IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[JohnM]

42 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I assume IMG have been paid.

I assume IMG’s job included an assessment of the clubs’ suitability to be in SL. 

I assume they have been paid in accordance with their contractual terms, because I have seen no sign that they are downing tools or walking away. 

I assume IMG either award or recommend grades, with letters such as A, B and C, with A being better than B and so on. 

I assume Salford were awarded their grade based to some extent on financial representations and analysis. 

If any of this is wrong, then that would affect the extent to which the points I made in my longer post above continue to stand.

(Personally, I would not employ IMG to carry out a financial audit, by the way. But others may disagree.)

It might help you if you were to go right back to the very beginning and re-read the RFL/IMG documentation. That would set your mind at rest and clear up any false assumptions that are being resurrected.  I don't think you need lose any sleep over IMGs financial ability. Its all a metter of public record.  This might help: IMG (company) - Wikipedia

[JohnM]

42 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I assume IMG have been paid.

I assume IMG’s job included an assessment of the clubs’ suitability to be in SL. 

I assume they have been paid in accordance with their contractual terms, because I have seen no sign that they are downing tools or walking away. 

I assume IMG either award or recommend grades, with letters such as A, B and C, with A being better than B and so on. 

I assume Salford were awarded their grade based to some extent on financial representations and analysis. 

If any of this is wrong, then that would affect the extent to which the points I made in my longer post above continue to stand.

(Personally, I would not employ IMG to carry out a financial audit, by the way. But others may disagree.)

It might help you if you were to go right back to the very beginning and re-read the RFL/IMG documentation. That would set your mind at rest and clear up any false assumptions that are being resurrected.  I don't think you need lose any sleep over IMGs financial ability. Its all a metter of public record.  This might help: IMG (company) - Wikipedia

[JohnM]

oops

Edited November 23, 2024 by JohnM

[JohnM]

oops again

Edited November 23, 2024 by JohnM

[Exiled Wiganer]

25 minutes ago, JohnM said:

It might help you if you were to go right back to the very beginning and re-read the RFL/IMG documentation. That would set your mind at rest and clear up any false assumptions that are being resurrected.  I don't think you need lose any sleep over IMGs financial ability. It’s all a metter of public record.  This might help: IMG (company) - Wikipedia

Have you actually had any contact with them in the real world? 

[preid]

48 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Whilst that is true, if they keep turning up and ultimately not going bust then it's working. It might be questionable, but it's working for them enough to just about keep them where they want to be. It's also not giving them that top grading level, and it's far from comfortable.

A bit of serious effort and resources put into Bradford, Toulouse, York or London could see them pushed out.

It's not impossible that, on Monday, they may be docked grading points as Paul King alluded to in his latest statement. Were that to occur they only have 0.39 to play with before they would drop below Toulouse and if there were any such deduction you would imagine that it would be 0.5 minimum.

[gingerjon]

43 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Correct, and it was clearly poor, just as Cas probably is for facilities. Hence this being their score breakdown for finances:

Finance (max score 4.5): – 2.15

Non-centralised turnover £: 1.50 / 2.25
Non-centralised turnover %: 0.15 / 0.75
Adjusted profit: 0.25 / 0.5
Owner investment: 0.25 / 0.5
Balance sheet strength: 0.00 / 0.5

The clubs wanted a model that took a range of factors into consideration. They also wanted on field to be the highest scoring aspect of those factors. Finance, in all it's areas, therefore cannot be worth more than 5 points as that would put it on par with performance.

Salford scored less than half the possible maximum for finances. Financially they clearly don't do very well. However, because they scored well in other areas, they still remain one of the top 12 clubs in the country overall. That may change. 

If it was just on finances, Salford likely wouldn't be in the top 12. That's obvious. 

But it isn't just about finances.

That should end the debate on this specific bit really.

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

That should end the debate on this specific bit really.

Really? Which specific bit? 
It merely makes the point that they were awarded certain scores under the system that was adopted, which isn’t the main point anyone that I have seen is debating. 
Again, can those criteria be deemed to be fit for purpose, when Salford may well fall apart within weeks of being awarded a place. Were they applied properly? Did Salford give full and correct information? 

If I were Toulouse I would be looking very closely at this, because at one step removed it seems like they may have been excluded on spurious grounds, or worse, if Salford knew or should have known this train was coming down the track towards them. 

By the way, I loved watching Salford last year, and would be delighted to watch them in SL next year. I fully appreciate that it is there but for the grace of God/a rich benefactor for all sporting clubs. My points are simple enough - were these rubbish tests? Were they applied properly? Were Salford asked the right questions? Were Salford honest/open in their answers? These seem to be questions absolutely fundamental to the direction of travel for this system. 
 

I am not prejudging any answers, save that my experience of seeing IMG in action over the last 10 years is that they are good at what they know best, and that is broadcasting and sponsorship. 

 

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

 

I am not prejudging any answers, save that my experience of seeing IMG in action over the last 10 years is that they are good at what they know best, and that is broadcasting and sponsorship. 

 

Which sport was this in?

[wasginger]

 

23 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Which sport was this in?

WWE wrestling I think he means 

[Toby Chopra]

41 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Really? Which specific bit? 
It merely makes the point that they were awarded certain scores under the system that was adopted, which isn’t the main point anyone that I have seen is debating. 
Again, can those criteria be deemed to be fit for purpose, when Salford may well fall apart within weeks of being awarded a place. Were they applied properly? Did Salford give full and correct information? 

If I were Toulouse I would be looking very closely at this, because at one step removed it seems like they may have been excluded on spurious grounds, or worse, if Salford knew or should have known this train was coming down the track towards them. 

By the way, I loved watching Salford last year, and would be delighted to watch them in SL next year. I fully appreciate that it is there but for the grace of God/a rich benefactor for all sporting clubs. My points are simple enough - were these rubbish tests? Were they applied properly? Were Salford asked the right questions? Were Salford honest/open in their answers? These seem to be questions absolutely fundamental to the direction of travel for this system. 
 

I am not prejudging any answers, save that my experience of seeing IMG in action over the last 10 years is that they are good at what they know best, and that is broadcasting and sponsorship. 

 

You're conflating a lot of things there.

You can question whether the criteria are the right ones but there's nothing spurious about how they were assessed.

And even if Salford had known their new revenues were in doubt, none of that was relevant for the numbers that went into the grading.

Salford have performed a magic survival trick for several years, largely due to superb recruiting and coaching combined with a uniquely benevolent local council. But as Tommy says that luck could run out on all aspects very soon, and if it does, it won't take long for that to be reflected in the gradings.

No need for conspiracies or Harry-style suggestions of legal action, the facts will out in due course.

[Exiled Wiganer]

35 minutes ago, wasginger said:

 

WWE wrestling I think he means 

I have no idea what that is. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said:

You're conflating a lot of things there.

You can question whether the criteria are the right ones but there's nothing spurious about how they were assessed.

And even if Salford had known their new revenues were in doubt, none of that was relevant for the numbers that went into the grading.

Salford have performed a magic survival trick for several years, largely due to superb recruiting and coaching combined with a uniquely benevolent local council. But as Tommy says that luck could run out on all aspects very soon, and if it does, it won't take long for that to be reflected in the gradings.

No need for conspiracies or Harry-style suggestions of legal action, the facts will out in due course.

I hope the facts will out, and I hope all of our clubs thrive.
 

So far, this outcome confirms a specific misgiving I have around IMG being asked to do what they were asked to do, and it is really that line that I am most interested in. It may be that these are great tests, perfectly applied, Salford may have been entirely full and frank, and it’s a non story. I hope that’s the case. 
 

But if any single one of those things is not true then the game needs to get a grip on it. 

[marklaspalmas]

What score did Batley get?

[Barley Mow]

1 hour ago, marklaspalmas said:

What score did Batley get?

It doesn't seem to have been made public anywhere as far as I can find. It has definitely been confirmed to the club though because @Kevin Nicholas said on the Batley forum that it wasn't quite as high as they'd hoped.

I've seen Batley fans asking the same question.

[Worzel]

6 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I assume IMG have been paid.

I assume IMG’s job included an assessment of the clubs’ suitability to be in SL. 

I assume they have been paid in accordance with their contractual terms, because I have seen no sign that they are downing tools or walking away. 

I assume IMG either award or recommend grades, with letters such as A, B and C, with A being better than B and so on. 

I assume Salford were awarded their grade based to some extent on financial representations and analysis. 

If any of this is wrong, then that would affect the extent to which the points I made in my longer post above continue to stand.

(Personally, I would not employ IMG to carry out a financial audit, by the way. But others may disagree.)

Let me keep this simple:

1. The financial assessment is backward looking, at a fixed point in time. It doesn’t predict the future.

2. RL Commercial does the grading assessment, not IMG. They just designed the idea.

[Exiled Wiganer]

11 hours ago, Worzel said:

Let me keep this simple:

1. The financial assessment is backward looking, at a fixed point in time. It doesn’t predict the future.

2. RL Commercial does the grading assessment, not IMG. They just designed the idea.

1. So the test is rubbish. A club could literally run out of money the next day and still get a good score. Or by historical do you mean you look at the past to extrapolate into the future?
2. And IMG played no part in asking questions or carried out any analysis/made any judgment. 
3. I beg your pardon entirely.  If you mean that nobody looked ant any projections or took a view as to asets/liabilities and their effect on future trading, then IMG are only at fault for the test being possibly the most useless financial robustness test in human history.
The IMG designed system has got off to a terrific start!

 

Edited November 24, 2024 by Exiled Wiganer

[Tommygilf]

11 hours ago, Worzel said:

Let me keep this simple:

1. The financial assessment is backward looking, at a fixed point in time. It doesn’t predict the future.

2. RL Commercial does the grading assessment, not IMG. They just designed the idea.

3. Salford did score poorly on the financial aspects. Less than half marks despite being in one of the most commercially advantageous positions in the sport.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

1. So the test is rubbish. 
2. I beg your pardon entirely. So they are only at fault for the test being rubbish. 
Their system has got off to a terrific start.

 

1. No its not, Salford scored very poorly in that financial aspect.

If it was down to just financials, based on the grading Criteria alone, it's likely (without having read every club's breakdown) that Salford wouldn't be in Super League. 

They are in the top 12 because the grading isn't just down to financials. It really isn't that complex.

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

1. No its not, Salford scored very poorly in that financial aspect.

If it was down to just financials, based on the grading Criteria alone, it's likely (without having read every club's breakdown) that Salford wouldn't be in Super League. 

They are in the top 12 because the grading isn't just down to financials. It really isn't that complex.

I am not sure why you keep labouring a point I didn’t make. 
 

It really isn’t that complex. We have put in place a system in which a club has run into instant financial difficulties after being awarded a place in SL which was not decided on the field. That is a major issue. Hence the key questions… 
 

What does that say about the system? What does that say about how it was implemented? What did Salford know and what did Salford say? 

[Toby Chopra]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

1. No its not, Salford scored very poorly in that financial aspect.

If it was down to just financials, based on the grading Criteria alone, it's likely (without having read every club's breakdown) that Salford wouldn't be in Super League. 

They are in the top 12 because the grading isn't just down to financials. It really isn't that complex.

And furthermore, under the old system Salford would have continued to fly high in the league, comfortably escaping relegation and winning praise for how well they're doing for a smaller club - until one day they suddenly went pop like several clubs before them and the gnashing of teeth began.

Under this system they're already on the edge of exclusion from the SL due to their financial weakness. If people want to increase the weighting of the finances score - which would probably finish off Salford in SL - then fine by me. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

And furthermore, under the old system Salford would have continued to fly high in the league, comfortably escaping relegation and winning praise for how well they're doing for a smaller club - until one day they suddenly went pop like several clubs before them and the gnashing of teeth began.

Under this system they're already on the edge of exclusion from the SL due to their financial weakness. If people want to increase the weighting of the finances score - which would probably finish off Salford in SL - then fine by me. 

It’s so peculiar that a club could seemingly score enough by every other matrix than actually having any money and be given a ticket to SL.
 

When we have seen clubs go bust time and time again. Though perhaps the answer is that when providing answers to the “financial stability” element of what seems to be universally described as IMG’s criteria they presented a rosier picture than they should have done. 

Tomorrow’s should be an interesting meeting. 

[Toby Chopra]

18 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

It’s so peculiar that a club could seemingly score enough by every other matrix than actually having any money and be given a ticket to SL.
 

When we have seen clubs go bust time and time again. Though perhaps the answer is that when providing answers to the “financial stability” element of what seems to be universally described as IMG’s criteria they presented a rosier picture than they should have done. 

Tomorrow’s should be an interesting meeting. 

You're peddling conspiracy theory when none is needed.

It's not peculiar at all that Salford got the score they did if you read the criteria. They did well in on-the-field performance which is weighted heavily as the clubs wanted and the stadium they have IS a good one, regardless of the council subsidising them being there. And sadly the poor state of so many clubs below them means that was enough to finish where they did, even with a LOW financial score.

Most likely on Monday the clubs will put Salford into special measures, meaning they will get their advance, but be subject to oversight by the league to ensure they finish the season, which is in the best interests of the competition.

Then either they will get their house in order, or the grading next year will look very different and they will be removed. It's even possible both these things will happen.

[Click]

I'm starting to think that when IMG were hiring their intern it came down to two candidates and the loser is just a bit bitter.

[JohnM]

21 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Have you actually had any contact with them in the real world? 

1. I have had no direct contact with them. 

2.I live in the real world (as distinct from the virtual word of Internet forums) and have done so for...er...hmmm...a very long time....so far.

3. Multi-billion £/$/¥/€/ECU companies in any sector  don't become so without being fully versed in financial matters. Indeed, it is that which makes them tick. This is based on my employment experience in and with several US/global companies bigger and more valuable than IMG.