IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Gooleboy]

11 minutes ago, RP London said:

not just listening to them but employing them!

You must tell us who!

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I don't know why you have to be snarky.

You've told me what *might* be different. I've said "thin gruel so far". 

but thats rubbish.. its not thin gruel so far your just choosing to ignore things they are doing.. which is why I said you must be great in a business setting.. I love dealing with people who just ignore the things that are actually being done.. doesnt make for an impossible conversation at all.. but I will leave you too your glass not even half full.. 

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

7 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Sack the coach, change the team around?

Win three games, lose twice to a part time team.

[gingerjon]

15 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Win three games, lose twice to a part time team.

Do you think that's because the people involved weren't trying to win, or is it because they are just really bad?

And the part time team is still bottom (at the moment).

[marklaspalmas]

When's the big announcement of the 2025 grades?

[Hopie]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Like you said re Wakefield Chris, this falling finances for Saints has happened under IMG, you can't split that argument two ways to suit your way of thinking.

This is a fair point, those who wish to give IMG credit for Wakefield's growth, should also accept Saints are posting increasing losses under IMG and Whitehaven have almost gone bust etc. Both are narrow binary assessments which are not very useful, but are based on the same logic.

This thread is full of these binary discussions, the one that has been done to death is that

we need change 

IMG is change 

therefore IMG is needed 

The logic falls down on point three. IMG might turn out to be good, they might not, but because you don't agree with the current way things are going, doesn't mean you are against positive change.

[phiggins]

27 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

When's the big announcement of the 2025 grades?

2026

[JohnM]

Wakefield's growth is owing to a number of factors, none of which are IMG's doings. There is one simple reason for that.  It's that its Wakefield's own job to do these things.  Always was, always is and always will be.  

Part of IMGs work is to advise and assist the RFL to create the environment for clubs to operate in, not to wipe their bums for them.

[Hopie]

36 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

When's the big announcement of the 2025 grades?

The article you posted on the previous page says Hunslet get their score in September, but the whole process ends in October. 
https://hunsletrlfc.com/general/img-grading-2024-update/

[Chrispmartha]

21 minutes ago, Hopie said:

This is a fair point, those who wish to give IMG credit for Wakefield's growth, should also accept Saints are posting increasing losses under IMG and Whitehaven have almost gone bust etc. Both are narrow binary assessments which are not very useful, but are based on the same logic.

This thread is full of these binary discussions, the one that has been done to death is that

we need change 

IMG is change 

therefore IMG is needed 

The logic falls down on point three. IMG might turn out to be good, they might not, but because you don't agree with the current way things are going, doesn't mean you are against positive change.

I didn’t give IMG the credit for Wakefield’s growth it was a specific point about when Leigh started planning (and how they did it) for SL and when and how Wakefield have.

Wakefields recruiting strategy for example has been different to Leighs. In part because of the system they are working in.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Do you think that's because the people involved weren't trying to win, or is it because they are just really bad?

And the part time team is still bottom (at the moment).

From what I've seen they are very poor. 

[MattSantos]

Hunslet are getting their grade on the 12th September...

Apparently.

[Dave T]

I've posted the timelines on this thread a few weeks ago. It's on the rfl website.

It's easy to Google.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Hopie said:

This thread is full of these binary discussions, t

we need change 

IMG is change 

therefore IMG is needed 

The logic falls down on point three. IMG might turn out to be good, they might not, but because you don't agree with the current way things are going, doesn't mean you are against positive change.

This isn't binary and hasn't been binary for the last few decades.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. We've tried some tactical things like just putting clubs in SL.

We tried licensing 15 years ago and sacked it off because it was hard.

We created an SLE breakaway (twice).

We created a Championship breakaway.

We did Super 8s.

We courted private equity.

We have now jumped into bed with a partner with considerable expertise. 

People have supported different things on that list in different ways. It's nonsense to suggest that people are only supporting IMG because they represent change. Private equity represented change but many didn't support that. Breakaway orgs was change, but many didn't support that.

Sometimes, people just think something is a good approach for nothing more than believing it is a good approach. Give people credit for being able to understand the complexities.

Edited September 10 by Dave T

[Hopie]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This isn't binary and hasn't been binary for the last few decades.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. We've tried some tactical things like just putting clubs in SL.

We tried licensing 15 years ago and sacked it off because it was hard.

We created an SLE breakaway (twice).

We created a Championship breakaway.

We did Super 8s.

We courted private equity.

We have now jumped into bed with a partner with considerable expertise. 

People have supported different things on that list in different ways. It's nonsense to suggest that people are only supporting IMG because they represent change. Private equity represented change but many didn't support that. Breakaway orgs was change, but many didn't support that.

Sometimes, people just think something is a good approach for nothing more than believing it is a good approach. Give people credit for being able to understand the complexities.

Should I give you credit for misunderstanding my post?

There are posts in this thread saying people are only against this because they are against change, I am saying otherwise but then you list all these things for some reason.

[marklaspalmas]

2 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

When's the big announcement of the 2025 grades?

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

[Archie Gordon]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

... It's nonsense to suggest that people are only supporting IMG because they represent change. ...

That is definitely not what was claimed.

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Hopie said:

Should I give you credit for misunderstanding my post?

There are posts in this thread saying people are only against this because they are against change, I am saying otherwise but then you list all these things for some reason.

I did wonder about the ambiguity of your post, but the logic follows the opposite way.  There may be claims that people just want things to stay the same, but that's generally because it's what some people are advocating. IMG to clear off and retain P&R. 

But that clearly isn't the case for everyone. There is a myriad of reasons why people are for it, and a myriad of reasons why people are against it, as there was my list. My point is that this isn't binary, and I don't think anyone is presenting it as that, at all.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

That is definitely not what was claimed.

So I'm not following the point that 

We need change

Img are change

Therefore img is needed

Is presented as flawed logic. 

If nobody is saying that, why is that logic being challenged?

[dboy]

16 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

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

Yes, individual clubs will find out after their own score after the submissions have been externally audited.

That exact time-frame isn't specified, but all clubs will be told the whole rankings on Tuesday October 22, before they are made public on Wednesday October 23.

[Archie Gordon]

Just now, Dave T said:

So I'm not following the point that 

We need change

Img are change

Therefore img is needed

Is presented as flawed logic. 

If nobody is saying that, why is that logic being challenged?

The 1-2-3 isn't presented as flawed logic.

The flawed logic bit - as I understand it - is that you can arrive at 'IMG isn't the answer' (3) whilst also being in favour of change (1). Upon hearing that some posters don't like some part of IMG's input, a fairly common retort is that "Well, the status quo isn't working". In other words assuming that negative feelings towards IMG (an X at 3) = resistance to change (or even resistance to some of what they are proposing) (an X at 1). That bit is the flawed binary. I must admit as an IMG sceptic, it is grating.

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

The 1-2-3 isn't presented as flawed logic.

The flawed logic bit - as I understand it - is that you can arrive at 'IMG isn't the answer' (3) whilst also being in favour of change (1). Upon hearing that some posters don't like some part of IMG's input, a fairly common retort is that "Well, the status quo isn't working". In other words assuming that negative feelings towards IMG (an X at 3) = resistance to change (or even resistance to some of what they are proposing) (an X at 1). That bit is the flawed binary. I must admit as an IMG sceptic, it is grating.

I'll be honest, I find the whole IMG conversation really frustrating. I'd like the swear filter to be used to censor those three letters.

I do find the divide though pretty much matches the battle lines that we saw around licensing and then again around Super 8s, give or take. 

I think people are hiding behind IMG somewhat, they are an easy scapegoat for the sport under-performing, but I don't think it should ever be referred to as IMG grading as the Hunslet guy did - everything we are doing is because the RFL and the clubs voted it in. This is on them as much as anyone. We should always be referring to the RFL as the governing body and RLCom as the commercial arm rather than one stakeholder in the partnership.

[Archie Gordon]

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I did wonder about the ambiguity of your post, but the logic follows the opposite way.  There may be claims that people just want things to stay the same, but that's generally because it's what some people are advocating. IMG to clear off and retain P&R. 

But that clearly isn't the case for everyone. There is a myriad of reasons why people are for it, and a myriad of reasons why people are against it, as there was my list. My point is that this isn't binary, and I don't think anyone is presenting it as that, at all.

I do agree that we are all sometimes guilty of placing people into one of two camps on here - pro- and anti-IMG. It doesn't really help. You've made this point yourself, I know.

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'll be honest, I find the whole IMG conversation really frustrating. I'd like the swear filter to be used to censor those three letters.

I do find the divide though pretty much matches the battle lines that we saw around licensing and then again around Super 8s, give or take. 

I think people are hiding behind IMG somewhat, they are an easy scapegoat for the sport under-performing, but I don't think it should ever be referred to as IMG grading as the Hunslet guy did - everything we are doing is because the RFL and the clubs voted it in. This is on them as much as anyone. We should always be referring to the RFL as the governing body and RLCom as the commercial arm rather than one stakeholder in the partnership.

That's fair enough.

One nuance I'd like to see acknowledged is that you can be in favour of a lot of the aims of the new system/approach but still feel it is being very poorly executed and likely to cause a host of avoidable negative side effects. This is broadly where I sit.

[Dave T]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

That's fair enough.

One nuance I'd like to see acknowledged is that you can be in favour of a lot of the aims of the new system/approach but still feel it is being very poorly executed and likely to cause a host of avoidable negative side effects. This is broadly where I sit.

It's broadly where I sit tbh. I'm OK with seeing it flush through and see where we end up, but I hate the hybrid P&R thing which imo doesn't address one of the main criticisms of P&R, which is the shock of relegation, and doesn't retain the positive of on field excitement. From a P&R point of view we've almost gone for the worst of all worlds. 

Where I am supportive is of having more expertise in bed with us. Let's be honest, staying as we were wasn't even an option, the money has gone down massively, we can't even afford to do the stuff we were doing when we were under performing, and more expertise is welcome. But I accept that doesn't mean everything is gonna be rosey.