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

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, dead man inc said:

Agree with everything that you have said. The only issue I have with London’s score is the ‘catchment area’ issue - IMG bang on about London being a massive target area for growth, the RFL have all the ticket sale data from Challenge cup/London internationals to identify roughy the demographics where London based RL fans are, yet they use the catchment area of ‘Merton’ in the score calculation

Isn't Salford's catchment area larger than London's? LOL

[Martyn Sadler]

22 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

here we go with the LED boards again.

Winning the CC should help with the Social Media grades wouldn't you have thought? and also maybe the price you can charge for advertising space.

Let's face it if your attitude is that IMG are 'clowns' then you are not going to change your mind are you, also if IMG are clowns then what do you think of the clubs for actually voting for what IMG proposed?

IMG are certainly not clowns - they have performed an important service with the grading system they have introduced.

But ultimately it isn't IMG who manages the game - it's the RFL and nowadays RL Commercial Ltd.

As with any consultancy project, you have to decide whether to adopt all the recommendations or modify some of them.

The clear modification that needs to be made is that Grade B clubs should be able to be relegated or promoted from or into Super League regardless of their ranking among the Grade B clubs.

That means that, as things stand, the Broncos would be able to strive to beat the Giants, Tigers, Red Devils or Leopards in avoiding that relegation spot.

The same thing applies with promotion. If a Grade B team wins the Championship Grand Final, it should be promoted regardless unless there are 12 Grade A clubs.

My other concern with the grading system is that in my view each club should have been required to achieve a certain minimum standard for each of the headings if it is to be regarded as a Grade A club.

If a club scores top marks on fandom and performance, but, for example, could only manage one point out of 4.5 on finance, then I don't think it should be granted Grade A status, even if its points gained from other sources suggest that it should be.

That's why I think we should have been given the full picture, not just the aggregate score, for each club, which can obscure as much as enlighten.

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Only as I said Dave for 'Anoraks like us'.

Did you see where last year in attendance at a couple of games I asked people what they thought of IMG's involvement and strategies that are due to come into the game 80/90% said Who!

And that's fine, most fans have little interest in the behind the scenes stuff. Many just want to watch Rugby. And they can continue to do so. 

I'm not sure what point you're making. 

[phiggins]

13 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Also just to add, Rugby League is the perfect sport for short videos which are massive on Tin Tok and Instagram Reels, big hits and spectacular trys.

These short videos are watched by literally millions of people and they often get shown to you without you searching for them, to discount that kind of publicity is just madness, the clubs and the RFL should be all over things like this.

But the aim shouldn't be to get likes, or to go viral. 

The aim should be to create good content, and release it at a time it will have maximum impact. 

[The Blues Ox]

41 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

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.

 

I wouldn't mind the catchment area idea as long as IMG were transparent about how they came about the figures that they are using as they very much look like they were made to favor certain clubs while hindering others. 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The clear modification that needs to be made is that Grade B clubs should be able to be relegated or promoted from or into Super League regardless of their ranking among the Grade B clubs.

That means that, as things stand, the Broncos would be able to strive to beat the Giants, Tigers, Red Devils or Leopards in avoiding that relegation spot.

I don't see why this modification is needed. It undermines the whole system as it stands when it is so easy to get a B grade.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Damien

[RP London]

21 minutes ago, dead man inc said:

Agree with everything that you have said. The only issue I have with London’s score is the ‘catchment area’ issue - IMG bang on about London being a massive target area for growth, the RFL have all the ticket sale data from Challenge cup/London internationals to identify roughy the demographics where London based RL fans are, yet they use the catchment area of ‘Merton’ in the score calculation

Agree, I don't overly like it either..  ot was something that was brought up on the original grading thread before the indepth information came out. The general discussion was around using that sort of data etc. But to be fair moving all the time has hardly been good for their catchment so being hurt by this metric might be, in some way, fair and reflective on them but in seriousness I'd like to see this metric tweaked.. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't see why this modification is needed. It undermines the whole system as is  when it is so easy to get a B grade.

Then they should have had more levels.

It suggests a B Grade is largely meaningless.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't see why this modification is needed. It undermines the whole system as is  when it is so easy to get a B grade.

I think this is fair comment. If you were going to go down the route as Martyn describes (and I'm not wholly against the principle), but I think you'd have to have your B standards a hell of a lot higher, maybe even just below Fev or similar. 

[Martyn Sadler]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't see why this modification is needed. It undermines the whole system as is  when it is so easy to get a B grade.

If you want one club to be a passenger in Super League from the opening game next season, then it isn't needed.

The obvious thing for the Broncos to do now is to continue with a part-time squad and accept the inevitable.

I think that would be a PR disaster for the game, particularly in London.

We will look ridiculous.

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you want one club to be a passenger in Super League from the opening game next season, then it isn't needed.

The obvious thing for the Broncos to do now is to continue with a part-time squad and accept the inevitable.

I think that would be a PR disaster for the game.

There was always going to be a transition year next year and bumps like this are inevitable with any change.

London staying up after finishing in 24th position according to the criteria, and points wise finishing closer to North Wales than to Leigh, would mean the entire process is pointless. Sure I could understand the argument if it was Bradford or Toulouse who are both within 1 point of the 12th placed SL team. London over 4 points behind? No way.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Damien

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you want one club to be a passenger in Super League from the opening game next season, then it isn't needed.

The obvious thing for the Broncos to do now is to continue with a part-time squad and accept the inevitable.

I think that would be a PR disaster for the game, particularly in London.

We will look ridiculous.

Quite - the game will be a laughing stock next season.

With every London game on TV to catalogue it.

They might as well put up one of the Top Grade B sides.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Leonard

[The Future is League]

4 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you want one club to be a passenger in Super League from the opening game next season, then it isn't needed.

The obvious thing for the Broncos to do now is to continue with a part-time squad and accept the inevitable.

I think that would be a PR disaster for the game, particularly in London.

If it look like with the grading system they will only be in Super League for one season what's the points of them going full time and importing players from the NRL. There isn't. Their fate is already decided if the IMG plans are followed through with, which i have no doubt they will be

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Leonard said:

Then they should have had more levels.

It suggests a B Grade is largely meaningless.

I know, I've already said that. The range is that large there is no practical benefit to it.

[GUBRATS]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

And that's fine, most fans have little interest in the behind the scenes stuff. Many just want to watch Rugby. And they can continue to do so. 

I'm not sure what point you're making. 

When those fans see a club  relegated or not promoted due to a grading , what do you think their reaction will be ? 

[RBKnight]

50 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What is the actual growth you highlight Tommy, we have had SM for a good few years now how much has that influenced the growth of the sport in revenue- of any kind - or enticed people into the grounds? 

Tell me one club that would not prefer 5000 of my type to 5000 clickers.

It's not an "either/or" - imagine if you're a club lead sponsor, and have your name prominently on widely circulated clips ? This sort of exposure can drive up revenue and sponsorship levels (the sort of thing that IMG actually have some expertise in)

 

[Chrispmartha]

19 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

 

The clear modification that needs to be made is that Grade B clubs should be able to be relegated or promoted from or into Super League regardless of their ranking among the Grade B clubs.

It doesn't 'need to' that's just your opinion on it, I'm not convinced a hybrid system is the panacea that some are making out, the London Situation has thrown a spanner in the works in this transitioning year there's no denying it but once the system is fully implemented It won't happen.

 

In fact Id say London getting promoted this year actually highlights why the hybrid system wouldn't work, they have done remarkably well to win the Championship GF but in reality they aren't ready for a sustainable future in the top flight.

[Spidey]

15 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you want one club to be a passenger in Super League from the opening game next season, then it isn't needed.

The obvious thing for the Broncos to do now is to continue with a part-time squad and accept the inevitable.

I think that would be a PR disaster for the game, particularly in London.

We will look ridiculous.

Could London turn down promotion? If they genuinely feel a year in SL will do them more harm than good?

[Martyn Sadler]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

There was always going to be a transition year next year and bumps like this are inevitable with any change.

London staying up after finishing in 24th position according to the criteria, and points wise finishing closer to North Wales than to Leigh, would mean the entire process is pointless. Sure I could understand the argument if it was Bradford or Toulouse who are both within 1 point of the 12th placed SL team. London over 4 points behind? No way.

Bumps are not inevitable when they can be so easily avoided.

London may be 24th on "the criteria", but they are 12th where it really counts, which is on the field.

[Derwent]

5 hours 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-

I am not sure how you arrive at that conclusion ? Whatever club emerges from their situation isn't going to be comparable to the Kurdi owned one in any way, shape or form.

Just for starters they will not be playing at Kingston Park stadium, will not have the same level of owner investment and will not be able to afford to run an academy. All of which they have been given points for in this grading. There will no doubt be other areas that will be affected too. 

[gingerjon]

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't see why this modification is needed. It undermines the whole system as it stands when it is so easy to get a B grade.

It's just the rugby league press going into bat once again for the right to be mediocre.

[Martyn Sadler]

9 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

If it look like with the grading system they will only be in Super League for one season what's the points of them going full time and importing players from the NRL. There isn't. Their fate is already decided if the IMG plans are followed through with, which i have no doubt they will be

Tony Sutton needs to realise that he is the CEO of the RFL and make a decision.

If next season is a disaster, it will be him who carries the can.

[Chrispmartha]

17 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you want one club to be a passenger in Super League from the opening game next season, then it isn't needed.

 

Try thinking beyond next season then, it's an anomaly in the transition year, the London club seem to have taken it OK, probably because they know (as the grades have shown) they aren't really ready to be a top level club just yet.

What would undermine the whole thing is changing it just because of the London situation next year.

[RigbyLuger]

3 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?

Exactly! City have the "Bangla Bantams" so no reason why the Bulls can't start something similar.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Bumps are not inevitable when they can be so easily avoided.

London may be 24th on "the criteria", but they are 12th where it really counts, which is on the field.

Easily avoided by changing the whole idea before its even started? that sounds dafter than the London situation, Rugby League has constantly done short term fixes, we need to stop that.