IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

I pointed out to John online that the two major turning points in Hull KR's fortunes that have resulted in us getting to a Grand Final directly correlated with the IMG-era "future state", but he had little interest. Namely:

1. Knowing we'd not be getting relegated in 2020 (through the sheer luck of Toronto), enabling us to plan for 2021 and beyond in that failed season rather than press the panic button and do short-term stuff instead. All clubs will have that ability soon, just as they do in the NRL. 

2. Attracting our new Board members and investors in 2022, for whom the IMG strategy was key to joining. Paul Sewell's business acumen and network, and James McNichol's money, would not have been brought to the club without this. The Hull KR of 2023 and 2024 has been built on improved squad depth, which needs money. Our marketing decisions and outcomes have been built on an improved commercial team, which needs money. This is a long-term play, one undermined by the annual insecurity of the old model. 

Strangely he preferred to not see that Hull KR's growth and progress in 2024 offers a glimpse of the art of the possible in this new era, and instead re-hashed some tired old cliches about IMG not being "visible" enough. We need to be realistic: £500k per year gets you some good advice, some data-led insight and a bit of marketing strategy support, but come on people it's less than £50k per club so it really doesn't mean that clubs don't have to then do the hard yards themselves. They do. Those that do, will prosper. Those that don't, or can't afford to, won't.   

Its good that you have brought this up in this thread too, so the usual suspects can completely ignore it and keep ignorantly proclaiming "yeah but what have they done" like a rubbish Python skit.

[Chrispmartha]

26 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

And if Batley were to be relegated to L1 too, or one of Cas, Fev or Wake?

Clubs should not be able to gain points through relegation.

Which is irrelevant because theres still p&r isnt there?

[Exiled Wiganer]

IMG are literally being paid to get an intern to set up a spreadsheet and deliver the bleeding obvious. They can count. Well done them. Can they grow the greatest sporting spectacle in the country? Of course they can’t. HKR succeeded for a lot of reasons, and having a year free from relegation may have been a factor, but there are enough clever leaguies in the game who could have worked that out with or without IMG’s “contribution”.

[gingerjon]

14 minutes ago, dkw said:

Its good that you have brought this up in this thread too, so the usual suspects can completely ignore it and keep ignorantly proclaiming "yeah but what have they done" like a rubbish Python skit.

Post but one after this.

[dkw]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Post but one after this.

Amazing isn't it, just embarrassing stuff.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

59 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Which is irrelevant because theres still p&r isnt there?

It's not irrelevant if the rumour that central funding for Champ and L1 clubs will be based on IMG gradings and not final league position is true. Also, on the basis of the 2023 indicative gradings Cas would have missed out on SL because Fev were in the Championship and not L1. It's a bad measure done badly.

[Taffy Tiger]

1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

It's not irrelevant if the rumour that central funding for Champ and L1 clubs will be based on IMG gradings and not final league position is true. Also, on the basis of the 2023 indicative gradings Cas would have missed out on SL because Fev were in the Championship and not L1. It's a bad measure done badly.

No they wouldn't as it was agreed by RFL that our score would have increased to 12.91 on the back of incorrect data originally sent , so it would have been Leigh who would have missed out . However , I do take on board your point about the Catchment Area measurement in itself .

[phiggins]

9 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

No they wouldn't as it was agreed by RFL that our score would have increased to 12.91 on the back of incorrect data originally sent , so it would have been Leigh who would have missed out . However , I do take on board your point about the Catchment Area measurement in itself .

Not quite what the RFL said from what I can see. They said if data was to be resubmitted it would've led to a 'higher score', though not seen any RFL confirmation of what that score would be. Also, they rejected the appeal, so the Cas score was as published. Hopefully we avoid such a scenario this year.

[Taffy Tiger]

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Not quite what the RFL said from what I can see. They said if data was to be resubmitted it would've led to a 'higher score', though not seen any RFL confirmation of what that score would be. Also, they rejected the appeal, so the Cas score was as published. Hopefully we avoid such a scenario this year.

Press release from the time . 

 

This appeal was unsuccessful however as confirmed by the RFL and subsequently the Tigers have released the following statement:

“As a club we are disappointed that the RFL will not change the gradings, however we are pleased to hear that they have agreed that our score would increase to 12.91. This gives us a great base to work from to push our score as high as we can in readiness for the 2025 gradings.”

 

No appeal was granted as it was indicative gradings only 

Edited October 14 by Taffy Tiger

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Press release from the time . 

 

This appeal was unsuccessful however as confirmed by the RFL and subsequently the Tigers have released the following statement:

“As a club we are disappointed that the RFL will not change the gradings, however we are pleased to hear that they have agreed that our score would increase to 12.91. This gives us a great base to work from to push our score as high as we can in readiness for the 2025 gradings.”

That was from the club, not from the RFL, who released this: https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62351/rfl-board-decision-|-castleford-tigers-grading

Ultimately, if it was a live run, Cas would've been relegated because of an admin error. And what a complete ****show that would've been! 

[Dave T]

I just can't help but feel that RL will just always be like this because of its northern-Ness. I always try and stay pragmatic and often defend Northerners from a lot of unfair and arrogant critcism. But I do feel that the stubbornness and self deprecation which is a trait of Northerners is  a barrier.

I think we are some of the most welcoming people around, but we'll also be blunt and honest, and pretty negative which can appear unfriendly, and I think the trait of rather being right than proven wrong and the game flourishing is a challenging one.

Our Northernness should be celebrated, but we should also be self-aware enough to know when it is a short-coming.

Edited October 14 by Dave T

[Taffy Tiger]

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

That was from the club, not from the RFL, who released this: https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62351/rfl-board-decision-|-castleford-tigers-grading

Ultimately, if it was a live run, Cas would've been relegated because of an admin error. And what a complete ****show that would've been! 

 

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

That was from the club, not from the RFL, who released this: https://www.rugby-league.com/article/62351/rfl-board-decision-|-castleford-tigers-grading

Ultimately, if it was a live run, Cas would've been relegated because of an admin error. And what a complete ****show that would've been! 

'While sympathetic to their position and recognising that the resubmission would lead to an increase in the club’s indicative grading score'

 

Can't be any clearer that the score would have increased . No way it could have been anything other that the 0.75 points as stated in Cas press release above , and nothing to refute this from RFL .  Appeal wasn't considered as indicative gradings only so an appeal was irrelevant . Had it happened this year , Cas would have gone to arbitration appeal and 0.75 points would have been added .

[Exiled Wiganer]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Post but one after this.

I have read a great deal around this area and seen this organisation (and their ilk) in action first hand.
 

If you have to pay a fortune to them, do so on a commission basis to find sponsors or TV deals. This management consultant spreadsheet accountancy is so simple that I may have been over stating the case when I argued they would need an intern. I defy anyone to.find a reasonably intelligent 18 year old league fan who would be unable to come up with the asinine statement of the bleeding obvious that IMG’s end result will be. 
 

If anyone can point me to any insight or contribution which couldn’t have been found on a standard form bid assessment template (available from google for the price of your broadband connection), then I will give IMG a standing ovation. 

Edited October 14 by Exiled Wiganer

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

 

'While sympathetic to their position and recognising that the resubmission would lead to an increase in the club’s indicative grading score'

 

Can't be any clearer that the score would have increased . No way it could have been anything other that the 0.75 points as stated in Cas press release above , and nothing to refute this from RFL .  Appeal wasn't considered as indicative gradings only so an appeal was irrelevant . Had it happened this year , Cas would have gone to arbitration appeal and 0.75 points would have been added .

As I said before, hopefully it doesn't happen, and no arbitration is needed. Can't assume that an arbitration will rule that clubs can resubmit data that has previously been incorrectly submitted, so hopefully clubs have got it right this time.

[Taffy Tiger]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

As I said before, hopefully it doesn't happen, and no arbitration is needed. Can't assume that an arbitration will rule that clubs can resubmit data that has previously been incorrectly submitted, so hopefully clubs have got it right this time.

Agree , and to that extent I guess that the Indicative gradings were a success and served their purpose . We will have to wait and see what happens next week . Good luck !

Edited October 14 by Taffy Tiger

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

If anyone can point me to any insight or contribution which couldn’t have been found on a standard form bid assessment template (available from google for the price of your broadband connection), then I will give IMG a standing ovation. 

Nah, you won't.

[gingerjon]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I just can't help but feel that RL will just always be like this because of its northern-Ness. I always try and stay pragmatic and often defend Northerners from a lot of unfair and arrogant critcism. But I do feel that the stubbornness and self deprecation which is a trait of Northerners is  a barrier.

I think we are some of the most welcoming people around, but we'll also be blunt and honest, and pretty negative which can appear unfriendly, and I think the trait of rather being right than proven wrong and the game flourishing is a challenging one.

Our Northernness should be celebrated, but we should also be self-aware enough to know when it is a short-coming.

A lot of the rugby league sphere leans in to the kind of performative northern-ness normally associated with Facebook accounts that put up a picture of a breadroll and a caption saying, "This is a barm cake, prove me wrong".

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

A lot of the rugby league sphere leans in to the kind of performative northern-ness normally associated with Facebook accounts that put up a picture of a breadroll and a caption saying, "This is a barm cake, prove me wrong".

Aye. I find it tiresome. As a proud Northerner who has also embraced the wider world I find it rather hard work.

[binosh]

9 hours ago, JohnM said:

It's all well documented. For example.

https://www.superleague.co.uk/article/3094/reimagining-rugby-league-–-img-present-recommendations

Plus this.

...IMG's vision to 'reimagine' rugby league in England and beyond will start to be realised in 2025 when its controversial 'grading' system comes into play...

Of course, there are those neutrals and independently minded individuals (not of course in any way obsessed by their doubts)  who need to know what brand of corn flakes IMG people have for breakfast and what time they have their morning break at RL Commercial, but that is not relevant. The whole thing is well documented for all to see.

Yes I have seen that, I remember it from 2 years ago, the point I’m making is suppose is any business or contracter usually has to provide updates, progress, usually to keep the client happy about what they are getting for the money. Now I’m not saying they have to come out and tell the fans every little detail however I suspect they must be providing details the RFL/Commercial/Club owners, surely?

2 years ago IMG talk about commercial strategy and brand strategy and also growth into new markets, they talk about distribution of media rights into the domestic and international markets amongst loads of other interesting stuff for the growth of the game structurally and financially, now, in my opinion would it not be prudent to atleast discuss the vision and progress of some of these important ideas in broad terms with the RL press/ podcasts?

This all sounds great and I’m all for it but what’s the timeframe? Is there more money on the horizon? Is every game being televised putting the game in a good spot for negotiating media rights with SKY? Is the SL+ streaming service a success, is it paying the clubs anything?

There are loads of questions but very few answers.

 

 

[Angelic Cynic]

6 hours ago, Worzel said:

I pointed out to John online that the two major turning points in Hull KR's fortunes that have resulted in us getting to a Grand Final directly correlated with the IMG-era "future state", but he had little interest. Namely:

1. Knowing we'd not be getting relegated in 2020 (through the sheer luck of Toronto), enabling us to plan for 2021 and beyond in that failed season rather than press the panic button and do short-term stuff instead. All clubs will have that ability soon, just as they do in the NRL. 

2. Attracting our new Board members and investors in 2022, for whom the IMG strategy was key to joining. Paul Sewell's business acumen and network, and James McNichol's money, would not have been brought to the club without this. The Hull KR of 2023 and 2024 has been built on improved squad depth, which needs money. Our marketing decisions and outcomes have been built on an improved commercial team, which needs money. This is a long-term play, one undermined by the annual insecurity of the old model. 

Strangely he preferred to not see that Hull KR's growth and progress in 2024 offers a glimpse of the art of the possible in this new era, and instead re-hashed some tired old cliches about IMG not being "visible" enough. We need to be realistic: £500k per year gets you some good advice, some data-led insight and a bit of marketing strategy support, but come on people it's less than £50k per club so it really doesn't mean that clubs don't have to then do the hard yards themselves. They do. Those that do, will prosper. Those that don't, or can't afford to, won't.   

Hudgell wanted to sell the club - No one was interested in purchasing it.

Wealthy individual socialises with other wealthy individuals who were willing to contribute time and money.

This was in play prior to Ken Davy announcing IMG.

[Worzel]

2 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

Hudgell wanted to sell the club - No one was interested in purchasing it.

Wealthy individual socialises with other wealthy individuals who were willing to contribute time and money.

This was in play prior to Ken Davy announcing IMG.

No, you don't understand the sequencing. I do, because I know some of the people involved.

Part of Paul Lakin's role in 2020 was indeed to find a buyer, but Neil changed his mind and that evolved to "find new Board members to add value, and co-invest". Those new investors bought-in to the new operating model that promised greater short-term security and so the ability to invest in the long-term development of the club. That's genuinely how it played out.

I'm sure if people ask Matt Ellis he'll tell them it was also part of his own thought process at Wakefield, in terms of the club's investability and knowing what levers he could pull to secure and grow the organisation. But I'm not connected to that club so can't be so certain. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Nah, you won't.

I have no idea why you are taking the moral high ground on this. You have absolutely no insight into my thought processes, which are based  on my first hand experience, and having read every word IMG has published on this subject. If I see anything that this forum couldn’t have come up with on our own, or see anything that grows the game or brings in more cash then I will be at the front of the queue cheering. I have seen nothing to justify paying them a penny, and would be happily astonished if I see anything when they are finished. As well as the colossal waste of time and money from this, the tragedy is that, as far as organising ourselves is concerned, we can work that out for ourselves. There are wonderfully successful people in our game - looking at you Mr Danson - who run far more complex businesses far more successfully than these snake oil salesmen. We are leaguies - we should rely on leaguies for the big stuff. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

We are leaguies - we should rely on leaguies for the big stuff. 

That has served us tremendously well hasn't it?

And all these obvious solutions, been implemented so successfully before haven't they?

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

That has served us tremendously well hasn't it?

And all these obvious solutions, been implemented so successfully before haven't they?

They must have been.

To butcher a Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes quote, once things are explained, it is amazing how simple and obvious they become.

[LeeF]

So everything that has been suggested by IMG, agreed by the Clubs and implemented by the RFL to improve the game, which is required, could have been done by just about anyone on this forum and probably already within the game. That leaves just 1 very simple question. Why hasn’t it been implented at any time over the last 5, 10 or 20 years?