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

[Chrispmartha]

19 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I took a lot of decisions in business BUT and it is a big BUT I was in control and the outcome of those decisions depended on how I managed them internally they were not determined by outside influences beyond my control, if I was Mr Beaumont I would be seriously considering if I shoukd invest any further in this once was sport.

Mr Beaumont voted for the proposal. 

[Colin James]

Can London only stay up if they improve their grading to the extent that they either get an A or a higher score than all but 11 other sides?

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Colin James said:

Can London only stay up if they improve their grading to the extent that they either get an A or a higher score than all but 11 other sides?

London have pretty much zero chance of making the grade in 2025

[The Blues Ox]

There seems to be some confusion over the period of time that everything is judged on. Fax seem to believe that everything is judged over a 3 year period where some teams seem to think that it is only performance judge over the 3 year period so which is it?

[Toby Chopra]

2 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

There seems to be some confusion over the period of time that everything is judged on. Fax seem to believe that everything is judged over a 3 year period where some teams seem to think that it is only performance judge over the 3 year period so which is it?

Most categories are three year averages: performance, almost all finance, crowds, viewing figures, foundation spend. This adds up to around 75% of the total grading score.

The remaining measures are snapshots at a point in time, things like stadium or catchment.

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Mr Beaumont voted for the proposal. 

Mr Beaumont also loudly and frequently voices his concerns about whether he should continue to invest in his club. It's a rugby league tradition. He doesn't need IMG to do that.

[Chrispmartha]

30 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Mr Beaumont also loudly and frequently voices his concerns about whether he should continue to invest in his club. It's a rugby league tradition. He doesn't need IMG to do that.

This is true!

[Harry Stottle]

15 hours ago, Damien said:

No big club has been relegated since SL started.

Bradford?

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Bradford?

Aren't we constantly told they aren't actually a big club and the late 90s/early 2000s was merely a flash in the pan?

[GeordieSaint]

12 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

London is a very important market, The Broncos are nowhere near ready for the top flight though.

The shenanigans on here about London and how it’s ruined the integrity of the process… all a bit over the top. London will get walloped next season. Completely agree they are nowhere near ready for SL. 

[JohnM]

10 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Leigh were favourites to go down last season according to many experts on this site, and it pains me to say it IMG disciples.

Life is full of disappointments.

On another issue, it's my view that the the entertainment () derived from relegation battles is more-or-less the territory of the fans of the threatened clubs.

I do understand, though, the antipathy of some towards the IMG project. It's based on their long-held, congenital almost, position that everything the RFL does is rubbish. 

Also, I detect a fear in some opponents that successful growth and geographical  expansion means loss of control as the centre of gravity (or should that be levity?)  moves away from "the heartlands"

(Exit stage left, whistling "always look on the bright side of life..." )

Edited October 28, 2023 by JohnM

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Does that mean you won’t be watching and commenting next year?

It means what I said, that you and others of your ilk no longer recognise that what happens on the field should be paramount from the endeavours of the 34 men that take the field, I love the emotions of elation and despair that come with the sporting contests of fighting to survive relegation, it seems there are some that actually get off with the thoughts of a guy in an office somewhere punching a keyboard, weird.

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

So your mate Degsy is just wasting his cash then?

 

Yep, that is my opinion I have stated more than once on this platform that nobody really takes match notice of the 'ENTERTAINMENT'

[Harry Stottle]

9 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Mr Beaumont voted for the proposal. 

I know he did that doesn't mean I have to agree with him does it, I think you know what I have thought about 'spreadsheet' sport since the first mention of IMG.

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Most categories are three year averages: performance, almost all finance, crowds, viewing figures, foundation spend. This adds up to around 75% of the total grading score.

The remaining measures are snapshots at a point in time, things like stadium or catchment.

Good int it.

[Harry Stottle]

49 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Aren't we constantly told they aren't actually a big club and the late 90s/early 2000s was merely a flash in the pan?

Depends which side of the fence you sit on, the Bulls were a SL team in 2011 after last winning the W Club in 2006.

So it was a load of 'Bull' Damien stating no big has been relegated since SL began.

[GUBRATS]

14 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Well actually Wakefield are doing something aren’t they, wonder why that is?

But we had double standards for 2 decades , clubs in SL didn't need to reach the standards to enter , and in one case twice those standards were ignored to let a club back in 

So if you are going to pick and choose who you are going to apply standards to , what really is the point ? 

[GUBRATS]

13 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

No they weren't.

London is a strategic area for the sport.

London Broncos aren't necessarily the vehicle through which that strategy will be achieved.

So who are ? 

[Harry Stottle]

19 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Because that would also be stupid harry, as you well know.

Would it? 

The catchment areas are not divided by the characteristics of demographics it is the total population that are taken into account to get the IMG points.

Now then what is the percentage of your clubs success rate in converting the targets which incidentally are IMG's metrics, not very good is it, Leeds population is 812,000 not very good just getting 13,000 is it?

[GUBRATS]

3 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Most categories are three year averages: performance, almost all finance, crowds, viewing figures, foundation spend. This adds up to around 75% of the total grading score.

The remaining measures are snapshots at a point in time, things like stadium or catchment.

So how will catchment change yearly ? 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Would it? 

The catchment areas are not divided by the characteristics of demographics it is the total population that are taken into account to get the IMG points.

Now then what is the percentage of your clubs success rate in converting the targets which incidentally are IMG's metrics, not very good is it, Leeds population is 812,000 not very good just getting 13,000 is it?

Aside from this being explained before, and I'll use your club for reference since you used mine, the benefits of having a large catchment are as follows.

Your club had arguably the best season it has had in living memory in both the League and Cup. My club had one of its worst, yet my club still averaged over double what your club averaged.

That's catchment. 

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

So who are ? 

I suggested some ideas further back in the thread. For definitive answers ask RL Commercial I guess.

[Smudger06]

10 hours ago, Colin James said:

Can London only stay up if they improve their grading to the extent that they either get an A or a higher score than all but 11 other sides?

No one has even noticed that grade A, B or C does not even matter  

Clubs don't keep their grades and not all Clubs within grades for example have the same privileges....

There's literally no requirements for the grades themselves in this system

Yeah London needs the 12th highest IMG score as a minimum to stay in the SL. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Aside from this being explained before, and I'll use your club for reference since you used mine, the benefits of having a large catchment are as follows.

Your club had arguably the best season it has had in living memory in both the League and Cup. My club had one of its worst, yet my club still averaged over double what your club averaged.

That's catchment. 

Suggests to me Leigh should get points and your team deducted points in that scenario. 

[Tommygilf]

37 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Depends which side of the fence you sit on, the Bulls were a SL team in 2011 after last winning the W Club in 2006.

So it was a load of 'Bull' Damien stating no big has been relegated since SL began.

The Bulls were also a SL team in 2014?

Like I said Harry, many people will insist Bradford weren't actually a big team and this and that, yet now will use them as a yardstick for a big team. Can't have it both ways.

For me I think Bradford should be represented in Super League. Much like London Broncos and London, the Bulls feel like a bit of a basket case vehicle to do that through, but they are a northern M62 RL city capable of delivering 5 figure crowds and their loss has been felt on this side of the pennines with nobody being capable to step up to that mantle. 

Huddersfield tried briefly and so have Cas but both have ultimately fallen short, as have the 2 Hull clubs generally, and all have been unable to consistently get to the level Bradford once had.