IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Hopie]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On whether they change things in future, there is zero reason to believe they won't. I'd be surprised if inflation isn't considered in financial metrics for example - in 10 years it'd be poor if the turnovers are measured the same, and similarly, if you build viewers and crowds to the point that 150k and 7.5k are irrelevant numbers then it would be nonsensical not to revisit your bands at the very minimum.

Inflation didn't adjust the salary cap every year, the clubs were happy for it fall in value in real terms over its ongoing lifetime. So there is some reason to believe some metrics won't change. As has been discussed, some of the current metrics are largely irrelevant to some/all anyway, so that they made it though the dummy run is another reason to doubt change is obviously going to happen.

Common sense would suggest these metrics be adjusted and changed but when was common sense the default option for the game's administrators and club owners?

As for the 12+ A grade question, I don't think that is realistic, nor is the system set up with the intention for that to happen. As the Saints owner recently said, they see the future as increased central revenues, league expansion is not on their agenda.

Edited September 22 by Hopie

[Dave T]

38 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think this reinforces what a mess it is. If grade A guarantees you a SL spot and you have 13 grade As, you can do nothing other than immediately expand. Rhodri Jones in an interview just gave away that he hadn't thought much about it. The handbook hasn't changed.

It's unlikely to ever happen but the handbook is clear.

And this is where how many teams being an A cna be managed through a natural increase of metrics.

But you do seem to be one of those who are both quoting the handbook as factual, whilst also choosing to believe which parts they will pay attention to.

The reality is that not everything has to be fully explained in what is really quite a basic handbook. It doesn't need to outline now what may happen in 5 years. If the sport grows where we want it to, many of the metrics would be a waste of time and you could say, end up with 17 grade A clubs at current levels, but I expect there is no desire to have an SL of 17 existing clubs.

I think it is foolish to believe that this grading and the metrics won't evolve as we go. In fact, I'd guarantee it will.

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

And this is where how many teams being an A cna be managed through a natural increase of metrics.

But you do seem to be one of those who are both quoting the handbook as factual, whilst also choosing to believe which parts they will pay attention to.

The reality is that not everything has to be fully explained in what is really quite a basic handbook. It doesn't need to outline now what may happen in 5 years. If the sport grows where we want it to, many of the metrics would be a waste of time and you could say, end up with 17 grade A clubs at current levels, but I expect there is no desire to have an SL of 17 existing clubs.

I think it is foolish to believe that this grading and the metrics won't evolve as we go. In fact, I'd guarantee it will.

Yes - I agree with just about all of that.

[Damien]

53 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Everybody is picking and choose how they interpret things - some are choosing to disbelieve that they value women and London and France despite them.saying that it will be an important part of the 12 year strategy.

On whether they change things in future, there is zero reason to believe they won't. I'd be surprised if inflation isn't considered in financial metrics for example - in 10 years it'd be poor if the turnovers are measured the same, and similarly, if you build viewers and crowds to the point that 150k and 7.5k are irrelevant numbers then it would be nonsensical not to revisit your bands at the very minimum.

I think it's fair to assume that criteria may change over time either as you say with adjustments for things like inflation or the criteria made more stringent. If I was a club planning for the future I certainly wouldn't assume the thresholds such as the 5k capacity or 2k seats will remain the same forever more. Nor should it if we want the game to continually improve.

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, Hopie said:

Inflation didn't adjust the salary cap every year, the clubs were happy for it fall in value in real terms over its ongoing lifetime. So there is some reason to believe some metrics won't change. As has been discussed, some of the current metrics are largely irrelevant to some/all anyway, so that they made it though the dummy run is another reason to doubt change is obviously going to happen.

Common sense would suggest these metrics be adjusted and changed but when was common sense the default option for the game's administrators and club owners?

As for the 12+ A grade question, I don't think that is realistic, nor is the system set up with the intention for that to happen. As the Saints owner recently said, they see the future as increased central revenues, league expansion is not on their agenda.

The metricsnare all set at a reasonable level that mean something (we don't need to debate whether the principles of each one are correct), but I think I'm right in saying that no metrics will be maxed out by 12 clubs. That means there remains drivers for growth - it isn't accidental that it's fallen that way. Maybe the 70% central revenue piece?

The Salary cap is a pure cost, it isn't an assessment so isn't of any real relevance here.

There is nothing that would suggest that we would just continue use a grading system that we have outgrown. It would actually just be completely stupid.

 

[Harry Stottle]

42 minutes ago, LeeF said:

3 of whom are currently Championship clubs

Of which Toulouse and Wakefield were inside the top 12 in the indicative gradings, and Bradford don't have a snowball in hells chance of making SL in 25. 

Have you anything constructive to add that will change that.

[Archie Gordon]

23 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Of which Toulouse and Wakefield were inside the top 12 in the indicative gradings, and Bradford don't have a snowball in hells chance of making SL in 25. 

...

Yes. TO and Wakey have legacy SL year(s) in the bank. I would be interested to know how their finances compare one year to the next. A transparent set of scores across all clubs would be ever so illuminating.

[Wakefield Ram]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

3 of whom are currently Championship clubs

Maybe the final 12 would be down to results on the field...

[LeeF]

35 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Of which Toulouse and Wakefield were inside the top 12 in the indicative gradings, and Bradford don't have a snowball in hells chance of making SL in 25. 

Have you anything constructive to add that will change that.

Another strange post from you with that last sentence

[The Blues Ox]

7 hours ago, binosh said:

Toulouse, Bradford, Leigh, Castleford and Wakefield all think they are close.

Leigh, Cas, and Wakey will all be close or will be Grade A's. Toulouse and Bradford won't be close.

[Hopie]

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

The metricsnare all set at a reasonable level that mean something (we don't need to debate whether the principles of each one are correct), but I think I'm right in saying that no metrics will be maxed out by 12 clubs. That means there remains drivers for growth - it isn't accidental that it's fallen that way. Maybe the 70% central revenue piece?

The Salary cap is a pure cost, it isn't an assessment so isn't of any real relevance here.

There is nothing that would suggest that we would just continue use a grading system that we have outgrown. It would actually just be completely stupid.

 

We don't need to debate further as we agree they could be improved. As for growth, there is no incentive in the system for those who achieve an A to improve their score that wasn't there before the system was implemented. 

The salary cap is relevant here because it was something that if allowed to grow with inflation would have benefited players and helped stem the drop in squad size and playing standards over the Super League era. But as letting it shrink benefited the clubs it was voted through to let the funds available for players shrink in real terms. As such I expect the clubs in Super League would be unlikely to approve increases in grading standards that would put them at risk, even if the changes were a benefit to the game as a whole.

You assume there will be changes because they are sensible, but there isn't evidence to support that. The only changes that have been made to scores are those forced by changes to the number of clubs and some wording also changed to highlight new TV partners, but those with the power in our game tend to use that power in a way that benefits them rather than a wider focus, so why would they agree to give up the grading points that keeps them in the central funding they rely on? 

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Hopie said:

We don't need to debate further as we agree they could be improved. As for growth, there is no incentive in the system for those who achieve an A to improve their score that wasn't there before the system was implemented. 

The salary cap is relevant here because it was something that if allowed to grow with inflation would have benefited players and helped stem the drop in squad size and playing standards over the Super League era. But as letting it shrink benefited the clubs it was voted through to let the funds available for players shrink in real terms. As such I expect the clubs in Super League would be unlikely to approve increases in grading standards that would put them at risk, even if the changes were a benefit to the game as a whole.

You assume there will be changes because they are sensible, but there isn't evidence to support that. The only changes that have been made to scores are those forced by changes to the number of clubs and some wording also changed to highlight new TV partners, but those with the power in our game tend to use that power in a way that benefits them rather than a wider focus, so why would they agree to give up the grading points that keeps them in the central funding they rely on? 

I think the big difference and why I don't see the SC as a great comparison is that it could be argued that the Salary Cap remaining stagnant was still doing its job. It's job is to help protect from overspending, and to try and deliver a competitive playing field. It could be argued not increasing the cap was sensible and has driven sustainability for a long period.

Now, I think it has shown a real lack of ambition, but it does still keep the cap as fit for purpose. And throughout that period they have tweaked, they've just played around the edges in the main though until the last 6 or 7 years or so when we've started to increase.

The difference is that if the league outgrows the metrics, you can't make an argument that they remain fit for purpose. We don't exactly have a history of being afraid of making change. But, time will tell on that.

The other unknown in this space is the kind of power that the RFL/RLCom hold here i.e. who sets the benchmarks.

[Gooleboy]

12 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Leigh, Cas, and Wakey will all be close or will be Grade A's. Toulouse and Bradford won't be close.

Bradford have more chance of getting in the NRL!

[JohnM]

"We don't need to debate further"

Hmmmm....

Next season, clubs know exactly what they must do. They must win as many games as possible, whilst ensuring they do the right things that will support them in their endeavours.

Clubs have to act in their own interests and the governing bodies have to act in the interests of the sport as a whole. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

An update for sponsors, members & supporters. Leopards Submit Grade A IMG Score. Leigh Leopards are pleased to update sponsors, members and supporters of their revised IMG grading points submitted to the RFL earlier today. The final score is 15.24 based upon the updated correct attendance against St Helens on Friday and the current league position. This reconfirms the club as grade A, which we look forward to being confirmed in due course. Leigh Leopards | Leigh Sports Village 

Yes it does say 'to be confirmed'

Edited September 24 by Harry Stottle

[Ainley Top]

Don't forget that it takes time for the critical mass to move the needle. That's why it's a 12 year deal.

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

An update for sponsors, members & supporters. Leopards Submit Grade A IMG Score. Leigh Leopards are pleased to update sponsors, members and supporters of their revised IMG grading points submitted to the RFL earlier today. The final score is 15.24 based upon the updated correct attendance against St Helens on Friday and the current league position. This reconfirms the club as grade A, which we look forward to being confirmed in due course. Leigh Leopards | Leigh Sports Village 

Yes it does say 'to be confirmed'

That seems a decent uplift based on one attendance being added. And why have they used the current leafue position? If Leigh and Wire lose at the weekend they drop to 6th iirc.

Edited September 24 by Dave T

[The Blues Ox]

17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

An update for sponsors, members & supporters. Leopards Submit Grade A IMG Score. Leigh Leopards are pleased to update sponsors, members and supporters of their revised IMG grading points submitted to the RFL earlier today. The final score is 15.24 based upon the updated correct attendance against St Helens on Friday and the current league position. This reconfirms the club as grade A, which we look forward to being confirmed in due course. Leigh Leopards | Leigh Sports Village 

I couldn't help but chuckle reading that. "Its official we are a Grade A club and we look forward to that been made official".

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

That seems a decent uplift based on one attendance being added. And why have they used the current leafue position? If Leigh and Wire lose at the weekend they drop to 6th iirc.

Having looked at their proposed scoring, the atte dance was nothing to do with it, so im not sure why they say it is. 

This is because their previous score assumed a 7th place finish this year.

[JohnM]

This news just in. Our 17 year old granddaughter has just announced her A level results. It seems she has 3 x A stars. I asked her how she knew when she hadn't sat her exams yet. "No problem", she said. "I've marked the papers myself "

[dkw]

4 minutes ago, JohnM said:

This news just in. Our 17 year old granddaughter has just announced her A level results. It seems she has 3 x A stars. I asked her how she knew when she hadn't sat her exams yet. "No problem", she said. "I've marked the papers myself "

I`m looking forward to my new role heading up Versace`s winter collection after telling them I`m the most handsome man on the planet, and my mam seconded it. 

[phiggins]

55 minutes ago, JohnM said:

This news just in. Our 17 year old granddaughter has just announced her A level results. It seems she has 3 x A stars. I asked her how she knew when she hadn't sat her exams yet. "No problem", she said. "I've marked the papers myself "

Except this isn't marking your own homework. Clubs submit data, and they know what scores relate to that data so they know what score they are expecting. All the comms has acknowledged that the final comfirmation will come from the RFL.

[Adelaide Tiger]

59 minutes ago, dkw said:

I`m looking forward to my new role heading up Versace`s winter collection after telling them I`m the most handsome man on the planet, and my mam seconded it. 

That reminded me about a radio program a couple of days ago about where a local Real Estate Agent was talking about Govt legislation to stop disingenuous Agents.  He gave an example of a young bloke having an advertisement stating ‘Australia’s Number one Real Estate Agent’ with minute lettering below adding ‘as described by my Mum’.

Apparently his Mum was interviewed and confirmed that she thought her son was indeed ‘Australia’s number one Real Estate Agent’.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

This news just in. Our 17 year old granddaughter has just announced her A level results. It seems she has 3 x A stars. I asked her how she knew when she hadn't sat her exams yet. "No problem", she said. "I've marked the papers myself "

Who does she take after? If she hadn't sat the exam yet she wouldn't have a paper to mark would she?

1 hour ago, dkw said:

I`m looking forward to my new role heading up Versace`s winter collection after telling them I`m the most handsome man on the planet, and my mam seconded it. 

I heard you came second in a Robert Redford look a like contest, and Henderson Gill won it!

 

So please both of you, tell me who is that presents the scores to the RFL, could it be the pensioner that sells newspapers at the bus station, the park keeper who keeps the kids of the grass maybe its the dog catcher looking for ferals and strays, or surprise surprise to those who may not have contemplated it it may just be the clubs themselves being the only ones who are privvy to all the information that the criteria demands to be submitted.

Being done such a way, a magic thing will happen there will be a score for each and every criteria, that just requires totting up and bingo you get a final total, and as it says in the release "to be confirmed in due course",

All the other clubs be doing exactly the same won't they? Unless those in the know can advise that it is done in a different manner than clubs submitting their own findings.

Edited September 24 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

22 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Except this isn't marking your own homework. Clubs submit data, and they know what scores relate to that data so they know what score they are expecting. All the comms has acknowledged that the final comfirmation will come from the RFL.

Don't make it complicated Higgy.