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

[gingerjon]

6 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? 

My view:

The standards for an 'A' are not particularly high but they are higher than 80% of our professional clubs can manage and, seemingly, higher than many of them could ever even conceive of managing.

The game is in a shockingly poor place.

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

My view:

The standards for an 'A' are not particularly high but they are higher than 80% of our professional clubs can manage and, seemingly, higher than many of them could ever even conceive of managing.

The game is in a shockingly poor place.

I kind of agree. So the idea that Salford are already an A for Fandom is madness. IMG/RLC saying they are pleasantly surprised by this is also madness.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

My view:

The standards for an 'A' are not particularly high but they are higher than 80% of our professional clubs can manage and, seemingly, higher than many of them could ever even conceive of managing.

The game is in a shockingly poor place.

Maybe part of the ‘kick back’ is that this exercise has exposed that?

The grading system isn’t perfect i don’t think any system would be but it is part of a longer term strategy, IMG weren’t brought in to just do this in fact id say thr structure is only a small part of their remit, once this fully kicks in in 2025 that’s when we’ll see what they are all about imo

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

I kind of agree. So the idea that Salford are already an A for Fandom is madness. IMG/RLC saying they are pleasantly surprised by this is also madness.

Theres no such grading for fandom, the grading is an overall score

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

5 hours ago, Neil_Ormston said:

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

I was going to reply to your earlier post saying that Cats and Wigan share the points for 2nd/3rd to ask if you'd had that confirmed? I really can't see why that would be the case rather than them both being classed as 2nd with the next club (Leeds) being 4th. Similarly both Salford and Warrington would then be classed 6th

[Damien]

7 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? 

I think IMG were needed mainly because Super League was in a poor place with declining TV deals. This affects all of Rugby League, as we have seen.

7 A clubs, while telling us what we already know, shows why SL is in a poor place and has long been in the main a 2 tier league. It shows we are halfway there. The key is the other clubs using this process to drive up standards to become a A club for their own benefit, SL's benefit and the benefit of the wider game. SL having 12/14 A clubs will only improve SL with knock on benefits for the wider game.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I kind of agree. So the idea that Salford are already an A for Fandom is madness. IMG/RLC saying they are pleasantly surprised by this is also madness.

I think 'fandom' is going to become what 'stadiums' was to licencing (and how badly licencing was handled is a whole other issue that still damages the game). It is a very poor metric and my suspicion, which you will note in a running theme in my view on this, that has been used because it is cheap to look at rather than a more complex one which would require money and work.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

3 hours ago, paul hicks said:

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 

 

From memory during the licencing period the Widnes owner 'invested' money into the club to get turnover above the threshold to be eligible for a licence. 

Under the IMG system investments have to be long term - which is defined as a minimum of one year.....

Edited October 27, 2023 by Les Tonks Sidestep

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Maybe part of the ‘kick back’ is that this exercise has exposed that?

I think that's right. Like I say, a lot of the grading criteria are not onerous, just like the minimum standards (oft waived) in the RFL Operational Rules. And yet a vast majority of our clubs could only dream of meeting them.

That should be an eye opener.

Instead the barroom bores want to be carry on like it's some meaningless joke.

It does seem, on balance, that the clubs remain on board with the process, even if the louder sections of 'fandom' want to carry on moaning and for the game to remain as it is so they never have to deal with anything new.

[OdsalBull]

13 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

HOLD THE PRESS - I'VE WORKED IT OUT

The points initially intended to be awarded and set out on page 17 of the grading document was based on us having 36 clubs (including London Skolars).

Skolars withdrawing means the increments between position 1 and last place have changed. There are now larger increments and different scores to those shown in the document.

Oh so after all that there is no question marks regarding bradford scoring then as some suggest  the depths some will go to is incredible when you consider we only rank FOURTEENTH

[Damien]

15 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

My view:

The standards for an 'A' are not particularly high but they are higher than 80% of our professional clubs can manage and, seemingly, higher than many of them could ever even conceive of managing.

The game is in a shockingly poor place.

I don't think they are that high at all either.

It's a fine line though between pulling up clubs that are way behind by giving them a carrot and having stricter criteria which writes off many clubs and leads to accusations of pulling up the drawbridge.

I think this criteria is very much a compromise and halfway house, which is about right for where we stand.

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, Leonard said:

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.

I think Salford are a good case study in reviewing the effectiveness of the rankings. 

The majority of clubs feel like they are where they should be. I don't think there can be too many complaints about the top 7 A clubs. They are bigger than the others. But Salford are a club who instinctively don't feel as strong as their score suggests. The fandom score feels high, although back to my original point on this, I assume to get the extra points they need to hit that 7.5k mark. 

I'd like to think they have done plenty of testing on this to try and pull out anomalies and outliers, but it instinctively feels like we are overrating the likes of Salford and Hudds and harshly treating Leigh etc. 

Tbh, I do feel finances are being understated, and fandom points are being given too easily. 

[paul hicks]

5 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

From memory during the licencing period the Widnes owner 'invested' money into the club to get turnover above the threshold to be eligible for a licence. 

Under the IMG system investments have to be long term - which is defined as a minimum of one year......

fine so you put the money into the club account for a year and leave it there. then after a year you take it back out again. still a bit of a con you could do 

[Archie Gordon]

12 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Theres no such grading for fandom, the grading is an overall score

75% gets you an A. Salford score well over that for Fandom. Whilst I'm stretching things to say they got an actual A for Fandom, surely you accept the thrust of my argument?

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

3 hours ago, paul hicks said:

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. 

There are points for profit - you get the same for a profit of £1.01 and anything above and a fraction less for between a profit of £1 and a loss of £1m.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think 'fandom' is going to become what 'stadiums' was to licencing (and how badly licencing was handled is a whole other issue that still damages the game). It is a very poor metric and my suspicion, which you will note in a running theme in my view on this, that has been used because it is cheap to look at rather than a more complex one which would require money and work.

I do think this could have been simplified to have a wider range on attendances. The bandings are too forgiving imo. 

[Harry Stottle]

15 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Nobody happy? Most of the clubs seem fine with it, they voted for it after all.

and not all supporters are unhappy either

I will state that won't be the case in a couple or 3 years Chris, have you ever done something you have regretted later, if you say no I honestly won't believe you.

After that time either IMG will be history or there will be the long threatened breakaway by SL and we will have two factions.

Just my opinion of course.

[paul hicks]

24 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

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 

its easy to improve the catchment score.

just merge with any other team in the same catchment area

[GUBRATS]

The gradings are essentially to make  clearer to clubs where they need to work harder , can somebody explain how any club is going to improve their ' catchment ' score ? 

 

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Tbh, I do feel finances are being understated, and fandom points are being given too easily. 

Money and work ...

Salford being stronger than any club outside Super League and a few inside doesn't seem like a wrong thing to say. I think most would just quibble the A grade.

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, paul hicks said:

its easy to improve the catchment score.

just merge with any other team in the same catchment area

Tell me you didn't just write that out without laughing ? 

[Gomersall]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Tell me you didn't just write that out without laughing ? 

Wigan MBC Leopards it is.

[Harry Stottle]

15 hours ago, Dave T said:

it may be that the only way they can do that is to improve finances and get above 7,500 crowds. And if that happens, then they would look like a Grade A club. 

How do you expect this is going to be translated to the man in the street that the club needs more spectators so they will gain more points on the IMG spreadsheet.

I would guess that 70% of present fans have not a clue who or what IMG is in relation to the sport and if present fans of the clubs are not aware I wouldn't think that those newbies that the aim is to attract will will have a clue or even be bothered or concerned, it is just the Anoraks of our ilk that will be discussing this.

[RP London]

So @Leonard it would appear Newcastle are not even vernacularly "bust". While their score will no doubt change due to some of the changes they will be making it would have been unprofessional and plain wrong for IMG to have not graded them as they are... 

https://www.thunderrugby.co.uk/article/788/newcastle-thunder-update-

[paul hicks]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Tell me you didn't just write that out without laughing ? 

was just a thought.  perhaps they could combine there IMG points on the back of it.

if London and midlands hurricanes merged could the not combine there grading points and get into the top 12.  got to be worth a try.

ah just a flight of fancy but no dafter than a number of posts on the thread. just not as desperate