IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Griff]

7 hours ago, Click said:

Really? You think digital marketing only goes to the converted?

Mmmmm - to an extent, that's true.

I would imagine there's a lot of digital media on K-Pop but I've never seen any.

[DEANO]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think there are plenty of issues with how the Grading has been introduced, but I don't have an issue with this one (apart from maybe the actual numbers and %). Turnover is really important here - it's all well and good giving points for a club making a profit - but that isn't necessarily going to grow the game. A tiny club making £1k profit shouldn't be rewarded more than a club turning over £10m and posting a loss of £100k for example.

It feels sensible that the three things they look for here is (1) pure turnover number - they want bigger clubs that are driving loads of income. (2) % of non-centralised - no over-reliance on central funding - clubs need to drive their own income (3) profit - this addresses your concerns that clubs aren't just recklessly driving hollow turnover. Broadly it feels like it can work.

I also don't have too much of an issue with the on-field performance tbh, having one giant ladder feels ok, and in the circumstance you describe, Wakey have the opportunity to be ranked 9th on performance if they won the GF and the 1895 cup. That doesn't feel too odd.

If losing huge amounts of money gets you a better grade I bet Bradford would have loved img to be in when they went bust

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Yorks Tim said:

Free beer for season ticket holders?

That kind of thing I expect.

So how does that increase turnover unless you sell more season tickets which would be a good thing?

[sam4731]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

Please could you expand on what you mean by the bit in bold?

A team could theoretically spend a billion pounds on marketing to ensure that every game was a sell out, therefore generating much higher turnover but they'd inevitably make a huge loss in the process. It just doesn't seem sustainable to focus so heavily on turnover whilst seeing profit as a minor element.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

4 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

We haven't decided to keep P&R.

This is a fundamental misreading of the IMG model which many have made, perhaps because it's so ingrained as an idea.

The model is specifically designed - in principle - to keep the same clubs in SL, to allow them to build sustainably, and also allow the competition as a whole to invest its brand and presentation without jettisoning 1/12 of that investment each year.

There are two reasons we didn't move explicitly move to fixed term licenses or a full NRL-style closed shop.

Firstly, it would be politically very difficult to get through, so we've fudged it so people still labour under the misapprehension that there's some sort of P&R in place. This is regrettable and I wish we'd been more honest.

Secondly, and more crucially, as things stand we simply don't have 12 or even 10 clubs strong enough to definitely know they'll still be strong in 5 years or so. So we've had to keep a door open for potential replacements.

But the idea, once we get through the transition year, is for the clubs to be pretty fixed, barring disasters.

If we ever get to 10 grade As I'd expect the door to be shut properly, and only be opened for properly funded expansion clubs, like the NRL do.

This is the reality of the IMG model - soft or dynamic licensing if you will, but not P&R.

I know why many would hate this. And I can't hand on heart tell you I know for sure it'll work, overall.

But it's important to see it for what it really is.

On the contrary, many of us have worked it out.  There's a 150 page thread on here somewhere pointing it out continuously.  Personally I'm really looking forward to the end of the season when I'm expecting this to kick of big style.  It will be interesting to see how Toulouse go this season, promoting them from the middle of the championship could be fun.  Because like you say, if they miss out this time they are pretty much screwed.

[Toby Chopra]

58 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

On the contrary, many of us have worked it out.  There's a 150 page thread on here somewhere pointing it out continuously.  Personally I'm really looking forward to the end of the season when I'm expecting this to kick of big style.  It will be interesting to see how Toulouse go this season, promoting them from the middle of the championship could be fun.  Because like you say, if they miss out this time they are pretty much screwed.

As has been pointed out by others before, Toulouse and London, and any other non-heartland hopeful, are potentially some of the biggest losers from the new model. Which certainly goes against the charge that it's all about IMG picking their big market favourites. 

[Hopie]

21 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

As has been pointed out by others before, Toulouse and London, and any other non-heartland hopeful, are potentially some of the biggest losers from the new model. Which certainly goes against the charge that it's all about IMG picking their big market favourites. 

"Expansion" clubs aren't the favourites of those running the game anymore, it is the big clubs who are. That is why the IMG criteria protect those who are financially stable enough to survive relegation, from relegation, whereas those clubs struggling to keep ends meet will be at risk of being replaced.

Classic consultant strategy, walk into the business and tell those with the most control of the money they have been right all along and need more of what is available, whilst cutting it from those at the bottom. Then you can collect your nice fat consultancy fee, trebles all round!

[LeeF]

2 hours ago, sam4731 said:

A team could theoretically spend a billion pounds on marketing to ensure that every game was a sell out, therefore generating much higher turnover but they'd inevitably make a huge loss in the process. It just doesn't seem sustainable to focus so heavily on turnover whilst seeing profit as a minor element.

Strange argument that doesn’t really hold water.

You wouldn’t need to spend a billion pounds to sell out any game. Some clubs already have full houses for games. Some for the majority of their matches. 

The game is, if we are being honest, small time but with potential for uplift. Making profits whilst not realising full potential isn’t a great place to be for a professional sports club providing any losses are sustainable - see above paragraph.

If you want all clubs to be profitable what would you cut? Players wages? Support staff? Academies? Scholarships? Ground capacities?

Increased marketing by most, if not all, clubs would be great for the game and I include your own loss making club in that. 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

Just as an aside, the general consensus seems to be to perm any three from Leigh, Castleford, Wakefield, Bradford and Toulouse with London already relegated. Leigh, Castleford and Wakefield seem to believe they will score better next time. Could Salford and Huddersfield get dragged into this as well?

[Gooleboy]

11 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Just as an aside, the general consensus seems to be to perm any three from Leigh, Castleford, Wakefield, Bradford and Toulouse with London already relegated. Leigh, Castleford and Wakefield seem to believe they will score better next time. Could Salford and Huddersfield get dragged into this as well?

What excitement without a ball being kicked!

[JohnM]

It's not going to happen overnight. As I understand it,  Reimagining Rugby League is a twelve year project.  I fully expect it to evolve from what it is now, with annual review and if necessary, adjustments to keep the project advancing. Given the speed at which technology has developed in recent years, a lot will have changed in 12 years. Social media, TV/streaming of games, etc may be unrecognisable 2035 rrom todays stuff .  I expect that at the end of the 12 years the whole sport will have progressed little by little, year on year, from today's sport, as clubs benefit from adopting the best practices imposed by the grading system...but it'll still be rugby league.  

 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

What excitement without a ball being kicked!

Is the excitement actually appreciated by people on a tangible level? Are people really that interested. Because the biggest crowds, the biggest viewing figures etc are for the games at the top of the table. 

[Griff]

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

Is the excitement actually appreciated by people on a tangible level? Are people really that interested. Because the biggest crowds, the biggest viewing figures etc are for the games at the top of the table. 

Top of the IMG table?

[Fevrover]

9 hours ago, JohnM said:

It's not going to happen overnight. As I understand it,  Reimagining Rugby League is a twelve year project.  I fully expect it to evolve from what it is now, with annual review and if necessary, adjustments to keep the project advancing. Given the speed at which technology has developed in recent years, a lot will have changed in 12 years. Social media, TV/streaming of games, etc may be unrecognisable 2035 rrom todays stuff .  I expect that at the end of the 12 years the whole sport will have progressed little by little, year on year, from today's sport, as clubs benefit from adopting the best practices imposed by the grading system...but it'll still be rugby league.  

 

Do you honestly belive IMG will last 12 years ?

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Top of the IMG table?

Well, yeah to be honest. The ones at the top of the IMG table are the ones with more fans, viewers, sponsors etc. 

I think there are plenty of nuances to this debate, and I really don't like this weird hybrid system they've gone with, but people really do overstate the benefits of relegation battles. 

[Click]

11 hours ago, Hopie said:

"Expansion" clubs aren't the favourites of those running the game anymore, it is the big clubs who are. That is why the IMG criteria protect those who are financially stable enough to survive relegation, from relegation, whereas those clubs struggling to keep ends meet will be at risk of being replaced.

Classic consultant strategy, walk into the business and tell those with the most control of the money they have been right all along and need more of what is available, whilst cutting it from those at the bottom. Then you can collect your nice fat consultancy fee, trebles all round!

Sorry, but when were "expansion" clubs ever the favourites of those running the game?

[Click]

21 hours ago, Daft old hooker said:

No because supporters always have hope IMG removes that

What hope did Halifax/Batley/Widnes/Whitehaven, etc fans have last year? or the last 3/4 years?

[phiggins]

13 minutes ago, Click said:

What hope did Halifax/Batley/Widnes/Whitehaven, etc fans have last year? or the last 3/4 years?

Not too disimilar to how much hope London had this time last year?

[The Blues Ox]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Not too disimilar to how much hope London had this time last year?

You beat me to it especially for Batley and Fax the last few years.

[Harry Stottle]

23 hours ago, Click said:

Really? You think digital marketing only goes to the converted?

It is only viewed by those who are interested in the subject.

 

Edited May 1 by Harry Stottle

[marklaspalmas]

53 minutes ago, Click said:

Sorry, but when were "expansion" clubs ever the favourites of those running the game?

Whenever London, PSG, Gateshead, Catalans, Crusaders, etc were pushed into SL.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I think there are plenty of nuances to this debate, and I really don't like this weird hybrid system they've gone with, but people really do overstate the benefits of relegation battles. 

I think having experienced many, I can say with earned conviction that I would far prefer a season where my club was average and finished 9th without getting dragged into the relegation mix, than the supposed "excitement" of a relegation battle.

In football a "relegation battle" means worst-case you play the next season in a lower league, but still at a similar standard. In a challenger sport like ours, a relegation battle means worst-case your club dies for generations, or at least perhaps has a long-term existence as a part-time, semi-pro organisation playing at a totally different standard.  

Rugby League is not football. The vast majority of sports do not have "pure" promotion and relegation as the determinant of which clubs play in the elite, professional version of their game. 

[Worzel]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It is only viewed by those who are interested in the subject.

 

There's an advert for easyJet at the bottom of this page. I'm wasn't already particularly interested in it, but I might be now. There's nothing about digital marketing that inherently only speaks to existing customers. It's all about how you use it.

The fact the RFL mainly only does digital marketing to existing customers is on them. It's not the method, it's the people using it.  

[Click]

24 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Not too disimilar to how much hope London had this time last year?

Oh right, and how has that turned out?

[Click]

17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It is only viewed by those who are interested in the subject.

 

That is not how digital marketing works.