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

[Griff]

10 minutes ago, Eddie said:

They could build a massive estate of 75,000 homes just outside York to increase their catchment? 

Now there's a thought.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, M j M said:

It's a vicious circle. With the best will in the world it's almost impossible to grow some of these things over the levels required in the Championship. Attendances, tv viewing figures, social media are inherently lower in the Championship and willing them to be larger is not going to change that reality.

York could do the best job possible and not get the scores required. 

Then it isn't the best job possible and they aren't going to be good enough to add to Super League at that time. Try harder.

[Barley Mow]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its likely going to take a side being bad, or repeatedly bad, in Super League for a championship club to over take them.

That's the point of this too. 1 bad season, or 1 drop goal, shouldn't send Hull KR for example to the 2nd tier because, and I can't emphasise this enough, the sport cannot afford to weaken the top flight anymore. In general, the clubs that are there are the right clubs. A handful, maybe, can add to that but largely its replacing like with like at the moment (hence being flush with b grades). Those b's are strengthened by trying to get an A and the security that brings.

The single message that has been coming out of all these meetings with clubs and the RFL is the RFL saying there is no money, and Sky don't want to pay more than they absolutely have to. We have not gone to IMG for management advice because things are going alright but need tinkering, there's 7 figure sums that need to be found to keep the game afloat. If IMG were on board when the £40 million a season was being pumped into the sport, and investments were made in more than just a few championship clubs spending millions on squads to have a nice but mostly fruitless day out at Super League grounds at the end of the season, then we wouldn't be in this mess. 

This is one of the largest disappointments for me:

We have many of these medium size RL clubs and yes when there is P&R between them we do essentially replace like for like.

However the criteria aren't assessing which ones of them are best placed to be successful, the SL incumbency bias just ensures that a number of those medium sized clubs who have been in SL most recently will be the ones that get a place and remain there.

Having a lot of similar clubs strikes me as a reason to have a system that allows them to move more freely between the divisions.

As an aside on this, I was actually surprised that as many clubs obtained A grades as did - I expected more of the 7 to be B's.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, M j M said:

It's a vicious circle. With the best will in the world it's almost impossible to grow some of these things over the levels required in the Championship. Attendances, tv viewing figures, social media are inherently lower in the Championship and willing them to be larger is not going to change that reality.

York could do the best job possible and not get the scores required. 

Of course they could, but I don't think York are 'willing them' they are actively embracing the concept and are looking to grow to get to the required grade. They have put very positive statements out abut what they want to achieve.

I think they are one of the clubs that will achieve it in the future.

We don't know what they scored so it's speculation but the club themselves seem positive that they can improve on the grade they have been given in the indicative gradings.

 

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

 

As an aside on this, I was actually surprised that as many clubs obtained A grades as did - I expected more of the 7 to be B's.

So did IMG

[Barley Mow]

4 minutes ago, M j M said:

It's a vicious circle. With the best will in the world it's almost impossible to grow some of these things over the levels required in the Championship. Attendances, tv viewing figures, social media are inherently lower in the Championship and willing them to be larger is not going to change that reality.

York could do the best job possible and not get the scores required. 

I assume that York Valkyrie being on television doesn't contribute to York Knights' score for viewing figures. Can anyone confirm one way or the other?

[M j M]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Then it isn't the best job possible and they aren't going to be good enough to add to Super League at that time. Try harder.

Have you actually tried to calculate the figures? 

This wilful ignorance of how this will work in reality and how it will affect the health of clubs and the sport would be breathtaking if it wasn't so unsurprising. And fans of clubs who struck lucky can complacently sit back and enjoy the fruits of them being in the right place at the right time.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

This is one of the largest disappointments for me:

We have many of these medium size RL clubs and yes when there is P&R between them we do essentially replace like for like.

However the criteria aren't assessing which ones of them are best placed to be successful, the SL incumbency bias just ensures that a number of those medium sized clubs who have been in SL most recently will be the ones that get a place and remain there.

Having a lot of similar clubs strikes me as a reason to have a system that allows them to move more freely between the divisions.

As an aside on this, I was actually surprised that as many clubs obtained A grades as did - I expected more of the 7 to be B's.

Well this is a real point of tension isn't it. I would argue that improvements in finances and other criteria like that will boost grades in terms of what can be built on, but on the whole, the principal the grades have been built on what is actually there, not "potential".

Catchment is the closest to that which you ask for as a differentiator, yet it is arguably the most controversial. I'm sure IMG would like a bit more of this sort of thing, but the clubs themselves aren't ready for that yet.

The suggestion is that these Bs, particularly at the lower end, will either still maintain good enough scores in other areas to add value to the league (Salford being in a good stadium facility in a good area for the sport for example) and therefore stay in the comp to prevent a waste of investment (which we can't afford). Or they will be replaced by a better example ie a York replacing a Castleford or Huddersfield for example.

Of the As, I was only "surprised" at Hull KR. Imo it felt like a top B club for me, though arguably these indicative grades have been done on a best case scenario not a worst. These aren't that surprising though really.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, M j M said:

Have you actually tried to calculate the figures? 

This wilful ignorance of how this will work in reality and how it will affect the health of clubs and the sport would be breathtaking if it wasn't so unsurprising. And fans of clubs who struck lucky can complacently sit back and enjoy the fruits of them being in the right place at the right time.

Its not willful ignorance its understanding what the system is for and why. Not seeing that is willful ignorance.

If you can't add to the top table more than an incumbent, then leave the incumbent in to grow further. If the incumbent is failing, then you should be able to do better than it does. 

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, M j M said:

Have you actually tried to calculate the figures? 

 

I would hope a club Like York who have embraced the concept and are happy with what they need to do have.

[glossop saint]

27 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Well without seeing their current points and how they got them its difficult tell but

Attendances

Digital

Performances

Community

I'm not talking about them making it by 2025, in fact that's my whole point it might take 3+ years or more

Each of these have problems though.

Attendances - they don't get the visit of Leeds and Wigan every year.

Digital - they don't get the exposure of national TV, be it sky or BBC. People outside of York are very unlikely to 'stumble' across them.

Performances - even winning the championship only gives you a marginally better score than bottom of SL, and only for the 1 season.

Also to add to this it will be nearly impossible for any none SL club to score maximum points for the TV viewership unless selected by the BBC for the CC. And no chance of any points if not even on viaplay.

[Tommygilf]

28 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Each of these have problems though.

Attendances - they don't get the visit of Leeds and Wigan every year.

Digital - they don't get the exposure of national TV, be it sky or BBC. People outside of York are very unlikely to 'stumble' across them.

Performances - even winning the championship only gives you a marginally better score than bottom of SL, and only for the 1 season.

Also to add to this it will be nearly impossible for any none SL club to score maximum points for the TV viewership unless selected by the BBC for the CC. And no chance of any points if not even on viaplay.

Toronto showed you don't need to be in Super League for that.

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Toronto showed you don't need to be in Super League for that.

They had good attendances, but they would still have the same problems with getting performance scores and viewership scores.

No idea what their other scores would be, but any time outside the Championship does lower the ceiling of your score

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, phiggins said:

They had good attendances, but they would still have the same problems with getting performance scores and viewership scores.

No idea what their other scores would be, but any time outside the Championship does lower the ceiling of your score

It does, but so it logically will when it is the same grading used against Super League clubs. 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Barley Mow said:

I assume that York Valkyrie being on television doesn't contribute to York Knights' score for viewing figures. Can anyone confirm one way or the other?

Great question.

[DemonUK]

I am not reading through 105 pages so if anyone else has made this observation I apologise.  Because the 'current season' is included in the Performance rating, attendances, utilisation and one of the Finance sections.  Gradings can only be finalised for the teams outside of the playoffs at the end of the regular season.  For the teams in the payoffs, their grading can only be confirmed as they get knocked out of the playoffs.

The scenario that I see is that the teams that are confident of easily making Grade A at the end of 2024 will get the pick of available players earlier s they will have no worries about committing to attaractive player contracts  If you are on of say 5 clubs that may be within say 0.3 points of one another, how wise would it be to commit to SL size contracts when you could suddenly find yourself as the 13th rated club.  They could offer two contracts ie a SL one or a champ one, but how many players will want to commit to a deal like this if it is going to be the middle of October before it is confirmed.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Barley Mow said:

I assume that York Valkyrie being on television doesn't contribute to York Knights' score for viewing figures. Can anyone confirm one way or the other?

No, the women's teams aren't included in gradings as far as I'm aware.

The viewership point specifically states they are for mens league fixtures.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Are you a fan of the Battle of Waterloo? 

We beat the French - what's not to like!

[glossop saint]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Toronto showed you don't need to be in Super League for that.

And Cornwall, I think, are showing that there can be good attendances at lower league levels. And other clubs have had good attendances. Though are we genuinely expecting clubs in divisions below SL to be getting better crowds without the benefit of away fans than those in SL?

[Eddie]

40 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Toronto showed you don't need to be in Super League for that.

Well no, and despite that they still weren’t wanted by the parochial SL clubs. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, glossop saint said:

And Cornwall, I think, are showing that there can be good attendances at lower league levels. And other clubs have had good attendances. Though are we genuinely expecting clubs in divisions below SL to be getting better crowds without the benefit of away fans than those in SL?

This is one metric I personally would change and reward % increases with bonus points.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

Well no, and despite that they still weren’t wanted by the parochial SL clubs. 

Because they had other pretty massive flaws, but this isn't being decided by "parochial SL clubs", its an impartial, 3rd party measurement.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

And Cornwall, I think, are showing that there can be good attendances at lower league levels. And other clubs have had good attendances. Though are we genuinely expecting clubs in divisions below SL to be getting better crowds without the benefit of away fans than those in SL?

I think there is some refinement to work on, but I wouldn't go too far really.

[phiggins]

10 minutes ago, DemonUK said:

I am not reading through 105 pages so if anyone else has made this observation I apologise.  Because the 'current season' is included in the Performance rating, attendances, utilisation and one of the Finance sections.  Gradings can only be finalised for the teams outside of the playoffs at the end of the regular season.  For the teams in the payoffs, their grading can only be confirmed as they get knocked out of the playoffs.

The scenario that I see is that the teams that are confident of easily making Grade A at the end of 2024 will get the pick of available players earlier s they will have no worries about committing to attaractive player contracts  If you are on of say 5 clubs that may be within say 0.3 points of one another, how wise would it be to commit to SL size contracts when you could suddenly find yourself as the 13th rated club.  They could offer two contracts ie a SL one or a champ one, but how many players will want to commit to a deal like this if it is going to be the middle of October before it is confirmed.

Yes, this system does two things that are peculiar imo;

1) Increases the level of uncertainty - Currently, it looks like there will be 9 clubs (7 A grade + 2 highest B grades) that can be comfortable about their SL place in 2025. This despite the fact that 4 of them failed to make the play offs in the season just gone. Meanwhile, of the other three clubs, one is virtually relegated before they even being and the other two could finish in the play offs and still not know where they sit until after the calculations and appeals etc... 

2) Performance on and off the field in 2022 will affect the chances of being in SL in 2025. Regardless of the direction of travel of a club in that time. This is particularly odd, given the scoring system hadn't been devised in 2022.

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Because they had other pretty massive flaws, but this isn't being decided by "parochial SL clubs", its an impartial, 3rd party measurement.

I know it is in theory, but the SL clubs have voted for it and therefore are in agreement with the criteria (which benefit themselves). If they hadn’t agreed they’d have voted against.