IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

I checked out of UK Rugby League soon as the IMG Grading system started. Fev have no chance with licensing and appear to have stopped trying so why should I bother.

I checked back in recently to so see how it's going and was surprised to see Wigan won everything and nobody else is particularly happy (same as it was in the early 90s when I started watching the game.)

IMG grading is a clear as mud with Salford (a side from a big city playing in a modern stadium who made the top 6) and Hull (rubbish this year but clearly one of the biggest clubs in the game) getting a worse grade than Grade A Castleford who play in a run down shed in a run down town.

Might watch the England games.....other than that I'll check in again next year.

Important enough to put the same exact post in two different threads?

The IMG grading is clear. You may not agree with it but it is clear.

I am keen to see how they should address the problem of somewhere being a 'run down town' though. Perhaps next year's grade should deduct points for how many five star restaurants a place has on Trip Advisor?

[Chrispmartha]

19 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Seeing definite updated progress will stop the demand for instant results.

How are they going to update you on something that hasn’t started yet?

Edited October 25, 2024 by Chrispmartha

[Chrispmartha]

15 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Is that right? I have not particularly noticed that. The criticism I have seen has been very mild indeed. 
I would be interested to know when the growing the game stuff will begin, and to see how they - RFL Commercial and IMG - get on. 
This bit is the easy bit. 

The articles on a news site very close to this forum are always negative IMO

[Chrispmartha]

14 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

I checked out of UK Rugby League soon as the IMG Grading system started. Fev have no chance with licensing and appear to have stopped trying so why should I bother.

I checked back in recently to so see how it's going and was surprised to see Wigan won everything and nobody else is particularly happy (same as it was in the early 90s when I started watching the game.)

IMG grading is a clear as mud with Salford (a side from a big city playing in a modern stadium who made the top 6) and Hull (rubbish this year but clearly one of the biggest clubs in the game) getting a worse grade than Grade A Castleford who play in a run down shed in a run down town.

Might watch the England games.....other than that I'll check in again next year.

Did you miss the glory years under P&R where Featherston didn’t make SL and St Helens won everything?

[sentoffagain2]

  Surprises for me Wakefield and Cas grade A and Hull FC grade B.Then London 12.65 too high against Widnes 8.60 looks low to me.Keighley 9.02 seems to be higher than i expected and Oldham with all their investment and improvement on the field will be disappointed with only 7.00.Barrow have embraced the project and their score  11.22 reflects this.

[Archie Gordon]

I think it's fair to ask where we are with phase 1, which I thought involved 7 recommendations. Of these, they've concentrated on the grading system and getting Catalan to pay for travel. Whether or not folk like what they've done, both have been achieved.

Has much been achieved on re-formatting the game's calendar, targeting women/London/France for growth, centralising operations, a new branding strategy? Rather less, it's fair to say. And quite possibly because SL/RFL has resisted it.

That's on the 'Reimagining' side of things.

On top of that, they seem to have been paid for what they've achieved in delivering SL+ and improving clubs' digital outputs. Both successes IMO.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

I think it's fair to ask where we are with phase 1, which I thought involved 7 recommendations. Of these, they've concentrated on the grading system and getting Catalan to pay for travel. Whether or not folk like what they've done, both have been achieved.

Has much been achieved on re-formatting the game's calendar, targeting women/London/France for growth, centralising operations, a new branding strategy? Rather less, it's fair to say. And quite possibly because SL/RFL has resisted it.

That's on the 'Reimagining' side of things.

On top of that, they seem to have been paid for what they've achieved in delivering SL+ and improving clubs' digital outputs. Both successes IMO.

I don't know whether the specific branding around Super League is them but that seems to have been a lot sharper and stronger this year.

The women's game is, to be blunt, now about 30 years behind every other sport's women's development and seemingly happy to stay that way. Given we were ahead of most about 15 years ago, it is a remarkable turnaround.

London and France. It's a failure. Just not sure who exactly you blame or what actually anyone would ever agree to do collectively. The game seems happy to think that adding a new small club as a retirement home for Hull players into League 1 is all that expansion or growth has to mean now.

Calendar. Every idea they had seems to have been resisted and there is clearly no desire to invest beyond the basics in an international programme so that's gone backwards. That said, Magic seemed to do significantly better than expected and was well, and effectively, promoted.

[PREPOSTEROUS]

8 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  Surprises for me Wakefield and Cas grade A and Hull FC grade B.Then London 12.65 too high against Widnes 8.60 looks low to me.Keighley 9.02 seems to be higher than i expected and Oldham with all their investment and improvement on the field will be disappointed with only 7.00.Barrow have embraced the project and their score  11.22 reflects this.

But it's not a surprise with anyone who has followed the process, forget your own prejudice on this, look at it from the specified criteria. Clubs knew what they needed to do and either choose to do it or not for whatever reason. 

 

[Adelaide Tiger]

10 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

I checked out of UK Rugby League soon as the IMG Grading system started. Fev have no chance with licensing and appear to have stopped trying so why should I bother.

I checked back in recently to so see how it's going and was surprised to see Wigan won everything and nobody else is particularly happy (same as it was in the early 90s when I started watching the game.)

IMG grading is a clear as mud with Salford (a side from a big city playing in a modern stadium who made the top 6) and Hull (rubbish this year but clearly one of the biggest clubs in the game) getting a worse grade than Grade A Castleford who play in a run down shed in a run down town.

Might watch the England games.....other than that I'll check in again next year.

Errr ….. the IMG criteria was across five pillars.  So your comment about Cas ‘Who play in a run down shed’ might be correct but Cas scored highly across other pillars.

As for your comment about Cas as a ‘Run down town’ …. what has that to do with the IMG Criteria?  If it was part of the IMG Criteria, Fev might get a negative score

[redjonn]

5 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  Surprises for me Wakefield and Cas grade A and Hull FC grade B.Then London 12.65 too high against Widnes 8.60 looks low to me.Keighley 9.02 seems to be higher than i expected and Oldham with all their investment and improvement on the field will be disappointed with only 7.00.Barrow have embraced the project and their score  11.22 reflects this.

Haven't taken as much notice as yourself but off the top of me head Widnes with a 8.60 surprises me that it's so low.   Do you have any idea as to where they scored poorly...

I always enjoyed the away games at Widnes when they were in SL. The stadium and facilities including seating and hospitality always seemed one of the better more up-to-date stadiums than some others. Least said about the ipitch.

[wilsontown]

15 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

Barrow have embraced the project and their score  11.22 reflects this.

Exactly. Embrace the process and improve your score. Or don't and moan about fractions of a point here and there and how it's all so unfair.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  Surprises for me Wakefield and Cas grade A and Hull FC grade B.Then London 12.65 too high against Widnes 8.60 looks low to me.Keighley 9.02 seems to be higher than i expected and Oldham with all their investment and improvement on the field will be disappointed with only 7.00.Barrow have embraced the project and their score  11.22 reflects this.

Cas and Wakey have both worked exceptionally hard for those scores I think, harder than they have worked off field in my lifetime I would imagine. Perhaps to the extent that it will be hard to maintain that level.

London seems to have gotten a boost from getting a rocket up the backside with the trial run. They should have been higher up but I never felt the DH regime took it seriously. 

Widnes are another of those Championship clubs (like say Halifax) who seem to be lacking serious investment and drive. The club is stagnant and nowhere near anywhere it wants to be right now. It's low, but reflective of a club totally unprepared to step up to the FT table.

Keighley, for all their moaning and black and white photocopying, seem to have taken the challenge on and are boosting where they can. Good on them.

Oldham have a legacy to deal with. As good as the new investment is, it doesn't appear to be Matt Ellis levels at Wakey (yet) and needs to be sustained to prove it's got a chance in the upper echelons. That score will change as the mood around the club changes.

Barrow as you say are another club who despite reservations have embraced it - indeed they were moving to doing a lot of the right things anyway.

[Exiled Wiganer]

The comment about Widnes caught my eye. I began watching TGG while going to school with a lot of Widnes fans, who would laugh at/commiserate with me every Monday morning. They were not just successful but played spectacular rugby over a long period, which spanned Wigan’s fallow patch and later emergence.
 

I appreciate that it is way way too late to comment on this, but if I was looking at strategy I would consider what the ceiling/potential was for different clubs.
 

We have had 5 clubs who were world champions, and 2 of these are grade B. Which is a reflection of their current state, but, at their best and biggest Widnes and Bradford were bigger and better by most measures than Wakefield or Cas have been in the last 20 years. I would suggest that a deeper dive into, say, what it would take to get Bradford back to 20k crowds would be time well spent. Tbh I can’t see how we can afford not to try to get a sleeping behemoth like Bradford back into the fold.

[Gooleboy]

27 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Errr ….. the IMG criteria was across five pillars.  So your comment about Cas ‘Who play in a run down shed’ might be correct but Cas scored highly across other pillars.

As for your comment about Cas as a ‘Run down town’ …. what has that to do with the IMG Criteria?  If it was part of the IMG Criteria, Fev might get a negative score

Come on, even you probably have to admit, Cas have taken the RFL for a tata for 30 years with all that hot air regarding a new stadium or ground improvements.

[RBKnight]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Important enough to put the same exact post in two different threads?

The IMG grading is clear. You may not agree with it but it is clear.

I am keen to see how they should address the problem of somewhere being a 'run down town' though. Perhaps next year's grade should deduct points for how many five star restaurants a place has on Trip Advisor?

That's York straight to Super league then 

[Adelaide Tiger]

7 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Come on, even you probably have to admit, Cas have taken the RFL for a tata for 30 years with all that hot air regarding a new stadium or ground improvements.

I stated in my reply to Tutsisrambo that he ‘might be correct’ about Cas being a run down ground - implying that I agree.  I have jokingly said on this site before that the Cas ground wouldn’t have been fit for purpose in the 19th century never mind the 21st.

[Tommygilf]

22 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

The comment about Widnes caught my eye. I began watching TGG while going to school with a lot of Widnes fans, who would laugh at/commiserate with me every Monday morning. They were not just successful but played spectacular rugby over a long period, which spanned Wigan’s fallow patch and later emergence.
 

I appreciate that it is way way too late to comment on this, but if I was looking at strategy I would consider what the ceiling/potential was for different clubs.
 

We have had 5 clubs who were world champions, and 2 of these are grade B. Which is a reflection of their current state, but, at their best and biggest Widnes and Bradford were bigger and better by most measures than Wakefield or Cas have been in the last 20 years. I would suggest that a deeper dive into, say, what it would take to get Bradford back to 20k crowds would be time well spent. Tbh I can’t see how we can afford not to try to get a sleeping behemoth like Bradford back into the fold.

It's an absolutely valid point but part of the grading, indeed an explicit response to critiques of the past, is that very very little is based on "potential" and the vast vast majority is based on what is actually there. People in the ground, stadiums in existence etc. 

Bradford and Widnes have got potential, but without money behind them to realise that they are as good to the top flight as Toulouse or London or York or (insert RL project of your choice). It's all potential ultimately - an owner or investment group now can come in and realise that investment in things other than just spaffing money the game really doesn't have a lot of on players to get into SL for maybe a year?

[preid]

7 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

TO got the points for a 3k+ average. It's next year that they'll likely go below that as the SL season won't count any longer. 

Fandom is most definitely their weak point. 4.15/5 was crazy high.

Thanks for correcting. I forgot about that 3 year average and their super-league year figure. So they would need a 3,379+ average next year to maintain that mark which shouldn't be unrealistic especially with one less match to play.

Edited October 25, 2024 by preid

[DI Keith Fowler]

56 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

We have had 5 clubs who were world champions, and 2 of these are grade B. Which is a reflection of their current state, but, at their best and biggest Widnes and Bradford were bigger and better by most measures than Wakefield or Cas have been in the last 20 years. I would suggest that a deeper dive into, say, what it would take to get Bradford back to 20k crowds would be time well spent. Tbh I can’t see how we can afford not to try to get a sleeping behemoth like Bradford back into the fold.

I guess in terms of recent history both Widnes and Bradford had financial difficulties with differing causes but from which neither have truly recovered. Bradford are out in front as it stands in terms of rebuilding the club on strong foundations, Widnes have had a decent season on the field for the first time in years but off the field the organisation feels paper thin. 

Whether people agree with the concept of gradings, or might quibble over weighting and scoring, in principle most would agree it's an attempt to rank clubs based on where they are in their ability to step up to SL.

Bradford and Widnes especially aren't there yet. So it's either wait for them to organically rebuild, hope for a sudden windfall of investment or make a case that these clubs need a leg up, which isn't in keeping with the gradings system and invite strong arguments for London and Toulouse as well on the basis of potential.

There's no easy answer, I think the clubs need to make it happen themselves. Bradford I think will get there eventually, Widnes I'm not so sure. 

 

[dkw]

1 hour ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

But it's not a surprise with anyone who has followed the process, forget your own prejudice on this, look at it from the specified criteria. Clubs knew what they needed to do and either choose to do it or not for whatever reason. 

 

This is the thing that so many are just choosing to ignore with their "ooh, that seems too high/low" stuff. Every single club knew the criteria, they knew what they had the opportunity to work on, what to prioritise etc. None of the scores are wrong to this criteria, my own club workington looked at it and zeroed in on where to gain points this time round, then next year they will prioritise again. Its not bloody rocket science, its a very basic premise and if a club embraces it gives them an actual roadmap rather than just choosing what to do with no direction.

[Gooleboy]

6 minutes ago, dkw said:

This is the thing that so many are just choosing to ignore with their "ooh, that seems too high/low" stuff. Every single club knew the criteria, they knew what they had the opportunity to work on, what to prioritise etc. None of the scores are wrong to this criteria, my own club workington looked at it and zeroed in on where to gain points this time round, then next year they will prioritise again. Its not bloody rocket science, its a very basic premise and if a club embraces it gives them an actual roadmap rather than just choosing what to do with no direction.

Well done to your Club Workington for taking a positive attitude to gaining IMG points. But, like the majority of other Clubs outside SL, without a massive financial investment they have as much chance of reaching the holy grail as a one legged man has winning an ar*e kicking competition. I wish them all the best.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Gooleboy said:

Well done to your Club Workington for taking a positive attitude to gaining IMG points. But, like the majority of other Clubs outside SL, without a massive financial investment they have as much chance of reaching the holy grail as a one legged man has winning an ar*e kicking competition. I wish them all the best.

How is that any different from regular P&R?

[dkw]

3 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Well done to your Club Workington for taking a positive attitude to gaining IMG points. But, like the majority of other Clubs outside SL, without a massive financial investment they have as much chance of reaching the holy grail as a one legged man has winning an ar*e kicking competition. I wish them all the best.

They didnt do it to reach SL though, theres a lot more to it than clubs trying to reach somewhere unobtainable. For Town they now get more funding, and they have already had a few more sponsors talking about getting on board with the club due in part to this scoring and the good news around it.

[dboy]

We can all have views on where the criteria is good/bad/can be improved, but every club knew them at the outset.

The catchment score is nonsense, but changing another that would generate some action on individual clubs is the attendance score. The bands are simply too large, so it doesn't define clubs accurately enough.

If you took the 3 year average attendances and ordered them as you do for league positions, you could then give each club a truly accurate score for that pilar of the grading.

Clubs with smaller grounds don't "lose out", as the utilisation score rewards them instead.

 

[DI Keith Fowler]

9 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

How is that any different from regular P&R?

Well that in this system the sudden influx of cash has to spent on a variety of measures to bring the club up to SL standard that should lead to stability and long term growth in all areas rather than just spending it on putting out a good team for one season.