IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

if it was up to you and you had a straight choice between Leigh and Toulouse which would you choose?

Toulouse, probably, but that's beside the point, and pretty irrelevent. I don't actively want Toulouse to replace Leigh, both can add to the SL competition, my preference has always been a 14 team SL with both of them in.

 

With the current standings your question should really be Cas or Leigh.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[Damien]

33 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Would effectively see Leigh relegated and replaced by Toulouse. Would be a delight to some I'm sure.

Leaving aside the chip on the shoulder stuff I don't think this is the case at all. I think this also leaves Toulouse pretty vulnerable too. I think they are potentially more maxed out points wise than Leigh and Cas (if they can tick off those ground improvements). Next year's league placings for cas and Leigh could be crucial. Wakey should be fine with their new stand now you'd imagine.

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Not if you believe digital fandom growth is

1. An upstream indicator of the ability to grow new audiences and so future attendances, and

2. A downstream indicator of attendee engagement, so linked to your ability to retain present attendees

If you incentivise it through points, you show clubs it is important rather than just tell them it is

My opinion is that the difference between digital fandom and attendances doesn't reflect the so called customer journey between the two. But also, the metrics being scored are poor. They measure quantity, without any added context of quality for either the content produced or the audience reached.

I think this is an example where scoring should evolve. Request the data, even penalise for not providing it, give warning that future years will see this data scored against.  But come up with a strategy for how this data can be used for the good of the game as a whole, and measure against delivery on that.

As with a lot of things on this, I like the idea, just not the execution.

[sweaty craiq]

What we know is TO and Leigh will score higher in many categories, Wakey less and probably Salford and Cas also.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, sweaty craiq said:

What we know is TO and Leigh will score higher in many categories, Wakey less and probably Salford and Cas also.

Well quite, not sure why this Toulouse or Leigh narrative is coming from (well I do , its from Leigh fans with chips on their shoulders)

 

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Leaving aside the chip on the shoulder stuff I don't think this is the case at all. I think this also leaves Toulouse pretty vulnerable too. I think they are potentially more maxed out points wise than Leigh and Cas (if they can tick off those ground improvements). Next year's league placings for cas and Leigh could be crucial. Wakey should be fine with their new stand now you'd imagine.

As things stand, Leigh will have 0.75 points to make up on Toulouse next year, given the removal of the Challenge Cup bonus (the fact that cup / grand final wins in years 1&2 aren't factored into a 3 year assessment of performance is also bizarre imo).

Leigh, for whatever reason, have chosen to not disclose their score breakdown. But it will be very difficult to maintain the performance score, given the removal of challenge cup points, so will need Toulouse fail badly in next season's play offs to make up points on them in that pillar. Not sure what Toulouse's average attendances have been, but the 2022 season means it's impossible for Leigh to get into the top bracket on that scoring, but maybe add .1 or so to utilisation. As a Leigh fan, have to hope there will be an improvement on the finances, digital and community foundation scores, as there's not much scope to improve on the visible areas.

One (of many) thing I'm not sure of is whether the viewership score will be used next year, if the Championship do not get a TV deal. That would see 0.75 wiped off Champ club scores straight away.

Agree on Wakefield, had the new stand been in place this year, they'd be 9th or 10th (depending on the impact on stadium utilisation). They'll be in for 2025

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Well quite, not sure why this Toulouse or Leigh narrative is coming from (well I do , its from Leigh fans with chips on their shoulders)

 

 To be fair, it's not a narrative, it's the results of the indicative gradings should Cas be given that half point

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Toulouse, probably, but that's beside the point, and pretty irrelevent. I don't actively want Toulouse to replace Leigh, both can add to the SL competition, my preference has always been a 14 team SL with both of them in.

 

With the current standings your question should really be Cas or Leigh.

Your preference like my preference is also pretty irrelevant, we have what we have.  If Castleford's score as been adjusted then currently Toulouse are in and Leigh are out. Harry is right, chip or no chip there's more than a few on here who if push comes to shove would be more than happy to chuck Leigh out and put Toulouse in.

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, phiggins said:

 To be fair, it's not a narrative, it's the results of the indicative gradings should Cas be given that half point

No, that would be Cas or Leigh if you are going by the gradings.

But that doesn't suit the narrative

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Harry is right, chip or no chip there's more than a few on here who if push comes to shove would be more than happy to chuck Leigh out and put Toulouse in.

So what people are entitled to their opinion on which clubs they like.

I've not seen this anti Leigh vibe that Leigh fans seem to revel in.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, phiggins said:

As things stand, Leigh will have 0.75 points to make up on Toulouse next year, given the removal of the Challenge Cup bonus (the fact that cup / grand final wins in years 1&2 aren't factored into a 3 year assessment of performance is also bizarre imo).

Leigh, for whatever reason, have chosen to not disclose their score breakdown. But it will be very difficult to maintain the performance score, given the removal of challenge cup points, so will need Toulouse fail badly in next season's play offs to make up points on them in that pillar. Not sure what Toulouse's average attendances have been, but the 2022 season means it's impossible for Leigh to get into the top bracket on that scoring, but maybe add .1 or so to utilisation. As a Leigh fan, have to hope there will be an improvement on the finances, digital and community foundation scores, as there's not much scope to improve on the visible areas.

One (of many) thing I'm not sure of is whether the viewership score will be used next year, if the Championship do not get a TV deal. That would see 0.75 wiped off Champ club scores straight away.

Agree on Wakefield, had the new stand been in place this year, they'd be 9th or 10th (depending on the impact on stadium utilisation). They'll be in for 2025

So, in theory, it would benefit Toulouse to paper games with free tickets and also pay costs for a local TV deal?

Although both would actually be good for the long term development of the club anyway.

[RP London]

14 hours ago, phiggins said:

All I’ve said is that applying context to these metrics is a standard practice to make the data more useful. Not sure that’s a particularly controversial statement to make. I’m not suggesting that non-standard metrics are used.

Hopefully IMG will have a plan for how these engagement numbers can be used in later phases of their work with the RFL. 

For me thats the key on this metric. its one I'm not overly keen on but IMG have a 10-12 year plan for this including a load more stuff, the grading is just one part. I would guess the others parts will leverage this SM metric and hence they want clubs to increase their SM metrics to be able to use for other areas of their work. Its also an area that can refined further down the line for the gradings too. 

[RP London]

On 31/10/2023 at 10:02, Harry Stottle said:

BINGO, "Everyone is ABOUT where they should be".

I am an engineer, and I know for every fitment there has to be a tolerance applied to allow things to mesh together, that can be a push fit, an interference fit, or a piff (spelt with a ss) fit, without such tolerances in the manufacturing process the end product will not function properly and give the required purpose.

I am in no doubt that come the definitive roll out of IMG positions there will be some very close scores where a small unit of a decimal point can be the telling factor of SL or Championship status. So come that time what tolerance will be applied to the scoring system plus/minus 0.1, 0.3, 0.5? Who will do the checking that a) the correct figures have been submitted b) the numbers have been input correctly c) the criterion has no flaws in its application d) there is a formal process for disputes.

As I have stated previously if I was a club that a miniscule decimal point is the difference of £1M plus for being in SL or not I would be taking legal action at the highest level I could afford to have everything checked and audited to prove its correct, if that compromised the following season I would not care.

As an engineer you will also know that new processes very rarely work the first time that you try them out. This is a test run and was deliberately done to give an "indication" but also to iron out some of the flaws in the system. 

There is some trust on this, and I understand due to previous issues, that some people are struggling with the trust angle. BUT we do have to trust they will have learned from this as they have done these types of gradings before. 

The document we see with the outlines including the outlines of the audit process are just that, outlines. More information has apparently been sent to the clubs (whether they have read them or not is a different matter). As the auditing is mentioned in an appendix on the outline you would assume (I know its an assumption but again this comes down to the trust angle) it is in in more depth there. 

I would very much doubt, but may be proven wrong, that IMG really want to open themselves up to legal action so when these become live grades with a lot at stake I would say that they will have done the due diligence to get these right. 

This indicative grading has also potentially given them a few clubs to really focus in on in terms of that audit as well (ie ones that cannot even hand over their own data correctly FFS!) which is probably a good thing and should make those around the fringes a little more confident in the long run. 

All of this is down to confidence in the system and I get why some dont after the last incarnations of this type of thing. I'm trying to be more positive as they have implemented similar in the past without major issues. I'm sceptical on some of the areas they are marking and I can see the worry in those around 10-15 but I am hoping, for the whole game, that this is the turning point and it works to focus minds and change the game in this country.

[PREPOSTEROUS]

Trinity would be on 13.52 had the new stand opened in August, we will get less for performance, only marginally should we win the Championship next year, more for less reliance on central distribution, and less for viewership. 

All in all, with the new ownership, Trinity should be in SL in 2025. Time will tell though.

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Trinity would be on 13.52 had the new stand opened in August, we will get less for performance, only marginally should we win the Championship next year, more for less reliance on central distribution, and less for viewership. 

All in all, with the new ownership, Trinity should be in SL in 2025. Time will tell though.

I'd be very surprised if they weren't

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

55 minutes ago, phiggins said:

My opinion is that the difference between digital fandom and attendances doesn't reflect the so called customer journey between the two. But also, the metrics being scored are poor. They measure quantity, without any added context of quality for either the content produced or the audience reached.

I think this is an example where scoring should evolve. Request the data, even penalise for not providing it, give warning that future years will see this data scored against.  But come up with a strategy for how this data can be used for the good of the game as a whole, and measure against delivery on that.

As with a lot of things on this, I like the idea, just not the execution.

I hear you, but all Balanced Scorecards require compromise to enable the simplification needed to make them function. Make it too granular and you have too many numbers to have a simple narrative. You're trying to distill the essence of a subject, and measure something that will broadly correlate to improvement albeit lacking some nuance. 

The "how to improve" detail is the stuff that should be being done in the background, whether by IMG supporting clubs, or by clubs engaging a 3rd party to support them in order to move the metric. 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

 

The "how to improve" detail is the stuff that should be being done in the background, whether by IMG supporting clubs, or by clubs engaging a 3rd party to support them in order to move the metric. 

Yep, also IMG are not there to help run the clubs, the point is to get the clubs to do this themselves.

[crashmon]

almost 100 pages.... But what it really boils down to are three points

• London and probably Cas will be out of SL next year (unless Cas somehow finish in top 3 and make it to old trafford)
• Tolouse and Wakey will be in (even if they finish mid table and not in playoffs)
• Bradford and Fev will miss out but Bradford will be above Fev

So the Onus really is on Cas to somehow get above Wakey and Tolouse in the gradings

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, crashmon said:

almost 100 pages.... But what it really boils down to are three points

• London and probably Cas will be out of SL next year (unless Cas somehow finish in top 3 and make it to old trafford)
• Tolouse and Wakey will be in (even if they finish mid table and not in playoffs)
• Bradford and Fev will miss out but Bradford will be above Fev

So the Onus really is on Cas to somehow get above Wakey and Tolouse in the gradings

I don't think Cas are necessarily out or that Toulouse are necessarily in at all. Leigh are as vulnerable too.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Damien

[sweaty craiq]

2021 scores drop off so Cas finished 7th and Wakey 10th probably finishing lower. Leigh 12th and TO not in SL so probably higher. All clubs should post detailed results though

[Harry Stottle]

32 minutes ago, RP London said:

I would very much doubt, but may be proven wrong, that IMG really want to open themselves up to legal action so when these become live grades with a lot at stake I would say that they will have done the due diligence to get these right. 

Hopefully that will be the case and IMG will take the appropriate steps to make sure that everything is above board, but if they don't as I said previously expect clubs that are missing out by a miniscule number to raise it legally as high as they can, we know how long things of nature can take and if that compromises the start of the following season that will purely be down to IMG and RL Commercial.

You also said "you will also know that new processes very rarely work the first time that you try them out" next year will be the first time the process goes "live" so to speak, it will also be a definitive for a club(s) so it needs to be accurate.

[phiggins]

15 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

2021 scores drop off so Cas finished 7th and Wakey 10th probably finishing lower. Leigh 12th and TO not in SL so probably higher. All clubs should post detailed results though

Leigh also lose 0.25 points from performance score, as CC bonus point drops off. Wakefield could get bonus points for winning Championship and 1895 trophy. Not sure if Toulouse enter the 1895, but they also get bonus points if they win the Championship final.

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Leigh also lose 0.25 points from performance score, as CC bonus point drops off. Wakefield could get bonus points for winning Championship and 1895 trophy. Not sure if Toulouse enter the 1895, but they also get bonus points if they win the Championship final.

So what position do you calculate Leigh will have to reach next year to give them a chance.

[crashmon]

I'd be astonished if Leigh drop out unless they have a awful season next year.  I think Leigh are 100% going to be in top 6 next year, and are an outside bet for finishing top at the end of the regular season.

I can see Leeds finishing 2nd bottom just above London however, now they know they are Band A and safe from ever getting relegated

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Trinity would be on 13.52 had the new stand opened in August, we will get less for performance, only marginally should we win the Championship next year, more for less reliance on central distribution, and less for viewership. 

All in all, with the new ownership, Trinity should be in SL in 2025. Time will tell though.

At least if Wakey win the Champ it puts to bed whether they should go up on grading or P&R.