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

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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. 

Quite. Feels a lack of nuance. 

[sheddingswasus]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

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-

As these gradings are historical over over 36 months then yes. But I would imagine that after much decline in the past two years plus a very minimal existence in L1 or whatever in 2024 then their score would likely plummet 

Likewise many other scores will change over this coming season as clubs work on weak areas. As much as IMG is disliked by many (and I think they have got the P & R thing totally wrong) if all this forces clubs to target improvements then this must surely be good for the game. 

However, maybe the historical data for years 1 & 2 should be weighted, otherwise we are not really going to reward progress, but instead uphold previous failings. As it stands it takes three years to show any progress, but a club suddenly being managed badly would not show show up and arm bells that should be ringing wouldn't be heard?

I also think the fandom metrics need looking at. Just looking at postcodes is not the right way. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by sheddingswasus

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, paul hicks said:

its easy to improve the catchment score.

just merge with any other team in the same catchment area

Whitehaven and Workington

[Hammerless Nail]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

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.

It seems to me that the big flaw in IMG's methodology was that they assessed the clubs and produced a set of rankings based on published metrics, rather than just relying on the opinions of a bunch of mewling know-nowts yarbling a load of arseclarts on a rugby forum.

Shocking if true.

 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, paul hicks said:

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 

I suppose somebody had to post it , at least now you've done it and given the ' stupid '  answer , nobody else will and we can see everybody else providing a realistic alternative answer ? 

So in that vein , apart from clubs deciding to commit hari kari by merging , how can any club improve its catchment score ? , genuine answers only please 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, RP London said:

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-

Not quite sure that's the win you think it is for IMGs grading system. 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Leonard

[Chrispmartha]

24 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

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?

Not really, that’s the point of having different criteria, clubs could score highly in one but terrible in another, showing the clubs where they need to improve.

FWIW i think the fandom section is too easy to get a high score in so in part i agree with you

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I suppose somebody had to post it , at least now you've done it and given the ' stupid '  answer , nobody else will and we can see everybody else providing a realistic alternative answer ? 

So in that vein , apart from clubs deciding to commit hari kari by merging , how can any club improve its catchment score ? , genuine answers only please 

A sponsored shagathon for fans to bang out more kids?

Maybe IMG can rig up a sponsorship deal with pampers with the carrot of 200 seats at Cas to watch them play Salford. 

[Barley Mow]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I suppose somebody had to post it , at least now you've done it and given the ' stupid '  answer , nobody else will and we can see everybody else providing a realistic alternative answer ? 

So in that vein , apart from clubs deciding to commit hari kari by merging , how can any club improve its catchment score ? , genuine answers only please 

Go into the house building industry and increase the housing stock (and population) in their local area!?! 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I suppose somebody had to post it , at least now you've done it and given the ' stupid '  answer , nobody else will and we can see everybody else providing a realistic alternative answer ? 

So in that vein , apart from clubs deciding to commit hari kari by merging , how can any club improve its catchment score ? , genuine answers only please 

Move.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I suppose somebody had to post it

... again

[Guest]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

Go into the house building industry and increase the housing stock (and population) in their local area!?! 

A train station would be the obvious answer. ..  ....

[Chrispmartha]

28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

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.

It wouldn’t surprise me Harry because a lot of clubs think short term and only really care about themselves 

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Hammerless Nail said:

It seems to me that the big flaw in IMG's methodology was that they assessed the clubs and produced a set of rankings based on published metrics, rather than just relying on the opinions of a bunch of mewling know-nowts yarbling a load of arseclarts on a rugby forum.

Shocking if true.

 

What they need to do is listen to anonymous people in comments sections and internet messageboards.

Or possibly, "some definitely real blokes I was chatting to down the Dog & Duck who agreed with every word I said about the specifics of the Odsal score".

[Toby Chopra]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

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

Spot on.

As we saw with earlier threads on IMG we have 50 pages of uninformed obsessing over the gradings, when the main thing IMG will be doing is using 7League and Endeavour etc to transform marketing, media and promotional efforts so we improve how the sport - through its shop window of Superleague - is perceived and consumed.

We hope this then feeds through into better commercial deals. IMG won't get paid if it doesn't.

The point of the gradings was to choose the 12 best equipped clubs in a broad sense to do that with.

Nothing about the gradings surprises me at all, and I'm just a bloke on the internet who likes to read the documents. So why some clubs are expressing surprise and anger is beyond me.

If I can fault IMG over anything it would be:

a/ Not stressing the point that its work will primarily be done through the channel of Superleague, and any wider dividend for the game will come via Rugby League Commercial's share of contracts, and a general improvement in the game's perception. Some people still think they're going to act like social workers addressing every problem the game has from top to bottom.

b/ The system is designed to make the clubs in Superleague more secure for good reason, and they will only be replaced if they go into crisis. P&R is over and a (dynamic) licensing is back.

None of this is secret. Anyone who cared to pay attention rather than moan could understand it. And I understand why IMG didn't go out of their way to stress these points - why invite a load of complaint from people who don't really want to engage and struggle to move on from how the game looked 40+ years ago.

But I think with hindsight they could have been a bit braver and left no-one in doubt of the change to come. If the sport lost its nerve because of that and backtracked then it isn't IMG that would ultimately suffer.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Toby Chopra

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

10 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Quite. Feels a lack of nuance. 

There's lack of nuance/demarcation in several of the pillars.

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, Leonard said:

A sponsored shagathon for fans to bang out more kids?

Maybe IMG can rig up a sponsorship deal with pampers with the carrot of 200 seats at Cas to watch them play Salford. 

Not really an answer I expected , but probably no dafter than a merger

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Not really an answer I expected , but probably no dafter than a merger

A horizontal merger.

Of sorts.

[GUBRATS]

10 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Go into the house building industry and increase the housing stock (and population) in their local area!?! 

I suppose we could drag one of those big ' Hotel barges ' up the canal from Liverpool and put 10,000 asylum seekers in it

[Barley Mow]

14 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I suppose somebody had to post it , at least now you've done it and given the ' stupid '  answer , nobody else will and we can see everybody else providing a realistic alternative answer ? 

So in that vein , apart from clubs deciding to commit hari kari by merging , how can any club improve its catchment score ? , genuine answers only please 

Merging Councils can work just as well as merging clubs.

When IMG first became involved with RFL, three clubs (Barrow, Whitehaven and Workington) would all have got the lowest score for catchment.

Changes to their Councils in April this year have actually benefitted the catchment score for all three clubs.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Not really an answer I expected , but probably no dafter than a merger

Knock on points for half time entertainment and engagement with the community.

[Damien]

31 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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

I completely agree. The gap between 3,000 and 7,500 is far too large for just another 0.5 points. There should have been a 5,000 band for sure.

I'd have also personally judged non SL attendances different too. In my opinion a club averaging 2,950 in the Championship deserves more points than a SL club averaging 3,500.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Leonard said:

Knock on points for half time entertainment and engagement with the community.

Catchment answers only 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I completely agree. The gap between 3,000 and 7,500 is far too large for just another 0.5 points. There should have been a 5,000 band for sure.

I'd have also personally judged non SL attendances different too. In my opinion a club averaging 2,950 in the Championship deserves more points than a SL club averaging 3,500.

Do they strip out away tickets? If not they should do.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

In my opinion a club averaging 2,950 in the Championship deserves more points than a SL club averaging 3,500.

Then you're starting to move into the 'too many points for potential' problem that afflicted licencing.