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

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

Then the img plan has worked 

What has actually worked?

Is the difference going to be noticeable when we have the Hull Derby, is it going to attract loads of newbies to Wigan v Saints, will hundreds/thousands of Catalan fans decend on Warrington, will high profile national companies be fighting each other to invest, will Sky increase their payments for the 'elite'.

No none of that will happen, and forgive me please but only the deluded believe it will happen, there is nothing that will improve the product on the field, 'A' clubs have not be given anymore money to improve their squads.

So tell me, what is being done to improve the game and get new eyes watching, I will wager that in the next few years more money will be lost to the sport by those not bothering anymore than being offset by newbies both active in the grounds or new eyes buying subscriptions.

[Eddie]

21 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

No, much prefer 1815.

Are you a fan of the Battle of Waterloo? 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

9 hours ago, JohnM said:

Would that it were that simple. Gubrats was closer to the mark when he suggested you were implying I don't go to games.  Not that it's any business of his or yours. I started going to games around 1958-1959,  though I have to admit that since having had serious heart valve surgery four years ago, plus degenerative arthritis in my lower back and hips I've chosen my games with care, since my mobility is somewhat limited and living miles from the nearest SL club doesn't help. Not once, though in all of those years, not once, throughout the many ups and downs of the sport have I ever said that the game is gone, or that I'd stop going because I disagreed with some aspect of the structure. That would be childish, and would be cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I suggest, though, that those amongst us who say they are going to turn away from the game because of the new structure will not actually do so.

I missed this last night but I believe you deserve the courtesy of a reply.  Firstly your personal details, I know when you started attending games, I know you live out in the sticks and I know you've had heart valve issues.  I didn't know about the arthritis but I know you supported Swinton and now support Wigan and from all that I also have a reasonable idea of your age.  How do I know this, I read these boards.  There's actually a pretty good chance I wished you well with the valve surgery and that still applies today despite our differences.

So when I intimated you don't attend games I wasn't firing off blindly not knowing the facts, knowing the facts meant I was pretty sure about it. When I sensed the anger in your replies it didn't surprise me.  If someone on here accused me of the same I'd be pretty angry myself knowing my own circumstances. But now we get to the bit that puzzles me.  If you've been forced away from the game through no fault of your own and the game was a big part of your life then I can understand you'd be gutted.  So how do you think people who are currently physically fit enough to attend and shown commitment similar to your own over god knows how many years must feel if they are even contemplating it?  

We have a thread here that's over 100 pages long , people are pretty emotional about it and you come along throwing in flippant comments that seem designed to rile people.  Are you really that shocked that someone picked you up on it?  Speaking personally I can completely understand anyone who's put in a lifetime supporting one of us lesser lights and then being told, "this is your lot, like it or hump it" asking themselves why should they bother?

Regarding "the game is gone statement" I've never said that and I've defended it more times than you can imagine, both on other message boards and out there in the big wide world.  My issues are not with the game but the administration.  We disagree on the structure.  Maybe if I chucked the towel in on Widnes and went six miles down the road and starting supporting St Helens it wouldn't bother me either but that will never happen.  A few pages back on this thread you mentioned your concerns about what you perceive to be negative comments influencing people (I do read what you post).  I agree with you completely, as I posted a few pages back some of the stuff I seen posted on here at the first round of licencing lead me to chucking my hand in with the International game.  Evidently I would be replaced by all the new fans flocking to the game.  Looking back it looks like they've missed me more than I've missed them.  

 

 

[Tommygilf]

14 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Then why isn't the game thriving if hope is a great driver?

Hope doesn't pay the bills.

Ultimately that is what this is about. If the current system worked it wouldn't need IMG or anyone else to be involved. The sport financially is in a really dire position and is limping on at best.

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What has actually worked?

Is the difference going to be noticeable when we have the Hull Derby, is it going to attract loads of newbies to Wigan v Saints, will hundreds/thousands of Catalan fans decend on Warrington, will high profile national companies be fighting each other to invest, will Sky increase their payments for the 'elite'.

No none of that will happen, and forgive me please but only the deluded believe it will happen, there is nothing that will improve the product on the field, 'A' clubs have not be given anymore money to improve their squads.

So tell me, what is being done to improve the game and get new eyes watching, I will wager that in the next few years more money will be lost to the sport by those not bothering anymore than being offset by newbies both active in the grounds or new eyes buying subscriptions.

IMG are only at the start of what they were brought into do, the structure was only a part of it and if they don't deliver on the rest I will be as critical as you. The difference seems to be that you only think that the infield stuff will improve the game, you've said yourself you don't know about Social Media or any of the modern marketing, we are just going to have to see what IMG and the RFL deliver on, I can't crystal ball that for you.

I think there will be a rebrand, we are already getting improved broadcast and recordings of all the games, its up to the clubs,IMG and RFL to leverage that against the drop in TV revenue, which can be done.

There's no need to call people with a different opinion than you deluded you have no idea wether the long term plan will work, it just seems that you hope it doesn't.

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Hope doesn't pay the bills.

 

Quite the opposite if you look at Featherstone

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Quite the opposite if you look at Featherstone

And that really is the rub isn't it.

[phiggins]

26 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Its not a static system so why do so many treat it as such? Why is it that some clubs appear to have sat back and just waited for IMG/RFL rather than engaging with them throughout the time the rankings have been determined.  It reads very much like Cas have treated the whole thing far too casually.

Is there a reason that the usually outspoken owner of Leigh  remains silent whilst at least one of his lieutenants proclaims the end of the world?

Sutton stressed the grading announcement was not final, and that everyone involved in the process needs to take on board what they have learned up to this point.

"What we aimed to do with this illustrative year was to allow people to get used to it, as well as ourselves, and we could learn a lot from the process - but also the timing of how and when we do things," Sutton continued.

"As we should do with any big project we undertake, we need to learn from it, and the review is already under way. We'll report that back to our council in December and talk about how we do it next year when it's for real."

It does feel like we're a year behind where we should be, particularly if the feedback in December leads to changes in system. Might've been better to have 2 rounds of indicative scoring, first round, then refinement, then second round to give clubs and RFL / IMG a run at doing the new scoring, without the pressures of needing a decision early enough to allow preparation for the following season. Obviously that doesn't apply if the feedback is that the scoring system stays the same, but there are processes in delivering the scores that can be tweaked.

[Tommygilf]

26 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

The hope applies to all of the clubs - just to differing degrees.

We have a spectrum of clubs with different hopes and expectations. But retaining the ultimate hope is important - even seeming outlandish hopes have value as far as I am concerned, as it benefits the sport as a whole to maintain that spectrum of clubs and the lower tier clubs are kept going with the hopes of their backers and supporters.

Of course many clubs are not in a position to compete effectively for a place in Super League in any given season, but Leigh and London in the last year have shown how wrong a lot of people can be (myself included) regarding chances of success on field.

I think its flawed logic tbh mate, and as I've said in a later post, hope doesn't pay the bills. 

Financially, the sport - RFL and Clubs - are facing a reckoning. If the whole sport is going to live off the sky tv deal, then that TV deal has to be based on more than just "who beat all the other championship clubs this season". Its not a good enough differentiator, which is why it is being replaced with a broader picture model.

Fwiw then, this doesn't remove hope, it just places hope in a rational environment for the benefit of the sport. You'll look and feels like a super league club to be one - and that is what you'll hope to be.

[Tommygilf]

Toronto blew this out of the water too imo.

They proved that you could get good crowds and a social media following outside of Super League with investment in the right areas. Yes covid blew it all up, but it happened. 7k in League 1 happened, 9k in the championship x2 happened. Nothing about being in those competitions inherently made it impossible.

IMG system is just being frank that unless you are adding something to the table, and capable of doing that by investing in yourselves, then the top flight of the sport isn't capable of carrying you.

[Barley Mow]

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think its flawed logic tbh mate, and as I've said in a later post, hope doesn't pay the bills. 

Financially, the sport - RFL and Clubs - are facing a reckoning. If the whole sport is going to live off the sky tv deal, then that TV deal has to be based on more than just "who beat all the other championship clubs this season". Its not a good enough differentiator, which is why it is being replaced with a broader picture model.

Fwiw then, this doesn't remove hope, it just places hope in a rational environment for the benefit of the sport. You'll look and feels like a super league club to be one - and that is what you'll hope to be.

I think my reply to Chrispmartha here addresses some of what you say:

41 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

It is a great driver, but not the only one necessary. It needs to be there but can't do all the work on it's own.

As I have said, I'm happy to see a points system, with genuine benefits for clubs to encourage improvements off-field.

To my mind, the hope of on-field P&R should be retained too.

We were essentially told when the new system was first discussed that the hope would be transferred from being solely on-field to sitting within various criteria - as you allude to, it would still exist but you wouldn't just be 'hoping' for on-field improvement.

Assuming that is how it would work, our views would depend on the balance - how important are the on-field and off-field considerations.

For my part (subject to enforced minimum standards off-field) I weight the on-field much higher in the balance.

But the reason I began responding to the thread this morning (having largely stayed out of it because it is a huge circular argument with nobody changing anyone else's mind) was that Chris said that clubs wouldn't be frozen out.

While that may be true in theory, in practice after the first few years, I can't see any movement in or out of SL - practically, clubs will be frozen out and the hope factor even less than under on-field P&R. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Barley Mow

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I think my reply to Chrispmartha here addresses some of what you say:

We were essentially told when the new system was first discussed that the hope would be transferred from being solely on-field to sitting withon various criteria - as you allude to, it would still exist but you wouldn't just be 'hoping' for on-field improvement.

Assuming that is how it would work, it would be down to balance - how important are the on-field and off-field considerations.

For my part (subject to enforced minimum standards off-field) I weight the on-field much higher in the balance.

But the reason I began responding to the thread this morning (having largely stayed out of it because it is a huge circular argument with nobody changing anyone else's mind) was that Chris said that clubs wouldn't be frozen out.

While that may be true in theory, in practice after the first few years, I can't see any movement in or out of SL - practically, clubs will be frozen out and the hope factor even less than under on-field P&R. 

Just to clarify I don't think there will be much movement either but my point was that clubs aren't frozen out, and we don't know what will happen, look at a club like York, now they know they are a few years off SL standard but they could be one of the clubs that can grow and keep on pushing their grades up, they are doing great foundation work and are the champions in the women's game, which is growing year on year, if they can push on and being successful on the field is a big part of that then they could get above some of the higher grade B teams.

The noises coming out of clubs like London , York and I think Widnes have reacted positively seems to suggest they have that 'hope' and now they know the metrics needed to try push for that spot in the Elite League.

[M j M]

Some of the arguments for this system are a bit facile tbh, I'm not seeing much pervasive argument for how we get from A to B under it more just people pointing out the sport's current weaknesses.

It's possible to think things weren't going particularly well and that the grading system as devised and implemented by IMG is wrong and in fact dangerous to the sport's health. 

[M j M]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Just to clarify I don't think there will be much movement either but my point was that clubs aren't frozen out, and we don't know what will happen, look at a club like York, now they know they are a few years off SL standard but they could be one of the clubs that can grow and keep on pushing their grades up, they are doing great foundation work and are the champions in the women's game, which is growing year on year, if they can push on and being successful on the field is a big part of that then they could get above some of the higher grade B teams.

Can you explain how it would be possible for York to assemble enough points to get there? By my reading of the criteria it's pretty much impossible for them. 

[JohnM]

15 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

I missed this last night but I believe you deserve the courtesy of a reply.  Firstly your personal details, I know when you started attending games, I know you live out in the sticks and I know you've had heart valve issues.  I didn't know about the arthritis but I know you supported Swinton and now support Wigan and from all that I also have a reasonable idea of your age.  How do I know this, I read these boards.  There's actually a pretty good chance I wished you well with the valve surgery and that still applies today despite our differences.

So when I intimated you don't attend games I wasn't firing off blindly not knowing the facts, knowing the facts meant I was pretty sure about it. When I sensed the anger in your replies it didn't surprise me.  If someone on here accused me of the same I'd be pretty angry myself knowing my own circumstances. But now we get to the bit that puzzles me.  If you've been forced away from the game through no fault of your own and the game was a big part of your life then I can understand you'd be gutted.  So how do you think people who are currently physically fit enough to attend and shown commitment similar to your own over god knows how many years must feel if they are even contemplating it?  

We have a thread here that's over 100 pages long , people are pretty emotional about it and you come along throwing in flippant comments that seem designed to rile people.  Are you really that shocked that someone picked you up on it?  Speaking personally I can completely understand anyone who's put in a lifetime supporting one of us lesser lights and then being told, "this is your lot, like it or hump it" asking themselves why should they bother?

Regarding "the game is gone statement" I've never said that and I've defended it more times than you can imagine, both on other message boards and out there in the big wide world.  My issues are not with the game but the administration.  We disagree on the structure.  Maybe if I chucked the towel in on Widnes and went six miles down the road and starting supporting St Helens it wouldn't bother me either but that will never happen.  A few pages back on this thread you mentioned your concerns about what you perceive to be negative comments influencing people (I do read what you post).  I agree with you completely, as I posted a few pages back some of the stuff I seen posted on here at the first round of licencing lead me to chucking my hand in with the International game.  Evidently I would be replaced by all the new fans flocking to the game.  Looking back it looks like they've missed me more than I've missed them.  

I don't believe that anyone "contemplating" deserting the sport really will do so on a permanent basis.  I think its a knee-jerk, emotional, doctrinal almost, reaction to the proposed changes agreed by the clubs. They are not being told "this is your lot, like it or lump it" and it is this apparent misunderstanding that needs correcting, There has been a process of discussing debate, proposal and voting on this by the clubs.   Has not Tony Sutton clarified this?

 

[Chrispmartha]

15 minutes ago, M j M said:

Can you explain how it would be possible for York to assemble enough points to get there? By my reading of the criteria it's pretty much impossible for them. 

Well without seeing their current points and how they got them its difficult tell but

Attendances

Finances

Digital

Performances

Community

I'm not talking about them making it by 2025, in fact that's my whole point it might take 3+ years or more

Edited November 2, 2023 by Chrispmartha

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

5 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I don't believe that anyone "contemplating" deserting the sport really will do so on a permanent basis.  I think its a knee-jerk, emotional, doctrinal almost, reaction to the proposed changes agreed by the clubs. They are not being told "this is your lot, like it or lump it" and it is this apparent misunderstanding that needs correcting, There has been a process of discussing debate, proposal and voting on this by the clubs.   Has not Tony Sutton clarified this?

 

Time will tell.

[Chrispmartha]

5 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I don't believe that anyone "contemplating" deserting the sport really will do so on a permanent basis.  I think its a knee-jerk, emotional, doctrinal almost, reaction to the proposed changes agreed by the clubs. They are not being told "this is your lot, like it or lump it" and it is this apparent misunderstanding that needs correcting, There has been a process of discussing debate, proposal and voting on this by the clubs.   Has not Tony Sutton clarified this?

 

To be honest I think once next season starts and the talking punts are actually about the games a lot of it will calm down - until the off season where we'll be going round again.

[Barley Mow]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Just to clarify I don't think there will be much movement either but my point was that clubs aren't frozen out, and we don't know what will happen, look at a club like York, now they know they are a few years off SL standard but they could be one of the clubs that can grow and keep on pushing their grades up, they are doing great foundation work and are the champions in the women's game, which is growing year on year, if they can push on and being successful on the field is a big part of that then they could get above some of the higher grade B teams.

The noises coming out of clubs like London , York and I think Widnes have reacted positively seems to suggest they have that 'hope' and now they know the metrics needed to try push for that spot in the Elite League.

They (and you) may be right. But once the 12 are in place I just can't see where enough points will come from for any of the others to displace them - even those that are currently close and in the top 14 indicative grades are likely to drop away in a short time without the SL incumbency advantages.

Anyway, this is a point I've already made and we're starting to do the typical going round in circles. I think we both understand the other's position.

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, M j M said:

Can you explain how it would be possible for York to assemble enough points to get there? By my reading of the criteria it's pretty much impossible for them. 

They could build a massive estate of 75,000 homes just outside York to increase their catchment? 

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I think my reply to Chrispmartha here addresses some of what you say:

We were essentially told when the new system was first discussed that the hope would be transferred from being solely on-field to sitting within various criteria - as you allude to, it would still exist but you wouldn't just be 'hoping' for on-field improvement.

Assuming that is how it would work, our views would depend on the balance - how important are the on-field and off-field considerations.

For my part (subject to enforced minimum standards off-field) I weight the on-field much higher in the balance.

But the reason I began responding to the thread this morning (having largely stayed out of it because it is a huge circular argument with nobody changing anyone else's mind) was that Chris said that clubs wouldn't be frozen out.

While that may be true in theory, in practice after the first few years, I can't see any movement in or out of SL - practically, clubs will be frozen out and the hope factor even less than under on-field P&R. 

Its likely going to take a side being bad, or repeatedly bad, in Super League for a championship club to over take them.

That's the point of this too. 1 bad season, or 1 drop goal, shouldn't send Hull KR for example to the 2nd tier because, and I can't emphasise this enough, the sport cannot afford to weaken the top flight anymore. In general, the clubs that are there are the right clubs. A handful, maybe, can add to that but largely its replacing like with like at the moment (hence being flush with b grades). Those b's are strengthened by trying to get an A and the security that brings.

The single message that has been coming out of all these meetings with clubs and the RFL is the RFL saying there is no money, and Sky don't want to pay more than they absolutely have to. We have not gone to IMG for management advice because things are going alright but need tinkering, there's 7 figure sums that need to be found to keep the game afloat. If IMG were on board when the £40 million a season was being pumped into the sport, and investments were made in more than just a few championship clubs spending millions on squads to have a nice but mostly fruitless day out at Super League grounds at the end of the season, then we wouldn't be in this mess. 

[iffleyox]

24 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I think my reply to Chrispmartha here addresses some of what you say:

We were essentially told when the new system was first discussed that the hope would be transferred from being solely on-field to sitting withon various criteria - as you allude to, it would still exist but you wouldn't just be 'hoping' for on-field improvement.

Assuming that is how it would work, it would be down to balance - how important are the on-field and off-field considerations.

For my part (subject to enforced minimum standards off-field) I weight the on-field much higher in the balance.

But the reason I began responding to the thread this morning (having largely stayed out of it because it is a huge circular argument with nobody changing anyone else's mind) was that Chris said that clubs wouldn't be frozen out.

While that may be true in theory, in practice after the first few years, I can't see any movement in or out of SL - practically, clubs will be frozen out and the hope factor even less than under on-field P&R. 

But it's the hope meets reality interface in all of this that is the issue isn't it? In reality there's about 3-4 clubs that could make a tilt at Super League - next season, if all this grading wasn't happening, that would be Fev*, Toulouse and Trin. Potentially Bradford. 

Anyone else would be 'doing a London' - and regardless of the sport, play offs that allow the team finishing fourth to go up are even more of a nonsense.

Literally every other club is sitting there thinking 'well if we had the players and did it on the pitch then we should be allowed up' - lovely but the chances of that happening are minimal because almost inevitably, grading or no, if you've suddenly got the squad to allow you to do that then the bigger boys will come in and sign them.

All this is doing really is shining a light on a closed door that was always closed, but the room was dark enough to not have to concentrate on the fact that it was closed. FWIW its exactly the same in the other code, and below the premiership the running costs are about the same. More RU clubs have folded having ill-advised tilts at the top, than have done because they're a historically big old club that has been 'frozen out' - giving up and walking away hasn't happened in that code, so why should it in RL?

All this grading is doing really is showing clubs what they need to do to bring something to the top table, and frankly the clubs knocking on the door - even through straight promotion and with no grading - should be there or thereabouts anyway. If they're not then much more blame should be on the heads of those clubs than on IMG (especially in year 1).

Meanwhile, in terms of freezing out, it only formalises a process that already exists - if you don't have the cash you won't compete - and cash should be spent on more than players. Trin seem to have found someone with deep pockets at exactly the right time, but if an equivalent can be found who wants to take Batley or Swinton (at random) on a journey, then literally all this is doing is providing a roadmap for something that will take more than buying the right squad of players and winning the Championship - the putative Swinton billionaire would still need to do that, but they'd have to spend money on the other boxes too and it would take more than one good season with a squad packed with retiring NRLers.

That's not freezing anyone out - it's saying 'when your club is ready on and off the pitch, you can come up.' If people want to spend the money on jumping through the hoops then that's great for the club, and the wider sport. If they can't find the money to be a top flight club on and off the pitch, then that's a sign that they need to hope a bit more that one day they will... That's all. 

 

*with the obvious current caveat, but this time last week I'd have said Fev anyway

Edited November 2, 2023 by iffleyox

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, iffleyox said:

But it's the hope meets reality interface in all of this that is the issue isn't it? In reality there's about 3-4 clubs that could make a tilt at Super League - next season, if all this grading wasn't happening, that would be Fev*, Toulouse and Trin. Potentially Bradford. 

Anyone else would be 'doing a London' - and regardless of the sport, play offs that allow the team finishing fourth to go up are even more of a nonsense.

Literally every other club is sitting there thinking 'well if we had the players and did it on the pitch then we should be allowed up' - lovely but the chances of that happening are minimal because almost inevitably, grading or no, if you've suddenly got the squad to allow you to do that then the bigger boys will come in and sign them.

All this is doing really is shining a light on a closed door that was always closed, but the room was dark enough to not have to concentrate on the fact that it was closed. FWIW its exactly the same in the other code, and below the premiership the running costs are about the same. More RU clubs have folded having ill-advised tilts at the top, than have done because they're a historically big old club that has been 'frozen out' - giving up and walking away hasn't happened in that code, so why should it in RL?

All this grading is doing really is showing clubs what they need to do to bring something to the top table, and frankly the clubs knocking on the door - even through straight promotion and with no grading - should be there or thereabouts anyway. If they're not then much more blame should be on the heads of those clubs than on IMG (especially in year 1).

Meanwhile, in terms of freezing out, it only formalises a process that already exists - if you don't have the cash you won't compete - and cash should be spent on more than players. Trin seem to have found someone with deep pockets at exactly the right time, but if an equivalent can be found who wants to take Batley or Swinton (at random) on a journey, then literally all this is doing is providing a roadmap for something that will take more than buying the right squad of players and winning the Championship - the putative Swinton billionaire would still need to do that, but they'd have to spend money on the other boxes too and it would take more than one good season with a squad packed with retiring NRLers.

That's not freezing anyone out - it's saying 'when your club is ready on and off the pitch, you can come up.' If people want to spend the money on jumping through the hoops then that's great for the club, and the wider sport. If they can't find the money to be a top flight club on and off the pitch, then that's a sign that they need to hope a bit more that one day they will... That's all. 

Great post

[Griff]

53 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What has actually worked?

Is the difference going to be noticeable when we have the Hull Derby, is it going to attract loads of newbies to Wigan v Saints, will hundreds/thousands of Catalan fans decend on Warrington, will high profile national companies be fighting each other to invest, will Sky increase their payments for the 'elite'.

No none of that will happen, and forgive me please but only the deluded believe it will happen, there is nothing that will improve the product on the field, 'A' clubs have not be given anymore money to improve their squads.

So tell me, what is being done to improve the game and get new eyes watching, I will wager that in the next few years more money will be lost to the sport by those not bothering anymore than being offset by newbies both active in the grounds or new eyes buying subscriptions.

What's wrong with the game? Why does it need improving? Just improving the game - whatever that means - won't get new eyes on the game if nobody knows it's happened.

Most of the whinging on here is about how the game's marketed. Hopefully, IMG will improve that. Stop expecting instant results. We've barely started the pricess yet.

[M j M]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Well without seeing their current points and how they got them its difficult tell but

Attendances

Digital

Performances

Community

I'm not talking about them making it by 2025, in fact that's my whole point it might take 3+ years or more

It's a vicious circle. With the best will in the world it's almost impossible to grow some of these things over the levels required in the Championship. Attendances, tv viewing figures, social media are inherently lower in the Championship and willing them to be larger is not going to change that reality.

York could do the best job possible and not get the scores required.