IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[marklaspalmas]

The irony.

I just thought there was a bit more to say about IMG, that's all. 

[Gooleboy]

19 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

The irony.

I just thought there was a bit more to say about IMG, that's all. 

It will kick off again when the final results come in and somebody thinks their clubs have been harshly treated.

[Griff]

On 15/02/2024 at 13:10, dboy said:

You've got to let it go!

It was good of Fev to underline the unfairness of the best team over a season not getting promoted, through their winning of the league by 22 points and then losing in the play-offs.

They really made their point.

Yes - that's why there are no more play off series and the top team in the league wins the comp.

No ...... wait .....

[RP London]

17 hours ago, Click said:

I don't understand why that is the case.. They're both clubs that have been around for how many years? I don't understand how it couldn't possibly improve from this point.

They don't need to become big SL clubs, but they can easily be sustainable as a Championship side.

This is the big thing for me.. "they don't need to become big SL clubs".. as soon as that starts to really resonate we will be in a better position. Teams wont destroy themselves putting financial pressure on them that is not needed or sustainable etc etc.. if it comes then great but you dont need to push it and go under. 

To @Ackroman's point.. you say they should merge to form a "super club" but the real likelihood is that they merge to form 1 club of roughly the same size.. simply becuase the argument then becomes well Wakefield are just down the road why not merge with them and form a superclub and so on.. nothing in that area is that far away from each other in real terms. If they were to merge then what happens to the extra players? well maybe they all just go down the road to the same club because they want to keep playing together and then another really strong semi pro/amateur team just appears and back into the cycle we go. 

I understand where you are coming from with the "what do they offer the game" if all you are really looking at is "how do they get into Super League" but that isn't the aim of every club and shouldn't be, in the same way as it isn't really the aim of every player.. The aim really is to play at the highest level you can and be the best you can at that level, strive for more yes but also understand there will be limitations, sometimes the limitations are of your choosing, like some players staying part time due to present financial reasons or future career paths, for a club future finance includes not racking up loads of debt trying to get into a league that doesnt repay it very well if at all, and if you fail you are dead. If you reach the point you are really aiming for then that is success, the Olympics this year will see many more personal bests that medals, and getting a personal best at an Olympics means you have achieved something unbelievably special for you and you have succeeded no matter what anyone says, or do you dispense with anyone not within x seconds of the fastest times of the year becuase they cannot succeed at the top top top..  

With the status quo you still may get a super league team coming out of there (however likely) but you have a place for players to play to their highest ability, or to rehab or to come through on their way but its a step up. You have clubs for kids to go down the road to to watch a good standard of RL and have heroes to look up to, you have more RL being players and communities with support structures. If they merge and it works you still have this (maybe without the stepping stone) but if it doesnt you lose it all... 

Its not to say it cannot work, its not to say teams shouldnt strive to be better, its just that sometimes the offer is actually exactly what is needed for the place and to try and push to far too fast or have ambitions that you just cannot (with what you have) reach can mean that everything around you falls apart. Then its about risk and reward and to me, not everyone but to me, the risk of this type of merger is far too much, as @Martyn Sadler alludes to, for the gain.

[RP London]

Looking for something else I found this interesting paper written in 2016.. Rob Wilson is a very respected Sports Economist.. and thought it showed exactly why the IMG proposal and this move towards the more American Model of sports is happening.. and potentially is a paper that influenced the way the RFL was thinking. 

https://shura.shu.ac.uk/11664/3/Plumley Staring into the abyss.pdf

[Harry Stottle]

Make catchment and attendance scores part of each other, i.e.

Why when top marks are given for 7,500 attendances is that figure set in stone for all clubs when catchment thresholds are open ended? On reflection a fairer way to award attendance points would be to score attendances for acheiving say 7.5% of the catchment score then penalise clubs for not attaining it.

There are clubs who acheive the full 1.5 points for catchment of over 260,000 courtesy of having a big local authority what's the point of that if they can't get just 7.5% of those in attendance.

Big city clubs in both the UK and France seem to be the main beneficiaries of this catchment scoring system.

[LeytherRob]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Make catchment and attendance scores part of each other, i.e.

Why when top marks are given for 7,500 attendances is that figure set in stone for all clubs when catchment thresholds are open ended? On reflection a fairer way to award attendance points would be to score attendances for acheiving say 7.5% of the catchment score then penalise clubs for not attaining it.

There are clubs who acheive the full 1.5 points for catchment of over 260,000 courtesy of having a big local authority what's the point of that if they can't get just 7.5% of those in attendance.

Big city clubs in both the UK and France seem to be the main beneficiaries of this catchment scoring system.

The attendance score needs tweaking in my opinion, but i don't think you need to start involving catchment area in there. The main issue for me is that the milestones of 1.5k, 3k and 7.5k are too far apart and there should be additional steps in between the 3 and 7.5, maybe even raising the top tier to 10k which should be the ultimate goal of all SL clubs.

As it stands, in terms of the attendance related points available(attendance and stadium utilization) a club getting 4.5k fans in a 6k stadium would be getting more points(2.75) for those criteria than one getting 7k fans in a 10k stadium(2.7) even though the latter would offer much more value to the game.

[ATLANTISMAN]

What about revenue generated from ticket sales this would certainly benefit Leigh Leopards who i believe charge the highest prices in SL (And get it) if a club is claiming 5000 season ticket holders at £ 99 how can that compare with some charging 2/3 times the amount?

 

P 

[Taffy Tiger]

38 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Make catchment and attendance scores part of each other, i.e.

Why when top marks are given for 7,500 attendances is that figure set in stone for all clubs when catchment thresholds are open ended? On reflection a fairer way to award attendance points would be to score attendances for acheiving say 7.5% of the catchment score then penalise clubs for not attaining it.

There are clubs who acheive the full 1.5 points for catchment of over 260,000 courtesy of having a big local authority what's the point of that if they can't get just 7.5% of those in attendance.

Big city clubs in both the UK and France seem to be the main beneficiaries of this catchment scoring system.

Hi Harry (again)

 

I do agree that there should be some kind of ratio measurement for catchment area to attendances , and I would also add fandom (ie fan engagement) to that as well , otherwise , and as it stands , teams with a larger catchment area , are being rewarded twice just for having more people to target .

 

However , there is a caveat to this . I don't think you can say 7.5% for top marks , as this isn't possible in many cases because of the size of the stadium.

 

To say 7.5% would mean Leeds would have to get around 60k average attendance.

I don't think it is possible to impose a one size fits all percentage scale in this instance.

That said , I do strongly agree that some sort of scaling should be used to qualify for the full 1.5 points available in catchment area , and this scaling should also allow clubs not achieving the full 1.5 points for catchment area to increase their score in a smilar way , up to 1.5 points.

 

In effect , every club should at least have the opportunity to score the maximum points in each of the IMG criteria , however unlikely that may be in some cases.

[LeytherRob]

17 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

What about revenue generated from ticket sales this would certainly benefit Leigh Leopards who i believe charge the highest prices in SL (And get it) if a club is claiming 5000 season ticket holders at £ 99 how can that compare with some charging 2/3 times the amount?

 

P 

That data will be captured within the revenue and % of non centralised turnover

[Taffy Tiger]

23 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

The attendance score needs tweaking in my opinion, but i don't think you need to start involving catchment area in there. The main issue for me is that the milestones of 1.5k, 3k and 7.5k are too far apart and there should be additional steps in between the 3 and 7.5, maybe even raising the top tier to 10k which should be the ultimate goal of all SL clubs.

As it stands, in terms of the attendance related points available(attendance and stadium utilization) a club getting 4.5k fans in a 6k stadium would be getting more points(2.75) for those criteria than one getting 7k fans in a 10k stadium(2.7) even though the latter would offer much more value to the game.

Hi LR

 

I agree with 3k - 7.5k being too big a gap , but I do think 10k is too big . Whilst I agree that this would be desirable for all SL clubs , and is also aesthetically pleasing as it moves up to a 5 figure average, it would be unfair to penalise clubs who meet all the stadium requirements for top marks , but whose ground is under a 10k capacity.

I think it would be counter-productive , as in most cases the bigger stadia belong to city clubs and those with a higher catchment area in the first place . 

 

Would definitely agree that attendance structure needs a re-think though . Maybe 8k , 6k, 4k and 2k would be a better option ?

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi Harry (again)

 

I do agree that there should be some kind of ratio measurement for catchment area to attendances , and I would also add fandom (ie fan engagement) to that as well , otherwise , and as it stands , teams with a larger catchment area , are being rewarded twice just for having more people to target .

 

However , there is a caveat to this . I don't think you can say 7.5% for top marks , as this isn't possible in many cases because of the size of the stadium.

 

To say 7.5% would mean Leeds would have to get around 60k average attendance.

I don't think it is possible to impose a one size fits all percentage scale in this instance.

That said , I do strongly agree that some sort of scaling should be used to qualify for the full 1.5 points available in catchment area , and this scaling should also allow clubs not achieving the full 1.5 points for catchment area to increase their score in a smilar way , up to 1.5 points.

 

In effect , every club should at least have the opportunity to score the maximum points in each of the IMG criteria , however unlikely that may be in some cases.

Yeah I agree with you Taffy, 7.5% was pulled out of mid air probably to much for some clubs but not for others, you mention Leeds incidentally what is their catchment figure? I know they have a population of over 800,000 and inso getting top attendance points for 7,500 seems incredibly low when measured against say Cas who have a population of 40 few thousand, yes a sliding scale would be much better, but still I would e pect it to favour those with big catchments.

[Taffy Tiger]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yeah I agree with you Taffy, 7.5% was pulled out of mid air probably to much for some clubs but not for others, you mention Leeds incidentally what is their catchment figure? I know they have a population of over 800,000 and inso getting top attendance points for 7,500 seems incredibly low when measured against say Cas who have a population of 40 few thousand, yes a sliding scale would be much better, but still I would e pect it to favour those with big catchments.

Hi Harry 

 

Yes, as I understand it there catchment area is 800k as no other top 2 tier clubs in the area , only Hunslet in League 1 .

 

A 7.5k average would be more than achievable for Leeds even if they were to ever drop down a division , so it does make a bit of a mockery of the scoring system in this area . The problem SL and RL has is the disparity between clubs , which means that finding a one size fits all scale to reflect clubs actual achievement with their average attendance would be virtually impossible. To do so would probably require another adjustment of some sort applied after the initial attendance score , as you mentioned originally eg as a percentage of catchment area , which is a really good idea , but once again it would be knowing what kind of percentage scale to use . 

 

The easiest way is to drop the catchment area criteria . Teams with the highest catchment areas will almost certainly have a 7.5k average attendance anyway , and would be rewarded with the 2.5 max score , but it is still achievable by clubs with much a smaller population to work with , Cas and Leigh being two good examples of this.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Taffy Tiger

[Dave T]

% of catchment is a nonsense. It means nothing. It's for fans to try and make small village club crowds look good. 

Edited May 20, 2024 by Dave T

[dboy]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

% of catchment is a nonsense. It means nothing. It's for fans to try and make small village club crowds look good. 

But it's equally nonsense to suggest that a club's boundary end where it's postcode ends.

It's probably the worst pillar of grading to be implemented.

[dboy]

4 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

What about revenue generated from ticket sales this would certainly benefit Leigh Leopards who i believe charge the highest prices in SL (And get it) if a club is claiming 5000 season ticket holders at £ 99 how can that compare with some charging 2/3 times the amount?

 

P 

Which club is claiming 5k STs and selling at £99?

Hudds sell at that price, but don't have 5k fans.

Wakefield have over 5k fans, but charge two and a half times that. Only the West terrace (mainly populated by away fans), can be purchased for that amount.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, dboy said:

But it's equally nonsense to suggest that a club's boundary end where it's postcode ends.

It's probably the worst pillar of grading to be implemented.

Its not ideal, but likewise, once balanced out for those inside the boundary that simply aren't being caught either, I'd wager on the whole it balances out as intended.

[PREPOSTEROUS]

If a catchment criteria is required base it on a radius around the club, 50 miles perhaps. Maybe 25. A catchment doesn't stop at an arbitrary line. Plenty of Leeds fans in Wakefield, plenty of Trinity fans in Barnsley. I imagine all clubs will have such examples. 

Edited May 20, 2024 by PREPOSTEROUS

[Tommygilf]

21 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

If a catchment criteria is required base it on a radius around the club, 50 miles perhaps. Maybe 25. A catchment doesn't stop at an arbitrary line. Plenty of Leeds fans in Wakefield, plenty of Trinity fans in Barnsley. I imagine all clubs will have such examples. 

They will all have examples like that, but they needed a number to attach to the concept, and council areas in general work fine. For all the Leeds fans not counted in the council area because they are in Wakfield or Kirklees or North Yorkshire for example, there are many thousands more in Leeds who are included anyway. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

But it's equally nonsense to suggest that a club's boundary end where it's postcode ends.

It's probably the worst pillar of grading to be implemented.

I think it's one that has been poorly implemented. I get the intent, and it broadly does a job, but agree it could be better. 

[PREPOSTEROUS]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They will all have examples like that, but they needed a number to attach to the concept, and council areas in general work fine. For all the Leeds fans not counted in the council area because they are in Wakfield or Kirklees or North Yorkshire for example, there are many thousands more in Leeds who are included anyway. 

It's more the point I think catchment was to give expansion clubs a leg up where they are disadvantaged by being so far away from the primary playing/supporter base, but instead it's given Northern clubs with a large post code an advatage over others without doing a jot to earn it. The radius removes that anomaly. 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

2 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

It's more the point I think catchment was to give expansion clubs a leg up where they are disadvantaged by being so far away from the primary playing/supporter base, but instead it's given Northern clubs with a large post code an advatage over others without doing a jot to earn it. The radius removes that anomaly. 

Forget postcodes, forget radius, the catchment points are a joke full stop.

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

It's more the point I think catchment was to give expansion clubs a leg up where they are disadvantaged by being so far away from the primary playing/supporter base, but instead it's given Northern clubs with a large post code an advatage over others without doing a jot to earn it. The radius removes that anomaly. 

I think it's more to downgrade the clubs sharing councils. Im not sure whether the argument would be that your council are covers the schools, the funding, etc and if you share that it can be more challenging. 

Of course it's never that black and white, but broadly it makes sense. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

% of catchment is a nonsense. It means nothing. It's for fans to try and make small village club crowds look good. 

No it isn't nonsense, it is reward or failure on crowds acheived what else are the catchment figures for if nothing but to gift points.

Secondly it is to make larger towns to look good, your club for example 220,000ish population and averaging 10,000ish, not very good is it and no football team so to speak, no good saying there are big footballs club's close by to entice people, no different than the club down the road less than 2,000 difference in attendance and a matter of approx 175,000 less in population.

[Griff]

3 hours ago, dboy said:

But isst's equally nonsense to suggest that a club's boundary end where it's postcode ends.

It's probably the worst pillar of grading to be implemented.

Postcodes would be an improvement on council areas, imho. More flexible and not subject to random boundary changes by government.