IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, Click said:

I am confused as to when they were they held back?

Widnes finished 3rd in the 2nd Division and Batley finished 10th in the 95/96 season

The decision was made in April 1995. Look at the 1994/95 tables.

[Click]

12 minutes ago, Griff said:

The decision was made in April 1995. Look at the 1994/95 tables.

I don't understand still, Batley finished 2nd in the second division in 94/95 and Widnes was relegated after finishing 14th. How were they excluded? 

[glossop saint]

1 hour ago, marklaspalmas said:

Yes. I lost you. Sorry.

And don't want to clarify apparently. Maybe I was trying to be too understanding. 

[Griff]

40 minutes ago, Click said:

I don't understand still, Batley finished 2nd in the second division in 94/95 and Widnes was relegated after finishing 14th. How were they excluded? 

Batley would've been promoted, Widnes wouldn't have been relegated.

[Click]

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

Batley would've been promoted, Widnes wouldn't have been relegated.

But the 1995/96 season was formed with the top 10 teams from the previous season plus London.

I am not sure why Batley would have been promoted and not Keighley? And how Widnes finishing 14th would have made them safe from relegation?

[Griff]

6 minutes ago, Click said:

But the 1995/96 season was formed with the top 10 teams from the previous season plus London.

I am not sure why Batley would have been promoted and not Keighley? And how Widnes finishing 14th would have made them safe from relegation?

OK - you probably had to have been there to understand it.

With a bit of luck someone will come along and be better at explaining it than me.

[marklaspalmas]

26 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

And don't want to clarify apparently. Maybe I was trying to be too understanding. 

Sorry, mate. It does look at way, but isn't. The perils of posting online.

The first list was clubs who were given a gilt-edged opportunity/ a poisoned chalice (delete according to your POV). I don't necessarily count that as favouritism, but IMO it was a definite opportunity. The second list was simply clubs invited to have-a-go under their own steam.

I don't want to fall out with you over this misunderstanding.

[phiggins]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

What would be your standards?

I ask because whilst on a basic level I can see the reasoning and indeed agree with you, the plan always seems to fall down in some way or another because X super league club who aren't getting relegated doesn't meet them either - leading to accusations of unfairness or, inevitably, a drop in the minimum standards to make them not worth bothering with.

 

3 hours ago, Click said:

Like Tommy says, what would your minimum standards be? As I would say a lot of those B clubs aren't anywhere close to being in a true Super League.

London should never have been promoted to SL, we are a joke of a club.

 

Fair question, but it would be difficult to answer in full without doing a fair bit of research. But it would look at revenue and attendances in the main, to assess the ability of a club to be, or continue to be a full time operation. There may also be criteria on facilities and player development, though the latter would be difficult to quantify which I'm guessing is the reason it is not included in the existing system

@Chrispmartha - If the minimum standards are specific and measurable, then you can disqualify an existing SL club that falls beneath that standard and include the 12 highest ranked teams that meet the standard. You could also have this minimum increase over time, so clubs like Leigh, Cas etc may also find themselves knowing there are areas they need to continue to improve on over the next 3,4, 5 years, as well as avoiding finishing bottom.

@Click - You're right about the B grades. Think its 7.5 needed to get a B. That's 37.5%, a very low pass mark. In fact, I think you can get within touching distance without doing a thing given points are awarded if you have no fans, play in a random field etc. Another failing of this system as a data analysis exercise. I'd put the question back on you and ask, why is it that London should never have been promoted to SL. That will give an idea of where the minimum standards should lie.

Sorry I couldn't give a proper precribed answer, but with the time and effort put into devising this system, you could just as easily have created a set of minimum standards for Super League in 2024 and at different points in the future. That would have the knock on effect of keeping the competition to being on the field, with clubs able to concentrate on themselves, or even act collaberatively off the field

[Tommygilf]

31 minutes ago, phiggins said:

 

Fair question, but it would be difficult to answer in full without doing a fair bit of research. But it would look at revenue and attendances in the main, to assess the ability of a club to be, or continue to be a full time operation. There may also be criteria on facilities and player development, though the latter would be difficult to quantify which I'm guessing is the reason it is not included in the existing system

@Chrispmartha - If the minimum standards are specific and measurable, then you can disqualify an existing SL club that falls beneath that standard and include the 12 highest ranked teams that meet the standard. You could also have this minimum increase over time, so clubs like Leigh, Cas etc may also find themselves knowing there are areas they need to continue to improve on over the next 3,4, 5 years, as well as avoiding finishing bottom.

@Click - You're right about the B grades. Think its 7.5 needed to get a B. That's 37.5%, a very low pass mark. In fact, I think you can get within touching distance without doing a thing given points are awarded if you have no fans, play in a random field etc. Another failing of this system as a data analysis exercise. I'd put the question back on you and ask, why is it that London should never have been promoted to SL. That will give an idea of where the minimum standards should lie.

Sorry I couldn't give a proper precribed answer, but with the time and effort put into devising this system, you could just as easily have created a set of minimum standards for Super League in 2024 and at different points in the future. That would have the knock on effect of keeping the competition to being on the field, with clubs able to concentrate on themselves, or even act collaberatively off the field

Thanks for the reply.

I've just refreshed my mind on the grading handbook and ultimately I think they have set the ideal minimum standards at the A Grade Level:

7.5k average attendances,

>5m social media interactions (amongst others in that category),

Average over 150k when on TV,

Over £2.5 million in non central funding revenue, and that being less than 30% of all revenue,

Healthy investment and/or profit, with a solid balance sheet,

Have stadium facilities fit for modern broadcasting, sponsor and commercial league wide requirements, with a reward for primacy of tenure, and healthy utilisation ratios.

Good community engagement in a large community with large potential engagement opportunities.

To me those minimum standards we both think are pretty reasonable are there - we have 7 clubs currently meeting them, and therein lies the problem.

If it was left to being just down to who finished bottom of the table Cas weren't going to ever do anything about their ground at the expense of recruitment, for example. We have to do something else to encourage clubs to build properly.

[Click]

42 minutes ago, phiggins said:

 

Fair question, but it would be difficult to answer in full without doing a fair bit of research. But it would look at revenue and attendances in the main, to assess the ability of a club to be, or continue to be a full time operation. There may also be criteria on facilities and player development, though the latter would be difficult to quantify which I'm guessing is the reason it is not included in the existing system

@Chrispmartha - If the minimum standards are specific and measurable, then you can disqualify an existing SL club that falls beneath that standard and include the 12 highest ranked teams that meet the standard. You could also have this minimum increase over time, so clubs like Leigh, Cas etc may also find themselves knowing there are areas they need to continue to improve on over the next 3,4, 5 years, as well as avoiding finishing bottom.

@Click - You're right about the B grades. Think its 7.5 needed to get a B. That's 37.5%, a very low pass mark. In fact, I think you can get within touching distance without doing a thing given points are awarded if you have no fans, play in a random field etc. Another failing of this system as a data analysis exercise. I'd put the question back on you and ask, why is it that London should never have been promoted to SL. That will give an idea of where the minimum standards should lie.

Sorry I couldn't give a proper precribed answer, but with the time and effort put into devising this system, you could just as easily have created a set of minimum standards for Super League in 2024 and at different points in the future. That would have the knock on effect of keeping the competition to being on the field, with clubs able to concentrate on themselves, or even act collaberatively off the field

The problem with the whole "minimum standards" is that we did that before with Franchising and it just led to exemptions upon exemptions. I think it is easy when creating a new league to have minimum standards to make sure all teams in the league are up to the right level, but when you have an existing league it is hard to put in minimum standards quite like that as you would have teams rejected from promotion due to minimum standards but have teams still in SL that don't comply with those standards either.

In regards to London never being promoted to SL - Because as much as I love my club, and am a big fan of it, we are a shadow of a club with next to nothing in place to make us even a Full Time club, let alone be one of the elite 12 clubs in the country. London was promoted after a wild run of form at the end of the season that no one could have predicted. It is annoying as if we had our 2019 team in 2024 then it wouldn't be so bad. 

[phiggins]

50 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Thanks for the reply.

I've just refreshed my mind on the grading handbook and ultimately I think they have set the ideal minimum standards at the A Grade Level:

7.5k average attendances,

>5m social media interactions (amongst others in that category),

Average over 150k when on TV,

Over £2.5 million in non central funding revenue, and that being less than 30% of all revenue,

Healthy investment and/or profit, with a solid balance sheet,

Have stadium facilities fit for modern broadcasting, sponsor and commercial league wide requirements, with a reward for primacy of tenure, and healthy utilisation ratios.

Good community engagement in a large community with large potential engagement opportunities.

To me those minimum standards we both think are pretty reasonable are there - we have 7 clubs currently meeting them, and therein lies the problem.

If it was left to being just down to who finished bottom of the table Cas weren't going to ever do anything about their ground at the expense of recruitment, for example. We have to do something else to encourage clubs to build properly.

I would make a distinction between A grade standards, and minimum standards. Minimum standards would be somewhere around the middle to top range of B grade. You can also say up front that the level would be reviewed periodically and that the standard required to be eligible for Super League is likely to be higher in years 3 and 4.

On the Cas point, a P&R subject to standards system would mean they had to do something about their ground. At the moment, they have chosen to do something because it is a surefire way to get a point. Other clubs with sub-standard facilities might find other quick wins to get a point. For example, if Cas had been relegated last year, they may have focused money on the first team to get the bonus points on offer.

53 minutes ago, Click said:

The problem with the whole "minimum standards" is that we did that before with Franchising and it just led to exemptions upon exemptions. I think it is easy when creating a new league to have minimum standards to make sure all teams in the league are up to the right level, but when you have an existing league it is hard to put in minimum standards quite like that as you would have teams rejected from promotion due to minimum standards but have teams still in SL that don't comply with those standards either.

In regards to London never being promoted to SL - Because as much as I love my club, and am a big fan of it, we are a shadow of a club with next to nothing in place to make us even a Full Time club, let alone be one of the elite 12 clubs in the country. London was promoted after a wild run of form at the end of the season that no one could have predicted. It is annoying as if we had our 2019 team in 2024 then it wouldn't be so bad. 

Minimum standards are useless if not enforced. So, enforce them.

[Taffy Tiger]

20 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I would make a distinction between A grade standards, and minimum standards. Minimum standards would be somewhere around the middle to top range of B grade. You can also say up front that the level would be reviewed periodically and that the standard required to be eligible for Super League is likely to be higher in years 3 and 4.

On the Cas point, a P&R subject to standards system would mean they had to do something about their ground. At the moment, they have chosen to do something because it is a surefire way to get a point. Other clubs with sub-standard facilities might find other quick wins to get a point. For example, if Cas had been relegated last year, they may have focused money on the first team to get the bonus points on offer.

Minimum standards are useless if not enforced. So, enforce them.

Isn't that what IMG are doing though . Each criteria has it's minimum standards . If not met then clubs don't get the maximum points in that area , and risk not making the Top 12 as a result.

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Isn't that what IMG are doing though . Each criteria has it's minimum standards . If not met then clubs don't get the maximum points in that area , and risk not making the Top 12 as a result.

But in this system, you can fail to meet minimum standards in one area, as long as you compensate elsewhere. So they stop being minimum standards, because you can fail to meet them and still be eligible for the top tier.

On top of that, clubs are competing on the field, but also in an invisible league table, with Leigh and Cas not knowing what league they will be in next year, regardless of league position. And potentially not knowing until after the Grand Final. There's even been suggestion that Hudds and Salford will be uncertain.

[Taffy Tiger]

6 minutes ago, phiggins said:

But in this system, you can fail to meet minimum standards in one area, as long as you compensate elsewhere. So they stop being minimum standards, because you can fail to meet them and still be eligible for the top tier.

On top of that, clubs are competing on the field, but also in an invisible league table, with Leigh and Cas not knowing what league they will be in next year, regardless of league position. And potentially not knowing until after the Grand Final. There's even been suggestion that Hudds and Salford will be uncertain.

Hi phiggins , I take your point . I think it's more the wording from IMG that could be the issue here . They say 'minimum standards' but they are really saying to get max points in an area then 'this is what you have to do'. There is no mention in the criteria that a team has to meet minimum standards across the board to be eligible for Cat A or Top 12 . However , I think (please forgive me if I'm wrong) that what you are saying is that this should be the case , ie minimum standards need to be met in every area of grading to be even considered for Top 12 or Cat A. If that is the case then I would agree.

 

I also agree with you on the uncertainty surrounding teams for the following season . It isn't ideal . IMG should have set the criteria using information in the public domain . We can work out current scoring in the on pitch performance , average attendance (although all clubs would have to announce after each home match) , utilisation , catchement areas, some of stadium criteria (ie big screen, LED ownership etc) . The problems lie in other areas ie fandom (digital scoring) , finances, viewing figures .

If all of these could be updated on a week by week basis , so each team could see exactly where they were in the IMG grading list at any given time during the season , similar to league tables in a P & R format , then I think it would be a much better option .

[Tommygilf]

Has anyone done an IMG table without the on field performance scores?

[glossop saint]

3 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

Sorry, mate. It does look at way, but isn't. The perils of posting online.

The first list was clubs who were given a gilt-edged opportunity/ a poisoned chalice (delete according to your POV). I don't necessarily count that as favouritism, but IMO it was a definite opportunity. The second list was simply clubs invited to have-a-go under their own steam.

I don't want to fall out with you over this misunderstanding.

No danger of falling out, as you say, it can be tricky getting points across via word online only.

[Spidey]

7 hours ago, Click said:

I am confused as to when they were they held back?

Widnes finished 3rd in the 2nd Division and Batley finished 10th in the 95/96 season

Check that again

[Spidey]

6 hours ago, Click said:

I don't understand still, Batley finished 2nd in the second division in 94/95 and Widnes was relegated after finishing 14th. How were they excluded? 

Widnes finished outside  of the agreed relegation places agreed at the start of that season (along with others) only at the end of the season the goal posts moved to allow the top 10 in super league along with London & Paris , and promotion from division 2 was blocked from he normal qualifying places

Edited May 1, 2024 by Spidey

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

3 hours ago, phiggins said:

There's even been suggestion that Hudds and Salford will be uncertain.

It was me that mentioned Huddersfield and Salford but it was along the lines of asking does anyone think those below them can eek out enough additional points to bring them into the mix.  Think one of them was 13.8 and the other 13.4.  Not looked at the data for a few months so no idea how they scored their points.

[dboy]

13 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

It was me that mentioned Huddersfield and Salford but it was along the lines of asking does anyone think those below them can eek out enough additional points to bring them into the mix.  Think one of them was 13.8 and the other 13.4.  Not looked at the data for a few months so no idea how they scored their points.

Wakefield are making obvious strides forwards and reported to be expecting a score of 14+.

It's definitely not just London who should be looking at dropping.

Of course, it remains to be seen what progression Hudds, Leigh, Salford and Cas can make, but I think, if Bradford et al pull a rabbit out of the hat, one of them may also drop.

[ColD]

7 minutes ago, dboy said:

Wakefield are making obvious strides forwards and reported to be expecting a score of 14+.

It's definitely not just London who should be looking at dropping.

Of course, it remains to be seen what progression Hudds, Leigh, Salford and Cas can make, but I think, if Bradford et al pull a rabbit out of the hat, one of them may also drop.

Toulouse I believe are the other likely champ team to make SL based on the last IMG score, one of the 4 mentioned deffo going to miss out

[phiggins]

2 hours ago, dboy said:

Wakefield are making obvious strides forwards and reported to be expecting a score of 14+.

It's definitely not just London who should be looking at dropping.

Of course, it remains to be seen what progression Hudds, Leigh, Salford and Cas can make, but I think, if Bradford et al pull a rabbit out of the hat, one of them may also drop.

Cas and Leigh have both said they expect to score 14+. Beaumont specifically saying that Leigh will see an increase of 2.5 points in the financial pillar, with accounts filed, audited and score ratified by the RFL. As a Leigh fan I hope he’s right. Otherwise I struggle to see how Leigh make the cut.

I expect Davey will ensure an improved financial score for Hudds, though without knowing how their score broke down last year it’s difficult to say. Salford’s biggest room for improvement was also in finance. Maybe the team player sales will help boost their score, but the can was only kicked down the road with the stadium issues so that May rear its head again. 
 

Will be interesting to see how Bradford perform if they do make the 12.

[Click]

13 hours ago, Spidey said:

Widnes finished outside  of the agreed relegation places agreed at the start of that season (along with others) only at the end of the season the goal posts moved to allow the top 10 in super league along with London & Paris , and promotion from division 2 was blocked from he normal qualifying places

I can only go on what Wikipedia says as we are debating what happened 30 years ago, it really isn't relevant anyway. 

Some people really do hold on tight to their chips.

[The Phantom Horseman]

1 hour ago, Click said:

I can only go on what Wikipedia says as we are debating what happened 30 years ago, it really isn't relevant anyway. 

 

It's quite relevant to a discussion over whether expansion clubs have historically been favoured over others, a question that you yourself asked.

At the end of the 1994-95 season, London Broncos, who finished 4th in what was then the second division, were promoted to Super League (via the interim 1995-96 season), whereas the clubs that had finished 11th to 15th in division one were all relegated to the second tier, and the three clubs that finished above London in the second division were also kept in that division.

[Click]

11 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

It's quite relevant to a discussion over whether expansion clubs have historically been favoured over others, a question that you yourself asked.

At the end of the 1994-95 season, London Broncos, who finished 4th in what was then the second division, were promoted to Super League (via the interim 1995-96 season), whereas the clubs that had finished 11th to 15th in division one were all relegated to the second tier, and the three clubs that finished above London in the second division were also kept in that division.

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