. 

Me, I'm just going to focus on Saturdays game.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

How much have the RFL actually paid IMG? 

Once again, it has to be said that it's the clubs who are in charge and who have agreed to the whole scheme. If they don't know what is going on, how it works etc, it says more about the capability of the clubs than it does about IMG or the project 

Calling IMG "clowns"?  Every metric proves their competence, in my view.

Fortunately, others on here are engaged in examining and debating the detail and although it feels to me like discussing how many angels can dance on the point of a needle, at least it is evidence-based. 

Me, I'm just going to focus on Saturdays game.

It's harmless discussion. 

[Archie Gordon]

I'm not sure that IMG are clowns but this Dwyer dude - who they keep putting forward - seems to be constantly surprised by the obvious. 

[Expatknight]

The RFL bring in IMG to try to improve the way the game is run and make it profitable and fit for purpose, which to be frank needed to be done. With the exception of a few clubs the vast majority are way behind other sports, and the organisation as a whole needs a good shake up. You just have to look at the poor marketing of major tournaments such as the World Cup, Challenge Cup Final, Grand Final and to some extent the Mid season bash weekends. If you weren’t a fan of the game and knew they were happening you wouldn’t know, so you lose a lot of potential one off / curious/ nothing better to do today attendees. When the summer bash was held at York this year there was no advertising in the city centre, at the station or near the ground, so in a major tourist hub there was nothing to say this event was going on which is appalling really, we may have only got a few more people turn up, but those people if they found it exciting and entertaining spread the word , but that opportunity was lost. When the rankings were released rather than look at them and say where can we improve our club to improve our score and make it a more attractive prospect, the first reaction is to complain and whine and say IMG are wrong, how will the game ever improve with that attitude? 

[Chrispmartha]

You may not like the grading system IMG proposed (remember its the clubs that voted for it) but they aren’t ‘clowns’.

[gingerjon]

I see the "we want standards, transparency and a fair system" want none of those things really.

They just want to moan like barroom soaks about whichever team they happen to dislike personally and wang on about imagined slights against their own team.

Can't think why the RFL feel the need to work - however ineptly - to get more people involved with the game. We're in such a good place as it is.

[Archie Gordon]

I'm not understanding the logic of the last few posts.

IMG are needed because the game is in a poor place.

IMG results are in: the game is actually in a good place - 7 A clubs and another 7 not far off. 

Which is it? Poor place; good place? 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I'm not understanding the logic of the last few posts.

IMG are needed because the game is in a poor place.

IMG results are in: the game is actually in a good place - 7 A clubs and another 7 not far off. 

Which is it? Poor place; good place? 

Don’t think its as binary as that, I’d say we are in a good place to build from but not in a good enough place to say everything is ok.

[GUBRATS]

Unless we are seriously expecting clubs to move , I really don't understand the catchment score , but hey ho we have gone down this route , as I said IMO it will be divisive for the game , I can see some clubs spending more time checking other clubs scores than looking at their own 

And God forbid somebody gets relegated  or refused promotion only for a score to be later found as wrong 

Madness 

[Guest]

Of course the game can need shaking up and some aspects of the current process can be queried.