IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

15 minutes ago, Click said:

So the only evidence for them favouring expansion clubs is 1 team being let into the new SL 30 years ago? 

Catalans given a three year exemption from relegation which managed to relegate Widnes.  Celtic Crusaders "winning" a Superleague licence.

[Click]

Just now, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Catalans given a three year exemption from relegation which managed to relegate Widnes.  Celtic Crusaders "winning" a Superleague licence.

Catalans were given a 3 year exemption and Widnes knew that, as did the other teams in the league that year. Widnes should have played better to not be relegated.

I can't even remember what happened with Celtic Crusaders to be honest.

So we perhaps have 3 instances of expansion clubs being "favourites" in the last 30 years.

[The Blues Ox]

If you are saying 30 years then I guess you should include PSG, I can't remember how they got in but it will have been at the expense of another team I imagine. Although 30 years seems a long time its quite a chunk of time out of that period that expansion teams had some favoritism then isnt it?

[Gooleboy]

20 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

If you are saying 30 years then I guess you should include PSG, I can't remember how they got in but it will have been at the expense of another team I imagine. Although 30 years seems a long time its quite a chunk of time out of that period that expansion teams had some favoritism then isnt it?

And what a crock of poo PSG were. Ridiculously admitted alongside London at the expense of Featherstone and Widnes. Just so the powers that be at the time had an excuse to call it Super League Europe.

[Dave T]

It is perfectly reasonable for people to believe that clubs being placed into SL outside of the standard process that was in place at that time benefited from 'favouritism'. It may not be the best word to use, but it makes the point.

Let's remember that this is in the context of P&R being the mechanism for the vast majority of the last few decades. 

PSG, London, Gateshead, Catalans, Leigh all benefitted from being hand-picked outside of normal process. I think that is understandable that some people don't like that when we have many clubs who have been fighting for promotion to SL and have never made it.

But, that is a very narrow way of looking at this, because when you look at the whole picture and the context, it is more complex than just favouritism.  Let's be honest, many clubs given a place in SL were also treated poorly and that is an outcome of poor leadership and strategies imo.

[Spidey]

3 hours ago, Click said:

I can only go on what Wikipedia says as we are debating what happened 30 years ago, it really isn't relevant anyway. 

Some people really do hold on tight to their chips.

Dismissing as not relevant is a cop out, if you’re repeating misinformation 

[Click]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Dismissing as not relevant is a cop out, if you’re repeating misinformation 

How am I supposed to know what is misinformation?

Every fan seems to have a rose-tinted view of what happened at the formation of SL. I have no fact based evidence whatsoever about what happened, it is all second hand information, usually from fans of the clubs that were "left out". 

[Spidey]

Just now, Click said:

How am I supposed to know what is misinformation?

Every fan seems to have a rose-tinted view of what happened at the formation of SL. I have no fact based evidence whatsoever about what happened, it is all second hand information, usually from fans of the clubs that were "left out". 

Having been around at the time I’m comfortable to know what happened. I’ve advised you as such, by your own admission are just going off league tables on Wikipedia- a lot happened over the course of the 1994/95 season from the initial mergers announcement to what happened with the chosen few. I’ve made my peace with it now. But will call out people speaking nonsense about it

[sentoffagain2]

            I know Huddersfield and Hull FC got in through the back door.Someone must have left it open.And as previous poster said Widnes and Featherstone were locked out for PSG and London.

[Click]

11 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Having been around at the time I’m comfortable to know what happened. I’ve advised you as such, by your own admission are just going off league tables on Wikipedia- a lot happened over the course of the 1994/95 season from the initial mergers announcement to what happened with the chosen few. I’ve made my peace with it now. But will call out people speaking nonsense about it

Ok, so in other words - you have no facts either. Just what you recall from it all, that is fine. 

Everyone's saying clubs that were excluded, etc. But it was a brand new league, and no teams had a ingrained right to be included in it. 

[phiggins]

17 hours ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

It was me that mentioned Huddersfield and Salford but it was along the lines of asking does anyone think those below them can eek out enough additional points to bring them into the mix.  Think one of them was 13.8 and the other 13.4.  Not looked at the data for a few months so no idea how they scored their points.

Imagine if Hudds and Salford are in danger, but Hull aren't?!

[The Phantom Horseman]

13 minutes ago, Click said:

Ok, so in other words - you have no facts either. Just what you recall from it all, that is fine. 

Everyone's saying clubs that were excluded, etc. But it was a brand new league, and no teams had a ingrained right to be included in it. 

Is it safe to say you're relatively young? Many on here recall those days very well, including how quickly everything seemed to happen, the whole farrago surrounding mergers, and how the goalposts were moved very late in the day.

As with any perceived injustice, the bitterness doesn't necessarily erode with time.

If you weren't around to remember those days, it's perhaps best not to disaparage those who were?

[Click]

4 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Is it safe to say you're relatively young? Many on here recall those days very well, including how quickly everything seemed to happen, the whole farrago surrounding mergers, and how the goalposts were moved very late in the day.

As with any perceived injustice, the bitterness doesn't necessarily erode with time.

If you weren't around to remember those days, it's perhaps best not to disaparage those who were?

Just on two points - I think many people on here think they recall those days very well, whether they do or not, I have no idea. I have heard so many different stories of who was left out of SL and why that it can't all be what actually happened.

I know the bitterness doesn't necessarily erode with time, but it should, it was 30 years ago and some people talk about it like it happened last year.

I just find it annoying when people hint that "expansion" clubs are the favourites, when they were just put into SL, with the message of  "good luck". 

[The Phantom Horseman]

2 minutes ago, Click said:

Just on two points - I think many people on here think they recall those days very well, whether they do or not, I have no idea. I have heard so many different stories of who was left out of SL and why that it can't all be what actually happened.

I know the bitterness doesn't necessarily erode with time, but it should, it was 30 years ago and some people talk about it like it happened last year.

I just find it annoying when people hint that "expansion" clubs are the favourites, when they were just put into SL, with the message of  "good luck". 

You've heard many different stories about who was left out of SL clubs because a lot of clubs were. They might have had slightly different cases - for my money, leaving aside my own club, perhaps the biggest injustice was served on Keighley, who topped their division and should have been promoted but for the belated change to the rules. That decision, at the height of Cougarmania, had a massive impact on the club in terms of supporters, sponsors etc and they never really recovered from it, and there are some Championship clubs who see a similar likely impact on their club from the IMG system.

And I'm not sure where to start with that phrase "they were just put into SL. with the message of 'good luck' ". There are plenty of clubs that would have loved to have been "just put into SL", especially nowadays with over 10 times the funding they get in Championship.

[The Blues Ox]

34 minutes ago, Click said:

I just find it annoying when people hint that "expansion" clubs are the favourites, when they were just put into SL, with the message of  "good luck". 

Given the large amounts of money that good luck message was worth, I think its safe to say anyone who had that could be classed as a favourite. 

[Dovster]

Back in the nineties the RFL/SL caused deep divisions within Rugby League by the unfair method of introducing Franchising. Many of these rifts still exist today. IMG/RFL/SL seem to be going down this same path. Yes the clubs voted for it but many fans are not happy. I can only see problems ahead.

[Click]

17 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Given the large amounts of money that good luck message was worth, I think its safe to say anyone who had that could be classed as a favourite. 

So all 11 were the favourites, not just the expansion clubs then.

[Tommygilf]

The whole IMG process is designed specifically to prevent a scenario where a shell of a club like PSG (or London Broncos) finds itself in the top flight at the expense of a club with embedded roots and a full back office of employees and activities.

That this still means that some clubs aren't up to scratch doesn't reflect badly on the system...

[phiggins]

50 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The whole IMG process is designed specifically to prevent a scenario where a shell of a club like PSG (or London Broncos) finds itself in the top flight at the expense of a club with embedded roots and a full back office of employees and activities.

That this still means that some clubs aren't up to scratch doesn't reflect badly on the system...

Honest question, because I've not read the appendices of the grading criteria in full (I've looked at the grading criteria section of the handbook far too many times to be considered healthy!), but does this system specify any requirements on back office of employees and activities? 

[Griff]

6 hours ago, Click said:

I can only go on what Wikipedia says as we are debating what happened 30 years ago, it really isn't relevant anyway. 

Some people really do hold on tight to their chips.

You may be unaware that there are other sources than Wikipedia.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Dovster said:

Back in the nineties the RFL/SL caused deep divisions within Rugby League by the unfair method of introducing Franchising. Many of these rifts still exist today. IMG/RFL/SL seem to be going down this same path. Yes the clubs voted for it but many fans are not happy. I can only see problems ahead.

Franchising came later than the nineties.

[Tommygilf]

33 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Honest question, because I've not read the appendices of the grading criteria in full (I've looked at the grading criteria section of the handbook far too many times to be considered healthy!), but does this system specify any requirements on back office of employees and activities? 

If you have a foundation and turnovers for the level needed for an A Grade, along with the other things like social media and attendances (which require at a minimum some form of marketing team), then yes.

The criteria isn't prescriptive, but inevitability to achieve some of the top levels you need certain things in place.

[PREPOSTEROUS]

 

Edited May 2 by PREPOSTEROUS

[JohnM]

In franchising, a club would have to buy a franchise from the RFL and would have to operate according to the terms of that franchise.  The look and feel of the club in all aspects, including ticket prices, would be set, monitored and imposed by the RFL. In return, the RFL would ensure that the club operated in market where the club could meet the targets it had imposed. The RFL would provide marketing material, opportunities, promotional activities and similar support. The franchise could be terminated, sold on, etc. In the case of poor performance, not meeting performance targets, the RFL would take the franchise back and sell it/close it.

Think McDonalds, Kumon. Costa, Subway, Domino's, Burger King, Papa John's, Snap on Tools, Clarks.

Licencing is much more loose in all respects.  Perhaps IMG could bring in franchising as the next stage of the Reimagining Projects in 12 years.

[Spidey]

7 hours ago, Click said:

Ok, so in other words - you have no facts either. Just what you recall from it all, that is fine. 

Everyone's saying clubs that were excluded, etc. But it was a brand new league, and no teams had a ingrained right to be included in it. 

Jeez. Can’t believe I have to do this 

Fact 1 - The top ten clubs of the season before the Centenary Season (1994/95) were chosen for SL (the centenary season being a stop gap season before SL started so there wasn’t too long a break before migrating from Winter to Summer rugby

Fact 2 - London & Paris were added to those 10 as capital teams from England & France

Fact 3 - No promotions from Division Two from the 1994/95 season or the centenary season into the top division 

All this is actually backed up on Wikipedia if you choose to use that as your source.  
 

I think what you’re struggling with was the decision on who was admitted to SL in the first place, which was a debate that went on and on on that season, the initial SL announcement was all about mergers don’t know the exact date but I do remember protests on the field for Widnes v Warrington on Good Friday of that season which was pretty late in the season, once merger's were off the decision to as to have the top ten teams - that was well after some teams had though they’d done enough to escape relegation from Division One and Keighley in Division Two thought they’d won promotion

Now you can believe this or not, doesn’t really bother me, I am curious when and what you thought actually happened to determine the 10 clubs who got a SL place alongside London & Paris