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

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Goes back to one of my very first fears for this system. Will ticking the relevant boxes actually result in raised standards. Time will tell.

Which of them wouldn’t? 

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Eddie said:

No, but it does give a sporting system with integrity.

So the NFL or NRL don’t have integrity?

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Goes back to one of my very first fears for this system. Will ticking the relevant boxes actually result in raised standards. Time will tell.

Well yeah, across the areas assessed-

Better Results

Better average attendances

Better facilities for corporate and media

More TV Friendly

More digitally present and relevant

Better connections with a larger amateur/community scene

Its impossible to not improve these and also be "ticking the relevant boxes". I defy anyone to see why any of those would be negatives.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

So the NFL or NRL don’t have integrity?

Massively imbalanced Championship funding based, in part, on similar criteria to IMG's much-criticised digital points, is also fine for sporting integrity.

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Which of them wouldn’t? 

If Cas do a patch up job on the ground lead to a better experience for fans and sponsors?

Will clubs begging for likes create an audience worth targeting?

There’ll be other questions but would need to go through the handbook again to list them all

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

If Cas do a patch up job on the ground lead to a better experience for fans and sponsors?

Will clubs begging for likes create an audience worth targeting?

There’ll be other questions but would need to go through the handbook again to list them all

Id Cas improve their ground then that’s a good thing

if clubs use SM to expand their reach that’s a good thing.

if clubs do better in all the metrics to get a grade A thats a good thing

[Barley Mow]

21 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

You wouldn’t be frozen out

It seems to me that the likely impact of this system is that after the first two or three years, the incumbency advantages of being in Super League will mean that there stops being any movement of clubs in and out of SL.

The 12 that are in will be A grade and higher B's. Those outside will struggle to get a score over 11 simply because they aren't in SL.

Barring the implosion of a SL club, there will be no movement.

You might see it working differently, or you might think that the consistency that scenario offers is good for SL - but I can certainly see how this would be interpreted as 23 of the 35 RFL full member clubs being frozen out.

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well yeah, across the areas assessed-

Better Results

Better average attendances

Better facilities for corporate and media

More TV Friendly

More digitally present and relevant

Better connections with a larger amateur/community scene

Its impossible to not improve these and also be "ticking the relevant boxes". I defy anyone to see why any of those would be negatives.

As I say, time will tell. Hopefully we’ll be in a much better position in the future. There are a number of the metrics that I think are fundamentally flawed, enough to warrant a rethink of the scoring.

But it is what it is, need it to have the desired effect. 

 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

It seems to me that the likely impact of this system is that after the first two or three years, the incumbency advantages of being in Super League will mean that there stops being any movement of clubs in and out of SL.

The 12 that are in will be A grade and higher B's. Those outside will struggle to get a score over 11 simply because they aren't in SL.

Barring the implosion of a SL club, there will be no movement.

You might see it working differently, or you might think that the consistency that scenario offers is good for SL - but I can certainly see how this would be interpreted as 23 of the 35 RFL full member clubs being frozen out.

I do think that consistency is good for SL and the clubs, I’ve repeatedly said i think SL should be locked for 3 years rather than reviewing it on a yearly basis.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, phiggins said:

As I say, time will tell. Hopefully we’ll be in a much better position in the future. There are a number of the metrics that I think are fundamentally flawed, enough to warrant a rethink of the scoring.

But it is what it is, need it to have the desired effect. 

 

I still do not see how any of those I described would be fundamentally flawed.

You've zeroed in on Social Media, which is worth a fraction of a percent iirc, and said its not right. You've also gone in on Catchment which again is worth just 1.5 marks (of which everyone is guaranteed 0.5). 

Even if they were terrible, and I don't think they are, the effect would be so minor compared to the rest as I outlined above. 

[Harry Stottle]

9 hours ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Bloody hell, I've rattled your cage. It was a statement of fact sprinkled with a dose of sarcasm. I thought if anyone would understand sarcasm on here it would be you.  However I'll explain it for you.  In the previous few pages a few of us have mentioned that this could turn us away from the game.  You in your inimitable style while replying to Starbug tell him that you know better.  I actually found your comment offensive. I replied sarcastically. You obviously didn't like it. So now you know.

Well said Jill.

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

I do think that consistency is good for SL and the clubs, I’ve repeatedly said i think SL should be locked for 3 years rather than reviewing it on a yearly basis.

All 35 clubs or the 12 in SL?

If it does work out that SL incumbency has the big advantages I suggest, I assume you can see how people will quite reasonably see that as other clubs being frozen out by the system?

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

All 35 clubs or the 12 in SL?

If it does work out that SL incumbency has the big advantages I suggest, I assume you can see how people will quite reasonably see that as other clubs being frozen out by the system?

Well it might stop situations like we currently have at Featherstone.

if those champ clubs on the verge of SL know they have 3 years to prepare it might encourage long term planning rather than short term thinking leading to financial issues 

 

the same goes for lower placed SL teams

Edited November 2, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

All 35 clubs or the 12 in SL?

If it does work out that SL incumbency has the big advantages I suggest, I assume you can see how people will quite reasonably see that as other clubs being frozen out by the system?

Is it any better than them being frozen out by being unable to financially compete anyway?

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Well it might stop situations like we currently have at Featherstone.

if those champ clubs on the verge of SL know they have 3 years to prepare it might encourage long term planning rather than short term thinking leading to financial issues 

Maybe my post wasn't clear, I was referring to the system as it is being introduced, not your proposal to actually freeze clubs out for 3 years.

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Maybe my post wasn't clear, I was referring to the system as it is being introduced, not your proposal to actually freeze clubs out for 3 years.

Well seeing as I think that the system been introduced doesn't go far enough, I can see some of your concerns in that area but I still think its better than the current system we have been using

 

Also there's nothing stopping clubs from putting there own timelines on their push for SL

Edited November 2, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[Barley Mow]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Is it any better than them being frozen out by being unable to financially compete anyway?

Being frozen out by your own circumstances is better than being frozen out by the system.

In practical terms they will have the same impact (not being in SL), but in sport I think the hope value is very important.

I think this system will remove the hope for all 23 outside SL, and a realistic prospect of SL membership for 3 or so clubs.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Says it all really. You’d rather the system fail and the sport go backwards just because you disagree with a league structure.

I find that odd.

I don't think I need to tell

L you I am a big fan of this sport and had many many years of actual involvement, I also wxpe t I don't need to tell you that I am no fan whatsoever of  the IMG system and if you care to look back and find any thread relating to their involvement ever since they were first mentioned on these pages you will see that I was and still am vehemently against their structure.

The game does not need to go backwards Chris, but if you and your cohorts who are championing this as the only method that can produce somekind of stability within the game then we will be in a bad way.

Don't go putting me on the spot saying what would you do, the RFL have had near 130 years to come up with something, and the best they can do is sanction a method that will take the game backwards without any outside influence.

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Well seeing as I think that the system been introduced doesn't go far enough, I can see some of your concerns in that area but I still think its better than the current system we have been using

Yes, I recognise that and aren't under any illustration that I will change your mind.

My input is purely to see if you will accept that (despite your response to @GUBRATS) the system may well have the practical result of 'freezing out' clubs.

[phiggins]

21 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Id Cas improve their ground then that’s a good thing

if clubs use SM to expand their reach that’s a good thing.

if clubs do better in all the metrics to get a grade A thats a good thing

If Cas spend money to get an extra point, rather than make any real improvements to their ground, then that isn't a good thing.

Leigh having a spike in Social Media engagements because they released a kit design with a Jaguar's anus on the back was not a good thing.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Barley Mow said:

Yes, I recognise that and aren't under any illustration that I will change your mind.

My input is purely to see if you will accept that (despite your response to @GUBRATS) the system may well have the practical result of 'freezing out' clubs.

Of course it will freeze out some clubs, but realistically so does normal P&R, the vast majority of clubs below SL are no where near that level anyway, and seeing as though P&R is continuing between the lower clubs not much really will change for them, other than they have a blueprint of what they need to do to improve in all areas

[JohnM]

21 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

It seems to me that the likely impact of this system is that after the first two or three years, the incumbency advantages of being in Super League will mean that there stops being any movement of clubs in and out of SL.

The 12 that are in will be A grade and higher B's. Those outside will struggle to get a score over 11 simply because they aren't in SL.

Barring the implosion of a SL club, there will be no movement.

You might see it working differently, or you might think that the consistency that scenario offers is good for SL - but I can certainly see how this would be interpreted as 23 of the 35 RFL full member clubs being frozen out.

Barring the implosion of a SL club, there will be no movement.

Implosion? Isn't that a bit dramatic, unless it's Leigh's impending departure.  Falling down on grading criteria might be more appropriate, or because the grading criteria are raised owing to across-the-board improvements in clubs grading performance.

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I don't think I need to tell

L you I am a big fan of this sport and had many many years of actual involvement, I also wxpe t I don't need to tell you that I am no fan whatsoever of  the IMG system and if you care to look back and find any thread relating to their involvement ever since they were first mentioned on these pages you will see that I was and still am vehemently against their structure.

The game does not need to go backwards Chris, but if you and your cohorts who are championing this as the only method that can produce somekind of stability within the game then we will be in a bad way.

Don't go putting me on the spot saying what would you do, the RFL have had near 130 years to come up with something, and the best they can do is sanction a method that will take the game backwards without any outside influence.

The point being Harry is not wether you think it will take the game backwards, you actively want it to take the game backwards, you don't want the system to work that's different from you thinking it won't (you don't know that and we will have to wait a fair few years to find out)

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Of course it will freeze out some clubs, but realistically so does normal P&R, the vast majority of clubs below SL are no where near that level anyway, and seeing as though P&R is continuing between the lower clubs not much really will change for them, other than they have a blueprint of what they need to do to improve in all areas

Thanks.

I think I address most of your points in my reply to Tommygilf a few posts up.

I'm not against a system of awarding points for criteria like those being introduced (catchment aside). I just don't think it should be used to decide who is in the top division.

I'd be happy for clubs to be rewarded for obtaining points (financially for example), and thereby encouraged to make improvements. My objection is to these points being used to decide on SL membership.

[Barley Mow]

9 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Barring the implosion of a SL club, there will be no movement.

Implosion? Isn't that a bit dramatic, unless it's Leigh's impending departure.  Falling down on grading criteria might be more appropriate,

Under this system, after the first few years - once things have settled down, I can't see anything other than a major financial crisis for a club changing the make up of SL.

9 minutes ago, JohnM said:

or because the grading criteria are raised owing to across-the-board improvements in clubs grading performance.

That might change my view - my assessment is based on the system as voted for by the clubs and as will be introduced next year.

Changing the system would inevitably alter how it operates.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Barley Mow