IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

He was saying how they are not spending money in the playing roster, his words not mine please don't shoot the messenger.

Anyway we will see if they upgrade their spend with whoever the new boss is, then it would seem not fair on Smith if they did spend more on team matters.

I'm loathe to spend too much time debating Wilkin's words, I think he is useless, but I don't buy that clubs aren't interested in winning and they are just happy with safety. There is no money to be made in RL, so spending money to just be at the top table for a club like Hull makes no sense. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, phiggins said:

For whatever the rights and wrongs of where clubs focus their money and attention, I think the fact that Hull are a grade A is a poor reflection on the system. 

Given an A grade was originally supposed to give immunity (although now not relevant unless 13 or more score 15+), I'm not sure we should be giving that to a club that has performed as Hull have the last few years. I think if we are giving exemptions from relegation, it would be for clubs like Wigan, where you can safely say it would take a freak year to see them finish bottom, and that it would feasible for them to be competitive again the following year.

I'm not sure I agree, although Hull do make it hard to defend as they are a bit of a basket case, but then they were just as bad under the previous few systems we had too. 

But in terms of wanting a league with strong clubs, Hull absolutely would be in there. The fact that they are making bad rugby decisions doesn't massively change that.

Considering they have been poor on field, they still outperform most RL clubs in the country off the field. I suppose it all comes down to whether you buy I to he principal of strong clubs rather than strong teams. 

[JohnM]

16 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi JohnM , doesn't look right to me

JonM not JohnM, though those who know me would agree on my appearance.

[Harry Stottle]

28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I agree, although Hull do make it hard to defend as they are a bit of a basket case, but then they were just as bad under the previous few systems we had too. 

But in terms of wanting a league with strong clubs, Hull absolutely would be in there. The fact that they are making bad rugby decisions doesn't massively change that.

Considering they have been poor on field, they still outperform most RL clubs in the country off the field. I suppose it all comes down to whether you buy I to he principal of strong clubs rather than strong teams. 

I agree with @phiggins If he is saying the bar is set to low for grade A classification, I said it right at the beginning of the process just having 3 grades was nowhere near sufficient at least 6 would be the minimum, never mind this upper and lower sections of grades, give them proper categories where clubs can see the next level to aim for.

Edited April 17 by Harry Stottle

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I agree with @phiggins If he is saying the bar is set to low for grade A classification, I said it right at the beginning of the process just having 3 grades was nowhere near sufficient at least 6 would be the minimum, never mind this upper and lower sections of grades, give them proper categories where clubs can see the next level to aim for.

I don't have an issue with Hull FC being graded as an A club. They are absolutely the kind of club that we should have in SL. I think it's one for their fans and board to be annoyed about that they don't play great rugby!

 

[phiggins]

55 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I agree, although Hull do make it hard to defend as they are a bit of a basket case, but then they were just as bad under the previous few systems we had too. 

But in terms of wanting a league with strong clubs, Hull absolutely would be in there. The fact that they are making bad rugby decisions doesn't massively change that.

Considering they have been poor on field, they still outperform most RL clubs in the country off the field. I suppose it all comes down to whether you buy I to he principal of strong clubs rather than strong teams. 

There is a balance between the principal of strong clubs and teams, and that balance needs to be found by clubs when they decide how to spend the money they have. But my view is that you need to be a strong club to be consistently competitive on the field. For example, Saints might not be favourites to win SL this year, but they will be competitive because of their strong off field systems that supports the first team. If they were to have a freak year of injuries, finish bottom but stay up, you'd fancy them to be competitive again the following year.

Hull haven't been very good on the field for a few years, which to me suggests that the off field stuff isn't as strong as you would hope for a grade A club. If they finish bottom but survive, you wouldn't back them to be much better next year without some significant off field improvements. 

 

 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

There is a balance between the principal of strong clubs and teams, and that balance needs to be found by clubs when they decide how to spend the money they have. But my view is that you need to be a strong club to be consistently competitive on the field. For example, Saints might not be favourites to win SL this year, but they will be competitive because of their strong off field systems that supports the first team. If they were to have a freak year of injuries, finish bottom but stay up, you'd fancy them to be competitive again the following year.

Hull haven't been very good on the field for a few years, which to me suggests that the off field stuff isn't as strong as you would hope for a grade A club. If they finish bottom but survive, you wouldn't back them to be much better next year without some significant off field improvements. 

 

 

I do think though clubs are allowed to make rubbish rugby decisions, that's part of the fun. My team have under-performed over the last couple of years, and Leeds aren't where they maybe should be. But these are the clubs that are strong off the field - playing in good grounds, doing well financially, getting sponsors, big crowds. 

The fact that Hull have been hovering around 8th for the last decade is for them to be peed off with, but they are still delivering 5 figure crowds, including one of the biggest games of every year. 

I think it's OK that a strong club is getting it wrong on the field, that's the interesting sport bit.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes anything is possible, best leave it at that.

You seem to think that Mr Beaumont has thought all that up himself re the financials he speaks about in the video, have you considered that he possibly just has accountants/advisors he utiluses/employs not only in his business life but also in Leigh Leopards club matters?

From Collins English Dictionary:

"If you say 'He who pays the piper' or 'He who pays the piper calls the tune', you mean that the person who provides the money for something decides what will be done, or has a right to decide what will be done"

[JohnM]

16 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I must have missed your previous posts please reiterate just so as I can understand.

A. I think I have made my point very clear in previous posts, I don't think that these methods will do the sport any favours collectively under SL, and for that reason in a few years I think the administrators will have a decision to make, stay with IMG and let the rest wither away or reverse this system.

The multiple-choice question remains unanswered. 

Q: Do you want the Reimagining project to succeed?

1.Yes?

2. No?

[Harry Stottle]

37 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't have an issue with Hull FC being graded as an A club. They are absolutely the kind of club that we should have in SL. I think it's one for their fans and board to be annoyed about that they don't play great rugby!

 

Yeah, and they will be talked about as they are for all the wrong reasons, this is a sport Dave where since it began the measure of how good or bad a club is is based on their on field success or otherwise. I think there are those who are putting that secondary these days, especially when clubs are being applauded - it may be only by their own fans - to sanction gaining IMG points and stop bothering about on field activities.

I will even aim that at my own club, if points on the league ladder mattered as per relegation still being in place, would they have waited to sit out these long term injuries to 'key' players I would suggest not, they would have wanted points on the ladder and gone out to source other player's.

[Harry Stottle]

15 minutes ago, JohnM said:

The multiple-choice question remains unanswered. 

Q: Do you want the Reimagining project to succeed?

1.Yes?

2. No?

Not for one minute do I think you are mentally challenged John, you read between the lines of many posts to put your own slant on them, so with me saying these IMG methods "Reimagining' if you like, are in my interpretation going to be harmful across the sport just to benefit SL then Categorically yes I am against it, but I expect you knew that anyway, happy now?

OK I have answered you, now please tell me how are these methods are going to make the game a better sport to watch?

Edited April 17 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

16 minutes ago, JohnM said:

From Collins English Dictionary:

"If you say 'He who pays the piper' or 'He who pays the piper calls the tune', you mean that the person who provides the money for something decides what will be done, or has a right to decide what will be done"

Or take the advice he has paid the piper for, why do you think we have all these consultancy firms that businesses spend millions on, isn't that the function that the RFL are paying IMG for?

[sentoffagain2]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

For whatever the rights and wrongs of where clubs focus their money and attention, I think the fact that Hull are a grade A is a poor reflection on the system. 

Given an A grade was originally supposed to give immunity (although now not relevant unless 13 or more score 15+), I'm not sure we should be giving that to a club that has performed as Hull have the last few years. I think if we are giving exemptions from relegation, it would be for clubs like Wigan, where you can safely say it would take a freak year to see them finish bottom, and that it would feasible for them to be competitive again the following year.

    When i stated that if Hull FC were a grade A  Hull KR should also be a grade A on their improvement on and off the field  i don't think anyone agreed with me.Posters had them down for a solid B.Glad IMG did give them an A rating it is well deserved.

[dboy]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

From Collins English Dictionary:

"If you say 'He who pays the piper' or 'He who pays the piper calls the tune', you mean that the person who provides the money for something decides what will be done, or has a right to decide what will be done"

Mange tout Rodney, Mange tout!

[Griff]

57 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not for one minute do I think you are mentally challenged John, you read between the lines of many posts to put your own slant on them, so with me saying these IMG methods "Reimagining' if you like, are in my interpretation going to be harmful across the sport just to benefit SL then Categorically yes I am against it, but I expect you knew that anyway, happy now?

OK I have answered you, now please tell me how are these methods are going to make the game a better sport to watch?

 

No, you've answered a question that wasn't asked.

You were asked whether you wanted the project to succeed.  You've only said that you are against it.

The inference I draw is that you want it to fail because that would prove you right.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yeah, and they will be talked about as they are for all the wrong reasons, this is a sport Dave where since it began the measure of how good or bad a club is is based on their on field success or otherwise. I think there are those who are putting that secondary these days, especially when clubs are being applauded - it may be only by their own fans - to sanction gaining IMG points and stop bothering about on field activities.

I will even aim that at my own club, if points on the league ladder mattered as per relegation still being in place, would they have waited to sit out these long term injuries to 'key' players I would suggest not, they would have wanted points on the ladder and gone out to source other player's.

Hull are a weird example. People are making out they are bad now because they have no risk of relegation. Yet they've been bad for years when relegation was in place. They really aren't doing too much differently in 2024 than they have for the last few years. 

[Gomersall]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Hull are a weird example. People are making out they are bad now because they have no risk of relegation. Yet they've been bad for years when relegation was in place. They really aren't doing too much differently in 2024 than they have for the last few years. 

Hull are doing the same as they have recently. They’re just doing it even worse this season.

[JohnM]

Moving, for a moment, from the specific to the general, here is a refresher of the Reimagining Rugby League presentation . 

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/60992/reimagining-rugby-league-–-img-presents-recommendations

 

[JohnM]

In my view and experience, this is how it works, simplified and serialised, or rather, circularised.

Identify the successful sustainable clubs. Identify the factors that determine this success and build a model for all clubs to adopt.  Incentivise clubs to adopt best practice.

Success on the field depends on a number of things, including but not limited to:

1. The quality of the individual players.

2. The quality of the team.

3. The quality of the coach, the coaching, the training.

4 Quality in this context is skill, ability, attitude, personality, fitness, stamina.

5. The ability to attract such players and coaches depends on the money available as well as the quality of club leadership..  The attractiveness of the club to players, coaches depends on the money available to pay them and to provide attractive facilities, too. 

6. The money available depends on owners and directors input, sponsorship, central funding, income from fans. 

7. Money from fans depends on a range of factors ranging from quality of stadium and facilities, media activities, RFL/SL activities directly and indirectly through social media. It also depends on the penetration rate into the local population. 

8. Money from fans also depends on success on the field. And so the perpetual motion machine is operating.

So all that is happening is that the model is being brought into play and clubs are being incentivised to adopt the model of the successful clubs.

[Liverpool Rover]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

In my view and experience, this is how it works, simplified and serialised, or rather, circularised.

Identify the successful sustainable clubs. Identify the factors that determine this success and build a model for all clubs to adopt.  Incentivise clubs to adopt best practice.

Success on the field depends on a number of things, including but not limited to:

1. The quality of the individual players.

2. The quality of the team.

3. The quality of the coach, the coaching, the training.

4 Quality in this context is skill, ability, attitude, personality, fitness, stamina.

5. The ability to attract such players and coaches depends on the money available as well as the quality of club leadership..  The attractiveness of the club to players, coaches depends on the money available to pay them and to provide attractive facilities, too. 

6. The money available depends on owners and directors input, sponsorship, central funding, income from fans. 

7. Money from fans depends on a range of factors ranging from quality of stadium and facilities, media activities, RFL/SL activities directly and indirectly through social media. It also depends on the penetration rate into the local population. 

8. Money from fans also depends on success on the field. And so the perpetual motion machine is operating.

So all that is happening is that the model is being brought into play and clubs are being incentivised to adopt the model of the successful clubs.

If you don't have 5 6 and 7 It is highly unlikely you will have 1 2 3 and 4 which means you won't have 8. This is why how a club performs off field is just as important as what happens on it, maybe even more so.

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

If you don't have 5 6 and 7 It is highly unlikely you will have 1 2 3 and 4 which means you won't have 8. This is why how a club performs off field is just as important as what happens on it, maybe even more so.

Exactly so.

[Dave W]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

If you don't have 5 6 and 7 It is highly unlikely you will have 1 2 3 and 4 which means you won't have 8. This is why how a club performs off field is just as important as what happens on it, maybe even more so.

 

Everything listed depends on money. Money - or the lack of it - is the main driver here.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Rover said:

If you don't have 5 6 and 7 It is highly unlikely you will have 1 2 3 and 4 which means you won't have 8. This is why how a club performs off field is just as important as what happens on it, maybe even more so.

Exactly. I'm not sure every poster gets that.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Dave W said:

 

Everything listed depends on money. Money - or the lack of it - is the main driver here.

 

Edited April 17 by JohnM

[Harry Stottle]

5 hours ago, JohnM said:

Exactly. I'm not sure every poster gets that.

Or even agrees with it.