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

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, The Blues Ox said:

No but I saw Salford are closer to a grade A rating than they are to dropping out of the league which just makes me a little sceptical to what you have been saying for the past few pages.

They might not be if they have a poor season both on the field and financially 

[Archie Gordon]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

...

However it’s likely if Leigh miss out it will be to cas or Wakefield, id say all 3 as clubs are pretty similar when. Measured across the whole criteria 

And herein lies the utter daftness. 3 pretty similar clubs and 2 get £1.5m and a SL place whilst the other is told to go away and improve your attendances, viewing figures and finances in a league that's not televised and is about 1/5 as popular as SL.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

And herein lies the utter daftness. 3 pretty similar clubs and 2 get £1.5m and a SL place whilst the other is told to go away and improve your attendances, viewing figures and finances in a league that's not televised and is about 1/5 as popular as SL.

Which is why id go for a 14 team SL in 2025.

Theres two lines of discussion going in here.

1. What we think the clubs will get with the actual system the clubs voted for

2. what we personally think the system should be and who we think should be in SL.

Maybe it would be better to have two threads.

[Harry Stottle]

5 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Ive said i don’t agree with the attendance metric, I think % increases should be rewarded.

However it’s likely if Leigh miss out it will be to cas or Wakefield, id say all 3 as clubs are pretty similar when. Measured across the whole criteria 

Cas, Wakey or Leigh for SL. So that leaves in Salford, Huddersfield and Toulouse. 

No disrespect to Salford they are my second fav team, they have been out to the fans with begging bowls this year, had to sell 3 of it's best players to survive, and even though you say you don't like such a metric it is in there, will they get to 7000 average crowds very unlikely.

Huddersfield, even there hardened fans who pen these pages say it is not a RL town and never will be, football will always be the preferred sporting medium for its townsfolk, and again the metric you don't like, they have virtually given away season tickets and still could not entice the town folk in.

Toulouse, I would absolutely love to see how they have achieved the score they have attained, I wouldn't be surprised if some metrics may have been designed in such a way that they benefited from them, but all Toulouse offer is the word I have used many times about them 'Potential', potential to get crowds in, potential to attract big companies in to sponsor, potential to have a team capable of competing in SL.

So we have 6 teams there, Leigh even if they finish bottom in SL will finish above Wakefield and Toulouse, and I wouldn't bet against them  topping Salford - losing its influential players, Cas reading of their signings will not be very strong, Huddersfield they keep promising but would fancy Leigh to be above them, and apart from Cas depending on the season they have would expect Leigh to top them all in attendances.

But on these IMG rules non of that matters, as stated Leigh can finish in 5th place in 2024 again as they did in 2023 and still lose out to teams and be demoted, teams that can not attract as many fans into the stadiums, therefore bring in less revenue, and on the performance metric Leigh could likely do much better.

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

34 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

What we think the clubs will get with the actual system the clubs voted for

Do you honestly believe all the clubs would vote the same way again if given the chance.

[gazza77]

It's a pain the new system for those of us who like to visit rival clubs social media pages to see what's happening across the game. It's now something that really feels to be discouraged, as you're essentially improving the score of competitors. Same applies with going to away games, given the scoring of attendances.

[Chrispmartha]

21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Do you honestly believe all the clubs would vote the same way again if given the chance.

Yes, what do you think they expected? 

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Yes, what do you think they expected? 

I asked you the question once before have you ever done something that on reflection you regretted later, you chose not to answer.

Neither have you answered the post I sent to you about those outside the chosen 7.

[Chrispmartha]

33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Cas, Wakey or Leigh for SL. So that leaves in Salford, Huddersfield and Toulouse. 

No disrespect to Salford they are my second fav team, they have been out to the fans with begging bowls this year, had to sell 3 of it's best players to survive, and even though you say you don't like such a metric it is in there, will they get to 7000 average crowds very unlikely.

Huddersfield, even there hardened fans who pen these pages say it is not a RL town and never will be, football will always be the preferred sporting medium for its townsfolk, and again the metric you don't like, they have virtually given away season tickets and still could not entice the town folk in.

Toulouse, I would absolutely love to see how they have achieved the score they have attained, I wouldn't be surprised if some metrics may have been designed in such a way that they benefited from them, but all Toulouse offer is the word I have used many times about them 'Potential', potential to get crowds in, potential to attract big companies in to sponsor, potential to have a team capable of competing in SL.

So we have 6 teams there, Leigh even if they finish bottom in SL will finish above Wakefield and Toulouse, and I wouldn't bet against them  topping Salford - losing its influential players, Cas reading of their signings will not be very strong, Huddersfield they keep promising but would fancy Leigh to be above them, and apart from Cas depending on the season they have would expect Leigh to top them all in attendances.

But on these IMG rules non of that matters, as stated Leigh can finish in 5th place again and still lose out to teams and be demoted, teams that can not attract as many fans into the stadiums, therefore bring in less revenue, and on the performance metric Leigh could likely do much better.

 

Leigh could also have s nightmare with injuries finish bottom of SL, lose money and lose fans.

at this point we are just speculating on what will happen.

As ive said I think it’s between Cas, Wakey and Leigh and if we take any club bias out of it Id say that they are all pretty equal as far as what they offer SL.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

I asked you the question once before have you ever done something that on reflection you regretted later, you chose not to answer.

Neither have you answered the post I sent to you about those outside the chosen 7.

That’s a non sequitur, you asked me if i think the clubs would vote the same way and I answered.

Have we seen clubs come out and derided the gradings, only ones that have voted against it in the first place .

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I asked you the question once before have you ever done something that on reflection you regretted later, you chose not to answer.

Neither have you answered the post I sent to you about those outside the chosen 7.

What question about outside the 7? Sorry if ive missed it ive been in a meeting 

[phiggins]

19 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Leigh could also have s nightmare with injuries finish bottom of SL, lose money and lose fans.

at this point we are just speculating on what will happen.

As ive said I think it’s between Cas, Wakey and Leigh and if we take any club bias out of it Id say that they are all pretty equal as far as what they offer SL.

Not getting into Super League in 2025 will be much more palatable after a nightmare season in 2024, rather than a 2024 that sees us relegated because our scores get dragged down by attendances and finances in 2022.

[Harry Stottle]

56 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

What question about outside the 7? Sorry if ive missed it ive been in a meeting 

You have since answered it.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

That’s not when they got relegated though is it.

Bradford got relegated in 2014.  Their three previous finishes were 9th, 9th and 13th.  They averaged 8,650 people a game over their last three seasons, in their relegation season they averaged 6,236.  Over the prior ten years to that they were probably in the top two or three clubs in the land.  You say they got relegated because they were a basket case.  The irony of that is that this system would have probably saved them. If by some quirk it hadn't the people now calling them a basket case would be arguing "you can't relegate Bradford, they are a potential class 'A' club. 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Bradford got relegated in 2014.  Their three previous finishes were 9th, 9th and 13th.  They averaged 8,650 people a game over their last three seasons, in their relegation season they averaged 6,236.  Over the prior ten years to that they were probably in the top two or three clubs in the land.  You say they got relegated because they were a basket case.  The irony of that is that this system would have probably saved them. If by some quirk it hadn't the people now calling them a basket case would be arguing "you can't relegate Bradford, they are a potential class 'A' club. 

Would this system save them?

Didn’t they go into administration?

its a tad pointless looking back 10 years to find a club to fit your argument anyway. I could just argue that the metrics in place are to try stop what happened to Bradford happening again because the finances are measured.

[ChristianB]

23 hours ago, Griff said:

https://stats.rugbyleaguerecords.com/teamseason.php?cat=95&subcat=2023

Cornwall?

Averaging substantially less than 500.

Some of these numbers are plucked out of thin air. 

Having attended every Cornwall home match (and a fair few away), I can say with conviction that average attendance was 'substantially greater'.

The assertion that there were only 350 present for the final home match of the season against Rochdale is so absurd as to barely warrant dignifying with a response.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

4 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Would this system save them?

Didn’t they go into administration?

its a tad pointless looking back 10 years to find a club to fit your argument anyway. I could just argue that the metrics in place are to try stop what happened to Bradford happening again because the finances are measured.

The thread is full of arguments, counter arguments and opinions based on personal choices.

[Big Picture]

29 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

The thread is full of arguments, counter arguments and opinions based on personal choices.

And those arguments show the sport is damned if it makes these changes and damned if it doesn't.  Continuing as is is a recipe for continued decline, but change rusks alienating fans the sport can't afford to alienate. 

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

And those arguments show the sport is damned if it makes these changes and damned if it doesn't.  Continuing as is is a recipe for continued decline, but change rusks alienating fans the sport can't afford to alienate. 

And it will BP, but is that part of the plan?

IMG cannot afford to drag along clubs below SL if they want to make a profit in 12 years time, it is all part of their cunning  plan.

[Griff]

5 hours ago, ChristianB said:

Some of these numbers are plucked out of thin air. 

Having attended every Cornwall home match (and a fair few away), I can say with conviction that average attendance was 'substantially greater'.

The assertion that there were only 350 present for the final home match of the season against Rochdale is so absurd as to barely warrant dignifying with a response.

Well, they could always publish their attendances.

No obligation on them to do that, of course, and I've often said that publication shouldn't be expected but, if you don't publish, folk are free to draw their own conclusions and make their own estimates.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Griff

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

5 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Would this system save them?

Didn’t they go into administration?

its a tad pointless looking back 10 years to find a club to fit your argument anyway. I could just argue that the metrics in place are to try stop what happened to Bradford happening again because the finances are measured.

Must admit, your reply gave me food for thought so I had a bit of a dig around this afternoon.  Some of what I turned up amazed me.  I started by comparing Bradford today with Bradford's three previous seasons before their first administration.  Back then they would of scored higher on Performance, Attendances, Viewership and Utilisation.  On the Digital and Foundation categories I scored them the same. The one I'm not sure is finance but more on that later. On a like for like basis over those 4 categories I have them 1.8 points ahead of today.  The average attendance for those three years before administration was over 10,000. The average attendance for the third season was 12,815, a season in which they finished 10th.  Where would that have placed them in last seasons attendance chart, 2nd, 3rd?

So on to administration. In July 2011 Bradford were awarded a Superleague licence for the following three seasons.  Bradford went into administration in March 2012.   What happened in eight months?  Surely Bradford must have supplied some financial data in their licence application. 

So where Bradford a big club? I'd say they were. Was anyone calling them a basket case prior to their licence approval in 2011?  I don't recall.  Did they turn out to be a basket case, undoubtedly.

Chris I know you'll pick fault with this so save your time and don't bother, this is more for other peoples benefit. 

 

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Must admit, your reply gave me food for thought so I had a bit of a dig around this afternoon.  Some of what I turned up amazed me.  I started by comparing Bradford today with Bradford's three previous seasons before their first administration.  Back then they would of scored higher on Performance, Attendances, Viewership and Utilisation.  On the Digital and Foundation categories I scored them the same. The one I'm not sure is finance but more on that later. On a like for like basis over those 4 categories I have them 1.8 points ahead of today.  The average attendance for those three years before administration was over 10,000. The average attendance for the third season was 12,815, a season in which they finished 10th.  Where would that have placed them in last seasons attendance chart, 2nd, 3rd?

So on to administration. In July 2011 Bradford were awarded a Superleague licence for the following three seasons.  Bradford went into administration in March 2012.   What happened in eight months?  Surely Bradford must have supplied some financial data in their licence application. 

So where Bradford a big club? I'd say they were. Was anyone calling them a basket case prior to their licence approval in 2011?  I don't recall.  Did they turn out to be a basket case, undoubtedly.

Chris I know you'll pick fault with this so save your time and don't bother, this is more for other peoples benefit. 

 

Don’t worry I’ve neither the time nor inclination because its literally pointless and personally don’t think it adds anything to the already drawn out debate to go back in time to a different system to work out what the points would be for what is essentially a totally different club.

[ChristianB]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

folk are free to draw their own conclusions and make their own estimates.

As is their right. But in this case those conclusions and estimates are plumb wrong.

[Chrispmartha]

Good to see, an example of where the IMG metrics are making clubs realise the importance of digital marketing, Leigh’s SM stuff this year has been a mixed bag (baiting Wakefield was a low point IMO) getting staff in will help, well done Leigh.

[Harry Stottle]

26 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Good to see, an example of where the IMG metrics are making clubs realise the importance of digital marketing, Leigh’s SM stuff this year has been a mixed bag (baiting Wakefield was a low point IMO) getting staff in will help, well done Leigh.

Well if our on-field performance is going to be of a secondary nature to peripheral functions the club will just have to follow the "Pied Piper", I believe there is also talk of getting in an upholstery master to review the directors seats, and a positive directed campaign to the council to have houses built on the available 'brown and green belt land", but we have to be cautious that this unexpected expenditure does not affect our financials, will we be robbing Peter to pay Paul ?

I am just contemplating to offer my services free of charge to apply for the advertised post, thanks for bringing my attention to it.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Harry Stottle