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

[Griff]

2 hours ago, The 4 of Us said:

Under the rules yes. Even winning SL this year appears not to give them sufficient points to go from 24 to the 12 (or 14 for that matter) that will line up in 2025. 

In theory, they could improve in other aspects of grading.

In reality, they're not going to be in the top twelve.

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

I mean, there are a couple of fair points he makes. 

1) catchment criteria is a bit inconsiderate of london

2) the 3 year calculations include the COVID year when they went part time

3) there’s no benefit to developing players 

Of course, these should have been raised earlier. But, the RFL CEO has said there can be tweaks to the gradings before the scores are revealed for 2025. 

I have complete sympathy when it comes to the catchment area and flagged this up when the criteria was first released. However all clubs were affected by Covid and the third point is extremely short sighted.

At the end of the day London finished 24th out of 35 clubs and are way behind what is needed to even be close to a contender for a top 12 spot. This isn't just London scoring poorly in a couple of areas and being hard done by, it is them failing on just about every measure. If Hughes can't see those failings and his role in that then it doesn't bode well when it comes to London improving. 

[Tommygilf]

5 hours ago, Damien said:

This isn't just London scoring poorly in a couple of areas and being hard done by, it is them failing on just about every measure.

This is the critical point with everyone who takes aim at one aspect of the grading system.

Yes that one aspect may appear poor for you, but it doesn't account for the 10+ points you've dropped elsewhere.

[Dave T]

 

The new system has to be allowed to remove clubs from SL if they are a weak club, that's the whole point of it. 

London got into SL under the old system. 

The new system will remove them, because they are a weak club. 

 

[Coggo]

I half-expected certain clubs to get special treatment under the grading but, to be fair, it seems they apply equally to all.

For now, that’s probably the right thing to do but I think there’s a high chance now that Hughes pulls the plug. 

[Chris22]

I do have some sympathy with London. It's all well and good saying they should improve, get a better score and get back in Super League.

But how do they do that? They will always lose out on the TV viewers metric compared to Super League clubs (as will every Championship club). That's one point down already. They will always lose out on 1.25 points for lack of primacy of tenure and utilisation of their stadium. There is nothing at all they can do to improve their catchment score, which is lower than several heartland clubs.

Their attendances are poor and with no prospect of returning to Super League, no matter how they perform on the field, that task becomes harder still. And with those lack of prospects, who could blame David Hughes if he said he's had enough?

[dboy]

29 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I do have some sympathy with London. It's all well and good saying they should improve, get a better score and get back in Super League.

But how do they do that? They will always lose out on the TV viewers metric compared to Super League clubs (as will every Championship club). That's one point down already. They will always lose out on 1.25 points for lack of primacy of tenure and utilisation of their stadium. There is nothing at all they can do to improve their catchment score, which is lower than several heartland clubs.

Their attendances are poor and with no prospect of returning to Super League, no matter how they perform on the field, that task becomes harder still. And with those lack of prospects, who could blame David Hughes if he said he's had enough?

TV grading scores already favour the "big" clubs - my team (Wakefield), were screwed on that even in SL.

Tenure - an important and valid metric for me - but doesn't stop Wigan, Hull FC being strong clubs.

Catchment - agreed, the most nonsensical metric IMG have dreamed up.

[Damien]

28 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I do have some sympathy with London. It's all well and good saying they should improve, get a better score and get back in Super League.

But how do they do that? They will always lose out on the TV viewers metric compared to Super League clubs (as will every Championship club). That's one point down already. They will always lose out on 1.25 points for lack of primacy of tenure and utilisation of their stadium. There is nothing at all they can do to improve their catchment score, which is lower than several heartland clubs.

Their attendances are poor and with no prospect of returning to Super League, no matter how they perform on the field, that task becomes harder still. And with those lack of prospects, who could blame David Hughes if he said he's had enough?

There were other Championship clubs that scored 50% more than London, and some of those don't have primacy of tenure either. London were far closer to North Wales at the bottom of the pile than to the SL contenders. I would suggest there is plenty they can improve.

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, Damien said:

There were other Championship clubs that scored 50% more than London, and some of those don't have primacy of tenure either. London were far closer to North Wales at the bottom of the pile than to the SL contenders. I would suggest there is plenty they can improve.

Yup. If London were scoring like the other top Championship clubs they may have more of an argument.

[Coggo]

1 hour ago, Chris22 said:

I do have some sympathy with London. It's all well and good saying they should improve, get a better score and get back in Super League.

But how do they do that? They will always lose out on the TV viewers metric compared to Super League clubs (as will every Championship club). That's one point down already. They will always lose out on 1.25 points for lack of primacy of tenure and utilisation of their stadium. There is nothing at all they can do to improve their catchment score, which is lower than several heartland clubs.

Their attendances are poor and with no prospect of returning to Super League, no matter how they perform on the field, that task becomes harder still. And with those lack of prospects, who could blame David Hughes if he said he's had enough?

The answer is possibly a mini-Melbourne (cf. Fox support) but it would still require special treatment with the grading. 

[Click]

I kind of assumed this kind of letter was going to come out from Hughes after what I had heard him say while in Toulouse about his thoughts and opinions on IMG, etc. 

Honestly, it just feels like he is saying "we do these 2 things well, and they aren't scored. But don't look at every other metric where I have fallen short as a owner and leader of the club" 

There are so many decisions, and things that have happened in the last 5 years + that has lead the club to where we are. We have done great things at getting youth systems in place, etc and bringing in players that would never have probably watched Rugby League before, to actually playing it. But it doesn't take an outside consultant that is fully professional in the business to evaluate the London Broncos club and see that it isn't run well, and hasn't been run well for quite some time.

Credit that since we have been promoted back to SL, there seems to have been an uptick of activity on things like SM, which is good to see. I saw a post today about their recent meeting with local businesses in Wimbledon, etc. 

It is hard to be London Broncos fan most of the time, but I am looking forward to the season starting though, and to get down to Wimbledon for the first home game of the season. I obviously don't hold much hope for too many wins this season, but I am happy that I will be able to watch them play week-in week out for the first time.  (even if we do lose each week)

[Hopie]

No doubt the owner of London has made mistakes, and that is an understatement based on what I have read elsewhere on here.

But I can see why he is criticising the system, there are three grades and of those grades London got the second highest, a B. Next year there will be B grade clubs in Super League who can use that position to grow towards an A, but some B grade clubs will be excluded no matter how good a team they are. He knows due to the system that London will definitely be relegated no matter how much they bring to Super League this year, on or off the field. That actually makes it harder for them to grow than the previous system.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Hopie said:

No doubt the owner of London has made mistakes, and that is an understatement based on what I have read elsewhere on here.

But I can see why he is criticising the system, there are three grades and of those grades London got the second highest, a B. Next year there will be B grade clubs in Super League who can use that position to grow towards an A, but some B grade clubs will be excluded no matter how good a team they are. He knows due to the system that London will definitely be relegated no matter how much they bring to Super League this year, on or off the field. That actually makes it harder for them to grow than the previous system.

That makes no sense. London can use their B grade to grow towards an A grade too just like any club. Hughes is choosing not to and is instead choosing to moan about specific criterion when his club are blatantly failing on far more than just those.

If London are that far behind the curve that they have no chance for next season then Hughes has to carry the can for that. He voted for this system and knew full well what it entails.

[Coggo]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

That makes no sense. London can use their B grade to grow towards an A grade too just like any club. Hughes is choosing not to and is instead choosing to moan about specific criterion when his club are blatantly failing on far more than just those.

If London are that far behind the curve that they have no chance for next season then Hughes has to carry the can for that. He voted for this system and knew full well what it entails.

I think this is a warning by David Hughes that he will pull the plug, putting 40+ years of London expansion down the chitter.

The thousands of minis and juniors - boys and girls - in London and the SE suddenly have no pathway and will turn to rugby union.

Then what?

Edited January 25 by Coggo

[Archie Gordon]

I still think the IMG gradings are a disaster waiting to happen. However, that is not what Hughes is arguing. He's saying that a point here and a point there and London has a chance. But give him those points and London still has no chance. Why did Hughes vote for this?

I think there's another point getting lost in this. Hughes has said London got 0.5 for catchment. Either this is correct or not. If correct, get it fixed; if not correct, fake claims damage the game and need a reaction from those in charge. 

 

[Archie Gordon]

15 minutes ago, Coggo said:

...

The thousands of minis and juniors - boys and girls - in London and the SE suddenly have no pathway and will turn to rugby union.

...

No they won't.

And there aren't thousands of them.

[Coggo]

24 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

No they won't.

And there aren't thousands of them.

There’s more than might think in London and SE when it comes to minis and juniors.

On the union point, do you think the Leylands, for example, would have bothered without the financial incentives offered by the Broncos? I can tell you they wouldn’t, and they’d be playing union instead. 

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, Coggo said:

There’s more than might think in London and SE when it comes to minis and juniors.

On the union point, do you think the Leylands, for example, would have bothered without the financial incentives offered by the Broncos? I can tell you they wouldn’t, and they’d be playing union instead. 

There's high hundreds, possibly low 4 figures playing. Deffo not thousands (plural).

The very best - like the Leylands - would need a pathway in place, sure. But the vast majority aren't playing because they want to turn pro. That's true anywhere.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Coggo said:

I think this is a warning by David Hughes that he will pull the plug, putting 40+ years of London expansion down the chitter.

The thousands of minis and juniors - boys and girls - in London and the SE suddenly have no pathway and will turn to rugby union.

Then what?

What are London Broncos in their current guise doing for mini and junior RL?

I absolutely agree there needs to be pathways and professional teams in London. Hughes has said he isn't particularly interested in providing that either.

[Rowan]

You've got to hand it to IMG - they have managed to create more than 160 pages of Rugby League discussion where the least important issue seems to to be what actually happens on the pitch. 

[Chrispmartha]

56 minutes ago, Rowan said:

You've got to hand it to IMG - they have managed to create more than 160 pages of Rugby League discussion where the least important issue seems to to be what actually happens on the pitch. 

You are aware it’s the off season? There’s nothing happening on the pitch ;-)

[dealwithit]

4 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

I still think the IMG gradings are a disaster waiting to happen. However, that is not what Hughes is arguing. He's saying that a point here and a point there and London has a chance. But give him those points and London still has no chance. Why did Hughes vote for this?

I think there's another point getting lost in this. Hughes has said London got 0.5 for catchment. Either this is correct or not. If correct, get it fixed; if not correct, fake claims damage the game and need a reaction from those in charge. 

 

You give points for catchment and points for academy and they’re in with a chance. If they perform well on the field, that will increase fandom and viewership. 

Edited January 25 by dealwithit

[Archie Gordon]

54 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

You give points for catchment and points for academy and they’re in with a chance. If they perform well on the field, that will increase fandom and viewership. 

By all means give them +2 but they are still miles off. They know that which is why they want it to seem as if they are missing out due to arbitrary London borough boundaries and too few facebook likes. Their fans seem to be buying that.

[Magic XIII]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

What are London Broncos in their current guise doing for mini and junior RL?

I absolutely agree there needs to be pathways and professional teams in London. Hughes has said he isn't particularly interested in providing that either.

In my time connected with London Junior League they have done very very little other than turn up to the end of season Origin Series and promote their pathways. Granted the London League runs clubs from Ipswich to Bromley, Elmbridge to Hemel, ie a huge area.

[gingerjon]

32 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

By all means give them +2 but they are still miles off. They know that which is why they want it to seem as if they are missing out due to arbitrary London borough boundaries and too few facebook likes. Their fans seem to be buying that.

To be fair, that’ll be because the remaining fans have grown to love Hughes utterly wrecking the club in new and interesting ways each year. They’ll seal clap anything now.