IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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.

A few months ago i, to my eternal shame, put the league positions in a sheet to see the impact. From what I can see, finishing outside the bottom 4 raised us above Hull and Cas in the average position rankings, while finishing 6th would have us jointly ranked with Hudds, which I believe has our higher league finish this year put us in the higher rank. So I think a top 6 finish has meant we will get a higher performance score than had we finished 7th

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, phiggins said:

A few months ago i, to my eternal shame, put the league positions in a sheet to see the impact. From what I can see, finishing outside the bottom 4 raised us above Hull and Cas in the average position rankings, while finishing 6th would have us jointly ranked with Hudds, which I believe has our higher league finish this year put us in the higher rank. So I think a top 6 finish has meant we will get a higher performance score than had we finished 7th

Yes, I expect that was the tipping point - so I have no idea why the lead was about the Saints crowd which had absolutely zero impact.

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, I expect that was the tipping point - so I have no idea why the lead was about the Saints crowd which had absolutely zero impact.

Nope, no idea what the attendance would have to do with it. Maybe a hundredth of a point or so on utilisation score? 

[Faithful1865]

2 hours 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 "

That's brilliant. Has she applied for a job with Degsy?

[sweaty craiq]

Thought the IMG concept was clear goals to measure against and transparency ? Thus unless you lie it’s easy to measure yourself against and is the whole purpose of continual improvement?

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Thought the IMG concept was clear goals to measure against and transparency ? Thus unless you lie it’s easy to measure yourself against and is the whole purpose of continual improvement?

Yep - in principle, if they've done their job properly and all is accurate, then this should really just be ratified. 

This really is a bit of a problem with the whole way P&R is being managed - Leigh according to their grading dummy run were a club that were at risk of missing out on the top 12 - as were Cas - it is no surprise that these two clubs have come out publicly to try and manage their fan's expectations that they will be in SL.

Cas have now put their 2025 memberships on sale, despite being 13th on last year's grading. There is a genuine risk that when gradings are announced they may not be in SL. It's weird, and doesn't really work.

[Angelic Cynic]

3 hours ago, Ainley Top said:

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

But after the first two years,or more,the needle is moving in the wrong direction,and followers of clubs who voted in favour of IMG are arguing amongst themselves;as are the owners of clubs who voted for IMG.

The reduction of the broadcast deal not only makes IMG look a toothless tiger but also manages to make Nigel Wood a brilliant negotiator. 

Losing one club may be unfortunate,but losing one with perhaps the wealthiest owner,one using a stadium with LED advertising boards,and in the largest city with the largest community fanbase potential is some accomplishment. 

The next two years,or so,should be really interesting.

The critical mass may have to do the work of others...

[DemonUK]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yes, I expect that was the tipping point - so I have no idea why the lead was about the Saints crowd which had absolutely zero impact.

Utilisation metric?  Also there maybe another adjustment should we beat Salford

Edited September 24 by DemonUK

[JohnM]

Be afraid, be very afraid...of the (former) double-glazing salesman's calculator.

[Forever Trinity]

Are Leigh marking up all the clubs gradings? I find it a bit cheesy identifying their grade before those that check everything have done their job

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, DemonUK said:

Utilisation metric?  Also there maybe another adjustment should we beat Salford

By my reckoning (using announced attendances which I know is inflated) the addition of the Saints game would be worth c0.006pts.

The new score is 0.143 pts higher, which is exactly the same as moving from 9th in the rankings to 8th. It would have been transparent to actually explain that really.

[Damien]

2 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Thought the IMG concept was clear goals to measure against and transparency ? Thus unless you lie it’s easy to measure yourself against and is the whole purpose of continual improvement?

It probably is.

It's also pretty easy to use that to build a picture and a narrative that you've been hard done by if you don't get in. This is particularly so when you are doing this following many outspoken comments on the process. 

[phiggins]

34 minutes ago, Forever Trinity said:

Are Leigh marking up all the clubs gradings? I find it a bit cheesy identifying their grade before those that check everything have done their job

Not sure what the issue is? They’ve submitted the data of their finances, attendances and socials etc, and let people know what they believe that equates to as a score, based on the scoring criteria provided. 

[the man]

The system is designed so that you know your own score when submitted.

With one game to go, which will hardly make any difference, this is Barrow's, which won't be good enough for Super League (we don't meet the minimum facility standards anyway) but is a decent score as the financial distribution for the Championship and League One is going to be based on the grading score.

Average Attendance over 1500 under 3000          1.5pts

Social following over 50k under 100k                     0.1pts

Social Engagement over 5 million                           0.8pts

Website visits over 60k                                           0.5pts

Viewership less than 150k                                       0.75pts

Performance  22nd (can't change)                         1.6pts

Non-centralised turnover over 1.25m under 2.5m 1.5pts

Non-centralised % over 70%                                  0.75pts

Adjusted Profit over £1                                             0.5pts

Owner Investment less than £100k                         0pts

Balance Sheet Strength over £100k                        0.5pts

Facilities - standards not met                                  0.5pts

Utilisation (will change slightly)                               0.43pts

Primacy of tenure - Yes                                           0.25pts

LED displays - No                                                     0pts

Big Screen - Yes                                                       0.125pts

Catchment over 130k under 260k                           1pt

Foundation turnover over £50k less than £250k    0.5pts

Possible deducted points - None

Talent and Performance Pathway - Yes, Furness Raiders U19, WSL Ladies team, Ladies P2P u15, u16 and u19

Community Game Development - Yes, foundation registered as a charity and RFL approved development plan in place including an Inclusion Action Plan

Breach of operational rules - No 

Breach of HMRC, H&S or GDPR - No

Insolvency event - No

E,D&I action plan in place - Yes

3 anti-doping breaches in 12 months - No

Environmental Sustainability action plan in place - Yes

 

Total Points:  11.305

 

[Dave T]

Leigh have ranked themselves as 8th for the last 3 years I believe. If they lose this weekend and Saints win, they will finish this year in 6th, whih takes their 3 year average to 9th, which sees them 'lose' the points they have just awarded themselves. 

I have no idea why they 'banked' the points with this update and published it.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Forever Trinity said:

Are Leigh marking up all the clubs gradings? I find it a bit cheesy identifying their grade before those that check everything have done their job

Personally I'd have gone for a more subtle "we're internally confident of reaching A Grade" through an interview with a journo tbh. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Not sure what the issue is? They’ve submitted the data of their finances, attendances and socials etc, and let people know what they believe that equates to as a score, based on the scoring criteria provided. 

Which would have been fine, and most probably forward looking had it been by one of any number of other clubs submitting their score and advising their stakeholders, sponsors and fans.

But you have to consider it is the club fronted by Beelzebub Beaumont which the mere mention of the name fills some of the posters with dread.

[Dave T]

I find much of the stuff that DB does to be garish, but I don't have an issue with publishing this (apart from the weird update they did) as long as it is correct (or at least 99%).

By being ranked 12th last year, Leigh were in effect put on notice, and I don't have an issue with them being on the front foot to let their fans know which league they will be in next year, especially when trying to sell tickets. 

Clubs are now selling memberships before we know which teams will be in SL - this just can't be the best approach for P&R. Licensing's 3 year system worked far better than this.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Personally I'd have gone for a more subtle "we're internally confident of reaching A Grade" through an interview with a journo tbh. 

Well they have done that Tommy and followed it up with full transparency of what they believe the individual criteria to score will be adding up to a final total 'subject to approval'.

As an individual I have been calling for this transparency all season for everyone to see from all clubs, so each can be scrutinised by professionals, this is very important should as expected there is a minimal fraction of a point separating the awarding of either SL and Championship status.

[the man]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Leigh have ranked themselves as 8th for the last 3 years I believe. If they lose this weekend and Saints win, they will finish this year in 6th, whih takes their 3 year average to 9th, which sees them 'lose' the points they have just awarded themselves. 

I have no idea why they 'banked' the points with this update and published it.

Points aren't awarded on your 3 year average finishing position. Your 3-year average finishing position is worked out and then each club is put into a league table from which points are awarded.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, the man said:

Points aren't awarded on your 3 year average finishing position. Your 3-year average finishing position is worked out and then each club is put into a league table from which points are awarded.

I know. Their 3yr average position (based on 5th this year) sees them level with Hudds, but if they lose and drop to 6th, their 3 year average sees them lose a place. fine margins.

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I know. Their 3yr average position (based on 5th this year) sees them level with Hudds, but if they lose and drop to 6th, their 3 year average sees them lose a place. fine margins.

I saw it as 6th would see us level with Hudds. 5th would see us above Hudds outright. But either would ultimately see the same score applied to Leigh

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I saw it as 6th would see us level with Hudds. 5th would see us above Hudds outright. But either would ultimately see the same score applied to Leigh

Leigh have a 5,5,13 place, Hudds have a 9,9,5 - which sees you both with an average of 7.67 position. You go above Hudds because you've done better this year. However, if you lose on Friday then you are at risk of being 6,5,13 which would mean your average is 8 (behind Hudds).

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I find much of the stuff that DB does to be garish, but I don't have an issue with publishing this (apart from the weird update they did) as long as it is correct (or at least 99%).

By being ranked 12th last year, Leigh were in effect put on notice, and I don't have an issue with them being on the front foot to let their fans know which league they will be in next year, especially when trying to sell tickets. 

Clubs are now selling memberships before we know which teams will be in SL - this just can't be the best approach for P&R. Licensing's 3 year system worked far better than this.

But we ain't actually got a P&R visible situation Dave, it is effectively a scale of points whereby the top 12 scorers will be allocated SL status.

Splitting hairs I suppose we could say Wakefield going into SL will be promoted, but they were in the top 12 scorers in the indicative gradings and found themselves in the Championship by virtue of preliminary way IMG were introducing the system, alternatively we can't say if Toulouse don't make SL after being in the top 12 in the indicative grades they will be relegated, they will just be finishing in the count lower than 12th.

Like yourself I to favour the transition of B grades swopping divisions in a true P&R bottom SL/top Championship, but unlike you I would not protect any A Grades should they finish below a B, let's be honest about it no A should  finish below a B at the bottom of the League, even though at the top this season 2 B's have surpassed 4 A Grades, on the league ladder.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Not sure what the issue is? They’ve submitted the data of their finances, attendances and socials etc, and let people know what they believe that equates to as a score, based on the scoring criteria provided. 

That would be fine had it been a simple straightforward piece, short and to the point, not a novel that challenges the authorities to deny Leigh a grade A or else.  Leigh have done well this season and should be congratulated for that. However,  the owner acting as the game's Court Jester  obscures the good that has been done.