IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It only really works if we neatly land on 12 grade A clubs. Let's say we get 13 this month (or in any subsequent year), we aren't moving to 13 clubs next year. And if we then drop to 11 grade A clubs, we aren't dropping back to 12 clubs.

And permanent basis means nowt when you're just reassessed every season.

I think you will find that this slightly fuzzy wording undermines the whole thing and I would definitely be in favour of a process that prioritised improving standards if only it had clearer English.

[Dave T]

On the scoring, it's useful to look at the points that some clubs are just not getting.

The maximum is 20. Many clubs will then lose:

Minus 0.5 if you aren't getting 7.5k plus.

Minus 1.7+ if you are outside of the top 6 and haven't won the cup.

Minus, say 0.25-0.5 for utilisation.

Minus 0.5 for catchment.

Minus 0.25 for Foundation turnover.

So that means that many clubs starting point will be 16.8pts. Basically everything else needs to be spot on to get 15+.

 

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

I don't see Toulouse out scoring any current SL bar London, and they are not getting close to Wakey.

You think getting 12 Grade A teams within a couple of seasons of the system is a triumph? Most teams seem to be just fiddling with the figures to get the grades needed rather than doing what the criteria originally set out to do. 12 Grade A's after next season is not getting a better sky deal and most clubs will not have had any increase in income just because of their grading.

They're not "fiddling the figures", that's just a trope people use to disparage the system. What they're doing is improving their structures and assets in the way they've been asked to by IMG.

[ATLANTISMAN]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

IMG do not decide who is and who isn’t in SL. The scoring criteria does.

I know that you have been corrected on this many times on this thread so I find it strange that you keep repeating this theory

That's what I am referring to

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

That's what I am referring to

You said IMG would want Salford over Castleford, the point is that they, nor anyone else, decides that in that way. 

[LeeF]

27 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

That's what I am referring to

No it isn’t what you posted

[ATLANTISMAN]

22 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

You said IMG would want Salford over Castleford, the point is that they, nor anyone else, decides that in that way. 

Wanna bet

[Tommygilf]

Just now, ATLANTISMAN said:

Wanna bet

Yes absolutely.

Just like they won't "keep London" over anyone else either, that isn't how the system is designed to work.

If Cas score higher than Salford that is what they do, if Salford score higher than Cas that's how it works. Nobody is deciding either way, none of the data is subjective.

[Hopie]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

They're not "fiddling the figures", that's just a trope people use to disparage the system. What they're doing is improving their structures and assets in the way they've been asked to by IMG.

I think there is a problem when teams improve their IMG scores but don't actually improve the things that the new system was supposed to improve, although what that is can often be very fuzzy and open to interpretation if you try to look at it closely. Moving the same money into a different area of the business to improve points in one area, putting seats on a terrace etc, renting a big screen, its the same business and stadium, just with more IMG points.

So the system deserves criticism on this area because it is being "played" and is therefore not rigorous enough to achieve stated aims. 

[Tommygilf]

13 minutes ago, Hopie said:

I think there is a problem when teams improve their IMG scores but don't actually improve the things that the new system was supposed to improve, although what that is can often be very fuzzy and open to interpretation if you try to look at it closely. Moving the same money into a different area of the business to improve points in one area, putting seats on a terrace etc, renting a big screen, its the same business and stadium, just with more IMG points.

So the system deserves criticism on this area because it is being "played" and is therefore not rigorous enough to achieve stated aims. 

Well it quite clearly isn't the same. 

The money Beaumont has moved in can't just be moved out. The club is therefore stronger.

Castleford's ground is now materially better for spectators and broadcasters for RL games than it was a year ago. If it isn't, then that will be reflected in other areas such as the finances and attendances going down.

What it is showing is that these clubs and businesses could have made these improvements, but chose not to because there was no imperative to do so.

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

On the scoring, it's useful to look at the points that some clubs are just not getting.

The maximum is 20. Many clubs will then lose:

Minus 0.5 if you aren't getting 7.5k plus.

Minus 1.7+ if you are outside of the top 6 and haven't won the cup.

Minus, say 0.25-0.5 for utilisation.

Minus 0.5 for catchment.

Minus 0.25 for Foundation turnover.

So that means that many clubs starting point will be 16.8pts. Basically everything else needs to be spot on to get 15+.

 

This is probably the best explanation so far explaining why Championship teams won't ever trouble 15 points after this season.

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

They're not "fiddling the figures", that's just a trope people use to disparage the system. What they're doing is improving their structures and assets in the way they've been asked to by IMG.

Or cooking the books as most people will call it to create a different impression that has pretty much zero improvement to the final outcome in comparison to the previous one. Moving money from say sponsorship to a gift or whichever way it is done or adding the value of the stadium to the financials makes not one iota of a difference to the game apart from teams upping their grading points in a way Im not really sure IMG planned for.

15 minutes ago, Hopie said:

I think there is a problem when teams improve their IMG scores but don't actually improve the things that the new system was supposed to improve, although what that is can often be very fuzzy and open to interpretation if you try to look at it closely. Moving the same money into a different area of the business to improve points in one area, putting seats on a terrace etc, renting a big screen, its the same business and stadium, just with more IMG points.

So the system deserves criticism on this area because it is being "played" and is therefore not rigorous enough to achieve stated aims. 

This 100%.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

This is probably the best explanation so far explaining why Championship teams won't ever trouble 15 points after this season.

The Champiosnhip clubs will lose a further 0.3 at least in performance scores (assuming they win their cup and grand final).

I do think the financial are modest enough levels to keep Championship clubs in the running though, although I'm not too familiar with the level of turnover at that level.

[redjonn]

47 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well it quite clearly isn't the same. 

The money Beaumont has moved in can't just be moved out. The club is therefore stronger.

Castleford's ground is now materially better for spectators and broadcasters for RL games than it was a year ago. If it isn't, then that will be reflected in other areas such as the finances and attendances going down.

What it is showing is that these clubs and businesses could have made these improvements, but chose not to because there was no imperative to do so.

Hard to disagree with your comment, nevertheless it is hardly dramatically changing anything with respect to Castleford nor SL/IMG reimagining the sport aim.

For sure its something that could have been done but I guess wasn't because their is/wasn't any real business imperative to gain.

 

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Wanna bet

Yes. 

Your conspiracy theories are just that. 

[Hopie]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

astleford's ground is now materially better for spectators and broadcasters for RL games than it was a year ago. If it isn't, then that will be reflected in other areas such as the finances and attendances going down.

What it is showing is that these clubs and businesses could have made these improvements, but chose not to because there was no imperative to do so.

I can't comment on the improvement for broadcasters, but as for spectators, the ground has a smaller capacity and has removed what I considered the best standing spot in the ground, and why? To chase a score in the short term. Cas have spent their ground improvement funds straight away to meet an arbitrary deadline which means the long term plan to improve their facilities becomes longer, we remove relegation because it stops teams planning for the future and thinking one season at a time, and replace it with another system that does the same thing. The myth about Cas (and Wakey) choosing not to advance their facilities is well worn and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Hard to disagree with your comment, nevertheless it is hardly dramatically changing anything with respect to Castleford nor SL/IMG reimagining the sport aim.

For sure its something that could have been done but I guess wasn't because their is/wasn't any real business imperative to gain.

 

And this is the point I guess, the grading system has made these off field changes a business imperative. Hopefully as time progresses and demands are increased they become important to increase off field investments further.

Cas is fairly dramatic, I believe they have doubled their seating capacity? They are dragging their ground kicking and screaming towards the 21st century. 

[Tommygilf]

24 minutes ago, Hopie said:

I can't comment on the improvement for broadcasters, but as for spectators, the ground has a smaller capacity and has removed what I considered the best standing spot in the ground, and why? To chase a score in the short term. Cas have spent their ground improvement funds straight away to meet an arbitrary deadline which means the long term plan to improve their facilities becomes longer, we remove relegation because it stops teams planning for the future and thinking one season at a time, and replace it with another system that does the same thing. The myth about Cas (and Wakey) choosing not to advance their facilities is well worn and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

For broadcasters they are increasing the space available and other practical measures (I understand the parking is better), by bringing in electronic signage too that allows for modern digital advertising.

Your view on the ground is merely an opinion. It is the only improvement the ground has had in decades, and could be the only improvement it has for many more!

The fault for being in this situation lies ultimately with Castleford Tigers, they have let the situation go on and on for decades. Awaiting total improvements had led the club to do absolutely nothing in the meantime.

[Gooleboy]

55 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

And this is the point I guess, the grading system has made these off field changes a business imperative. Hopefully as time progresses and demands are increased they become important to increase off field investments further.

Cas is fairly dramatic, I believe they have doubled their seating capacity? They are dragging their ground kicking and screaming towards the 21st century. 

Have you been there lately? It is hardly any different to how it was on my first visit in the 60s. And before you ask, I was there a few weeks ago against Catalans.

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Have you been there lately? It is hardly any different to how it was on my first visit in the 60s. And before you ask, I was there a few weeks ago against Catalans.

Well given they have spent money on developing and changing certain areas of the ground it has changed since then. They are the only changes perhaps in that time, which says a lot.

I'm not saying it's perfect or totally up to standard, far from it - its still largely an antiquated dump, but they have made some changes and improvements.

[Hopie]

47 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Your view on the ground is merely an opinion.

So you are saying the capacity has not changed?

[Tommygilf]

26 minutes ago, Hopie said:

So you are saying the capacity has not changed?

No, I was referring to where you said:

 

2 hours ago, Hopie said:

has removed what I considered the best standing spot in the ground,

 

[Hopie]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

No, I was referring to where you said:

 

 

I knew you had conveniently ignored that point.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Hopie said:

I knew you had conveniently ignored that point.

Because it's not really relevant?

[Archie Gordon]

IMG: the bottom of SL is a genuine embarrassment. It needn't be.

[dboy]

4 hours ago, Hopie said:

I think there is a problem when teams improve their IMG scores but don't actually improve the things that the new system was supposed to improve, although what that is can often be very fuzzy and open to interpretation if you try to look at it closely. Moving the same money into a different area of the business to improve points in one area, putting seats on a terrace etc, renting a big screen, its the same business and stadium, just with more IMG points.

So the system deserves criticism on this area because it is being "played" and is therefore not rigorous enough to achieve stated aims. 

A rented screen does not count - needs to be a permanent fixture.

I believe the ones you can rent do not (and can not), meet the latest standards/specifications needed.

Wakefield have had to have their permanent screen changed for a larger one, yet it met last year's spec!