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

[RBKnight]

Just now, Derwent said:

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. 

Once again .....Academies do not form part of the grading handbook !

[Martyn Sadler]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'hybrid system'.

The hybrid system is what we are being presented with by IMG.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

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.

Hasn't he made the decision, you just don't like it.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'hybrid system'.

The hybrid system is what we are being presented with by IMG.

Hybrid as in a system where you have traditional P&R and gradings, I thought that was obvious.

[Guest]

12 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

That's a self fulfilling prophecy though.

Might as well just pick the 12 clubs you think are best and put them in super league and then 5 years later show that is evidence it works.

On that basis, a good lot of the premier league would be out for "bigger" clubs in the Championship.

[Derwent]

19 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.

I remember Whitehaven getting a lot of flak when they looked like they might get promoted to SL (eventually lost the play off final to Cas) and said they were going to stay part time and just bank the Sky money if they went up. Here we are nearly 20 years later and we are pretty much forcing a club to do the same thing. Completely ridiculous.

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, RBKnight said:

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)

 

Hopefully clubs can tap into that expertise to help generate a social media plan, and general digital strategy, rather than simply being told to get 5m likes and 60k hits to the website. 

If somebody had told me to report on their web and social activity by providing these stats alone, I would simply refuse.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

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.

Changing the whole idea?

No, only part of it, to avoid the game being brought into disrepute.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

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

I think he'd be well advised to ignore everything you say, to be honest.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Hasn't he made the decision, you just don't like it.

It has to be confirmed by the RFL directors.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Derwent said:

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. 

Same club basically - apparently.

 

[Gerrumonside ref]

Trying to take a step and thinking how the broadcasters are going to explain all this to their audience at the end of each season.  Particularly if the playing table doesn’t reflect the movement of clubs at season’s end in the future.

[Toby Chopra]

23 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

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.

I think you're misunderstanding the intention of the system Martyn.

It's not intended to make promotion and relegation a common occurrence, it's intended to select the 12 best-equipped clubs with which to grow the competition and provide (differing) elements of protection so that growth isn't lost by one bad year on the park.

Once the transition year is past, changes to the line up will only occur if on- and off-field failure is sustained. It's effectively a return to licensing, albeit in a more dynamic way.

IMG are not interested in expending their media and marketing resources of 7League, endeavour etc on teams if some of the efforts are effectively wasted each year. They want a stable competition to work with. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Hopie said:

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. 

Well put Sir.

[The Future is League]

Just now, Leonard said:

That's a self fulfilling prophecy though.

Might as well just pick the 12 clubs you think are best and put them in super league and then 5 years later show that is evidence it works.

On that basis, a good lot of the premier league would be out for "bigger" clubs in the Championship.

The 12 best teams for me would be the teams with decent grounds, and the teams with academies and ladies teams.

It's been beyond me for many years why Cas and Wakey were allowed to stay in Super League all them years with dumps of grounds

[Derwent]

4 minutes ago, RBKnight said:

Once again .....Academies do not form part of the grading handbook !

Yes they are, have a read of the Finance section. Clubs are allowed to add back the costs of Academies and youth development to increase their assessed profit figures.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Trying to take a step and thinking how the broadcasters are going to explain all this to their audience at the end of each season.  Particularly if the playing table doesn’t reflect the movement of clubs at season’s end in the future.

Should be a win for London in terms of crowds, attracting players and sponsors........

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

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.

I don't really see how they can  change any of it , the clubs most negatively affected will not be happy , again creating division within the sport 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Changing the whole idea?

No, only part of it, to avoid the game being brought into disrepute.

Its hardly just part of it, its a fundamental part of it.

 

Game into disrepute, nonsense, The London Club who this mainly affects have said they are OK with the situation.

KneeJerking because of this one thing would be ridiculous.

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Trying to take a step and thinking how the broadcasters are going to explain all this to their audience at the end of each season.  Particularly if the playing table doesn’t reflect the movement of clubs at season’s end in the future.

Jon Wells at the screen, with the contractor who added a few seats to Wheldon Road to clinch the all vital IMG point.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Hopefully clubs can tap into that expertise to help generate a social media plan, and general digital strategy, rather than simply being told to get 5m likes and 60k hits to the website. 

If somebody had told me to report on their web and social activity by providing these stats alone, I would simply refuse.

At least one club have had an 'every like matters' campaign for some months now and look to have scored reasonably well on SM, although I can't help wondering how many if the clicks are simply a reflex action rather than actual engagement 

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think he'd be well advised to ignore everything you say, to be honest.

I'm sure he'll be too intelligent to do that.

[Damien]

9 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.

So you don't agree with the criteria and process. That's fine and your perogative. It does make the entire exercise pointless though if we just keep the 24th best team in SL.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

It has to be confirmed by the RFL directors.

What does? Havant they already said that the clubs have accepted the IMG proposals and will be implemented?

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Trying to take a step and thinking how the broadcasters are going to explain all this to their audience at the end of each season.  Particularly if the playing table doesn’t reflect the movement of clubs at season’s end in the future.

"Of course, it isn't all about what you do on the field, there are off-field criteria around sustainability and quality that clubs are judged on as well. These will be published on X and we'll get the final look at who will be where next season then.

Now the weather ..."

Seems really simple to me. Do you think it's complicated?