IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[phiggins]

12 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

'Tweaks' to grading criteria incoming:

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/img-gradings-criteria-set-for-2025-changes-as-tweaks-to-system-revealed

May or may not turn out to be interesting.

Be interesting to see which owners, if any, have withdrawn money after the submission. Not sure what they would gain from it, given we do this all again next year. (Particularly interesting as a Leigh fan given how open DB has been about how he's had to adjust the finances)

[Tommygilf]

On 23/11/2023 at 14:26, Martyn Sadler said:

One thing that was said quite openly at the time of the initial announcement was that IMG would not earn anything from the deal over the first two years, which is why I asked when the £450K is due to be paid.

Several club Chairmen who I spoke to made this point very strongly.

The two-year period ends on 10 May next year.

...

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

...

So, we know the £1.3m paid is nonsense, but the post you quoted would suggest that is expected, with no fees in the first 2 years.

What we do not know is whether the 450k was a specific bill for specific work, or if they will be paid that every year for the rest of the partnership.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

So, we know the £1.3m paid is nonsense, but the post you quoted would suggest that is expected, with no fees in the first 2 years.

What we do not know is whether the 450k was a specific bill for specific work, or if they will be paid that every year for the rest of the partnership.

Agreed, but it also suggests the communication around this where it has been sourced is also nonsense.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

https://www.totalrl.com/cost-of-img-and-non-executive-directors-at-the-rfl-revealed/

Just in case anyone forgot...

As yes, Martyn's memorable "£750k annually" misrepresentation. The internet never forgets!

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

That will be a lot of posters, to be fair.

There are many folks in favour of IMG who think the £450k a year figure is true - they often refer to it as "peanuts".

It's not peanuts, but it is good value. To be honest I took Martyn Sadler's reporting at face value, which I now regret! But I'm even more pleased to discover that we're getting even more free value from IMG than I realised!!

However, Derek Beaumont doesn't have the same excuse as me, he's a club owner so should know the accurate information and certainly has the ability to directly check it if he doesn't, unlike us mere civilians. 

 

[Worzel]

54 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

It seems IMG have done quite well whatever amount of finance they have accepted since they failed to increase the broadcast deal,yet a group,probably female,broke away from the governing body of their sport to negotiate an increase in their broadcast deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/30/wsl-agrees-record-65m-domestic-five-year-tv-deal-with-sky-sports-and-bbc

The white,male,owner of a rugby league in Super League, who introduced IMG to the sport,is currently looking for a new stadium with a reduction in capacity to the one currently shared with a soccer club.

Ever.Decreasing.Circles.

The Women’s Professional Leagues Limited (WPLL) isn't a third-party coming in to fix a sport that has been going backwards for 20 years, it is a spin-out from the Premier League's existing organisation capitalizing on a sport that already has a rapid growth trajectory. If you can't sell women's football in this country at this present moment then it's time to retire I'd say, it's the easiest job on earth. 

So, and of course you already know this, to pretend the two cases are in any way comparable is sophistry of the highest order!  

[Martyn Sadler]

39 minutes ago, Worzel said:

As yes, Martyn's memorable "£750k annually" misrepresentation. The internet never forgets!

Misrepresentation!

Can you explain?

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Yes - the only point I was making was that we almost all believed it was £450k a year. There was a suggestion that to believe that this was a yearly fee required some sort of mea culpa.

No we certainly didn't believe it. 

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

So, we know the £1.3m paid is nonsense, but the post you quoted would suggest that is expected, with no fees in the first 2 years.

What we do not know is whether the 450k was a specific bill for specific work, or if they will be paid that every year for the rest of the partnership.

Good grief man. From the outset it was for a specific piece of work. Even if I could find the original statement of that fact, there are still those who would not believe it. 

The lies and misrepresentation surrounding this particular issue have poisoned this thread, one where there have been actual and  legitimate points to discuss. 

[phiggins]

19 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Good grief man. From the outset it was for a specific piece of work. Even if I could find the original statement of that fact, there are still those who would not believe it. 

The lies and misrepresentation surrounding this particular issue have poisoned this thread, one where there have been actual and  legitimate points to discuss. 

I've seen two different reports on it. One saying there was a 450k bill for some digital work, with other reports saying there was going to be an annual fee for consultancy work. I wouldn't say either are particularly far fetched, given IMG offer both services.

The only lie that has been corrected is the amount paid so far.

[JohnM]

Dear IMG. Have you stopped beating your wife?

Note: the lie has not been corrected. We've not heard from the purveyors yet. I'm sure we will.

Edited November 4, 2024 by JohnM

[Worzel]

59 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Misrepresentation!

Can you explain?

Certainly, you

1) Took a line item and assumed it was annual, and

2) Added in a wholly separate cost of non-exec directors, to create a bigger headline figure

This gave some people the incorrect impression that the cost of the new IMG era was about £750k per year.

Now to be clear I don't say whether that was willful misrepresentation (you wanted people to think that, perhaps because you don't like the IMG concept and it helps the argument against it), or perhaps negligent misrepresentation (your motives were well-intentioned, but as a responsible, professional journalist could maybe have done more digging to clarify things and present the wider context) or merely an innocent misrepresentation (you genuinely believed the information and the impression it gave was accurate, and that you'd done all you reasonably could as a professional to check they were).

I'll happily leave that for others to judge, clearly it could be the latter. We all make mistakes eh.  

 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Misrepresentation!

Can you explain?

IMG are saying there is no annual £450,000 payment to them so the cost, as revealed here, is wrong.

Unless IMG are lying.

Are IMG lying?

[Worzel]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

IMG are saying there is no annual £450,000 payment to them so the cost, as revealed here, is wrong.

Unless IMG are lying.

Are IMG lying?

To be fair it might be £450k per year from here on in, with a 2 year "let" at the start. But then I've always been fine with that as an annual cost, like I've said before it's only £35k per club per season, which is tiddly compared to the work done. 

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

IMG are saying there is no annual £450,000 payment to them so the cost, as revealed here, is wrong.

Unless IMG are lying.

Are IMG lying?

Have they denied that? Bits that I have seen in reports today, along with quotes on this thread are;

 - IMG have only received around £450k so far

 - That no cost expected to be incurred until year 3 (a quote from Martyn highlighted by Tommygilf)

 - That RLCommercial have committed to a similar sum over 10 years (quote from DB, albeit in a SARL article. Can't remember what he said exactly)

All three of the above can be true from what I can see? But I probably have missed something. To my eternal shame, I did some work today.

[gingerjon]

Just now, phiggins said:

I did some work today.

<satire> UNLIKE IMG </satire>

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Worzel said:

To be fair it might be £450k per year from here on in, with a 2 year "let" at the start. But then I've always been fine with that as an annual cost, like I've said before it's only £35k per club per season, which is tiddly compared to the work done. 

Articulated better than I have managed. Of course they will be paid for ongoing work. The debate has around the returns on that spend

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

To be fair it might be £450k per year from here on in, with a 2 year "let" at the start. But then I've always been fine with that as an annual cost, like I've said before it's only £35k per club per season, which is tiddly compared to the work done. 

To be honest, it's all reminding me of the numerous times members of the RL media 'do' numbers, contracts and deals. They are absolutely useless at it and never even really bother to overcome that. I'm still haunted by asking what was in a TV deal (not even the amount it was for) as the reporting on it was next door to useless.

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

<satire> UNLIKE IMG </satire>

And to be honest, I was lying.

[Damien]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Come on Archie, that last line is disingenuous. If TotalRL publishes this, and an SL owner supports this, who are we to say that the bill isn't £450k?

It's also pretty irrelevant if you think SL should pay for expertise to improve. The people outraged by the figure are generally those against against IMG anyway.

[JohnM]

56 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Have they denied that? Bits that I have seen in reports today, along with quotes on this thread are;

 - IMG have only received around £450k so far

 - That no cost expected to be incurred until year 3 (a quote from Martyn highlighted by Tommygilf)

 - That RLCommercial have committed to a similar sum over 10 years (quote from DB, albeit in a SARL article. Can't remember what he said exactly)

All three of the above can be true from what I can see? But I probably have missed something. To my eternal shame, I did some work today.

Euqlly, they stand accused of not denying my claim that they are going to charge each club £450,000 a second to be involved in SuoerLeague. They also have not denied that the earth is flat nor the claim they are lizard people. 

I give up ( well I don't really) This tsunami of visceral hatred of IMG from certain quarters and certain posters is beyond a joke now. They need help. 

[MattSantos]

Interesting that if we have 13 A grade clubs next year, we could still have a 12 team top league.

That'd be fun..

Edited November 4, 2024 by MattSantos

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

Euqlly, they stand accused of not denying my claim that they are going to charge each club £450,000 a second to be involved in SuoerLeague. They also have not denied that the earth is flat nor the claim they are lizard people. 

I give up ( well I don't really) This tsunami of visceral hatred of IMG from certain quarters and certain posters is beyond a joke now. They need help. 

Please give up. If you refuse to accept that a quote stating what payment as been received so far does not confirm or deny the terms of the agreement to a point where we can label anyone a liar for saying there will be an annual fee from now on, then what’s the point of discussing it?!

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

Interesting that if we have 13 A grade clubs next year, we could still have a 12 team top league.

That'd be fun..

It just supports what I've said for a while. The gradings mean nowt. It's the top x ranked teams depending on how many we can afford to have in. Genuinely not sure why they've kept the A,B and C gradings once they got rid of the guaranteed place for A.