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

[north yorks trinity]

14 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

"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.

It ignores the people on the other side of an administrative boundary who could be a target audience.

Castleford for example sit right on the edge of the local authority area so their target audience to the north is excluded e.g. Kippax and Garforth.

Wakefield historically got significant support from the south as far as Barnsley and have plenty of potential to do so again. I speak from experience as I inherited my support of Wakefield from my dad who is from Barnsley. There's also areas such as Rothwell and East Ardsley which are at least as likely to gravitate to Wakefield as to Leeds.

[The Blues Ox]

15 hours 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

As I said, I don't think they have explained the catchment area scoring unless I have missed it. Nothing really there in what you said about the different brackets and when it is a set in stone rating that each club can not improve then for a bit of transparency it would be nice of IMG to explain how they decided on the scoring they came up with.

[binosh]

13 minutes ago, Snowys Backside said:

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.

I think Leigh need another 3-5 years in Super League to be an A grade, we may hit the 15 point threshold before then but I agree with Derek we should be strong across all pillars before being a genuine A.

Id like to see sustainable growth on memberships, we have gone from 2200 to 4500 in the space of 12 months so if we keep building, stay competitive on the field and provide a great matchday experience there is no reason we can’t aim for average crowds of 9000 to 10000 in the next 3-5 years.

Id also like a genuine pathway including Elite Academy that produces 1st team players, the talent is definitely there.

I also think a Grade A should spend the maximum salary cap to add to a competitive product for Sky.

[binosh]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Care to explain why?

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

Water is wet, wind blows, and so on.

Teams at the bottom, teams on the cusp of the 12, fighting hard for their communities in the system, working hard to establish themselves and improve do not focus on winningthe comp and they would be ridiculed in here if they came outand said they were.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, binosh said:

 

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

Water is wet, wind blows, and so on.

Teams at the bottom, teams on the cusp of the 12, fighting hard for their communities in the system, working hard to establish themselves and improve do not focus on winningthe comp and they would be ridiculed in here if they came outand said they were.

Are we talking Leigh here?

Challenge Cup winners and play off contenders Leigh?

Who else?

There is no reason for any club in Super League not to be able to compete meaningfully whilst also doing what is needed to meet grading requirements.

[binosh]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Are we talking Leigh here?

Challenge Cup winners and play off contenders Leigh?

Who else?

There is no reason for any club in Super League not to be able to compete meaningfully whilst also doing what is needed to meet grading requirements.

I wasn’t talking Leigh.

You’re original comment didn’t stipulate Super League clubs, it just said small time.
So I assume you’re small time jibe was aimed at Leigh?

[Gooleboy]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

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

Fair enough, we will agree to disagree.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, binosh said:

I wasn’t talking Leigh.

You’re original comment didn’t stipulate Super League clubs, it just said small time.
So I assume you’re small time jibe was aimed at Leigh?

Wasn't my jibe.

[binosh]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Wasn't my jibe.

Yeah you’re right I just realised

[Snowys Backside]

2 hours ago, binosh said:

I think Leigh need another 3-5 years in Super League to be an A grade, we may hit the 15 point threshold before then but I agree with Derek we should be strong across all pillars before being a genuine A.

Id like to see sustainable growth on memberships, we have gone from 2200 to 4500 in the space of 12 months so if we keep building, stay competitive on the field and provide a great matchday experience there is no reason we can’t aim for average crowds of 9000 to 10000 in the next 3-5 years.

Id also like a genuine pathway including Elite Academy that produces 1st team players, the talent is definitely there.

I also think a Grade A should spend the maximum salary cap to add to a competitive product for Sky.

Nail on the head in bold !!

Its the only way any club can remain sustainable in my opinion. You cannot continue to spend Millions on Aussies when you are from a catchment area full of natural talent. 

Being part of the first Leigh Academy back in 91 and knowing what talent we had in that squad, God knows how good Leigh could be with that kind of solid grass roots infrastructure. It needs to be THE top priority over any masking of IMG numbers IMHO.

I think Leigh will be OK to the detriment finally of Warrington, Saints and Wigan who have cherrypicked our Homegrown talent for the last 25 years.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Snowys Backside

[Bostik Bailey]

30 minutes ago, Snowys Backside said:

Nail on the head in bold !!

Its the only way any club can remain sustainable in my opinion. You cannot continue to spend Millions on Aussies when you are from a catchment area full of natural talent. 

Being part of the first Leigh Academy back in 91 and knowing what talent we had in that squad, God knows how good Leigh could be with that kind of solid grass roots infrastructure. It needs to be THE top priority over any masking of IMG numbers IMHO.

I think Leigh will be OK  finally to the detriment finally of Warrington, Saints and Wigan have cherrypicked our Homegrown talent for the last 25 years.

Why not Cas and Wakey have been doing just that for 20 odd years. 

[PREPOSTEROUS]

2 hours ago, north yorks trinity said:

It ignores the people on the other side of an administrative boundary who could be a target audience.

Castleford for example sit right on the edge of the local authority area so their target audience to the north is excluded e.g. Kippax and Garforth.

Wakefield historically got significant support from the south as far as Barnsley and have plenty of potential to do so again. I speak from experience as I inherited my support of Wakefield from my dad who is from Barnsley. There's also areas such as Rothwell and East Ardsley which are at least as likely to gravitate to Wakefield as to Leeds.

Furthermore, the guy who's just taken over the club is from Barnsley, becoming a fan after that one game at Oakwell in 1999.

The catchment should be based on a defined radius, that way I feel its purpose, i.e. giving a bit of a leg up to expansion clubs in the absence of a strong local grounding in the game, doesn't have unintended consequences of unfairly benefiting one traditional club against another.

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, phiggins said:

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.

My last line wasn't entirely serious, aimed at a fan claiming Grading was the competition, and I agree with your post. I think some of the problem is that there is a large part of 'the game' that will spend all it's time focusing on this, going round in circles over and over, when the reality is that the main focus should be the actual sport and comp. You'd expect a small number of clubs around 11th to 14th to really be vocally focused on this. 

To an extent it should be broadly like standard P&R, it doesn't materially affect most teams and fans. 

It's a challenge I had with the way they implemented original licensing, and I think they've made it worse this time with this annual table. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Dave T

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, binosh said:

I wasn’t talking Leigh.

You’re original comment didn’t stipulate Super League clubs, it just said small time.
So I assume you’re small time jibe was aimed at Leigh?

 

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Wasn't my jibe.

 

3 hours ago, binosh said:

Yeah you’re right I just realised

It was my jibe, and if you read the post I replied to, the poster claimed that Grading was the only comp in town. My comment was aimed at that mentality, certainly not Leigh who are making great strides to strengthen themselves as a club. 

[Dave T]

19 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

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

It's in the Grading Criteria Handbook that can be found in the governance section of the RFL website. 

 

[phiggins]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

My last line wasn't entirely serious, and I agree with your post. I think some of the problem is that there is a large part of 'the game' that will spend all it's time focusing on this, going round in circles over and over, when the reality is that the main focus should be the actual sport and comp. You'd expect a small number of clubs around 11th to 14th to really be vocally focused on this. 

To an extent it should be broadly like standard P&R, it doesn't materially affect most teams and fans. 

It's a challenge I had with the way they implemented original licensing, and I think they've made it worse this time with this annual table. 

I did like DB's suggestion on P&R, where the Championship winners need to have a minimum score, and if they don't they instead get a % if the reprieved club's central distribution, to invest into improving their score. There'd be edge cases to figure out, such as what if the bottom club doesn't achieve the minimum score, but it would broadly make more sense as an approach.

To be honest, Beaumont probably said more that I agree with in that interview than he has in the previous 10 years!

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I did like DB's suggestion on P&R, where the Championship winners need to have a minimum score,

Me and Degsy agree on rigidly enforced meaningful minimum standards then.

He's clearly been copying my ideas from this forum. Although he can take credit for having a jaguar's anus on a jersey.

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Me and Degsy agree on rigidly enforced meaningful minimum standards then.

He's clearly been copying my ideas from this forum. Although he can take credit for having a jaguar's anus on a jersey.

I don't think there's much debate on the idea of minimum standards. It's how those standards are defined and scored that is the contentious bit.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

I don't think there's much debate on the idea of minimum standards.

If anyone has ever written or nodded to, "all that matters is what happens on the pitch" then I can assure you there is a debate about minimum standards.

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I did like DB's suggestion on P&R, where the Championship winners need to have a minimum score, and if they don't they instead get a % if the reprieved club's central distribution, to invest into improving their score. There'd be edge cases to figure out, such as what if the bottom club doesn't achieve the minimum score, but it would broadly make more sense as an approach.

To be honest, Beaumont probably said more that I agree with in that interview than he has in the previous 10 years!

In reality, if one of the big problems with P&R was the shock of moving between divisions that are hugely different, this doesn't resolve that challenge, which is one of my issues overall with it. The above may be sensible, but it's not really fixing the root cause.

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

It's in the Grading Criteria Handbook that can be found in the governance section of the RFL website. 

 

I can't seem to find it. I can only see the threshold numbers but nothing that seems to suggest how they came by those seemingly random numbers. I'd be grateful if you could point me in the right direction as I must be having a senior moment.

[dboy]

[dboy]

I think the statistical treatment is:

1. Work out which clubs you want in the comp - I'll make one up for the purposes of demonstration - let's call them "Scabford Skulls".

2. Then you work out the population of that area and share it between al T1 and T2 clubs in that area.

3. Then you set the boundary for the maximum points just under that figure.

4. Work out which clubs you don't want in the comp - let's create "Feverstone Hammers".

5. Then divide that areas population by their number of clubs.

6. Finally, set the boundary for the minimum points just under that figure.

Edited December 4, 2023 by dboy

[Dave T]

38 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I can't seem to find it. I can only see the threshold numbers but nothing that seems to suggest how they came by those seemingly random numbers. I'd be grateful if you could point me in the right direction as I must be having a senior moment.

I don't think the rationale is given for any of the thresholds being what they are I. E. The actual numbers. 

[The 4 of Us]

Nice of Warrington to be helping Wigan get over the line with a few extra gig points https://www.wiganwarriors.com