IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Tommygilf]

7 hours 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 its councils tbf, with larger ones being rewarded too. And there is a logic to that imo.

Look at the problems the 3 WMDC clubs have had over the past 30 years with Council support (or lack of it). The suggestion always being that the council didn't want to be seen to be favouring one club over another, or that Mr Box was a Cas fan etc. As much as things are moving now, the 3 clubs had to share £6 million and even then, many wouldn't believe it till they saw it after so many false dawns.

Contrast that experience with say Salford and their council who literally can't do enough for them at the AJ Bell writing off rent payments effectively; or even Leeds with the 2nd largest council population in England, able to be supported with underwriting for loans for the stadium redevelopment. 

There is a logic to it that isn't just population, though I appreciate its not very well communicated.

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

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.

What is good about % of population? 

It doesn't pay bills. It doesn't show potential. 

If you can't see a metric that gives Cas more points than Leeds and Wigan for crowds is flawed, then I can't help you Harry. 

Small time. 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I think its councils tbf, with larger ones being rewarded too. And there is a logic to that imo.

Look at the problems the 3 WMDC clubs have had over the past 30 years with Council support (or lack of it). The suggestion always being that the council didn't want to be seen to be favouring one club over another, or that Mr Box was a Cas fan etc. As much as things are moving now, the 3 clubs had to share £6 million and even then, many wouldn't believe it till they saw it after so many false dawns.

Contrast that experience with say Salford and their council who literally can't do enough for them at the AJ Bell writing off rent payments effectively; or even Leeds with the 2nd largest council population in England, able to be supported with underwriting for loans for the stadium redevelopment. 

There is a logic to it that isn't just population, though I appreciate its not very well communicated.

I agree, I think this is a big part of the thinking. 

[PREPOSTEROUS]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I think its councils tbf, with larger ones being rewarded too. And there is a logic to that imo.

Look at the problems the 3 WMDC clubs have had over the past 30 years with Council support (or lack of it). The suggestion always being that the council didn't want to be seen to be favouring one club over another, or that Mr Box was a Cas fan etc. As much as things are moving now, the 3 clubs had to share £6 million and even then, many wouldn't believe it till they saw it after so many false dawns.

Contrast that experience with say Salford and their council who literally can't do enough for them at the AJ Bell writing off rent payments effectively; or even Leeds with the 2nd largest council population in England, able to be supported with underwriting for loans for the stadium redevelopment. 

There is a logic to it that isn't just population, though I appreciate its not very well communicated.

Contrast that to Bradford's situation where, other than the council giving them £4m to look after the liabilities of Odsal, which looks a great deal for the LA in hindsight, have been largely neglected by the Borough.

To me catchment is the number of potential supporters, not the extent of support from the tax payer. 

[JohnM]

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62699/reimagining-rugby-league-grading-timetable,-2024

[Archie Gordon]

If we are all projecting what we think catchment might be about, my projection is that IMG thought it was a marker of potential for fandom. Like most of the other criteria, I doubt they thought about it for very long.

[gingerjon]

20 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

If we are all projecting what we think catchment might be about, my projection is that IMG thought it was a marker of potential for fandom. Like most of the other criteria, I doubt they thought about it for very long.

Catchment was the one that changed the most from initial idea to this. IMG's initial proposal seemed to leaning towards a wide range of metrics about reach, community (etc). I have no idea who got that changed but it's notable that the original would have required work, time and cost but this one just requires a check on wikipedia.

[JohnM]

I realise that this is specifically about the grading element of the Reimagining project, but as it's coming up to 5000 replies, I zoomed out so I could try to see the big picture, as a reminder of what it's all about.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/60992/reimagining-rugby-league-–-img-presents-recommendations

[Harry Stottle]

51 minutes ago, Dave T said:

What is good about % of population? 

It doesn't pay bills. It doesn't show potential. 

If you can't see a metric that gives Cas more points than Leeds and Wigan for crowds is flawed, then I can't help you Harry. 

Small time. 

What are the Catchment points?

Effectivly it is awarding points per capita of a defined area, and what is the reward or penalty for not being able to improve on those figures a club gets in attendances.

@Tommygilf keeps trying to make a case for Leeds only acheiving 13,000ish from there alloted 800,000 figure, he once came out with the demographic of the population of Leeds should not be taken into account, but this system awards points irrespective of who or what people are, his next door neighbour Bradford is no better 3500 from near 400,000, then look at York, Newcastle, the far NW of Cumbria I could go on, and also you choose not to answer your clubs case, albeit this season you are doing very well but attendances are down and you also have an increased stadium capacity - what is the club doing to fill the new spaces, save for giving £5 tickets for the visit of Catalan? (albeit a good idea).

And the biggest travesty of it all is in France, Toulouse with a Metro area population of over 1 million are gifted 1.5 points in a city that couldn't care less about RL and that 1.5 points could be the difference that they could get SL status and could take the place of a club that does actually have support, takes fans to away games effectively helping to pay bills.

I don't need your help at all Dave except in that please explain to me what the Catchment area points are for if not to target the local potential audience to promote the club and increase attendances and therefore revenue?

 

 

[Harry Stottle]

36 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Catchment was the one that changed the most from initial idea to this. IMG's initial proposal seemed to leaning towards a wide range of metrics about reach, community (etc). I have no idea who got that changed but it's notable that the original would have required work, time and cost but this one just requires a check on wikipedia.

And therefore bloody useless!

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

And therefore bloody useless!

We've done this dance a dozen times on this thread alone. It's the metric I would get rid of in a heartbeat as, unlike the others, the club have no control over it or any ability to change it. Whereas with the initial idea, they did.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Contrast that to Bradford's situation where, other than the council giving them £4m to look after the liabilities of Odsal, which looks a great deal for the LA in hindsight, have been largely neglected by the Borough.

To me catchment is the number of potential supporters, not the extent of support from the tax payer. 

Bradford demonstrates that you can have a lot of factors that look like they should be in your favour and they still don't really work. Keighley not even considered either says as much too.

Largely speaking, they have them covered fairly well. Whilst people may not like the scoring, I don't think anyone is actually arguing with most of the scores themselves. 

Edited May 21 by Tommygilf

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Largely speaking, they have them covered fairly well. Whilst people may not like the scoring, I don't think anyone is actually arguing with most of the scores themselves. 

To do that Tommy we need to see full transparency for all the clubs it will do no good whatsoever to just say these are the points on the spreadsheet, transparency may come if a micro point is the difference of SL status or otherwise.

I am not writing this in respect that I think my club is in any danger of being demoted - note not relegated.

[Archie Gordon]

35 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I realise that this is specifically about the grading element of the Reimagining project, but as it's coming up to 5000 replies, I zoomed out so I could try to see the big picture, as a reminder of what it's all about.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/60992/reimagining-rugby-league-–-img-presents-recommendations

A management-speak word salad with nothing much tangible since. All a bit sad really.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Contrast that to Bradford's situation where, other than the council giving them £4m to look after the liabilities of Odsal, which looks a great deal for the LA in hindsight, have been largely neglected by the Borough.

To me catchment is the number of potential supporters, not the extent of support from the tax payer. 

sorry just picked yours up here but could have picked @Harry Stottle or @Tommygilf or a number of others to make the same point... I've emboldened the bit that I think is important.

Its all "to me" or "i think" when it comes to the catchment score.. but surely its a combination of all of them.. its council support, its potential spectators, its potential corporate support and local sponsors etc etc.. the larger your potential market the more "support" you can garner.. for that clubs should be given more points.. 

However, how the ###### hell can you possibly measure that... where does it start, where does it end? As with @gingerjon I dont mind the system IMG have put in place but this metric is not very well thought out as clubs cannot change it no matter what they do and its wrong to have that. 

[redjonn]

I find it amusing that we are making assumptions about the underlying purpose of a metric... if we have too assume then its not transparent to the wider community. Maybe it should or should not be transparent but it disappoints that people make an assumption that suits their bias.

 

[redjonn]

On a different tack and as a matter of interest and an more important component of the partnership:

Apart from Superleague+ How is the wider Endeavour Network being brought into the partnership or has anyone any idea of how Endeavor Network are planned to be utilised or what they are bringing into the sport.

With regards to Superleague+ which Endeavor Streaming denote does anyone suggest how well its doing, accepting its early days.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

What are the Catchment points?

Effectivly it is awarding points per capita of a defined area, and what is the reward or penalty for not being able to improve on those figures a club gets in attendances.

@Tommygilf keeps trying to make a case for Leeds only acheiving 13,000ish from there alloted 800,000 figure, he once came out with the demographic of the population of Leeds should not be taken into account, but this system awards points irrespective of who or what people are, his next door neighbour Bradford is no better 3500 from near 400,000, then look at York, Newcastle, the far NW of Cumbria I could go on, and also you choose not to answer your clubs case, albeit this season you are doing very well but attendances are down and you also have an increased stadium capacity - what is the club doing to fill the new spaces, save for giving £5 tickets for the visit of Catalan? (albeit a good idea).

And the biggest travesty of it all is in France, Toulouse with a Metro area population of over 1 million are gifted 1.5 points in a city that couldn't care less about RL and that 1.5 points could be the difference that they could get SL status and could take the place of a club that does actually have support, takes fans to away games effectively helping to pay bills.

I don't need your help at all Dave except in that please explain to me what the Catchment area points are for if not to target the local potential audience to promote the club and increase attendances and therefore revenue?

 

 

It is quite clear what the catchment points are for. It is a way of encouraging teams to be based in large population areas (cities) instead of being crammed into smaller villages and towns. It makes absolute sense that the likes of Toulouse score well in this area. It makes sense that the likes of Fev/Cas/Wakey are marked down for basically all being from the same place. Now, as with many of these things I don't think they have implemented it brilliantly, it's weird that London don't get top points.

But you are making the mistake in not seeing the difference between the criteria and the outcome. Just because you score well in this area it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed that you will succeed. That's why it's weighted as it is - Toulouse might get 0.5pts more than the likes of Leigh and Wire (I don't know exactly the populations of these, so please take as an example) - but if that doesn't translate into a large following and revenue then you'll score poorly there and your total score will be lower. In the same way that you could score brilliantly on finances, or facilities, but get no fans, play poorly and have poor income - you'll score poorly in the round.

It's perfectly clear what catchment is all about - it is to encourage big city teams over small town teams. 

ONe final observation around your post - you are very disparaging around Toulouse in your post above - yet you staunchly defend many of the heartland clubs who do worse than them. Bit of a red flag for me I'm afraid Harry.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

I find it amusing that we are making assumptions about the underlying purpose of a metric... if we have too assume then its not transparent to the wider community. Maybe it should or should not be transparent but it disappoints that people make an assumption that suits their bias.

 

We don't really have to guess - the grading document states:

OBJECTIVE: To maximise growth of the sport in the largest markets to generate new fan bases

They want to pay in large markets like Toulouse, London etc and will give them a higher score than Batley etc.

[dboy]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is quite clear what the catchment points are for. It is a way of encouraging teams to be based in large population areas (cities) instead of being crammed into smaller villages and towns. It makes absolute sense that the likes of Toulouse score well in this area. It makes sense that the likes of Fev/Cas/Wakey are marked down for basically all being from the same place.

So it's a penalty, not a reward?

I'm sure you are right in your assessment of its purpose and I share that vision, but the only way for a non-existing club to benefit from that system, is for an existing club to die/move to a big city, with no fan base to support it.

It's a flawed metric - well-intentioned I'm sure - but ultimately divisive and ill-administered.

How can Wakefield benefit from developing the game in the neighbouring Barnsley areas, if they can't "score" from it. Why waste money on that outreach?

Instead, that area of S/Yorks will go untapped.

The catchment criterion needs loads of work to make it do what it should.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

We've done this dance a dozen times on this thread alone. It's the metric I would get rid of in a heartbeat as, unlike the others, the club have no control over it or any ability to change it. Whereas with the initial idea, they did.

I take that point - but it isn't strictly true that clubs can't influence this metric. Whilst that may be largely true for established clubs, new clubs being set up and even clubs that have a history of moving areas (Crusaders, Newcastle, Midlands, London etc) can be encouraged to be based on bigger markets. Which is one of the key objectives of this one.

It is a bit clumsy, I agree, but I can absolutely see why we would want to encourage/reward a club being based in Toulouse over Keighley. 

Where it does fall down is it doesn't pass the sniff test with things like London's score. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

So it's a penalty, not a reward?

I'm sure you are right in your assessment of its purpose and I share that vision, but the only way for a non-existing club to benefit from that system, is for an existing club to die/move to a big city, with no fan base to support it.

It's a flawed metric - well-intentioned I'm sure - but ultimately divisive and ill-administered.

How can Wakefield benefit from developing the game in the neighbouring Barnsley areas, if they can't "score" from it. Why waste money on that outreach?

Instead, that area of S/Yorks will go untapped.

The catchment criterion needs loads of work to make it do what it should.

I don't disagree with this - there may be better ways of doing it - but I do think we need to move away from looking at each metric in isolation. If Wakey do well in the likes of Barnsley, they get points for their attendances, and revenue. 

But, the issue is that whilst Wakey may try and invest in Barnsley, they are in competition with Fev and Cas who may also target that area. It's about saturation.

[DemonUK]

19 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:

.......

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.

One of the advantages of being just a bus stop in Wigan is that Leigh get exactly the same catchment points as Wigan. One of the disadvantages for Cas is their are two other clubs in the same borough. So, thats borough population divided by 3, dragging the catchment points down.

[Taffy Tiger]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

It is quite clear what the catchment points are for. It is a way of encouraging teams to be based in large population areas (cities) instead of being crammed into smaller villages and towns. It makes absolute sense that the likes of Toulouse score well in this area. It makes sense that the likes of Fev/Cas/Wakey are marked down for basically all being from the same place. Now, as with many of these things I don't think they have implemented it brilliantly, it's weird that London don't get top points.

But you are making the mistake in not seeing the difference between the criteria and the outcome. Just because you score well in this area it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed that you will succeed. That's why it's weighted as it is - Toulouse might get 0.5pts more than the likes of Leigh and Wire (I don't know exactly the populations of these, so please take as an example) - but if that doesn't translate into a large following and revenue then you'll score poorly there and your total score will be lower. In the same way that you could score brilliantly on finances, or facilities, but get no fans, play poorly and have poor income - you'll score poorly in the round.

It's perfectly clear what catchment is all about - it is to encourage big city teams over small town teams. 

ONe final observation around your post - you are very disparaging around Toulouse in your post above - yet you staunchly defend many of the heartland clubs who do worse than them. Bit of a red flag for me I'm afraid Harry.

HI Dave T

I agree to some extent regarding catchment area and encouraging teams to be based in larger population areas , but shouldn't this be for new teams and not already well established teams .

The original catchment area criteria was based upon distances between teams and their nearest club , which was exactly the right way of doing it , in my opinion .

As you have mentioned , London shows the flaw of the new system , and questions your reasoning regarding teams based in larger population areas .

You mention Leeds and compare them to WMDC where 3 teams 'should be marked down' for being in the same area . However , Leeds (Headingley) to Wakey (Belle Vue) is 15.4 miles , whereas Cas (WR) to Wakefield (BV) is 8.6 miles , so there is less than a 7 mile difference between the 2 . On this basis aren't Leeds basically in the same place as Cas , Wakey and Fev as well . 

You are right to say that it is no guarantee that you will succeed in other areas just because you are in a larger catchment area , but you do have a massive advantage . Again , let's look at Leeds , and I think this highlights the point that Harry and a few others were making regarding a percentage factor being applied .

Leeds have a well established (city) team in a catchment area of 800k , yet they only have an average crowd of 13k in a stadium with a capacity of 21k . Do you really think that this is good enough for a 'City Club' . The attendance criteria, however, means that Leeds get top marks for attendance , and yet your '3 clubs in same place' managed more than the 13k combined average attendance than their big city rivals in 2023 , despite a population of less than half of that of Leeds . None of them got maximum points . This is the disparity that people are objecting to .

Surely there is more of an argument that the Catchment area points should be reversed ie those with a potential catchment area of 260k or more get 0.5points , rising to 1.5 points for those with the smaller catchment area of under 130k . It's these so called smaller teams that have to fight for their market share to score higher in all other criteria , not your already established big city clubs who can't even get 2% of their catchment area to attend home games . 

This system not only rewards the teams with a higher catchment area score , it seems to reward them twice as they are at a significant advantage in other criteria areas , over teams with a smaller catchment area .

 

Catchment area can be a useful tool to increase the game's geographical spread , but that isn't what it is doing at the moment . It should be based on the distance between you and your nearest rivals . Whether we think London should be in SL or not , it is crazy that they don't get maximum points in this area . What better example can there be of a team worthy of maximum catchment area points ? Leeds ?????

Edited May 21 by Taffy Tiger

[Dave T]

40 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

 

1 - I agree to some extent regarding catchment area and encouraging teams to be based in larger population areas , but shouldn't this be for new teams and not already well established teams .

The original catchment area criteria was based upon distances between teams and their nearest club , which was exactly the right way of doing it , in my opinion .

As you have mentioned , London shows the flaw of the new system , and questions your reasoning regarding teams based in larger population areas .

You mention Leeds and compare them to WMDC where 3 teams 'should be marked down' for being in the same area . However , Leeds (Headingley) to Wakey (Belle Vue) is 15.4 miles , whereas Cas (WR) to Wakefield (BV) is 8.6 miles , so there is less than a 7 mile difference between the 2 . On this basis aren't Leeds basically in the same place as Cas , Wakey and Fev as well . 

 

2 - You are right to say that it is no guarantee that you will succeed in other areas just because you are in a larger catchment area , but you do have a massive advantage . Again , let's look at Leeds , and I think this highlights the point that Harry and a few others were making regarding a percentage factor being applied .

Leeds have a well established (city) team in a catchment area of 800k , yet they only have an average crowd of 13k in a stadium with a capacity of 21k . Do you really think that this is good enough for a 'City Club' . The attendance criteria, however, means that Leeds get top marks for attendance , and yet your '3 clubs in same place' managed more than the 13k combined average attendance than their big city rivals in 2023 , despite a population of less than half of that of Leeds . None of them got maximum points . This is the disparity that people are objecting to .

Surely there is more of an argument that the Catchment area points should be reversed ie those with a potential catchment area of 260k or more get 0.5points , rising to 1.5 points for those with the smaller catchment area of under 130k . It's these so called smaller teams that have to fight for their market share to score higher in all other criteria , not your already established big city clubs who can't even get 2% of their catchment area to attend home games . 

This system not only rewards the teams with a higher catchment area score , it seems to reward them twice as they are at a significant advantage in other criteria areas , over teams with a smaller catchment area .

 

Catchment area can be a useful tool to increase the game's geographical spread , but that isn't what it is doing at the moment . It should be based on the distance between you and your nearest rivals . Whether we think London should be in SL or not , it is crazy that they don't get maximum points in this area . What better example can there be of a team worthy of maximum catchment area points ? Leeds ?????

1 - I agree with much of your point in part 1 of your post TT. I think there are better ways of doing this - I know radius has been mentioned for example, and I don't think that's a bad suggestion. However I do also think that has flaws too - if I think about the tribalism that a Town/City/Club name can have attached I don't think simply using radius is perfect either.

2 - On Leeds point I completely disagree. % doesn't help at all here. In fact, the % of population sort of supports the whole point that it is a numbers game and we should be having clubs in big cities. It's the very definition of a hollow victory, the likes of Cas claiming they get a better % of their population than Leeds, when Leeds are the richest club in UK RL, playing in front of large crowds in a great ground.

I'm afraid I don't get your points proposal - it has no logic for me. You give more points for things that you want - we don't want loads of small village clubs - so why would we give them more points?

Leeds are absolutely the model that we want SL to be full of - the fact that we are trying to make a case to suggest they are doing worse than the likes of Cas is perverse to me.