IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that is an odd question to ask and I'm not surprised you got that response.

Why would it be an odd question? my club, their club at that time was in 12th spot which could have been 13th depending on Castleford's response to their financials question.

Considering this is IMG's system that could be demoting the Leigh club to the Championship, it was a very pertinent question to ask if they knew who were the architect's of the system responsible.

Like @Martyn Sadler I consider you are miles off in your consideration of how au fait people are with this system.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

The way you will get relegated is if you don't score enough points across the range of criteria. You really do have to look at the whole thing, the whole 20 pts, not just get hung up on 1 element. 

It's when you look across the whole thing that it hits you how this "one element' could influence things. 

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Why would it be an odd question? my club, their club at that time was in 12th spot which could have been 13th depending on Castleford's response to their financials question.

Considering this is IMG's system that could be demoting the Leigh club to the Championship, it was a very pertinent question to ask if they knew who were the architect's of the system responsible.

Like @Martyn Sadler I consider you are miles off in your consideration of how au fait people are with this system.

But you asked people what they know of IMG? That's pretty niche.

[Martyn Sadler]

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I used to work for an old Director who often told me to care less about what people say, and more about what they do. We carry out a lot of market research, but ultimately it's what people do that is important. 

My point being, if it was such a disaster for people, it would have been impossible for London to sell tickets for this year.

Your former director was obviously a very sensible fellow.

He might also have said that outcomes are more important than hypotheses that look good on paper.

I don't know this for sure, but I suspect that London's approach this year was to market Super League rather than themselves.

My daughter and her husband were at their last home game and commented to me on how friendly and family-based the crowd was on that day.

Sometimes it's good not to have an excess of tribalism.

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Your former director was obviously a very sensible fellow.

He might also have said that outcomes are more important than hypotheses that look good on paper.

I don't know this for sure, but I suspect that London's approach this year was to market Super League rather than themselves.

My daughter and her husband were at their last home game and commented to me on how friendly and family-based the crowd was on that day.

Sometimes it's good not to have an excess of tribalism.

It is a shame that London appear to have woken up a little late on all of this. It does rather feel like a strong London playing out of that stadium could do some good stuff.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is a shame that London appear to have woken up a little late on all of this. It does rather feel like a strong London playing out of that stadium could do some good stuff.

Very true, but now we are locked into a system that will see them out of Super League for who knows how long.

What I find frustrating is that IMG said two years ago that London was a priority but they've created a system that effectively negates the progress that London has made.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Very true, but now we are locked into a system that will see them out of Super League for who knows how long.

What I find frustrating is that IMG said two years ago that London was a priority but they've created a system that effectively negates the progress that London has made.

As an expansionist and somebody who would love to see the game do really well in London etc. I partly agree, or rather I agree with the sentiment of your post - but we have been down the route before of allowing weak expansion clubs into SL and it has been a car crash. I'm comfortable with the approach of demanding standards of all clubs, including London.

[Harry Stottle]

49 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But you asked people what they know of IMG? That's pretty niche.

C'mon Dave I don't know whether you are hankering for a job on the payroll as IMG's spin doctor, I thought you would have realised that in the context of this conversation it would have been in relation to Rugby League and I would have gained the question as such, I didn't think I needed to add that.

[Martyn Sadler]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

As an expansionist and somebody who would love to see the game do really well in London etc. I partly agree, or rather I agree with the sentiment of your post - but we have been down the route before of allowing weak expansion clubs into SL and it has been a car crash. I'm comfortable with the approach of demanding standards of all clubs, including London.

Expansion clubs will always be weak, however, unless they are given a lot of central help.

We saw that with Melbourne Storm.

We saw it with Sydney Swans and other clubs in the AFL.

I had been hoping that IMG would be able to find a way to do this with London Broncos.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

C'mon Dave I don't know whether you are hankering for a job on the payroll as IMG's spin doctor, I thought you would have realised that in the context of this conversation it would have been in relation to Rugby League and I would have gained the question as such, I didn't think I needed to add that.

I'd expect us to be speaking like adults and to say what we mean then Harry. Whether people know who the sports/marketing agency is in the partnership isn't the relevant thing here. Surely asking whether people understand what is happening with licensing/grading etc. is the relevant point. But you wrote that you asked them what they knew of IMG - nobody else wrote that for you.

IMG/RLComm etc doesn't really matter - the sport has gone down this route, I don't dispute your point that plenty won't know the detail of the politics, but my conclusion would be that they aren't that bothered.

I absolutely share some of your concerns here Harry, but you're being a bit childish with the whole "IMG fans" thing. Maybe, and it's a radical view, but maybe plenty just don't agree with your view - it doesn't make them any kind of IMG fan, or spin doctor. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Expansion clubs will always be weak, however, unless they are given a lot of central help.

We saw that with Melbourne Storm.

We saw it with Sydney Swans and other clubs in the AFL.

I had been hoping that IMG would be able to find a way to do this with London Broncos.

It would have certainly boosted the number of posts here

And I agree with you on this point.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Expansion clubs will always be weak, however, unless they are given a lot of central help.

We saw that with Melbourne Storm.

We saw it with Sydney Swans and other clubs in the AFL.

I had been hoping that IMG would be able to find a way to do this with London Broncos.

Maybe, just maybe, and its massive speculation but could it be that they need to get other things in place before doing this otherwise it could be throwing good money after bad if the base league "system" is not up to exploiting this investment properly... I'm only thinking as per building a house without building the foundations and all sorts of other business, branding, marketing things.... I may be well of the mark here but it is a possibility that this being a 12 year "plan"/relationship there is more to come further down... 

Queue everyone saying "nah not a chance", "cloud cukoo land" etc but its just a though exercise. 

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

Maybe, just maybe, and its massive speculation but could it be that they need to get other things in place before doing this otherwise it could be throwing good money after bad if the base league "system" is not up to exploiting this investment properly... I'm only thinking as per building a house without building the foundations and all sorts of other business, branding, marketing things.... I may be well of the mark here but it is a possibility that this being a 12 year "plan"/relationship there is more to come further down... 

Queue everyone saying "nah not a chance", "cloud cukoo land" etc but its just a though exercise. 

I hope you're right and they have a brilliant plan that they haven't shared with us.

Although I'm critical of IMG, I fervently hope that they prove me wrong, for the good of the game.

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Expansion clubs will always be weak, however, unless they are given a lot of central help.

We saw that with Melbourne Storm.

We saw it with Sydney Swans and other clubs in the AFL.

I had been hoping that IMG would be able to find a way to do this with London Broncos.

Sorry Martyn but I will totally disagree with you in that any club whoever they are or wherever they are based should be given preferential treatment of any kind, we have gone down this path before and it wasn't good then and neither would it be good again.

[Gav Wilson]

3 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Expansion clubs will always be weak, however, unless they are given a lot of central help.

We saw that with Melbourne Storm.

We saw it with Sydney Swans and other clubs in the AFL.

I had been hoping that IMG would be able to find a way to do this with London Broncos.

Totally agree with this. London should be in Super League, but they need to be a much better entity.

They should be given all the help they need to be given every possible chance to succeed.

[Tommygilf]

53 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

Totally agree with this. London should be in Super League, but they need to be a much better entity.

They should be given all the help they need to be given every possible chance to succeed.

A London based team is important for Super League.

The current edition of London Broncos are a far cry from that.

[Gav Wilson]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

A London based team is important for Super League.

The current edition of London Broncos are a far cry from that.

I completely agree!

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

A London based team is important for Super League.

The current edition of London Broncos are a far cry from that.

 

2 hours ago, Gav Wilson said:

I completely agree!

So what would you both do about if it was your call, and given it will remain a 12 team SL would you elbow someone out of the way to make it happen?

[RP London]

12 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Sorry Martyn but I will totally disagree with you in that any club whoever they are or wherever they are based should be given preferential treatment of any kind, we have gone down this path before and it wasn't good then and neither would it be good again.

To be fair the NRL and the AFL are in a much stronger position with Melbourne and Sydney so while you may not like it it has worked. 

As with everything that Rugby League has done in the past we have never done it properly, when we've given preferential treatment its been half baked.. You need to go all in and fund heavily etc.. 

 

[RP London]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

So what would you both do about if it was your call, and given it will remain a 12 team SL would you elbow someone out of the way to make it happen?

Why would it? long term IMG have said they will go to 14 if there were 14 clubs worth putting in why change the goalpost.. 

Spend the next few years heavily investing in London (whatever iteration, I'm not saying the current one is right), youth, fans, sponsorship etc get it to a standard where you arent kicking a team out to put them in and you can expand the league becuase they are a worthwhile addition.. its a 5-10 year plan its not not going to happen overnight.

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

To be fair the NRL and the AFL are in a much stronger position with Melbourne and Sydney so while you may not like it it has worked. 

As with everything that Rugby League has done in the past we have never done it properly, when we've given preferential treatment its been half baked.. You need to go all in and fund heavily etc.. 

 

In an impoverished sport such as this we can't afford to invest to see if it works, your comparison with the NRL and AFL is financially way out.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

Why would it? long term IMG have said they will go to 14 if there were 14 clubs worth putting in why change the goalpost.. 

Spend the next few years heavily investing in London (whatever iteration, I'm not saying the current one is right), youth, fans, sponsorship etc get it to a standard where you arent kicking a team out to put them in and you can expand the league becuase they are a worthwhile addition.. its a 5-10 year plan its not not going to happen overnight.

For that to happen IMG will gave to come up with a massive TV contract, the SL  club Chairmen still run this sport, not the RFL and most definitely not IMG, they are now £800,000 short on the funding per annum they recieved just a few years ago, will the vote for 2 more teams diluting the share out more, I very much doubt it.

[RP London]

34 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

In an impoverished sport such as this we can't afford to invest to see if it works, your comparison with the NRL and AFL is financially way out.

 

31 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

For that to happen IMG will gave to come up with a massive TV contract, the SL  club Chairmen still run this sport, not the RFL and most definitely not IMG, they are now £800,000 short on the funding per annum they recieved just a few years ago, will the vote for 2 more teams diluting the share out more, I very much doubt it.

Thats the whole point of IMG, to increase the potential for investment.. whether you agree it will work or not is neither here nor there, that is the point of them coming on board and as I have said it is a long term plan not a short term one. 

You used to run a business Harry. There would be plenty of things you would have thought "well I cant do it now but if xyz does take off/work then I can then invest in abc which will add further growth" so rather than just thinking I cant do it now therefore I never will you look at it as a longer term vision and strategy.

 

Edited May 23, 2024 by RP London

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

You used to run a business Harry. There would be plenty of things you would have thought "well I cant do it now but if xyz does take off/work then I can then invest in abc which will add further growth" so rather than just thinking I cant do it now therefore I never will you look at it as a longer term vision and strategy.

In these matters as usual I would device my own crib sheet RP, with pro's on one side and negatives on the other, there would also be a good amount of 'feeling' attached, then I would look at elsewhere I belive the money could be better spent, without delving to deep I would not be investing in a London team.

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, RP London said:

Thats the whole point of IMG, to increase the potential for investment.. whether you agree it will work or not is neither here nor there, that is the point of them coming on board and as I have said it is a long term plan not a short term one. 

Two points, no I don't believe IMG's methods will work. And secondly I cannot see them lasting long term, especially not in an organisation as fickle as the British Rugby League is.