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

[Taffy Tiger]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, this is the only point that I can find on this. Also, if the principle is to always have the best ranked teams, it makes no sense to offer protection for a team even if their ranking plummets.

Sorry , I thought there was some sort of protection if you were Category A . Otherwise , why say Cat A can't be relegated . So , if a team is Grade A at the end of 2024 , they can still be relegated at the end of 2025 ?If that is the case , then doesn't seem any point in Cat A statement in the first place 

[Taffy Tiger]

Ah , unless the idea of Category A is so that if more than 12 clubs are Category A then they wouldn't be relegated , but there would be an expansion of the league instead . is that correct ?

 

[dboy]

26 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

No need for the last line and a half then!

The first line is most pertinent.

Clubs will be reassessed every year.

 

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

The first line is most pertinent.

Clubs will be reassessed every year.

 

Ofsted Mk2.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Sorry , I thought there was some sort of protection if you were Category A . Otherwise , why say Cat A can't be relegated . So , if a team is Grade A at the end of 2024 , they can still be relegated at the end of 2025 ?If that is the case , then doesn't seem any point in Cat A statement in the first place 

Yeah, I also think there was something at the start that only grade b clubs would be assessed annually, but I believe this was changed early on. 

 

[Sports Prophet]

For what it’s worth, I think the best way would be the simple way.

Keep promotion and relegation annually, but only allow a team to be promoted over a team which finishes last in the division above them if they satisfy the following:

- win their respective league

- have a licence grading (A, B or C) which is equal to or greater than the team which finished last in the division above

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

For what it’s worth, I think the best way would be the simple way.

Keep promotion and relegation annually, but only allow a team to be promoted over a team which finishes last in the division above them if they satisfy the following:

- win their respective league

- have a licence grading (A, B or C) which is equal to or greater than the team which finished last in the division above

So basically the same system we've had for most of p&r.

[Sports Prophet]

53 minutes ago, Damien said:

So basically the same system we've had for most of p&r.

Was it? What were the parameters a club would need to meet to be allowable to SL? I don’t think it was anywhere near as in depth as what we see with how clubs are graded in this new model.

[Tommygilf]

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Was it? What were the parameters a club would need to meet to be allowable to SL? I don’t think it was anywhere near as in depth as what we see with how clubs are graded in this new model.

Minimum standards were very minimum...

[The Blues Ox]

39 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Minimum standards were very minimum...

And looks like they still are. We are on course to have close to 12 grade A teams within a couple of years. When we set the bar so low we are saying mediocracy is an acceptable.

[Damien]

8 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Was it? What were the parameters a club would need to meet to be allowable to SL? I don’t think it was anywhere near as in depth as what we see with how clubs are graded in this new model.

Getting a B isn't difficult, 16 teams getting one including ones that should be no where near SL minimum standards shows that.

What you proposed is the same as what we have had. It's nearly always been a team that would have been a B grade under this model finishing bottom of the league and nearly always a team that would have been a B grade winning the Championship. Its just a continuation of what we have always done.

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Minimum standards were very minimum...

Yeah. Just as I thought.

1. Do you have capabilities to keep 400 pies hot at the start of a match? And…

2. Will you serve them w brown sauce and peas?

[Sports Prophet]

36 minutes ago, Damien said:

Getting a B isn't difficult, 16 teams getting one including ones that should be no where near SL minimum standards shows that.

What you proposed is the same as what we have had. It's nearly always been a team that would have been a B grade under this model finishing bottom of the league and nearly always a team that would have been a B grade winning the Championship. Its just a continuation of what we have always done.

Then it tells me the gradings and/or the minimum requirements were not fit for purpose, rather than the theory of promotion and relegation.

[The 4 of Us]

Certain clubs only appear to have pulled out their collective thumb since they have realised that they may miss out. 
 

SL/IMG needs to keep it’s nerve. Tweak maybe, perhaps to give even more credit to stadium development to ensure that those teams that still insist on playing in victorian grounds, know that change is needed, or they lose out. 

[Sports Prophet]

11 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

Certain clubs only appear to have pulled out their collective thumb since they have realised that they may miss out. 
 

SL/IMG needs to keep it’s nerve. Tweak maybe, perhaps to give even more credit to stadium development to ensure that those teams that still insist on playing in victorian grounds, know that change is needed, or they lose out. 

I wouldn’t be keen on clubs playing out of oval grounds either. 

Stadium does deserve a high level of credibility, then filling it is the next big one.

[Poptart]

That's exactly the point though.

Those teams that have been pushed to improve with IMG guidelines were never going to do it without a threat or consequence.

The sport desperately needed it.

Once we get to a few more A grades we can alter the criteria accordingly. Not the criteria, just the milestones to points.

It's all about sustainability. And many don't have that right now.

 

Edited February 7 by Poptart

[DemonUK]

15 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Sorry , I thought there was some sort of protection if you were Category A . Otherwise , why say Cat A can't be relegated . So , if a team is Grade A at the end of 2024 , they can still be relegated at the end of 2025 ?If that is the case , then doesn't seem any point in Cat A statement in the first place 

They can be relegated in 2025 if their grading drops to a B and they are outside the top 12 clubs.  If they finish bottom in 2024 and are graded A in October 2024 then they can't be relegated in 2024 as they would be guaranteed a SL place.  If there were 13 Grade A teams then unless the wording changes the league would have to be expanded........

The words Possibly/Maybe/Guesswork/Assumption apply to the above para until the powers that be inform us categorically what is happening in 2024.  Lets hope it is not in October 2024 

[Gooleboy]

2 hours ago, DemonUK said:

They can be relegated in 2025 if their grading drops to a B and they are outside the top 12 clubs.  If they finish bottom in 2024 and are graded A in October 2024 then they can't be relegated in 2024 as they would be guaranteed a SL place.  If there were 13 Grade A teams then unless the wording changes the league would have to be expanded........

The words Possibly/Maybe/Guesswork/Assumption apply to the above para until the powers that be inform us categorically what is happening in 2024.  Lets hope it is not in October 2024 

All this would even be a conundrum for Stephen Hawking.

[Damien]

It seems teams will know where they stand well before the Grand Final:

The big reveal as to who will be in Super League in 2025 will take place towards the end of the year – well in advance of the Championship Grand Final, so that clubs participating in that game know where they stand.

Clubs are able to track relatively well where they sit as the year progresses – and IMG will update them at various points as the year moves on. But there will be no ‘live’ system for clubs to be able to go on and get an exact score for a number of reasons: most notably because IMG want the focus to be on driving the game forwards, not obsessing over scores.

“There will be certain update points throughout the year,” Dwyer reveals. “You can’t really do it live because the financial data comes out once a year and it’s lagged by a season.

“What we didn’t want to do is make it so onerous. The clubs have a big role to play in providing the data and you don’t want to make it so onerous that they spend all their time collecting data rather than doing the stuff you actually need them to be doing to improve their grade.

“The actual process is not that big, but if you were going to make it live it would be a big thing for them to have to do. That feeds in a little bit as to why we released the illustrative gradings, rather than dropping it on them at the end of this season we wanted to give everyone the information so they could start to take control of their own destiny.”

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/exclusive-img-boss-discusses-super-league-gradings-london-controversy-and-competition-rebrand

 

[marklaspalmas]

28 minutes ago, Damien said:

It seems teams will know where they stand well before the Grand Final:

The big reveal as to who will be in Super League in 2025 will take place towards the end of the year – well in advance of the Championship Grand Final, so that clubs participating in that game know where they stand.

Clubs are able to track relatively well where they sit as the year progresses – and IMG will update them at various points as the year moves on. But there will be no ‘live’ system for clubs to be able to go on and get an exact score for a number of reasons: most notably because IMG want the focus to be on driving the game forwards, not obsessing over scores.

“There will be certain update points throughout the year,” Dwyer reveals. “You can’t really do it live because the financial data comes out once a year and it’s lagged by a season.

“What we didn’t want to do is make it so onerous. The clubs have a big role to play in providing the data and you don’t want to make it so onerous that they spend all their time collecting data rather than doing the stuff you actually need them to be doing to improve their grade.

“The actual process is not that big, but if you were going to make it live it would be a big thing for them to have to do. That feeds in a little bit as to why we released the illustrative gradings, rather than dropping it on them at the end of this season we wanted to give everyone the information so they could start to take control of their own destiny.”

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/exclusive-img-boss-discusses-super-league-gradings-london-controversy-and-competition-rebrand

 

Such a relief that we'll all know the results well before the finals. Thrilling for the fans.

[gingerjon]

11 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

Such a relief that we'll all know the results well before the finals. Thrilling for the fans.

I'll repeat my comment to Martyn in slightly different way.

As you're broadly against it, you could write the same thing if that weren't the case. "How will fans enjoy the final/clubs prepare for the final if they don't even know if their team can be promoted".

So, given that this is the system: which is better? Clubs having time and being aware in advance, or clubs not having time and finding out later.

[Spidey]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I'll repeat my comment to Martyn in slightly different way.

As you're broadly against it, you could write the same thing if that weren't the case. "How will fans enjoy the final/clubs prepare for the final if they don't even know if their team can be promoted".

So, given that this is the system: which is better? Clubs having time and being aware in advance, or clubs not having time and finding out later.

When Widnes won the NFP final back in 2001 I remember all the talk after the game on the walk back to the car was how were the RFL gonna screw us over again (they didn't of course).   Up front information is always best

[phiggins]

12 hours ago, Damien said:

It seems teams will know where they stand well before the Grand Final:

The big reveal as to who will be in Super League in 2025 will take place towards the end of the year – well in advance of the Championship Grand Final, so that clubs participating in that game know where they stand.

Clubs are able to track relatively well where they sit as the year progresses – and IMG will update them at various points as the year moves on. But there will be no ‘live’ system for clubs to be able to go on and get an exact score for a number of reasons: most notably because IMG want the focus to be on driving the game forwards, not obsessing over scores.

“There will be certain update points throughout the year,” Dwyer reveals. “You can’t really do it live because the financial data comes out once a year and it’s lagged by a season.

“What we didn’t want to do is make it so onerous. The clubs have a big role to play in providing the data and you don’t want to make it so onerous that they spend all their time collecting data rather than doing the stuff you actually need them to be doing to improve their grade.

“The actual process is not that big, but if you were going to make it live it would be a big thing for them to have to do. That feeds in a little bit as to why we released the illustrative gradings, rather than dropping it on them at the end of this season we wanted to give everyone the information so they could start to take control of their own destiny.”

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/exclusive-img-boss-discusses-super-league-gradings-london-controversy-and-competition-rebrand

 

Not quite.

https://x.com/AaronBower/status/1757875611857535407?s=20

[marklaspalmas]

4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I'll repeat my comment to Martyn in slightly different way.

As you're broadly against it, you could write the same thing if that weren't the case. "How will fans enjoy the final/clubs prepare for the final if they don't even know if their team can be promoted".

So, given that this is the system: which is better? Clubs having time and being aware in advance, or clubs not having time and finding out later.

Neither. Present the new standards required, watch clubs adapt and grow. Take action if necessary.

[gingerjon]

Just now, marklaspalmas said:

Take action if necessary.

Action like telling them they have not met the required standards across a range of criteria and so can't be promoted?