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

[OdsalBull]

30 minutes ago, crashmon said:

To me the catchment area is flawed

For instance lets take Bradford vs (fev, wakey and Cas)

Bradford is a large town, but in the latest census 30% of the population is SE Asian..   They are not going to pay RL, they are going to play Cricket

Only 11% of people in Wakefield are considered South Asian

Now that still leaves more potential people in Bradford than Wakefield, but just because you have a certain amount of population in an area does not mean that they are potentials for support?....

God what a poor post. 

I thought your research might stretch to cover the fact that Bradford is indeed a CITY

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, crashmon said:

I never said it was a SE asian problem. Its a RL problem

How many SE asian players are playing in SL?   How is the Pakistan and Indian International RL teams getting on... Can you point me to a list of fixtures they have played in the last 10 years.

You cannot compare with Football is its a global sport.  A better compairson would be with Union in the south.  We have large asian populations in Southall which is in East ealing, yet I see very few asian supporters at Quins games or at trailfinders games (the few I have attended)

So do you want the catchment just to include white people then?

[Hopie]

25 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Some, not sure most, are against the concept because they believe P&R as a concept should be retained. That's their view and it has it's merits, and of course, they won't change their view because the system is tweaked.

But there are also a number of posters that believe this system simply will not achieve what it sets out to do, because it is flawed in it's metrics, who will be won over by some logical refinements.

 

I'm against implementing this system choosing between the teams in 12th and 13th and giving them hugely different outcomes on a very minor difference in critieria that don't show to me a significant difference between clubs. I do not see how this system will improve the game other than the hope that clubs with a high enough grading will do something different... but I don't know what that is. 

I know grading will be part of a wider plan, but I don't know what that is, I can see the negatives but not really any positives, notr why the other steps wouldn't work with P+R and/or a fairer distribution of funding. Closing the shop weakens those outside it, and the therefore the game overall. It is just another step towards protectionism between a smaller and smaller number of the top English teams and diminishing TV revenue.

I also see the system as flawed when Hull FC get an A grade when there was a story earlier in the year about them being on the edge of their finances and not making it through the off season, Salford are the highest B but are selling their players to get back on budget. 

[Damien]

32 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Indeed. Hopefully we get to a stage where 7.5k is pitifully low for top teams, and £1m benchmarks are worthless. Altho based on how stagnant the cap has been, who knows? 

I remember saying ages ago that this criteria was the starting point and that I can see it changing over time. When we get to the stage of having more than 14 A clubs then its going to start to become pretty worthless. Compared to where we are now it would be a nice problem to have.

Many of the metrics used in this criteria are far too low for what we should be striving for in our elite league but at the moment its a good starting place to try and get 14 clubs up to a better standard.

[Toby Chopra]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think you can compare with soccer because the work to get Asian (and other diverse groups) to attend and participate is often done at very local levels and has very little to do with Messi turning out for Inter Miami.

I'd say it's a bit of both. Football "looks" much more global and welcoming than it did 30-40 years ago, in part due to the proliferation of international and European football on our screens and the internationalisation of playing squads.

When I first went to Spurs nearly 40 years ago me, my dad, a couple of security guards and Garth Crooks were the only non-white faces in the building! It's very different now and that helps you build a more diverse fan base, across multiple categories.

But you then have to convert it on the ground, and hope you get into a virtuous circle.

So I'd say rugby league does have to try and tell some stories which shows the game isn't just played and watched by northern white men, and then work off that on the ground. 

We don't have loads to work with, but it's not nothing - I think we could tell the stories of our Pacifika players much more prominently and that just starts to shift perception. Then you have to convert on the ground.

It won't deliver a massive change in fortunes overnight, but I think we have a number of clubs based in diverse areas who if they could go from "basically none" to "a few" non-white fans would see early dividends.

[RBKnight]

40 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I was going to describe them as the group that's always in the kitchen at parties, but that would mean that they would be invited to parties in the first place...

As long as it's a kitchen supplied by the new Trinity owner.....

 

[Toby Chopra]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

I remember saying ages ago that this criteria was the starting point and that I can see it changing over time. When we get to the stage of having more than 14 A clubs then its going to start to become pretty worthless. Compared to where we are now it would be a nice problem to have.

Many of the metrics used in this criteria are far too low for what we should be striving for in our elite league but at the moment its a good starting place to try and get 14 clubs up to a better standard.

As I've said before, I see the gradings as a transitional phase because we don't have a enough strong clubs to have a self contained league yet. 

If we ever get to 12 - or even 10 - I'd expect the model to change to something much more like the NRL or NFL, where the clubs are constituent franchises in a centralised competition which demands certain common standards.

[RP London]

31 minutes ago, Leonard said:

You've chosen to ignore content by RP London. 

 

Go away.

Wow.. someone proves what you said with your "and I work in this area so I know" hat on and rather than simply acknowledge you're wrong you try to use it for your "IMG are wrong" rhetoric and continue your "obsession" claims..  when called out again you refuse to acknowledge your mis read of the situtaion/lie and simply ignore the person and situation.. 

How very adult of you... 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

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

I think you will find out in life those with the least can only afford to look after themselves, and that is when they get help from outside influences, it is about affordability, how about those 'A' rated clubs take less CF, the 'B's a little more and the 'C's getting the most, that would work wouldn't it? They could all afford to look longer term then, do you agree?

[JohnM]

5 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

As I've said before, I see the gradings as a transitional phase because we don't have a enough strong clubs to have a self contained league yet. 

If we ever get to 12 - or even 10 - I'd expect the model to change to something much more like the NRL or NFL, where the clubs are constituent franchises in a centralised competition which demands certain common standards.

Agree, though a more acceptable version of "change" so as not to frighten the horses would be " evolve" or "develop" or "refine"

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think you will find out in life those with the least can only afford to look after themselves, and that is when they get help from outside influences, it is about affordability, how about those 'A' rated clubs take less CF, the 'B's a little more and the 'C's getting the most, that would work wouldn't it? They could all afford to look longer term then, do you agree?

Arguably that could be the end goal.. with the metrics having turnover without CF in there the more A grades then the more they can do this.. not sure they'd be happy but if you can make clubs self sufficient then you can do this more.. how many are truly self sufficient now and even if the As are you won't find 7 out of 12 being happy to give up funding while the other 5 in the league get a boost to their income.. Once all 12 can have it withdrawn and the drawbridge is pulled up the conversation is easier.. 

As I say it's arguable.. I doubt its an aim but as far as I can see it would be the only way to get agreement from super league A clubs to give Bs more funding at their expense. 

[Griff]

47 minutes ago, OdsalBull said:

God what a poor post. 

I thought your research might stretch to cover the fact that Bradford is indeed a CITY

As is Wakefield, of course.

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours 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? 

 

3 hours 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. 

Again I think this is why the gradings feel a little flawed and the bar set a bit too low. 7 Grade A teams just feels a little high considering the sport is a bit of a shambles while in theory Wakey and Salford and a couple of others that some people may describe as basket case clubs are within touching distance of an A grade with a few minor improvements just seems ridiculous. I really would not be surprised to see as many as 10 A grade clubs when the final gradings come out next season and in my opinion if that happens then I think the system has been more of a failing than a success as you should not have that many especially when we know a lot of the background regarding these clubs.

[Chrispmartha]

26 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think you will find out in life those with the least can only afford to look after themselves, and that is when they get help from outside influences, it is about affordability, how about those 'A' rated clubs take less CF, the 'B's a little more and the 'C's getting the most, that would work wouldn't it? They could all afford to look longer term then, do you agree?

No, you are then punishing the well run clubs, tail wagging the dog. 

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

 

1. Again I think this is why the gradings feel a little flawed and the bar set a bit too low. 7 Grade A teams just feels a little high considering the sport is a bit of a shambles

2. while in theory Wakey and Salford and a couple of others that some people may describe as basket case clubs are within touching distance of an A grade with a few minor improvements just seems ridiculous.

On point 1 - I'm not sure that necessarily follows. I do think the 7 teams with a grade A are strong clubs, doing a decent job. 

On point 2 - this appears to be a challenge, and I agree with that. But as per my earlier point - I'm not sure it will be that easy for those clubs to just nudge into an A. I think we will see the same 7 at most as A next year.  I don't think the improvements are minor.

[Neil_Ormston]

3 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

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

I used the methodology provided in response to a query in August about how ties are treated. Salford’s disclosure suggests either 1) I misinterpreted, 2) the info was wrong, 3) something has changed. I’m seeking confirmation, but it seems likely that it is as you suggest.
 

Either method is valid, though I’d argue splitting the points for 2nd and 3rd is better (otherwise you’re increasing the total number of points awarded, and there’s an easy solution to avoid that). But I’m not really that bothered, other than it being my clear what the right method is. I’ll revert as and when (if) I get confirmation

btw, I haven’t seen Wigan, Catalans or Wire publicly share anything; if anyone has, could you ping a link please, as this will help corroborate what Salford have shared? TIA

[Neil_Ormston]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On point 1 - I'm not sure that necessarily follows. I do think the 7 teams with a grade A are strong clubs, doing a decent job. 

On point 2 - this appears to be a challenge, and I agree with that. But as per my earlier point - I'm not sure it will be that easy for those clubs to just nudge into an A. I think we will see the same 7 at most as A next year.  I don't think the improvements are minor.

I’ve run some scenarios and by my reckoning Hull will be a grade B club in the final gradings unless they can either improve their on-field performances (they need to finish above Leigh and Cas at least), or secure c0.1 points elsewhere (I’ve not seen their detailed split, so don’t know how likely that is). So it might be that we only have 6 A grade clubs next year.

[crashmon]

43 minutes ago, Griff said:

As is Wakefield, of course.

OK lets talk a little larger scale

London has more than TWICE the population of Lancs and Yorks combined.

The population in Lancs, Yorks and Gtr Manchester is about 5 Million

So out of a "catchment area" of 55M the entirity of RL apart from a few small clubs (London, cornwall, Midlands) is only 10% of the UK. 

So to me it does not matter if your a "City" or "Town" as from a numbers perspective is what matters. Not how you are designated.

[Zilla Budgie]

I think you score as more points for having LED advertising boards and a deent sized social media following as for winning the challenge cup. Like I said, 'Clowns'.

[Barley Mow]

17 minutes ago, crashmon said:

OK lets talk a little larger scale

London has more than TWICE the population of Lancs and Yorks combined.

The population in Lancs, Yorks and Gtr Manchester is about 5 Million

So out of a "catchment area" of 55M the entirity of RL apart from a few small clubs (London, cornwall, Midlands) is only 10% of the UK. 

So to me it does not matter if your a "City" or "Town" as from a numbers perspective is what matters. Not how you are designated.

Population of Yorkshire - over 5.2 million (https://wikishire.co.uk/wiki/Yorkshire)

Population of Lancashire - over 4.9 million (https://wikishire.co.uk/wiki/Lancashire)

[crashmon]

OK I was using the offical Census numbers when I was looking at the figures.  That might not include under 18's

[dkw]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Aside from that being so utterly simplistic its silly, why are SE Asians not going to be involved in the sport? And if they aren't, that is our problem, not theirs.

Plenty of SE Asian lads support football clubs, did they have some kind of mental block that they had to overcome to not just like cricket?

Am I reading it wrong or is he saying he wants the catchment area figures to only include people who who definitely watch RL?

[PREPOSTEROUS]

I feel catchment was introduced to boost the expansion clubs score  who perhaps do not benefit from having a foothold where the game is strongest. Naturally Bradford and Salford have also massively benefited from this. 

 

The catchment score is the iffy one and in effect could discourage clubs reaching outside of their city/district boundaries. Why restrict it on a line drawn on a map?

Trinity have fans in Barnsley, I'm sure Salford have fans in Manchester, Leeds have fans on Wakefield. Perhaps a 50 mile radius from the club would be a better parameter. That way the artificial score will still benefit the expansion clubs whilst not giving an unfair advantage to some traditional clubs over others.

 

[paul hicks]

4 hours 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 

given the so far 54 pages of complaints and proposals that IMG would laugh at just as hard as mine  i can't see a problem.

well i can but i suspect mass murder is not to be encouraged

[Griff]

37 minutes ago, crashmon said:

So to me it does not matter if your a "City" or "Town" as from a numbers perspective is what matters. Not how you are designated.

It absolutely does not matter, I agree.