IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[JohnM]

8 hours ago, Worzel said:

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

Oi! You! Who you calling middle-aged? I

.

.

if you mean me, then thanks for the compliment.

[Dave T]

9 hours ago, Worzel said:

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

Why you underestimating us? 

[JohnM]

On 03/05/2024 at 14:39, phiggins said:

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

 

Read my book The Twelve Habits of Successful Rugby Teams.

[Griff]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

Read my book The Twelve Habits of Successful Rugby Teams.

Is this a new plan to grow the game by reducing the number of players in a team to twelve and playing dressed as monks?

[JohnM]

A disciple writes, "Yes!"

[Harry Stottle]

On 03/05/2024 at 16:38, Dave T said:

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. 

Wasn't it first stated that if there are more than 12 grade A's then SL would expand accordingly? Where has this come from that no matter how many A's there are SL will be limited to 12 teams, could it be as I suggested at the beginning and the indicative grades that the scoring  system was too generous?

Sorry for the late reply, my question is what do you think is the main reason that clubs will be spending money on their facilities, could it be to gain that 'A' Grade and securing a place in SL? and in doing so gaining the privileges on the scoring system and funding that goes along with the 'A' grading, which without  as even pro IMG'ers acknowledge that after the initial 'bedding' in period of this system it will be nigh on impossible to get into SL.

So I would suggest that if and when there happens to be more than *12 'A's' awarded and SL is cut off at a limit of 12 clubs, those other 'A' grade clubs should still be awarded the same funding (top line divisible by the number of 'A' Grades) and the spread sheet points weighted to those 'A's outside of SL.

*An 'A' is a 'A' there was no mention of higher or lower 'A's.

[Harry Stottle]

On 04/05/2024 at 09:06, Dave T said:

Why you underestimating us? 

If he is who I think he is before his reincarnation and his avatar was a picture of himself, then he surely belongs in that bracket he criticizes.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Wasn't it first stated that if there are more than 12 grade A's then SL would expand accordingly? Where has this come from that no matter how many A's there are SL will be limited to 12 teams, could it be as I suggested at the beginning and the indicative grades that the scoring  system was too generous?

 

I don't think it was stated about the expansion rather just said that it could expand. If the TV money does not go up there is not a chance in hell that the SL clubs would vote for a reduction in their funding by expanding SL.

[Harry Stottle]

31 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I don't think it was stated about the expansion rather just said that it could expand. If the TV money does not go up there is not a chance in hell that the SL clubs would vote for a reduction in their funding by expanding SL.

I disagree Oxy, it was most definitely stated that SL would expand if more than 12 clubs attained 'A' grades.

[Damien]

On 05/05/2024 at 13:49, Harry Stottle said:

I disagree Oxy, it was most definitely stated that SL would expand if more than 12 clubs attained 'A' grades.

It was also said that just getting 12 A grades would also be the trigger to expand.

[Dave T]

On 05/05/2024 at 13:49, Harry Stottle said:

I disagree Oxy, it was most definitely stated that SL would expand if more than 12 clubs attained 'A' grades.

 

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

It was also said that just getting 12 A grades would also be the trigger to expand.

The point that is absolutely explicit is that A grade clubs are guaranteed an SL place. So if we manage to get 13+ A grades at the end of this year, I have no idea what they will be doing. 

Tbh it's another example of poor implementation, or poor communication at best. 

[The Blues Ox]

Ive trawled the internet and can't find anywhere that definitively says that the league would increase once there are more than 12 Grade A ranked clubs. It just seems to say that a Grade A will be given one of the 12 spots in the league and that it is always the highest ranked teams. It's probably not been thought through as its going to be near impossible for a Championship club to attain a Grade A but also makes you wonder in the future if we see something like an A* ranking added if it looks like we are getting close to the 12 team max.

There is no way while we are in the current TV deal that the current SL clubs let the league expand past 12 teams.

[Toby Chopra]

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

 

The point that is absolutely explicit is that A grade clubs are guaranteed an SL place. So if we manage to get 13+ A grades at the end of this year, I have no idea what they will be doing. 

Tbh it's another example of poor implementation, or poor communication at best. 

We've absolutely no chance of getting close to 13 Grade As this year.

It's actually really hard - to reach 15 points you need 7k plus a week, AND have them paying full price plus corporate AND average a top 10 performance AND tick all the stadium boxes...plus more.

I don't see any more than last year, let alone 13.

In a few years it might be an issue, but that will only mean the new model is working and producing strong clubs.

[Harry Stottle]

20 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Ive trawled the internet and can't find anywhere that definitively says that the league would increase once there are more than 12 Grade A ranked clubs. It just seems to say that a Grade A will be given one of the 12 spots in the league and that it is always the highest ranked teams. It's probably not been thought through as its going to be near impossible for a Championship club to attain a Grade A but also makes you wonder in the future if we see something like an A* ranking added if it looks like we are getting close to the 12 team max.

There is no way while we are in the current TV deal that the current SL clubs let the league expand past 12 teams.

To be totally honest Oxy, very rarely do I 'trawl' the internet but there are those on here that do, and that is where I obtained my information from, @Damien and @Dave T must obviously have seen or been made aware considering their response on these recent posts.

When this IMG stuff was first disclosed and there was a thread of many pages even before the indicative gradings were published, the theme on here was any club that obtained an 'A' grade would be included in SL no matter how many 'A's were awarded.

Those who are pro IMG said if we get more than 12 'A's then the system will be working and the sport will be in a much better place than it presently is.

Then the indicative grades were published suggesting there would be 7 'A's if things stayed as they were when the consensus of opinion was there would be a maximum of 5.

Totally agree, after the initial year of 'proper' grades, it will be nigh on impossible for a Championship club to breach the divide, such is the criteria in favour of the SL clubs.

 And as I referred to in my previous post, any club that does achieve 15 points and an 'A' grade will have done what this system requires and irrespective of which division they play in should have the same financial distribution and criteria weighting to reflect what all the other 'A's benefit from.

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

In a few years it might be an issue

Not a chance Toby.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

We've absolutely no chance of getting close to 13 Grade As this year.

It's actually really hard - to reach 15 points you need 7k plus a week, AND have them paying full price plus corporate AND average a top 10 performance AND tick all the stadium boxes...plus more.

I don't see any more than last year, let alone 13.

In a few years it might be an issue, but that will only mean the new model is working and producing strong clubs.

This is fair - I don't think the thresholds are too onerous, but we aren't at 14 yet, or anywhere near - clubs may be hovering around that 12-13.5 mark, but as you say, it is difficult to make that last step. 

My main frustration here is that this was always going to be controversial, and tbh, very boring - I think they had to land the strategy and associated comms well - and they just haven't. The Grade A point is just confusing. It means nothing. Grade A gets you nowt. Yet at the start of this Grade A guaranteed you permanent SL status and gave you that security, but there is no security if your score is changed annually. 

The loose comms around how may teams they will have in SL is poor too. It is just vague statements, basically kicking the can down the road. I don;t think they appreciated how fixated people would get on these 0.25 scores etc.

[Dave T]

57 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

To be totally honest Oxy, very rarely do I 'trawl' the internet but there are those on here that do, and that is where I obtained my information from, @Damien and @Dave T must obviously have seen or been made aware considering their response on these recent posts.

When this IMG stuff was first disclosed and there was a thread of many pages even before the indicative gradings were published, the theme on here was any club that obtained an 'A' grade would be included in SL no matter how many 'A's were awarded.

 

Slide 8 and 9 of this deck. 

Reimagining Rugby League Presentation – MEDIA_27Sep2022.pdf (rugby-league.com)

Slide 8 highlights that "Category A - Top Tier Participant on a Permanent Basis" - whatever that means.

Slide 9 highlights that 2024-2026 will have 12 teams, and then we move into 202? we would expand (on the basis of us having more than 12 Grade A teams.

It  doesn't address what happens if we have more than 12 A teams in advance of that. 

I am conscious that things may have moved on since this was published (September 2022) - but it is still there on the RFL website under the strategy docs.

Edited May 7 by Dave T

[phiggins]

It seems unlikely that there will be more than 12 teams that achieve a grade A this year, but with noises coming out of Leigh, Wakefield and Cas, it would not surprise me to see a team miss out on Super League with a score of 14.something, and 13 or more grade As becoming a real possibility for 2026 season.

Ultimately, you can commit to a certain score guaranteeing a place in Super League, or you can commit to a certain number of teams. You can't do both with absolute certainty, and I fear the RFL have dug a bit of a hole for themselves here.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Slide 8 and 9 of this deck. 

Reimagining Rugby League Presentation – MEDIA_27Sep2022.pdf (rugby-league.com)

Slide 8 highlights that "Category A - Top Tier Participant on a Permanent Basis" - whatever that means.

Slide 9 highlights that 2024-2026 will have 12 teams, and then we move into 202? we would expand (on the basis of us having more than 12 Grade A teams.

It  doesn't address what happens if we have more than 12 A teams in advance of that. 

I am conscious that things may have moved on since this was published (September 2022) - but it is still there on the RFL website under the strategy docs.

Like a lot of things in this excersize Dave, I wonder who has scrutinised and vetted the process as being fit for purpose, could it be someone who has been given a new title and seat to sit on at the RFL, or kept in house at IMG who looked at their Euro Basketball blueprint and said that "That'll do"

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Ultimately, you can commit to a certain score guaranteeing a place in Super League, or you can commit to a certain number of teams. You can't do both with absolute certainty, and I fear the RFL have dug a bit of a hole for themselves here.

The RFL have openly admitted that they have not a clue what to do and how to run the number of clubs in their League System's hence employing IMG to do it for them, commit to a 'nice' yearly fee adding up to >£5M and then commit to an undisclosed % of any ongoing profits after that.

[Toby Chopra]

30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is fair - I don't think the thresholds are too onerous, but we aren't at 14 yet, or anywhere near - clubs may be hovering around that 12-13.5 mark, but as you say, it is difficult to make that last step. 

My main frustration here is that this was always going to be controversial, and tbh, very boring - I think they had to land the strategy and associated comms well - and they just haven't. The Grade A point is just confusing. It means nothing. Grade A gets you nowt. Yet at the start of this Grade A guaranteed you permanent SL status and gave you that security, but there is no security if your score is changed annually. 

The loose comms around how may teams they will have in SL is poor too. It is just vague statements, basically kicking the can down the road. I don;t think they appreciated how fixated people would get on these 0.25 scores etc.

 

30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is fair - I don't think the thresholds are too onerous, but we aren't at 14 yet, or anywhere near - clubs may be hovering around that 12-13.5 mark, but as you say, it is difficult to make that last step. 

My main frustration here is that this was always going to be controversial, and tbh, very boring - I think they had to land the strategy and associated comms well - and they just haven't. The Grade A point is just confusing. It means nothing. Grade A gets you nowt. Yet at the start of this Grade A guaranteed you permanent SL status and gave you that security, but there is no security if your score is changed annually. 

The loose comms around how may teams they will have in SL is poor too. It is just vague statements, basically kicking the can down the road. I don;t think they appreciated how fixated people would get on these 0.25 scores etc.

Agree about the comms Dave. My view as I've expressed before is that if IMG was doing this on its own, if it had just "bought" the sport, then the end goal would have been much clearer. But they're constrained by the RFL input which has to have a political aspect and therefore many of the comms have been fudged, or left hazy, particularly around whether this is still a P&R system or not. Leaving that in a grey area is at the route of a lot of the complaints in my view.

Could it still have been done better notwithstanding? For sure.

Regarding the grade A point - and the fact that I'm not 100% sure on this speaks to your Comms point - but doesn't it effectively give you an extra year's protection?

So in October this year, any club given a Grade A knows that they are protected from relegation the coming season. So they know they'll be in SL in 2025 AND 2026.

Whereas a Grade B has to see every October whether they're in the top 12 for the following season.

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not a chance Toby.

You're probably right Harry, in that although it's quite possible we could get close to 12 Grade As if the 12 in SL next year all stabilise and grow, getting a 13th from outside SL will be almost impossible.

But that's when the nature of the system will change in my view to something like the NRL. You'll have 12 (or even 10) SL member clubs, with new clubs added via rock solid expansion cases like the NZ Warriors, Melbourne and the Dolphins and the like. 

Neither of those clubs' predecessor clubs were matching NRL clubs for just about anything. But with proper long term funding and investment in place, the view was that they'd relatively quickly catch up once given an NRL place. And so indeed they did.

So expansion absolutely can and does happen in a closed shop system, and I'd argue it's much more likely to succeed when it does.

[Lowdesert]

47 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is fair - I don't think the thresholds are too onerous, but we aren't at 14 yet, or anywhere near - clubs may be hovering around that 12-13.5 mark, but as you say, it is difficult to make that last step. 

My main frustration here is that this was always going to be controversial, and tbh, very boring - I think they had to land the strategy and associated comms well - and they just haven't. The Grade A point is just confusing. It means nothing. Grade A gets you nowt. Yet at the start of this Grade A guaranteed you permanent SL status and gave you that security, but there is no security if your score is changed annually. 

The loose comms around how may teams they will have in SL is poor too. It is just vague statements, basically kicking the can down the road. I don;t think they appreciated how fixated people would get on these 0.25 scores etc.

Other than the Slides, was there ever more detail in how this would run, be checked, by whom?

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

 

Agree about the comms Dave. My view as I've expressed before is that if IMG was doing this on its own, if it had just "bought" the sport, then the end goal would have been much clearer. But they're constrained by the RFL input which has to have a political aspect and therefore many of the comms have been fudged, or left hazy, particularly around whether this is still a P&R system or not. Leaving that in a grey area is at the route of a lot of the complaints in my view.

Could it still have been done better notwithstanding? For sure.

Regarding the grade A point - and the fact that I'm not 100% sure on this speaks to your Comms point - but doesn't it effectively give you an extra year's protection?

So in October this year, any club given a Grade A knows that they are protected from relegation the coming season. So they know they'll be in SL in 2025 AND 2026.

Whereas a Grade B has to see every October whether they're in the top 12 for the following season.

No, your grading lasts one year. If the next October you've dropped to rank 13, you're out. 

[Toby Chopra]

Just now, Dave T said:

No, your grading lasts one year. If the next October you've dropped to rank 13, you're out. 

Then you're right - Grade A is meaningless