IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

I think there is a bit of a contradiction here. The grade A clubs are the ones at a level that we want them to be (albeit we of course want them to continue to grow as well). The grade B and C clubs are the ones that we need to build for the future, but are still vulnerable to being relegated. 

The one thing that this system does not provide, as a result of removing P&R, is certainty. Under P&R, there wouldn't be a single club that does not know what league it will be playing in next season by now.

It's just a transitional fudge. As soon as there are 12 clubs at Grade A, the drawbridge is up and any other club will only be joining by expansion from 12 to 13, 14 or whatever just as the NRL does. Growth in participants driven by whether the extra club is value-added, and by implication "value-added" means "will a broadcaster pay extra for an extra participant"

Otherwise, Grade A doesn't mean anything. If Toulouse want promotion protection, they'd need to achieve Grade A.  

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

3 hours ago, Worzel said:

The small town clubs in the north of England have had 129 years to show their potential.

129 years is just this moment in time, at any point in time past different clubs will have been showing their potential.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

43 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

And it’s being reported that Hull FC could be graded a B, so if that happens then them having contempt for the sporting concept will have had consequences won’t it

Only if 12 other clubs score more points, otherwise it means nothing.

Be very, very funny if it happened though......

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Straw man coming from Worzel that's sweet.

Nice to see you agree then that in P&R times if teams had been exempt from relegation they could have done a Catalan.

I have never ever been in favour of clubs competing in the same competition exempting some whilst others could suffer jeopardy, well we needn't bother about that now with on field performance at the lower end of the scoring grades.

Yes I rejected the model at the introduction and nothing has changed my mind, in fact the way Hull FC just seemingly had nothing but contempt for the sporting process last term will I believe become the bench mark for your 'build for the future' process, let's see how it transpires in future seasons shall we.

 

 

I have always held this view, and told you of it previously. Pretending I haven't is another straw man.

Please find this straw man of mine that you imply I've put forward previously, and share for comments. I'll wait....

PS: Hull FC haven't shown contempt for the sporting process... or are you suggesting they didn't try to win every time they played? Adam Pearson has very limited funds, he's been open about that in the past, so it's hardly up to you to insist that he spends money on things he doesn't want to. Do you ask that of any other club owner? If Castleford spent another £750k on wages they'd probably have a higher league finish too. I don't hear you complaining about that... but then I guess they haven't poached some of your players for next season eh so it's not quite as a emotive a topic for you!   

[Harry Stottle]

56 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

And it’s being reported that Hull FC could be graded a B, so if that happens then them having contempt for the sporting concept will have had consequences won’t it

Culmination of 3 seasons Chris, how did they manage to get an S in the first place.

 

 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm saying this system does not provide any greater certainty than already existed in P&R. 

It provides certainty for Grade A clubs. 

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, Worzel said:

It provides certainty for Grade A clubs. 

Who don't need it as much as some Grade B clubs who we want to grow, and use the long term thinking that you alluded to when talking about the approach to Catalans' admission.

Edit. Also, it doesn't really offer much at all to grade A clubs, given it is assessed every year, and we have a fixed number of teams in SL. If 13 clubs score 15+ this week, one will miss out.

Edited October 21, 2024 by phiggins

[Chrispmartha]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Culmination of 3 seasons Chris, how did they manage to get an S in the first place.

 

 

They haven’t had any grade yet

[Worzel]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Who don't need it as much as some Grade B clubs who we want to grow, and use the long term thinking that you alluded to when talking about the approach to Catalans' admission.

Edit. Also, it doesn't really offer much at all to grade A clubs, given it is assessed every year, and we have a fixed number of teams in SL. If 13 clubs score 15+ this week, one will miss out.

Grade A clubs know what they need to do to remain Grade A clubs, so it is within their control.

Grade B clubs know what they need to do to become Grade A clubs, and that is how they can get certainty in the future. Personally I would have picked 12 clubs and pulled the drawbridge up from day one. I think IMG wanted to pick 14 clubs and do just that, they certainly wanted a "closed with any addition by later invitation" model. The whole "grading to enable clubs to find their level" idea was a compromise to have a way of working towards a closed league, one that evolved from consultation with club owners who wanted a transitional period (and didn't want to split current media rights 14 ways instead of 12). In short, it was a concession to people like yourself and Harry... ironically!  

[Harry Stottle]

16 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I have always held this view, and told you of it previously. Pretending I haven't is another straw man.

Please find this straw man of mine that you imply I've put forward previously, and share for comments. I'll wait....

PS: Hull FC haven't shown contempt for the sporting process... or are you suggesting they didn't try to win every time they played? Adam Pearson has very limited funds, he's been open about that in the past, so it's hardly up to you to insist that he spends money on things he doesn't want to. Do you ask that of any other club owner? If Castleford spent another £750k on wages they'd probably have a higher league finish too. I don't hear you complaining about that... but then I guess they haven't poached some of your players for next season eh so it's not quite as a emotive a topic for you!   

And haven't I always from day one of IMG held my very same views.

Secondly, I can't quore any other club doing a 'Hull' only going back to Huddersfield when they to were exempt from relegation, a pattern I expect to be repeated in future.

Lastly I didn't think you could be so churlish with that last comment, look back and see where I have stated that Hull should be my clubs next best friend by taking those players, the main one being Asiata which initially I thought he betrayed Leigh, but after witnessing first hand on numerous occasions since he returned from his long time sat in the stand, that this version of him is nowhere near the player prior to injury, good luck to him if at his age he can secure a £230K a season 3 year contract.

 

Edited October 21, 2024 by Harry Stottle

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

36 minutes ago, Worzel said:

It provides certainty for Grade A clubs. 

Only if already part of the 'in crowd'

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

29 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Grade A clubs know what they need to do to remain Grade A clubs, so it is within their control.

Grade B clubs know what they need to do to become Grade A clubs, and that is how they can get certainty in the future. Personally I would have picked 12 clubs and pulled the drawbridge up from day one. I think IMG wanted to pick 14 clubs and do just that, they certainly wanted a "closed with any addition by later invitation" model. The whole "grading to enable clubs to find their level" idea was a compromise to have a way of working towards a closed league, one that evolved from consultation with club owners who wanted a transitional period (and didn't want to split current media rights 14 ways instead of 12). In short, it was a concession to people like yourself and Harry... ironically!  

Remind me how this worked out the last time it was implemented?

[Cheadle Leyther]

The announcement is 10.30 on Friday. Do we know if Sky are covering this, with Jenna Brooks, Jon Wilkin with possibly Degsy and Matt Ellis in the studio?

[Cheadle Leyther]

Just now, Cheadle Leyther said:

The announcement is 10.30 on Wednesday. Do we know if Sky are covering this, with Jenna Brooks, Jon Wilkin with possibly Degsy and Matt Ellis in the studio?

 

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

The announcement is 10.30 on Friday. Do we know if Sky are covering this, with Jenna Brooks, Jon Wilkin with possibly Degsy and Matt Ellis in the studio?

Thought it was the 23rd being this Wednesday.

[Worzel]

23 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Remind me how this worked out the last time it was implemented?

Licensing criteria were ignored, making it a futile exercise. I see no evidence this is the case now, in fact on the contrary I see lots of evidence of clubs doing lots of stuff differently, because they know that this time we're serious. 

[phiggins]

51 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Grade A clubs know what they need to do to remain Grade A clubs, so it is within their control.

Grade B clubs know what they need to do to become Grade A clubs, and that is how they can get certainty in the future. Personally I would have picked 12 clubs and pulled the drawbridge up from day one. I think IMG wanted to pick 14 clubs and do just that, they certainly wanted a "closed with any addition by later invitation" model. The whole "grading to enable clubs to find their level" idea was a compromise to have a way of working towards a closed league, one that evolved from consultation with club owners who wanted a transitional period (and didn't want to split current media rights 14 ways instead of 12). In short, it was a concession to people like yourself and Harry... ironically!  

Concession to people like me? I've said all along that this system is the worst of all worlds, so it's not much of a concession to me.

But I don't think you've addressed the point that I made at all. This system gives certainty to clubs that already have it, and creates more uncertainty to those that need it most if they are to make long term plans as you suggested that Catalans made with their 3 years grace.

You'd prefer a closed shop. I'd prefer P&R with a stricter enforcement of minimum standards (e.g. I wouldn't have let London in unless they were going to have a full time squad and be able to show how they would fund it). This system is, in your own words, a fudge. And that is not a good thing. You say it is a transitional arrangement, I've not seen anything to confirm that on any official comms, but even so, it's a poor transitional arrangement.

[Worzel]

54 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

And haven't I always from day one of IMG held my very same views.

Secondly, I can't quore any other club doing a 'Hull' only going back to Huddersfield when they to were exempt from relegation, a pattern I expect to be repeated in future.

Lastly I didn't think you could be so churlish with that last comment, look back and see where I have stated that Hull should be my clubs next best friend by taking those players, the main one being Asiata which initially I thought he betrayed Leigh, but after witnessing first hand on numerous occasions since he returned from his long time sat in the stand, that this version of him is nowhere near the player prior to injury, good luck to him if at his age he can secure a £230K a season 3 year contract.

 

You've still not defined what "doing a Hull" entails. From everything I can see it just involved being absolutely shocking all season, with a squad they'd put together not planning to be shocking. Much like any club who has had a shocking year. Like I said, do you think they didn't try to win matches?

You just think Pearson should have panicked and spent money he didn't have, brought in an expensive emergency coach and a load more players. But he doesn't have the money. He wasn't gaming the system, Hull have been under-capitalised for quite some time. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention. They finished 10th last year, and 9th the year before that. This season is hardly some massive shock. 

[Worzel]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

 

But I don't think you've addressed the point that I made at all. This system gives certainty to clubs that already have it, and creates more uncertainty to those that need it most if they are to make long term plans as you suggested that Catalans made with their 3 years grace.

 

No, it tells them what they need to do in order to get that certainty. It shows them what is needed, beyond "spend more money on wages on season that your Championship competitors haven't got, in order to get promoted"

It shows them where the line is, and how to get over it. Then once over the line, they have certainty. 

[Llangennech]

I'm in favour of licensing. 

[Roughyed Rats]

16 minutes ago, Worzel said:

No, it tells them what they need to do in order to get that certainty. It shows them what is needed, beyond "spend more money on wages on season that your Championship competitors haven't got, in order to get promoted"

It shows them where the line is, and how to get over it. Then once over the line, they have certainty. 

What difference does that make if P&R exists below SL? Clubs will still spend money they haven't got to maintain their status or get promoted. Either employ grading through all divisions, go back to P&R or go to licensing. A halfway house is a nonsense. 

Edited October 21, 2024 by Roughyed Rats

[phiggins]

10 minutes ago, Worzel said:

No, it tells them what they need to do in order to get that certainty. It shows them what is needed, beyond "spend more money on wages on season that your Championship competitors haven't got, in order to get promoted"

It shows them where the line is, and how to get over it. Then once over the line, they have certainty. 

Your issue with P&R appears to be more the promotion aspect than relegation. And I don't think there's anything you say above that cannot be addressed with proper enforcement of minumum standards, or a minimum eligibility criteria.

But if you are going to keep suggesting that this system creates certainty, we may as well leave it there. We know there will only be 12 clubs. We have no idea what grading score will get you in the top 12, and clubs will only be finding out this week what other clubs have scored, having only found out today or very recently, what their own official score is. 

[Click]

3 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

What difference does that make if P&R exists below SL? Clubs will still spend money they haven't got to maintain their status or get promoted. Either employ grading through all divisions, go back to P&R or go to licensing. A halfway house is a nonsense. 

You want grading to be implemented in the Championship & L1? 

That doesn't make much sense to be honest.

[Roughyed Rats]

1 minute ago, Click said:

You want grading to be implemented in the Championship & L1? 

That doesn't make much sense to be honest.

I don't want this grading at all. However, if we are adopting it, why not consistently across all divisions? If people truly believe that this stops the 'boom and bust' approach from clubs, why are we only applying to the top flight? 

[Click]

Just now, Roughyed Rats said:

I don't want this grading at all. However, if we are adopting it, why not consistently across all divisions? If people truly believe that this stops the 'boom and bust' approach from clubs, why are we only applying to the top flight? 

Because the game below the top flight is incredibly small and the differences between the top/middle championship and the lower/bottom of L1 probably isn't that much.