IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

That cannot be directed at me, of all fans of SL clubs, I will keep on fighting for those below SL, unlike some I have never ever said "SL clubs earn the funding, it should rightfully be theirs"

Create all the strawmen you like then

[Liverpool Rover]

33 minutes ago, Castleford Hawk said:

Were Hunslet delusional in 1999 when they won promotion to SL but were denied entry?  That is not the point being made here though.  The point is we believe in on field performance being the criteria clubs should be judged by.  Not only is that what sport is about, and what 76% of supporters surveyed wanted, but it is a lot simpler to understand and monitor than the farce we now have. Minimum standards have a part to play but let’s keep it simple, if you pay all your creditors on time that’s a tick for the finances - don’t make it more complicated than that.  

But in professional sport it's not as simple as just performing on the field.

[KiwiRL]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Brilliantly put, and this is the telling piece in an insiteful statement from a guy at the sharp end, especially the last sentance:-

"As I’ve said many times before though, no one can ever be against improving standards, but I don’t believe that sport was ever meant to be judged primarily in that way. Performance on the field should be paramount. Promotion and relegation are, and always will be, the life blood of British sport and we should embrace that and see it as a strength rather than try to consider it as some kind of hindrance that requires a level of immunity. If you take away hopes and dreams then what’s left?"

Not a lot, just watch them drift away.

Be a bit like the scene when they turn the lights out at Bingo night.

Tens, maybe even hundreds, of Hunslet fans slowly drifting through the doors.

 

[Hopie]

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

But in professional sport it's not as simple as just performing on the field.

Hunslet earned their grand final win, there is a place for minimum standards, but it is not fair to only apply them to some clubs. I still remember the back page of the YEP announcing their plans for Super League, who knows where they would be now if the decision had gone the other way.

[Liverpool Rover]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

It's almost as if running a sports business isn't all about the dream and is about hard fiscal reality.

Australia runs their major pro sports leagues the way that they do because they make a distinction between sport and professional sport and, even though this country likes to think that there isn't, there is a distinction.

[Archie Gordon]

6 hours ago, JohnM said:

Is anyone didputing that things had to change? If not, why not? Anyone pleased with the status quo?

Even just standing still is not an option because everything else in this world is moving forward.

The games governing body recognised this and  thus began "Re-imagining Rugby League" 

It happens that IMG is the partner in this endeavour. They seem to fulfill all the requirements of such a partner. 

Who or what were the alternatives? Ultimate Rugby League? Did that exist then,? Does it exist now? What do the projects opponent really want? Jumpers for goalposts? 

 

Righto. We are back to IMG being the only option then. And if you are not a fan of what IMG are doing, you are against change.

I thought, at least, we'd moved on from this.

[bobbruce]

28 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Righto. We are back to IMG being the only option then. And if you are not a fan of what IMG are doing, you are against change.

I thought, at least, we'd moved on from this.

What is it you want to happen the clubs and the RFL voted for this all people in support of it are saying is shouldn’t we give it a chance. Nobody’s saying it’s perfect but cancelling it before it’s really started is so RL. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, bobbruce said:

What is it you want to happen the clubs and the RFL voted for this all people in support of it are saying is shouldn’t we give it a chance. Nobody’s saying it’s perfect but cancelling it before it’s really started is so RL. 

It would be very RL to undo two (plus) years of development work, annoy another commercial partner, stumble into another league and governance restructure and then sagely make it a fact of record that we tried a grading approach and it failed.

There are some significant issues with this system but none of them are as destructive as walking away from this partnership and set-up now would be.

[Archie Gordon]

4 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

What is it you want to happen the clubs and the RFL voted for this all people in support of it are saying is shouldn’t we give it a chance. Nobody’s saying it’s perfect but cancelling it before it’s really started is so RL. 

I don't want IMG cancelled. So far as I can tell, nor do many other IMG sceptics/critics.

Surely the options aren't 'back IMG to the hilt' or 'sack IMG off'.

 

[gingerjon]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

It may do you good to come up and listen to to those folks in the boozers other than speculating from afar.

But you do such a good job of passing on their thoughts.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Righto. We are back to IMG being the only option then. And if you are not a fan of what IMG are doing, you are against change.

I thought, at least, we'd moved on from this.

See, I don't think this is what John is saying. To me he appears to be saying that a partnership with IMG appears to meet the brief of what we need. He isn't saying that it'll do because it's change. 

But it is a fair challenge around what do people want as the alternative. Because as per my post last night, we did explore alternatives and we have tried many alternatives.

I've been critical of IMG on specifics and some of the grading license, but haven't been challenged in the way you describe - let's be blunt here, there are undercurrents when challenge like that is put out.

An example is the Hunslet piece. The guy isn't saying anything more than I don't like this system and the form is difficult to fit in. He explains that as a small club Tey will have a ranking appropriate for a small club and adds in some conspiracy type stuff. Nothing new in there, and I can't blame people for challenging this strongly.

IMG is a distraction. This isn't really what it's about imo for many. If IMG recommended a Super 8s system (or 2 up 2 down etc) some of the biggest critics would now be championing them. I genuinely believe this debate is largely P&R vs Licensing, with a center ground that is relatively modest in size.

Edited September 11 by Dave T

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Righto. We are back to IMG being the only option then. And if you are not a fan of what IMG are doing, you are against change.

I thought, at least, we'd moved on from this.

I'm afraid you may have misinterpreted my post. 

Is there a need for change or (r)evolution?

What is the alternative to "Re-imagining Rugby League" being proposed by it's critics? 

[Archie Gordon]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

See, I don't think this is what John is saying. To me he appears to be saying that a partnership with IMG appears to meet the brief of what we need. He isn't saying that it'll do because it's change. 

But it is a fair challenge around what do people want as the alternative. Because as per my post last night, we did explore alternatives and we have tried many alternatives.

I've been critical of IMG on specifics and some of the grading license, but haven't been challenged in the way you describe - let's be blunt here, there are undercurrents when challenge like that is put out.

An example is the Hunslet piece. The guy isn't saying anything more than I don't like this system and the form is difficult to fit in. He explains that as a small club Tey will have a ranking appropriate for a small club and adds in some conspiracy type stuff. Nothing new in there, and I can't blame people for challenging this strongly.

IMG is a distraction. This isn't really what it's about imo for many. If IMG recommended a Super 8s system (or 2 up 2 down etc) some of the biggest critics would now be championing them. I genuinely believe this debate is largely P&R vs Licensing, with a center ground that is relatively modest in size.

On the first point, he's making out that if you're not for IMG you probably want jumpers for goalposts. It is daft.

On the second point, you're probably right that the IMG arguments map closely to P&R vs licensing. But this doesn't mean people shouldn't engage with what is actually written rather than seeing a poster's name and deciding they must be wrong.

[Archie Gordon]

3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I'm afraid you may have misinterpreted my post. 

Is there a need for change or (r)evolution?

What is the alternative to "Re-imagining Rugby League" being proposed by it's critics? 

Ah, that's much better. We've lost the silly "is it jumpers for goalposts you want?" bit.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

On the first point, he's making out that if you're not for IMG you probably want jumpers for goalposts. It is daft.

On the second point, you're probably right that the IMG arguments map closely to P&R vs licensing. But this doesn't mean people shouldn't engage with what is actually written rather than seeing a poster's name and deciding they must be wrong.

Fair enough, I can see why that bit of the post jarred, but I thought the post was reasonable and that was a bit of light-heartedness, but I do get on an emotive subject it can annoy.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

But you do such a good job of passing on their thoughts.

The difficulty of relying on the  opinions of fans in boozers stems from the well-known effects of alcohol on people's judgement. 

[Archie Gordon]

To sum up, and then I am off to work.

There is a massive chasm between the IMG fanboys and the luddites (here, for the sake of brevity, I use these terms completely in jest). It manifests itself in strawman arguments and ridicule from both sides.

But there is a hybrid system that seems to satisfy both camps: keep the grading criteria, make A grade more of a stretch to achieve and give them a guaranteed spot, allow B grade clubs (possibly make B harder to achieve if you want) to battle it out for P&R. There must be a reason that I'm missing for not doing something along those lines and instead allowing sores to fester.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

To sum up, and then I am off to work.

There is a massive chasm between the IMG fanboys and the luddites (here, for the sake of brevity, I use these terms completely in jest). It manifests itself in strawman arguments and ridicule from both sides.

But there is a hybrid system that seems to satisfy both camps: keep the grading criteria, make A grade more of a stretch to achieve and give them a guaranteed spot, allow B grade clubs (possibly make B harder to achieve if you want) to battle it out for P&R. There must be a reason that I'm missing for not doing something along those lines and instead allowing sores to fester.

Are there really any IMG fanboys? Even people that are broadly in favour of change through a process like this with IMG ackowledge various flaws in the grading and some of what has happened, and proposed, so far.

Edited September 11 by Damien

[Dave T]

Just now, Damien said:

Are there really any IMG fanboys? Even people that are broadly in favour of change along these lines ackowledge various flaws in the grading and some of what has happened, and proposed, so far.

Did you not get your t-shirt delivered?

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

But there is a hybrid system that seems to satisfy both camps: keep the grading criteria, make A grade more of a stretch to achieve and give them a guaranteed spot, allow B grade clubs (possibly make B harder to achieve if you want) to battle it out for P&R.

I think the vast majority on the 'IMG fanboy' side would welcome that.

I think the vast majority on the 'luddite' side would not move their opinion in any way about it and you'd be seeing exactly the same points raised.

And, in reality, it would really affect about five clubs. As ever.

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

But there is a hybrid system that seems to satisfy both camps: keep the grading criteria, make A grade more of a stretch to achieve and give them a guaranteed spot, allow B grade clubs (possibly make B harder to achieve if you want) to battle it out for P&R. There must be a reason that I'm missing for not doing something along those lines and instead allowing sores to fester.

This is essentially just a minimum standards type system, that hasn't worked in the past even though other sports do it perfectly fine. Those which advocate it now will also moan about it the moment it actually happens and when a club is refused promotion.

Edited September 11 by Damien

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Did you not get your t-shirt delivered?

No, I got the Dave T fan boy edition

[JohnM]

Sure,not everything in the "Re-imagining"    project is perfect and I hope, indeed I expect, it will develop as time goes on.

What we have, though, from the most persistent of critics, is no credible alternative at any level of detail comparable to the "Re-imagining" project. Of course, I may have missed that,  so apologies and reminders of these  are welcome.

 

Responding to the claims that only or mainly on field performance should count, a reminder that on field performance does indeed depend on the factors identified in the gradings. These factors make up the foundation for building a successful team performing well, on the pitch. Plenty of debate no doubt on the weightings, but they are still the success factors.

 

[Archie Gordon]

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

Are there really any IMG fanboys? Even people that are broadly in favour of change through a process like this with IMG ackowledge various flaws in the grading and some of what has happened, and proposed, so far.

Agreed. I meant to use the two terms to highlight their absurdity.

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, Damien said:

No, I got the Dave T fan boy edition

Did you get the gold version? Or blue? Or black? Or White? Or multi colour?

Glad we went with Oxen as manufacturer.