IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, JohnM said:

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. 

You really have a problem with Mr Beaumont don't you.

Novel? Does that mean criteria submission.

Edited September 24 by Harry Stottle

[Dave T]

41 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

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.

We do have a system which has retained P&R. It isn't the P&R system that we've used for years, but it is a system that facilitates it. A little like if we had the top team playing the bottom team for P&R each year could lead to no movement, but the vehicle is there. 

We won't have a technical closed shop - there is a mechanism in place for P&R.

[The Blues Ox]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

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.

Cas think with their scoring they are around 15 points. Saw something on X about them just missing out on 15 points because of the big screen not arriving on time but not sure how true that is but which current team in the Championship apart from Wakey is going to be near 15 points to replace them?

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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).

But this isn't exactly how it is worked out is it? The man on the last page gave the exact way the scores are worked out which is via a league table of each clubs average finish over 3 years rather than simply taking the average finish over 3 years which you would imagine Leigh know exactly where they stand on that.

[Dave T]

Just now, The Blues Ox said:

Cas think with their scoring they are around 15 points. Saw something on X about them just missing out on 15 points because of the big screen not arriving on time but not sure how true that is but which current team in the Championship apart from Wakey is going to be near 15 points to replace them?

But this isn't exactly how it is worked out is it? The man on the last page gave the exact way the scores are worked out which is via a league table of each clubs average finish over 3 years rather than simply taking the average finish over 3 years which you would imagine Leigh know exactly where they stand on that.

I havent done what i assume you thinknive done. But to get the average league finish you have to work out an average of where they finished.

Ive created a league table over that 3 years - Leigh and Hudds finish level, with the kicker being the most recent season. However if Leigh finish 6th this year instead of 5th, then their 3 year average drops below Hudds.

Leigh = 5th, 5th, 13th is worth the same as Hudds = 9th, 9th, 5th. If Leigh becomes 6th, 5th, 13th, then they rank below Hudds on the 3 yr table instead of above them currently.

[dboy]

It seems neither Cas's LED boards nor big screen have been installed in time for grading submission.

The transportable screen is sub-standard.

[LeeF]

 

Edited September 24 by LeeF

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, LeeF said:

 

Interesting read. 

[Taffy Tiger]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

It seems neither Cas's LED boards nor big screen have been installed in time for grading submission.

The transportable screen is sub-standard.

We don't have a transportable big screen though . Ours is fixed and was installed a couple of months ago . LED boards not delivered on time so they won't be in , but if our original scores are confirmed then we should just scrape a 15 hopefully

Edited September 24 by Taffy Tiger

[Gooleboy]

50 minutes ago, LeeF said:

 

Jones and Dwyer can speak as much marketing jargon as they like, but Rugby League needs cash, not verbal hot air.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

Jones and Dwyer can speak as much marketing jargon as they like, but Rugby League needs cash, not verbal hot air.

That wont be done by just negotiating harder, or just selling to Amazon Prime or something. There is no silver bullet, it'll take real long term change. 

[Archie Gordon]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

 

I find that ever so depressing.

"RL is poor, and watched by poor folk. How can we squeeze a bit more from these poor folk in order to even think about anything grander."

[Ainley Top]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

We do have a system which has retained P&R. It isn't the P&R system that we've used for years, but it is a system that facilitates it. A little like if we had the top team playing the bottom team for P&R each year could lead to no movement, but the vehicle is there. 

We won't have a technical closed shop - there is a mechanism in place for P&R.

A bit like sending a kid into a spice shop then, but with no brass?

[phiggins]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

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).

Thanks. I hope whoever did the numbers for Leigh weren’t as bored at work as I was when I looked at it then

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Thanks. I hope whoever did the numbers for Leigh weren’t as bored at work as I was when I looked at it then

Same, so there is a very good chance that my fag packet calculations dont hold up to real scrutiny

[binosh]

On 22/09/2024 at 17:02, Archie Gordon said:

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

 

 

 

 

 

[dboy]

1 hour ago, Taffy Tiger said:

We don't have a transportable big screen though . Ours is fixed and was installed a couple of months ago . LED boards not delivered on time so they won't be in , but if our original scores are confirmed then we should just scrape a 15 hopefully

Ah, right. It was temporary screen earlier in the year, so good to hear they've improved that.

Wakey are due to have boards in for this weekend, but they weren't there last weekend.

[Dave T]

42 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I find that ever so depressing.

"RL is poor, and watched by poor folk. How can we squeeze a bit more from these poor folk in order to even think about anything grander."

I think thats an overly negative slant on that with respect Archie.

There is a lot of talk about focusing on getting more and morenin the top of the funnel.

[dkw]

40 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I find that ever so depressing.

"RL is poor, and watched by poor folk. How can we squeeze a bit more from these poor folk in order to even think about anything grander."

I'd love to see which part of the article you read that from, because there's nothing even close to it in there.

[Taffy Tiger]

2 minutes ago, dboy said:

Ah, right. It was temporary screen earlier in the year, so good to hear they've improved that.

Wakey are due to have boards in for this weekend, but they weren't there last weekend.

Cas missed out on deadline for boards, but still hoping we can either scrape Cat A or , failing that , at least be near enough to make the top 12 . 

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, binosh said:

 

 

 

You realise IMG are consultants, they haven’t done anything to London.

Did the London club vote in favour of their recommendations?

[Worzel]

1 minute ago, binosh said:

 

 

 

The IMG model for investing in London is totally different to "let some rich bloke do whatever he feels like". The article in Sports Business is wholly consistent with not collapsing and wailing like a toddler when Hughes leaves. They can see that the 'rely on a club to grow your sport for you' model doesn't work. The only viable plan is to grow central revenues to a point where the sport as a whole can decide to invest in incubating a London club - whether that's 3 years, 5 years or 10 years time.

Given the current model hasn't worked to establish a consistently competitive side, with growing audience and commercial revenues, across many iterations in the last 45 years, who is to say they're wrong?

Of course at various points since 1995 the RFL and Super League have had the excess resources to pursue exactly the strategy IMG advocate. Unfortunately naked self-interest on the part of established clubs prevented them from doing it, so we just blew a load of money on player wages in the heartlands clubs instead. Well done everyone!!

 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

You realise IMG are consultants, they haven’t done anything to London.

Did the London club vote in favour of their recommendations?

The comments on London showed that they got it with London. It needs serious investment and central support from the game. They basically said our currebt and previous approach is a waste of time. They also acknowledge they need to raise funds to support this. I dont think there is too much to argue there.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Dave T said:

The comments on London showed that they got it with London. It needs serious investment and central support from the game. They basically said our currebt and previous approach is a waste of time. They also acknowledge they need to raise funds to support this. I dont think there is too much to argue there.

Totally agree.

If anything London being in the top flight this year (and really not being near a top flight organisation) actually shows why something like gradings needs to be in place.

[Archie Gordon]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The comments on London showed that they got it with London. It needs serious investment and central support from the game. They basically said our currebt and previous approach is a waste of time. They also acknowledge they need to raise funds to support this. I dont think there is too much to argue there.

Agreed. 

I would add that in advance of that, there are things that could be done to lay the foundations. Test matches and OTR SL games in London, for example. A bit of love and support for the community game, especially the juniors.

[eal]

IMG are correct in saying that a London club needs central funding. David Hughes has spent millions with almost nothing to show for it, the club hasn't been successful in London nor has the wider game. London Broncos have probably turned more people off the game over the years with their complete neglect of the fan base and constantly moving around the city.