IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[ATLANTISMAN]

None of this matters anyway NRL Europe here we come:)

Edited May 2 by ATLANTISMAN

[bobbruce]

9 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

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.

10 times the funding and 30 times the costs. 

[bobbruce]

8 hours 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. 

You get £1.8m but it costs £4m plus to run a half decent SL club. 

[Dovster]

15 hours ago, Griff said:

Franchising came later than the nineties.

You are right.

Not sure what else to call it when teams were selected and a new one made up unfairly to take part.

[Dave T]

12 hours ago, Spidey said:

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

On para 3 - IIRC the protests were dampened somewhat as an announcement came that day that the merger was off and there was an assumption that we would both be in SL. I think as the details emerged and the approach of the top 10 being in it became clear that Widnes were out, but the protest had been quashed. Had that detail emerged in advance, I think things could have been quite nasty.

[JohnM]

I think the appropriate word is "licencing"

Franchising is based on a marketing concept which can be adopted by an organization as a strategy for business expansion. Where implemented, a franchisor licenses some or all of its know-how, procedures, intellectual property, use of its business model, brand, and rights to sell its branded products and services to a franchisee. In return, the franchisee pays certain fees and agrees to comply with certain obligations, typically set out in a franchise agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchising?wprov=sfla1

[gingerjon]

The narrative that being elevated to Super League thirty years ago mean you now sit at the top of the tree regardless doesn't just fit.

The first season included Workington, Oldham, Sheffield, Halifax and Bradford, alongside the now vanished PSG. That's half the division swapped.

There was P&R as well. Keighley finished just outside the promotion spot in each of the two seasons following the introduction of Super League. But it's a harder pill to swallow to own that chances to go up were missed than that they suffered a great betrayal and could never recover.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The narrative that being elevated to Super League thirty years ago mean you now sit at the top of the tree regardless doesn't just fit.

The first season included Workington, Oldham, Sheffield, Halifax and Bradford, alongside the now vanished PSG. That's half the division swapped.

There was P&R as well. Keighley finished just outside the promotion spot in each of the two seasons following the introduction of Super League. But it's a harder pill to swallow to own that chances to go up were missed than that they suffered a great betrayal and could never recover.

I often make this point. People don't always explicitly say exactly what you say above, but it is rather ignored that we have had 24 clubs over the years.

I think being unhappy about individual events is fair, but that can't be the whole narrative here. And when people talk about favourites etc. we have to include Oldham and Workington as they were original members as you say.

Sure, be peed off that you felt your club was shafted in 1994, but the game didn't pull up the drawstrings and exclude these clubs.

[Spidey]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On para 3 - IIRC the protests were dampened somewhat as an announcement came that day that the merger was off and there was an assumption that we would both be in SL. I think as the details emerged and the approach of the top 10 being in it became clear that Widnes were out, but the protest had been quashed. Had that detail emerged in advance, I think things could have been quite nasty.

Most definitely.  I remember Jim Mills (chairman at the time) walking amongst the crowd after the "soft" protest on the field talking to people with a smile on his face, saying Lindsay had re-assured him mergers were off and teams had a route to SL through the normal way.   Nobody at that time imagined or knew it was a top 10 only thing - hence the bitterness afterwards.  I'm more or less over it now - it was a massive move for the game and was not implemented as well as it could have been.  If known about the top 10 qualifying at the start of the season I reckon we could have seen different teams at the start of Super League and given the stakes seen some bumper crowds as teams tried to get into the promised land, finding out after the fact was really poor

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

it was a massive move for the game and was not implemented as well as it could have been.

Fear we're doing this again

[Gooleboy]

21 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Most definitely.  I remember Jim Mills (chairman at the time) walking amongst the crowd after the "soft" protest on the field talking to people with a smile on his face, saying Lindsay had re-assured him mergers were off and teams had a route to SL through the normal way.   Nobody at that time imagined or knew it was a top 10 only thing - hence the bitterness afterwards.  I'm more or less over it now - it was a massive move for the game and was not implemented as well as it could have been.  If known about the top 10 qualifying at the start of the season I reckon we could have seen different teams at the start of Super League and given the stakes seen some bumper crowds as teams tried to get into the promised land, finding out after the fact was really poor

Spot on. Nobody knew who was in until the season had finished. In our case at Featherstone we had qualified for the Challenge Cup semi final and the Coach David Ward rested players in league games around that time. We missed the top ten by a point if I remember correctly, and he said if he had known another win would be so important he wouldn't have made the same selections in those games. It was things like this that left such a bad taste.

[Spidey]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

Fear we're doing this again

This time clubs have been given enough time and information to know what they need to do, not like 1995 - look at what you could have won

[Worzel]

On 02/05/2024 at 12:03, Click said:

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

They'll add PSG and say two, but yes, that's about it. Imagine if in 1995 they'd have made decisions influenced by what happened in the 1960s? 

We need to forget what happened last time, and do the right things now for the completely different modern day environment. 

[phiggins]

40 minutes ago, Spidey said:

This time clubs have been given enough time and information to know what they need to do, not like 1995 - look at what you could have won

I'd question whether clubs know what they need to do currently. Yes, in theory a score of 15 gets you in (although the RFL have also committed to not having more than 12 teams in, so a slim chance that isn't true), but reality is some teams will not be able to reach that score this year given how the scores are banded. Cas, Leigh, Wakey and Toulouse do not know what score they need to get in this system to be in Super League in 2025. And they won't know until late October, if everything goes well.

[JohnM]

11 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I'd question whether clubs know what they need to do currently. Yes, in theory a score of 15 gets you in (although the RFL have also committed to not having more than 12 teams in, so a slim chance that isn't true), but reality is some teams will not be able to reach that score this year given how the scores are banded. Cas, Leigh, Wakey and Toulouse do not know what score they need to get in this system to be in Super League in 2025. And they won't know until late October, if everything goes well.

It's not quantum thermodynamics. 

They should have looked at what Saints, Wigan, Catalans etc have been doing for quite a few years and copied them. 

[phiggins]

35 minutes ago, JohnM said:

It's not quantum thermodynamics. 

They should have looked at what Saints, Wigan, Catalans etc have been doing for quite a few years and copied them. 

So, in order to know what league they will be in next season, you propose that clubs develop a time machine?

 

[Archie Gordon]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

It's not quantum thermodynamics. 

They should have looked at what Saints, Wigan, Catalans etc have been doing for quite a few years and copied them. 

And Hull. They should have copied Hull.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

I'd question whether clubs know what they need to do currently. Yes, in theory a score of 15 gets you in (although the RFL have also committed to not having more than 12 teams in, so a slim chance that isn't true), but reality is some teams will not be able to reach that score this year given how the scores are banded. Cas, Leigh, Wakey and Toulouse do not know what score they need to get in this system to be in Super League in 2025. And they won't know until late October, if everything goes well.

I have some sympathy with your view. Not that I agree with you fully, but I share the view that this system hasn't been implemented very well, I think it's broadly fine, but as long as you have weird metrics, you do rather undermine your system and people will buy in less. 

I like the fact it has forced some clubs to take action, but it hasn't addressed the most basic criticism of P&R, which was the volatility of P&R. 

[17 stone giant]

21 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

 

I was wondering how they could make the announcement on July 17th when the season is still running, but having read the article I see it's actually 23rd October and it must just be a stock image for the date. I'm guessing no team actually plays at the Four Flags stadium either.

[phiggins]

35 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I have some sympathy with your view. Not that I agree with you fully, but I share the view that this system hasn't been implemented very well, I think it's broadly fine, but as long as you have weird metrics, you do rather undermine your system and people will buy in less. 

I like the fact it has forced some clubs to take action, but it hasn't addressed the most basic criticism of P&R, which was the volatility of P&R. 

Of course, clubs taking action is a good thing. In fact, we saw Leigh take action and do a lot more around matchday experience. Though that was off the back of the original comments from IMG when the partnership was announced, rather than directly linked to the grading criteria.

But as well intentioned as this system is, I would say that the poor implementation and the fact it doesn't address the most basic criticism means that to call it broadly fine is very generous. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Of course, clubs taking action is a good thing. In fact, we saw Leigh take action and do a lot more around matchday experience. Though that was off the back of the original comments from IMG when the partnership was announced, rather than directly linked to the grading criteria.

But as well intentioned as this system is, I would say that the poor implementation and the fact it doesn't address the most basic criticism means that to call it broadly fine is very generous. 

You could be right in that I am being overly generous, because some of the things that are either not explained well, or don't make sense are challenging. 

Having an A grade means little really. It doesn't guarantee you a slot at all, as one of the amendments is to score everyone annually. It offers zero protection, which was one of the points of an A grade.  And as you point out, we have 12 clubs, whilst they have said when they get 12 grade A clubs they will look to expand, that won't happen overnight - if we get 15 grade A's this year we won't expand to 15 clubs for 2025. In reality, the gradings of A, B and C mean nowt. It's basically a ranking system where you need to be in the top 12 for Super League. 

I also don't accept the argument from people that 'if we ever get to tge stage of 15 grade A club's then we are doing great' - whilst that may be true, I think we have set the bar relatively low, and you do actually have to have the mechanics of what you'd do with those clubs. It is negligent to be relaxed about it and say we'll think about it when it happens. 

When I say broadly fine, I'm more referring to the areas of focus - facilities, engagement, performance, finances - they are OK. 

[Gooleboy]

5 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

I was wondering how they could make the announcement on July 17th when the season is still running, but having read the article I see it's actually 23rd October and it must just be a stock image for the date. I'm guessing no team actually plays at the Four Flags stadium either.

Will they book a stadium to make the announcements so fans can attend?

[LeeF]

I hope John Drake has got the extra bandwidth arranged that this forum will need on the day of the announcement of the SL 2025 clubs

[17 stone giant]

45 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Will they book a stadium to make the announcements so fans can attend?

I reckon they could get 90000 at Wembley for this one.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

I hope John Drake has got the extra bandwidth arranged that this forum will need on the day of the announcement of the SL 2025 clubs

In the era of fast fibre I’m not sure 20 middle aged blokes endlessly repeating themselves is going to break the internet to be honest