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

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

What criteria would you like to see that would ensure Leeds, Wigan and Saints weren't the top 3.

It's going to be percentage of a town's population again, isn't it?

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

It would have to be pretty bizarre criteria for the 3 biggest and most successful clubs of the last decade and more not to be the top three.

What about a club who literally had the virtual collection buckets out to see them through the season and get graded within spitting distance of being one of the 'elite'?

Edited October 30, 2023 by Les Tonks Sidestep

[phiggins]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If things are working then they will then find themselves falling behind clubs who are smarter than that.

(But, as I say, one of the things the exercise has done is show just how weak the game is, and how small our biggest clubs actually are.)

Unfortunately, while there are specific boxes to tick, and such a gap in funding between 12th and 13th, I'm not sure things will be working any better with this system than they do now.

[dboy]

11 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

They need 3rd party inspectors at the turnstiles doing unannounced spot checks. Otherwise figures are to be taken with a pince of salt, and if that's the case shouldn't be used, and probably a legal case will be brought forward that they can't be used when clubs are excluded based on notional numbers, loss of earnings. 

This doesn't work.

People going through the turnstile does not equate to a matchday ticket income or VAT bill.

You might count 10k through, but only 5k may be specific-match tickets - the other 5k may be season ticket holders - they're fee/VAT is paid and collected separately.

 

[dboy]

26 minutes ago, phiggins said:

But clubs will game the system, as part of a box ticking exercise. Not to the extent of cheating the system for attendances like suggested. But for example, if Cas spend £2m of council money, specifically to put x amount of extra seats in, and padding on y number of seats. It wont suddenly transform the ground into a fit for purpose stadium, providing a better experience for fans and sponsors alike. But the ROI will be an extra IMG point, which could keep them in Super League. 

Fortunately. WMDC have reminded them that they can't use the £2M for that purpose.

[Hopie]

We need to remove relegation to ensure Super League clubs become "better" and more stable? OK, so we assessed which clubs are "best" and removed relegation for them. But if any club is less "better"/stable then they can still be relegated but we will given them £million+ to improve, if they are slightly less "better"/stable they can't come in now, but maybe later if they spend money of their own, no help required! 

How is this going to grow the game? It just means the top clubs are protected even more than they are now, status quo is not helping more people play the game, or bring more eyes on TV, or bodies through the turnstiles. 

I'm going to repeat my request for someone to post positives of the grading system, seems the last few pages are just negatives with people responding that they aren't negatives, or that they are negatives worth putting up with, or engaging in minutia that don't affect the bigger picture.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Hopie

[JohnM]

42 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think you find out in life for all types Harold there is a 'us and them' situation and RL is no different, the criteria list that IMG and RL Commercial have coddled together is designed to keep the top at the top and only allow in those they glean to have enough 'potential' to join them.

For a club outside of the aristocracy to break into this 'elite system' they will have to be fortunate enough for someone with enough riches to get on board and finance them to put in place all the perifferal stuff even before bothering to put a competitive team on the field, but if a club does manage to get up there and "break in" it will still be a reflection of today's upper class society attitude labelling them as 'New Money', they won't be welcome with open arms the elite will still be looking down their noses at them.

Is it any wonder that the clubs who win the GF every year are the top 3 placed clubs in this criteria marking, not in the least, that is what the criteria was designed to reflect.

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

Fortunately. WMDC have reminded them that they can't use the £2M for that purpose.

That's good in a way (though not good in general if funds are being blocked), but those quotes of doing enough to "get the IMG point" does give an insight into clubs' thinking. Particularly if they are around that cut off point of 12/13th place.

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

Very valuable input to the discussion. Well done you.

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, Hopie said:

We need to remove relegation to ensure Super League clubs become "better" and more stable? OK, so we assessed which clubs are "best" and removed relegation for them. But if any club is less "better"/stable then they can still be relegated but we will given them £million+ to improve, if they are slightly less "better"/stable they can't come in now, but maybe later if they spend money of their own, no help required! 

How is this going to grow the game? It just means the top clubs are protected even more than they are now, status quo is not helping more people play the game, or bring more eyes on TV, or bodies through the turnstiles. 

I'm going to repeat my request for someone to post positives of the grading system, seems the last few pages are just negatives with people responding that they aren't negatives, or that they are negatives worth putting up with, or engaging in minutia that don't affect the bigger picture.

 

 

The structure whatever it is, isn’t going to ‘grow the game’ alone, in fact id say the structure is more about stability than growth.

[Hopie]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

The structure whatever it is, isn’t going to ‘grow the game’ alone, in fact id say the structure is more about stability than growth.

More stable for some, less stable for others. I don't agree that the new system is more stable. If it is not about growth then its not worth having.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Hopie said:

More stable for some, less stable for others. I don't agree that the new system is more stable. If it is not about growth then its not worth having.

Only if you take the structure as the only thing being done to ‘grow the game’ when in reality it’s only one part of what they are doing.

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If things are working then they will then find themselves falling behind clubs who are smarter than that.

(But, as I say, one of the things the exercise has done is show just how weak the game is, and how small our biggest clubs actually are.)

Not often we agree Ginge, but I will go along with your last sentence I believe that is so true and we are really a tin pot outfit.

That is not saying that the sport on the field is bad, I don't think there is any better and I will continue to watch it at pro level until that is if this system doesn't get the better of me then I will just use the community game alone for my fix.

[Harry Stottle]

11 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Very valuable input to the discussion. Well done you.

Don't bother about him Higgy, that is his usual input level.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

34 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's going to be percentage of a town's population again, isn't it?

Well It won't be Hastings.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well It won't be Hastings.

Honestly, kick a flooded, bankrupt, deprived town when it's down, why don't you ...

[Hopie]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Only if you take the structure as the only thing being done to ‘grow the game’ when in reality it’s only one part of what they are doing.

That's easy to say.  You can't criticise this part of the plan because its part of a bigger plan that we haven't told you about yet, nor have we proven this poor choice is integral to that plan. 

Also I criticise it for not doing something I want it to do, some one says its not supposed to do that, but doesn't actually say what it is for. There is no real discussion here, just arguing/negativity.

[dboy]

18 minutes ago, phiggins said:

That's good in a way (though not good in general if funds are being blocked), but those quotes of doing enough to "get the IMG point" does give an insight into clubs' thinking. Particularly if they are around that cut off point of 12/13th place.

The £2M is specifically for community-based aspects of the operation/facilities.

Wakefield used it (or will be using it), to create a community hub, gym and fitness and health centre.

It will be done when the main stand opens and the current "Cat's Bar/Rollin Shack building can be closed for renovation.

Edited October 30, 2023 by dboy

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, Hopie said:

That's easy to say.  You can't criticise this part of the plan because its part of a bigger plan that we haven't told you about yet, nor have we proven this poor choice is integral to that plan. 

Also I criticise it for not doing something I want it to do, some one says its not supposed to do that, but doesn't actually say what it is for. There is no real discussion here, just arguing/negativity.

Img have signed for 12 years haven’t they? Of course its part if s bigger plan.

I did say the structure was for stability.

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The structure whatever it is, isn’t going to ‘grow the game’ alone, in fact id say the structure is more about stability than growth.

If I may Chris, could I suggest the structure will not 'grow the game' at all, it will give a protectionist element to those in the top flight, and I may be wrong but the structure WILL NOT put more bums on seats, subscriptions for Sky, or big  companies clamouring to sponsor or invest.

Growing the Game means improving it at all levels, I honestly believe this structure will in time have a detrimental effect in all aspects below SL and SL will just carry on as previous without any noticeable marked improvement.

And I will repeat in three to five years IMG will be history or the game will split into two factions and SL will do it's long threatened breakaway and go it's own way.

[Harry Stottle]

20 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Honestly, kick a flooded, bankrupt, deprived town when it's down, why don't you ...

Bloody hell Ginge, you want to live in Leigh if getting a good kicking on these pages rocks your boat .

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Bloody hell Ginge, you want to live in Leigh

Have a care, sir, have a care ...

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Have a care, sir, have a care ...

I must be psychic, just the answer I expected.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Very valuable input to the discussion. Well done you.

A picture speaks a thousand words. 

Much of the so-called discussion is merely repetition of entrenched positions  that IMG, the RFL, clubs, etc are no good. What other response can there be other than to laugh?

 

[TrueBull]

IMG get paid as a % of all upgraded and new commercial income and broadcasting contracts they bring in. So the criteria will be based partly (or wholly) on making that happen - through the product on the field but more importantly how to sell it to audiences. When it came out , I must admit I thought it was designed for big city clubs. And the last week hasn’t changed my mind