IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Taffy Tiger]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

That's why I would look at a restructure of the CC, or a new comp, that gives the extra games back, but without the expectation that they will be full first choice 17s on show. I know some season ticket holders might complain, but I think a lot would be keen to see how players on fringes fare, without having to wait for injuries, suspensions or dead rubber matches at the end of the season.

I do see where you're coming from , but I think that until we can make the CC a competition that clubs are interested in , we won't get anything like the attendances required for revenue . As for players on the fringe , you can see how they are going via the Reserves/Academy fixtures I suppose . Limiting player time means that more of the fringe players will get a chance at first team rugby as well.

On the point of dead-rubber games at the end of the season , I think these may become less of an issue under the new IMG system where finishing 1 place higher could mean the difference between SL or Championship the following season in some cases , especially on a 3 year rolling average basis . It benefits teams in the long run to finish as high as possible in each individual season now , which can only be a good thing (imo)

 

[Worzel]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Now this is the worrying part and listening to owners of SL clubs neither do they, which beggars belief in how they can sign something off without knowing the costs.

So if the 'secret' is soley in the domain of the RFL/RL Comm then that just exacerbates the problem, whichever side of this debate we are on we collectively agree that those who are running this game are not fit for purpose and if it is they who have brokered this deal that is indeed worrying.

I have this vision of IMG exiting the 'commercial' meeting rubbing their hands and having a good laugh saying "well that was easy".

Of course the owners know the deal they voted for and signed. Please don’t listen to what I can only imagine are the usual minority of wind-up merchants, perhaps a minority of one, amongst the ownership peer group. 

We’re getting close to the land of tin foil hats with that kind of thinking. 

You may or may not think that IMG are effective, or that this is the right model even if they are, but it’s very hard to make any sort of case that this is an expensive deal or not good value for the sport if it works. IMG are making a loss on their running costs, and will only get a share of increased revenue if we grow that. The sport will retain much more of the extra revenue, and so be better off. 
 

Edited October 15 by Worzel
Typo

[Worzel]

5 hours ago, gingerjon said:

The alternatives, from memory, were either a spectacularly dodgy looking PE vehicle, "give it (with 'it' to be defined) to the Hearns" or "nothing".

Yup. People have short memories.

The sport’s problem is its present poor TV deal, and our almost total lack of other commercial revenue. That’s the result of over 20 years of incompetently doing things in-house.

[Harry Stottle]

So Sylvain Houles believes that irrespective of IMG's gradings his club should be elevated to Super League because they have great potential, thoughts please.

[sam4731]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

So Sylvain Houles believes that irrespective of IMG's gradings his club should be elevated to Super League because they have great potential, thoughts please.

I believe I should be in Super League irrespective of the IMG gradings too. The question is, do I deserve a spot on that basis?

[LeeF]

I’m sure that I’ve read on this forum that they were already guaranteed a spot. That the figures would be manipulated so that they qualified so I don’t know why he is worried. 

[JohnM]

Yes please. Very definitely. It MUST happen. It would be a disaster if we let this IMG nonsense kill our game and keep them out. What have we got to lose? Problem with their shirts and shorts, though. They might be too loose.

[Henson Park Old Firm]

Yes, T.O. for me

[Barley Mow]

As much as I dislike the grading system, if you have a method in place to decide who plays in the top division you stick with that method - you can't pick and choose based on personal preference.

Was it @Tommygilf who suggest that London may have assumed that grading would mean they were automatically in SL? Could Toulouse have made a similar assumption?

Edited October 16 by Barley Mow

[Bull Mania]

Feels like it could be SL or nothing for Toulouse. 

I do think there is a wider debate to he had on having two French teams in a twelve team competition.  If it was 14 teams I would elevate Toulouse automatically. Gives them room for them and the comp to grow. But just don't think it's sustainable having two in such a small competition. 

Interesting the viewing figures on last year's grand final were reportedly up 40%. This stuff matters.  Did having a French team in the final put off neutrals? Sometimes we get so trapped in the RL bubble on the topic of expansion we can't see the wood from the trees. 

[NRLandSL]

SL must go to 14 teams in my opinion.

[gingerjon]

Shall we just merge this into the IMG thread or wait till later?

It's very obviously the same discussion.

[StandOffHalf]

Two French teams and London in a 14-team comp is the dream scenario.

Sky want a more attractive and sellable sport. Contracting to M62 teams will mean that money also shrinks.

Edited October 16 by StandOffHalf

[RayCee]

I'd like to see fourteen teams contest SL and T.O. be one of them. The fact is unless there is a way to increase earnings, clubs won't agree to it. If Wakefield wins the final, they go up, if it's T.O. then they go up. Twelve sides next year and only one promoted. There's no other story here unless I have missed something. 

[Damien]

Triggered. Again.

[glossop saint]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Shall we just merge this into the IMG thread or wait till later?

It's very obviously the same discussion.

Optimistic calling it a discussion as opposed to an opportunity for a baseless rant.

[up the robins]

Imagine if Toulouse were to do a Leigh and make a challenge cup final after promotion were they meet Catalans at Wembley in front of a near empty Wembley  stadium.

Think sky tv , bbc the  press organisation's would say that's good for the sport and it's promotion.

Our main income in this sport is broadcasting rights having two teams in a twelve team competition that won't subscribe to your product is hardly going to increase investment from the likes of sky.

[JohnM]

27 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Optimistic calling it a discussion as opposed to an opportunity for a baseless rant.

.and ######-take.

[NRLandSL]

If Toulouse win the final this weekend surely it would be fair to promote both Wakefield and Toulouse and Super league becomes a 13 team comp next year. 

[Harry Stottle]

34 minutes ago, Damien said:

Triggered. Again.

Because Sylvain Houles brought it up, he obviously thinks the more he can reach it will better his cause.

Just don't bother with the thread, simple.

[Archie Gordon]

17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Because Sylvain Houles brought it up, ...

Do you have a link? Interested to see what he said, whether TO sound bullish, etc.

[Barley Mow]

28 minutes ago, NRLandSL said:

If Toulouse win the final this weekend surely it would be fair to promote both Wakefield and Toulouse and Super league becomes a 13 team comp next year. 

In what way would it be fair?

I'm a fan of on-field promotion and relegation (subject to minimum standards for certain off-field criteria). But you can't set up a system for promotion that encourages clubs to invest in things other than the playing squad (logically at the expense of the playing squad for many clubs) and then at the end of the season say 'sorry you spent your money on those other things but we're still going to promote the team that wins the Grand Final any way' - just because we like this particular club.

Edited October 16 by Barley Mow

[Bull Mania]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

 

Sky want a more attractive and sellable sport. Contracting to M62 teams will mean that money also shrinks.

Disagree with this. I am sure sky were much happier with 40% more viewers for the grand final involving two M62 teams rather than last year with Catalans. 

Thats not to say Catalans and/or Toulouse shouldn't be in SL when it's 14 teams. There's other benefits they bring. But we need to get the balance right. Two French teams in 12 team SL is detrimental IMO

[Harry Stottle]

36 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Do you have a link? Interested to see what he said, whether TO sound bullish, etc.

It's on the TRL news page Archie, this site.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

2 hours ago, RayCee said:

I'd like to see fourteen teams contest SL and T.O. be one of them. The fact is unless there is a way to increase earnings, clubs won't agree to it. If Wakefield wins the final, they go up, if it's T.O. then they go up. Twelve sides next year and only one promoted. There's no other story here unless I have missed something. 

You have just described straight forward P & R.  I think you've missed something.