IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Chrispmartha]

Featherstone would have likely have gone straight back down aswell, and arguably would have cause a bigger issue as they could well have finished above the regular relegation spot. the best scenario would have been Toulouse being promoted but we are where we are In a years time this 'disaster' will be forgotten about I suspect

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

No, why do you think that of a benchmarking exercise like this?

So you assist a club to score better than you and relegate you ? 

I've tried getting RL clubs to work together for the ' better good ' and they really couldn't see the wood for the trees 

[Gerrumonside ref]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you assist a club to score better than you and relegate you ? 

I've tried getting RL clubs to work together for the ' better good ' and they really couldn't see the wood for the trees 

Sadly you might be right

[Toby Chopra]

20 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I'm not misunderstanding anything.

The problem is that there is a tension between the long term aims of this process and the short term outcome, which could derail the whole thing if not dealt with properly.

Everyone hopes that ultimately there will be twelve Grade A clubs. I would be surprised if there weren't at least nine by the end of next season.

But until there are twelve, the game would be foolish to close the door to ambitious other clubs, regardless of whether they are a couple of decimal points behind some other clubs below them in the league table.

In that connection, one point worth making is that we all have faith that the scores have been correctly calculated. But I was talking to one club owner yesterday whose score was adjusted by 0.5 of a point at the last minute because of a miscalculation, allegedly by IMG.

If that club were in 12th or 13th position in the overall ranking, any calculation error could have enormous financial consequences.

Then why did the clubs vote for it? Nothing unexpected has happened. Keeping the "door open for ambitious clubs" in reality means annual yo-yo-ing by the same few clubs, also with calamitous financial implications, as recent history has shown us.    

It's time to move on from such an unstable and value-destroying system to something more stable and growth oriented. There will be a place for every club in the structure, it just won't look like it did before. that's ok. 

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

With the new TV deal hopefully they can make a decent stab at it and raise their profile, financial position, fandom etc. 

Got to be something there they can take advantage of. My mate plays cricket in London, with a lot of sport mad people, and none of them had a clue who London Broncos were. They need to be reaching out to these sorts of people (young with disposable income and time). Hopefully Super League next year enables them to do that.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So you assist a club to score better than you and relegate you ? 

I've tried getting RL clubs to work together for the ' better good ' and they really couldn't see the wood for the trees 

I know its been suggested before, but perhaps the circumstances were different then...

[Damien]

19 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I agree completely with the criteria and process, although as i've said on here several times, I would like to see more transparency.

I'm the one who has been saying for as long as I can remember that conventional P & R doesn't work in Rugby League.

And when we get to the 2025 season and beyond, I'm sure the new system will work well.

But if we implement it without modification for next season, the grading system will lose credibility.

You only have to read through this thread to see how many people don't like it.

You don't agree completely though because you want to tear it up in the first season.

If London stay in Super League after finishing 24th in the criteria and closer to North Wales then the system loses complete credibility.

[Martyn Sadler]

13 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

But weren't you calling for standard P&R between the leagues? sorry if Ive got that wrong but that's what I inferred from your posts.

Or are you saying P&R needs to remain leading into the 2025 season? if so that's daft because what happens if we get another London next year, and the year after that? at some point there has to be a cutoff

What I'm saying is that P & R should remain until we have 12 Grade A clubs.

The London situation this season was an unexpected one-off, but it has to be managed.

In the same way, if the Broncos finished in the play-off positions next season, it would be absurd to relegate them at that point, rather than relegating the lowest ranking Grade B side.

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

If you were starting from scratch , then it's fine , and desirable , but to punish clubs for decisions made over a century earlier is ridiculous  

 

Its not punishing them, its acknowledging inherent advantages for the League in a given aspect. 

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said:

Then why did the clubs vote for it? Nothing unexpected has happened. Keeping the "door open for ambitious clubs" in reality means annual yo-yo-ing by the same few clubs, also with calamitous financial implications, as recent history has shown us.    

It's time to move on from such an unstable and value-destroying system to something more stable and growth oriented. There will be a place for every club in the structure, it just won't look like it did before. that's ok. 

There has always been a place for every club in the structure , the one decided by how many wins you achieved , not due to how many times you were on TV or how many miles away from another club you were 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Got to be something there they can take advantage of. My mate plays cricket in London, with a lot of sport mad people, and none of them had a clue who London Broncos were. They need to be reaching out to these sorts of people (young with disposable income and time). Hopefully Super League next year enables them to do that.

I mean they probably won't, and not because of these rankings. 

It's the other way round. The rankings are as they are because they won't, and haven't. 

[Tommygilf]

London won't get relegated because of their grading.

Their grading lays out all the reasons they aren't ready to be a Super League club, and why they will therefore be relegated.

[Griff]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

London won't get relegated because of their grading.

Their grading lays out all the reasons they aren't ready to be a Super League club, and why they will therefore be relegated.

So it's because of their grading.

[Martyn Sadler]

4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Then why did the clubs vote for it? Nothing unexpected has happened. Keeping the "door open for ambitious clubs" in reality means annual yo-yo-ing by the same few clubs, also with calamitous financial implications, as recent history has shown us.    

It's time to move on from such an unstable and value-destroying system to something more stable and growth oriented. There will be a place for every club in the structure, it just won't look like it did before. that's ok. 

Thanks. Your point about yo-yo clubs has been my argument for many years.

And I agree with your second paragraph.

But we have to secure a route to that nirvana that doesn't do untold damage on the way.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I know its been suggested before, but perhaps the circumstances were different then...

Not really , we had 20 clubs locked out of SL for essentially 6 years , it was the perfect time , IMO they could have been drawing in hundreds of thousands of pounds each every season by now for essentially no effort 

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

There has always been a place for every club in the structure , the one decided by how many wins you achieved , not due to how many times you were on TV or how many miles away from another club you were 

Tell Glasgow who were refused entry to the pro ranks for being too far away, or every other club nudged out or not let in in the first place because it was too far from West Yorks and Lancashire. Or Manchester Rangers, who weren't let in because Oldham, Swinton, Salford and Rochdale exist?

We have always had a closed shop in RL.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

So it's because of their grading.

Did you read? Their grading demonstrates all the factors for why they will go down.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

What I'm saying is that P & R should remain until we have 12 Grade A clubs.

The London situation this season was an unexpected one-off, but it has to be managed.

In the same way, if the Broncos finished in the play-off positions next season, it would be absurd to relegate them at that point, rather than relegating the lowest ranking Grade B side.

But there will still be a cut off point and then clubs/people will be unhappy, if they buckle now they will buckle then. Keeping Traditional P&R will probably mean we won't get to 12 Grade A clubs because those with High B's will likely just be yo yo ing around for a few years.

The decision has been made, stick with it, London get a year in SL to help boost their grades, 2025 comes around we get the best graded teams in SL and crack on with the plan.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Not really , we had 20 clubs locked out of SL for essentially 6 years , it was the perfect time , IMO they could have been drawing in hundreds of thousands of pounds each every season by now for essentially no effort 

But they didn't find your argument very convincing? Why?

[Harry Stottle]

55 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. 

I honestly don't see how all these measurements that IMG are collating and amassing is going to improve the popularity of the sport to new eyes by whichever medium you choose, if there is something tangible that it is going to improve the on field offering then I am all for that, but you are very correct though Dave but I will increase your 'many' to all those who want to watch Rugby are not interested in the behind the scenes stuff to all just want to watch the Rugby.

Perhaps you can enlighten me, how are these measures going to improve the game to bring back departed fans and entice new fans, get a bigger TV deal than the one we have got for the next 3 years (which on its conclusion will be 5 years into IMG's involvement) and get more sponsorship if audiences have not improved, I honestly have not got a clue.

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not punishing them, its acknowledging inherent advantages for the League in a given aspect. 

Fancy words describing punishing

[Tommygilf]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Fancy words describing punishing

I thought you liked "simple as" stating the facts judgements anyway?

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Tell Glasgow who were refused entry to the pro ranks for being too far away, or every other club nudged out or not let in in the first place because it was too far from West Yorks and Lancashire. Or Manchester Rangers, who weren't let in because Oldham, Swinton, Salford and Rochdale exist?

We have always had a closed shop in RL.

Don't forget you're talking about Victorian Britain , travel for part time players , even Leigh had a train station then , but you were talking horse and cart from the train station to the playing venue 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Got to be something there they can take advantage of. My mate plays cricket in London, with a lot of sport mad people, and none of them had a clue who London Broncos were. They need to be reaching out to these sorts of people (young with disposable income and time). Hopefully Super League next year enables them to do that.

And sell them what exactly - a PT team already relegated and thrashings?

But on the flipside an LED screen?

Given the points for finishing 12th, London would be best withdrawing and letting the 11 have some more loop fixtures imho.

Next year will do nothing to build the side and the money, after costs, is not really material.

I could get a couple of people along for a season in the Champ with competitive games - no chance next season.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Leonard

[Derwent]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

I honestly don't see how all these measurements that IMG are collating and amassing is going to improve the popularity of the sport to new eyes by whichever medium you choose, if there is something tangible that it is going to improve the on field offering then I am all for that, but you are very correct though Dave but I will increase your 'many' to all those who want to watch Rugby are not interested in the behind the scenes stuff to all just want to watch the Rugby.

Perhaps you can enlighten me, how are these measures going to improve the game to bring back departed fans and entice new fans, get a bigger TV deal than the one we have got for the next 3 years (which on its conclusion will be 5 years into IMG's involvement) and get more sponsorship if audiences have not improved, I honestly have not got a clue.

I tend to agree. As a friend of mine (who isn't an ardent RL fan but has a a passing interest) said yesterday - if this sort of system really drove commercial success then the behemoth that is the Premier League would have done it years ago.