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

[Harry Stottle]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Stadium is a nice visible thing and it often becomes the main point for many people. But this isn't a stadium competition. 

And neither was it 15 years ago, had it been then Salford, Cas and Wakefield would not have got a licence and told to arry on but make sure they improve the situation, Salford did, 14 years later Wakefield started building work, and Cas are still no more than an artist's impression.

[Click]

36 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Good grief Tommy, what am I being bitter about?

There were quite a few pages on transparency and additional to what you say here, which yes I agree, I recall IMG saying they would not disclose information of the clubs regarding the criteria scoring, if I am wrong happy to be corrected.

Dave T said if the sport is going for transparency, I don't think just showing headline scores shows that.

To which I was simply asking, Havn't IMG stated there will be no transparency, what is bitter about that?

If IMG stated that then they would have said that, they didn't. They said it's up to individual clubs to share if they want to, some have and some haven't.

IMG set the criteria, it's the clubs own information/data that gets the points, why would IMG be allowed to disclose 3rd party information publicly?

[Lowdesert]

29 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

And neither was it 15 years ago, had it been then Salford, Cas and Wakefield would not have got a licence and told to arry on but make sure they improve the situation, Salford did, 14 years later Wakefield started building work, and Cas are still no more than an artist's impression.

You seem very bitter.  Harping on about the same things over and over again. Jeez.

[Tommygilf]

44 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Good grief Tommy, what am I being bitter about?

There were quite a few pages on transparency and additional to what you say here, which yes I agree, I recall IMG saying they would not disclose information of the clubs regarding the criteria scoring, if I am wrong happy to be corrected.

Dave T said if the sport is going for transparency, I don't think just showing headline scores shows that.

To which I was simply asking, Havn't IMG stated there will be no transparency, what is bitter about that?

The whole post sounded bitter mate (alongside everything else that IMG has/hasn't done that you have posted about on this and other threads).

IMG of course have not said "there will be no transparency". They have been very transparent with everything they have done - especially the grading. The only things they have not published regarding the gradings are the numbers they have received from clubs - which they have said the clubs are free to publicise themselves if they so wish. So no, IMG have not said there will be no transparency, what a ludicrous suggestion

[phiggins]

8 hours ago, Damien said:

With 3 year averages at play even Beaumont is limited in the extent to which he can manipulate this.

That was my view as well, but they seem to think they have a case for increasing their financial score significantly. Looking at the weighting, they must feel that they can increase the amount if non-centralised turnover score by at least 1 point. Whether writing off loans over the period has an impact on that score, I've no idea. Or whether they've converted loans into sponsorship income, or moved funds around, I've no idea.

He's also said that the RFL have still to review it, as the accounts will be filed in the next month or so. At which point, if there is a disagreement, it's hard to imagine it not being appealed when next year's scores are released. Would be very surprised if the investment and balance sheet scores do not get the fairly small increases that are possible though

On a tangent, one thing about the three year averages, Cas' score is abysmal, given it is covering three successive Super League seasons.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

The whole post sounded bitter mate (alongside everything else that IMG has/hasn't done that you have posted about on this and other threads).

IMG of course have not said "there will be no transparency". They have been very transparent with everything they have done - especially the grading. The only things they have not published regarding the gradings are the numbers they have received from clubs - which they have said the clubs are free to publicise themselves if they so wish. So no, IMG have not said there will be no transparency, what a ludicrous suggestion

They have not explained the catchment area scoring either unless I have missed it?

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

They have not explained the catchment area scoring either unless I have missed it?

Catchment Area is defined as the population of the Local 
Authority District where the club’s stadium is located 
divided by the total number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 clubs 
in the same area. 
• The population data is based on the latest census (2021) 
and ONS Boundaries for Local Authority Districts.

HTH

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Catchment Area is defined as the population of the Local 
Authority District where the club’s stadium is located 
divided by the total number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 clubs 
in the same area. 
• The population data is based on the latest census (2021) 
and ONS Boundaries for Local Authority Districts.

HTH

Have they explained the rationale for using that method of calculating a club's catchment area? Because it appears to be universally disliked.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, phiggins said:

That was my view as well, but they seem to think they have a case for increasing their financial score significantly. Looking at the weighting, they must feel that they can increase the amount if non-centralised turnover score by at least 1 point. Whether writing off loans over the period has an impact on that score, I've no idea. Or whether they've converted loans into sponsorship income, or moved funds around, I've no idea.

He's also said that the RFL have still to review it, as the accounts will be filed in the next month or so. At which point, if there is a disagreement, it's hard to imagine it not being appealed when next year's scores are released. Would be very surprised if the investment and balance sheet scores do not get the fairly small increases that are possible though

On a tangent, one thing about the three year averages, Cas' score is abysmal, given it is covering three successive Super League seasons.

Cas suffer from 2 things financially.

1. they are based in a clearly quite poor area with not vast amount of wealth floating arounds them.

2. Even if they did have fans wanting to spend more, what could they sell to them? Their ground is a dump and the corporate is non-league football levels.

Both these factors compound the other. The potential value of these customers/seats, in £s per square metre, is massive, which is why most clubs (indeed in most sports) that have (re)developed part or all of their stadiums recently have emphasised this corporate experience heavily in the construction. 

If Cas can only get one stand built it has to be a new main corporate side with seating, a suite and boxes. 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Have they explained the rationale for using that method of calculating a club's catchment area? Because it appears to be universally disliked.

"OBJECTIVE:

 To maximise growth of the sport in the largest markets to generate new fan bases."

That is their stated objective for this aspect. Its a basic principle, more people = more wealth = more money for the club to target. I think its a somewhat crude instrument, but like McDonalds use for example there's an economic principle behind needing a critical mass of people to support a top level competitive Super League team.

[sweaty craiq]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

On that point, my understanding is that there are minimum standards arent there? 

What he means is that he wants the minimum standards to be the things he cares about (that Leigh are good at and Bradford not). 

Because some people would maybe have the view that a minimum should be an elite Academy which he has failed to deliver. So he maybe should be careful in that area. 

No Elite academy is because the RFL refused them one - built below it well last season and even stronger this coming season for the 2025 licence.

He doesnt want his money back so does it go in as sponsorship, capitalising to shares or whatever it can score enough to get to 15 IMG points.

Dont forget when you look at 24/23/22 you will only have 2 years results posted

[phiggins]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

On that point, my understanding is that there are minimum standards arent there? 

What he means is that he wants the minimum standards to be the things he cares about (that Leigh are good at and Bradford not). 

Because some people would maybe have the view that a minimum should be an elite Academy which he has failed to deliver. So he maybe should be careful in that area. 

That's not how I took his minimum standards point, when I watched the video. I thought he meant there had to be a minimum score across all the pillars to get an A grade. I.e. You have to be strong across the board to get an A grade. He also pointed out that it's not so relevant currently as it's unlikely that 12 teams will get 15 points next year.

If having an elite academy became a minimum requirement to be in Super League, then the academy licensing system then automatically becomes the Super League licensing system, given the limited number of academy licenses available.

[Gooleboy]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

The whole post sounded bitter mate (alongside everything else that IMG has/hasn't done that you have posted about on this and other threads).

IMG of course have not said "there will be no transparency". They have been very transparent with everything they have done - especially the grading. The only things they have not published regarding the gradings are the numbers they have received from clubs - which they have said the clubs are free to publicise themselves if they so wish. So no, IMG have not said there will be no transparency, what a ludicrous suggestion

Why haven't they visited the clubs before giving a grade?

[Harold Hill]

I don't like his point about not having to sign players cos they have an A grade. That misses the point spectacularly. The end game isn't getting into SL. The endgame is getting to Old Trafford, winning that trophy, making the WCC and beating the best of the NRL, playing at Wembley etc. Thankfully he then said he does want to sign those players, but he did support a narrative that it's all about grading and making it into SL, which was a little smalltime, and maybe natural for somebody who has struggled to get into SL regularly for years. 

Grading isn't the competition and a place in SL the prize, SL is the comp and winning the Grand Final the prize. 

 

 

And yet London could get to Old Trafford and win the Grand Final next year knowing they'll be thrown out of SL the next day.

I would say that grading is the ONLY competition in town.

[Tommygilf]

50 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Why haven't they visited the clubs before giving a grade?

Do they need to? They just need the data from clubs about what they have and evidence for their submissions (its in the document).

[Dave T]

51 minutes ago, Harold Hill said:

I don't like his point about not having to sign players cos they have an A grade. That misses the point spectacularly. The end game isn't getting into SL. The endgame is getting to Old Trafford, winning that trophy, making the WCC and beating the best of the NRL, playing at Wembley etc. Thankfully he then said he does want to sign those players, but he did support a narrative that it's all about grading and making it into SL, which was a little smalltime, and maybe natural for somebody who has struggled to get into SL regularly for years. 

Grading isn't the competition and a place in SL the prize, SL is the comp and winning the Grand Final the prize. 

 

 

And yet London could get to Old Trafford and win the Grand Final next year knowing they'll be thrown out of SL the next day.

I would say that grading is the ONLY competition in town.

But that also misses the point that that is literally a one-year anomoly due to moving from one system to another. It isn't a reflection that the system doesn't work, because the new system will not allow this to happen in future. 

While Small-time folk concentrate on grading, the big clubs will focus on trying to win the comp. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Dave T

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Do they need to? They just need the data from clubs about what they have and evidence for their submissions (its in the document).

They don't need to. The process literally begins with the RFL confirming that the competition standards have been met. IMG then assess everything in the criteria beyond that.

[Gooleboy]

9 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Do they need to? They just need the data from clubs about what they have and evidence for their submissions (its in the document).

I would have thought you would want to see first hand each clubs facilities and talk to the people running them.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

I would have thought you would want to see first hand each clubs facilities and talk to the people running them.

Why? Its a nice day out of the office for the suits maybe, but its not necessary.

[binosh]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

But that also misses the point that that is literally a one-year anomoly due to moving from one system to another. It isn't a reflection that the system doesn't work, because the new system will not allow this to happen in future. 

While Small-time folk concentrate on grading, the big clubs will focus on trying to win the comp. 

Silliest comment of 147 pages.

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, binosh said:

Silliest comment of 147 pages.

Care to explain why?

[phiggins]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

While Small-time folk concentrate on grading, the big clubs will focus on trying to win the comp. 

Any league in any sport will have clubs at different stages of their development. We'll have clubs looking to get promoted to Super League, then get established in Super League, at which point they can aim higher. Clubs looking to get into, or stay in, the top flight will focus on grading to an extent.

[phiggins]

22 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Was gunna say, by getting relegated Trinity will score more than they did on this matrix. Plus with the stand expect. Trinity will be pushing circa 14.5 for 2025.

Wakefield's season ticket sales have been excellent, and they have something to build on, and noises from the new owner are very encouraging. But if they find themselves as 0.5 points away from an A grade next year, that will be a pretty damning reflection of the scoring system imo. As would Leigh getting the score that Beaumont is predicting.

[binosh]

1 hour ago, binosh said:

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by binosh

[Snowys Backside]

I do feel it is worrying should the scoring system be manipulated as easily he states, especially around finances and some teams not enhancing the squad for the sake of keeping the bank balance in check.

Framing the future was all about facilities. IMG grading dismisses this I feel as Odslum is a dilapidated dump, but overall I found the insight informative.

I too cannot see how Leigh can be grade A come next year but we should be comfortably in the top 12 ratings next year and a good B marking will see showcase the improvement made over the past 2 years.