IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Archie Gordon]

Here comes that straw man again. 

I think we all know that IMG aren't the decision maker. Who is it that needs this constant re-education?

They are, however, strategic partners who do things and say things that people engage with.

[JohnM]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think Lindsay had the mouth, not always able to back it up, but at least we knew what he stood for.and was driving forward. 

Lewis was imo the best leader we have had in my lifetime. A bit quieter, but very clear and with a vision.

I don't think Mo had the Generals necessary to do the hard yards, and may be was just too hard to work with and for, though he managed somehow to get Norweb to stump up a lot of money

Lewis, yes.  He represented the sort of thoughtful, respected, knowledgeable, communicative person that could represent the sport, and was at home in any company. It would be interesting and informative to hear his views on his time with us.

[JohnM]

6 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Here comes that straw man again. 

I think we all know that IMG aren't the decision maker. Who is it that needs this constant re-education?

They are, however, strategic partners who do things and say things that people engage with.

Clearly not everyone, though, eh?

[Chris22]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Rhodri Jones pretty much said as much in April/May this year. Some people chose to ignore his comments and claim it was semantics when I pointed this exact point out.

https://www.totalrl.com/rl-commercial-chief-on-potential-14-team-super-league-and-img-grading-system/

Having looked at those comments he doesn't guarantee a spot but does seem to suggest expansion if there were more than 12 grade A teams.

But regardless of who said what, a situation where RFL staff / IMG say one thing and criteria say the opposite is, at best, not ideal.

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

https://www.totalrl.com/rl-commercial-chief-on-potential-14-team-super-league-and-img-grading-system/

Having looked at those comments he doesn't guarantee a spot but does seem to suggest expansion if there were more than 12 grade A teams.

But regardless of who said what, a situation where RFL staff / IMG say one thing and criteria say the opposite is, at best, not ideal.

This point really was quite clear that the conversation starts once the threshold of 12 grade A clubs has been broken.

“Once we break the threshold of 12 then we can have conversations about a 14-team Super League competition.

 

It's really frustrating that we just don't get things like this clarified by journalists within the sport. It was clear that this was a departure from the claims around grade A clubs. For me, a hugely fundamental point, much more so than most of the other things that we've focused on for the last year or two.

 

If the actual main principle of this isn't working it's a big issue.

[JohnM]

As far as I can tell, and subject to correction, in  2023, yhe ARL turned over about £90 million, whilst the RFL turned over £15 million. Yes, I know, turnover is not profit.

That puts the RFL very firmly in the smallest category of SMEs. Is that a  big enough enterprise to attract decent directorial and managerial talent, the sort needed to drive the sport forward? At least IMG and the majority of owners do have that talent.

Fortunately, the opposition of the  vocal few who seem determined to pour cold water on the whole thing will fail to derail the project. 

[Chris22]

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This point really was quite clear that the conversation starts once the threshold of 12 grade A clubs has been broken.

“Once we break the threshold of 12 then we can have conversations about a 14-team Super League competition.

 

It's really frustrating that we just don't get things like this clarified by journalists within the sport. It was clear that this was a departure from the claims around grade A clubs. For me, a hugely fundamental point, much more so than most of the other things that we've focused on for the last year or two.

 

If the actual main principle of this isn't working it's a big issue.

I do get that point but the grading handbook states that a side with a grade a score is guaranteed a place in Super League. 

There is no ambiguity, no room for movement, no suggestion that this is limited to a specific number of teams. I do not believe we can start to pick and choose which criteria we choose to apply.

Whilst I think it unlikely, if a side gets a grade a score and misses out, if the grading handbook remains unamended, I think they have a good chance at successfully challenging using the arbitration procedures provided for.

[Hopie]

3 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

I like what Dwyer has said…

“IMG don’t run the sport. They make recommendations that RFL Commercial and the clubs choose to take forward if they want to.”

I hope that is understood by all. As it could not be any clearer. 

All this does is allow those who support IMG's involvement to give them credit for anything that improves and shift blame to anything that is going wrong to other parties. It will continue to do the opposite for those who don't support their involvement. We gain no insight from these latest quotes.

All that is mentioned in the articles I have seen is that IMG suggested no loop fixtures and that was not enacted (I don't see that as a particularly insightful suggestion, and there are good reasons to keep loop fixtures). I don't see any follow up question asking which elements they suggested that were enacted, the lack of scrutiny from the press, those who can ask questions and share answers is basically none existent. I want to know if there is anything useful going on apart from the grading exercise which I see as flawed, but ultimately if overall it helps the game as a whole I am keen to see that, but all i can see at the moment is a system weakening some clubs to protect others which won't help the game as a whole.

I think the RFL or whatever those running the game are called at the moment have a long history of poor choices and decisions, as such I don't think they would have signed a particularly advantageous deal with IMG (all the cost chat is very heated but I don't see how it is of importance compared to what they are actually doing because the game is circling the drain anyway) nor do I expect them to pick the best options presented to them. So how is what we are doing going to lead to a resurgence in the game that we need?

[JohnM]

"All that is mentioned in the articles I have seen is that IMG suggested no loop fixtures"

The specific and burning issue has been that certain opponents of the project have been  lying about the £450k 

"Dwyer also corrected inaccurate reports stating that IMG had received £1.3million so far for their work in the sport. They have received £450,000 to date for their work across three years, much less than had been reported."

No words of contrition, no apology from the guilty. Dwyer's words are not good enought, it seems, since some of those opponents are now asking, "Yes, but he doesn't say what they'll receive next year ....".  Or, " he didn't deny..."

Hence my earlier comment likening their questioning of the IMG statement to  "have you stopped beating your wife yet.,yes or no".

IMG can't and never will win with these provincials. Fortunately they are a tiny minority. Unfortunately, they have a megaphone. 

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, Chris22 said:

I do get that point but the grading handbook states that a side with a grade a score is guaranteed a place in Super League. 

There is no ambiguity, no room for movement, no suggestion that this is limited to a specific number of teams. I do not believe we can start to pick and choose which criteria we choose to apply.

Whilst I think it unlikely, if a side gets a grade a score and misses out, if the grading handbook remains unamended, I think they have a good chance at successfully challenging using the arbitration procedures provided for.

Yes. It's why I raised this as an issue 6 months ago when Jones first raised it. Agree completely. 

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes. It's why I raised this as an issue 6 months ago when Jones first raised it. Agree completely. 

It is a big shift. The correct response (in my view) is to make it harder to get an A - which they do seem to be doing.

Will we be at more than 12 by the end of next season, though?

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It is a big shift. The correct response (in my view) is to make it harder to get an A - which they do seem to be doing.

Will we be at more than 12 by the end of next season, though?

I agree. For me, the scoring should be shifted towards so that you're always stretching teams. Particularly on metrics such as crowds, digital and finances.

[Archie Gordon]

“The gradings system is now with the RFL and RL Commercial, they own that,”

is an interesting development. Will it make a difference?

[LeeF]

11 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

In fairness, isn't that how all negotiations work.

Not all and the clear implication is that this negotiation wasn’t going very well at all until IMG got involved and offered something which for RL was quite radical but the larger point is that some still want to bash IMG for contributing zero when it’s clear they have already added value

[Worzel]

9 hours ago, Chris22 said:

I do get that point but the grading handbook states that a side with a grade a score is guaranteed a place in Super League. 

There is no ambiguity, no room for movement, no suggestion that this is limited to a specific number of teams. I do not believe we can start to pick and choose which criteria we choose to apply.

Whilst I think it unlikely, if a side gets a grade a score and misses out, if the grading handbook remains unamended, I think they have a good chance at successfully challenging using the arbitration procedures provided for.

This will be solved by never awarding more than 12 A-grades until such time as it's convenient to do so.

Surely everyone knows this?

 

[LeeF]

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

This one made me smile. It's no more than PR this, of course the end of the negotiation should see a better deal than the start.

Should being the key word but not all do. The implication in the comments is that the deal wouldn’t have been anywhere near as good without IMG’s involvement which you can easily believe based on the game’s track record. 

Edited November 5, 2024 by LeeF

[Worzel]

2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Not all and the clear implication is that this negotiation wasn’t going very well at all until IMG got involved and offered something which for RL was quite radical but the larger point is that some still want to bash IMG for contributing zero when it’s clear they have already added value

We had leaks galore on the risk of part-time rugby, and plenty of second-hand noise out of the back door of Sky about how they were frustrated with rugby league's inability to deploy a clear strategy for growth, and follow-through on it.

Clearly the involvement of IMG (and the fact the RFL had chosen to involve them) gave us a stay of execution, pretty mich given on "faith" alone at that point given there were no other metrics. Our future rests on Sky believing that we are committed to it, and that some results will then come from it. 

As expected, even given that very confronting reality, large parts of the rugby league ecosystem have chosen to disparage and undermine the project at every turn. I mean, it's almost like Sky's assessment of our sport's decision-makers wasn't far off the mark isn't it? 

Tin-pot is, as tin-pot does. 

[JohnM]

"large parts of the rugby league ecosystem have chosen to disparage and undermine the project at every turn."

Fortunately, that does not include the adults in our sport.

[Archie Gordon]

I don't see the fingerprints of a master negotiator on either of the current Sky or BBC deals. 

I'm also taking the negotiator's assessment of their own performance with a pinch of salt. A case of: Well they would say that, wouldn't they. The reality is that the game is still treading water.

That's not to say that IMG haven't done a brilliant job. It is instead to say that there's no evidence for that presently.

Edited November 5, 2024 by Archie Gordon
Missed a word out.

[Dave T]

Just now, Archie Gordon said:

I don't see the fingerprints of a master negotiator on either of the current Sky or BBC deals. 

I'm also taking the negotiator's assessment of their own performance with a pinch of salt. A case of: Well they would say that, wouldn't they. The reality is that the game is still treading water.

That's not to say that IMG haven't done a brilliant job. It is instead to say that there's evidence for that presently.

The main positive for me on the TV deal is that we have done something different. There's plenty i don't like about the SS+ thing (and the BBC element actually) but not just doing the same thing and hoping for more money next time is something we should be doing imo.

[phiggins]

46 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

“The gradings system is now with the RFL and RL Commercial, they own that,”

is an interesting development. Will it make a difference?

I guess it will be a case of the grading system being a deliverable of IMG's that they have passed over. But I would still expect IMG to be working on any tweaks to that system as time goes on. This quote feels like a defensive passing of the buck to me to be honest.

[phiggins]

19 hours ago, Worzel said:

This more detailed write-up of Matt Dwyer says is also interesting:

https://www.totalrl.com/img-launches-staunch-defence-of-rugby-league-role-following-criticism/

I'm glad he's being straight with people here. I agree with him,we should get rid of loop fixtures (and implement other things they've advised e.g. removing or re-imagining the Magic Weekend). But, as usual, as a sport we've had to look at the "will it make me worse off for the first year or two, even if it works in the end" question, and so ended up doing the right short-term thing not the right long-term thing. I'm sure its the same thing with many clubs inability to invest enough people and money in marketing and promotions. It must be very frustrating for them, because it will be undoubtedly be slowing down the pace of change. 

 

To be fair to the sport, or the clubs or whoever rejected the recommendation on loop fixtures. Short term decisions will always beat long term ones, if your short term aim is survival, which given the financial position the sport finds itself in, is likely the case for many clubs.

It is the job or IMG and RL Commercial as a partnership to present a compelling case for carrying out any of these recommendations, and they seem to have failed to do so here. I've said earlier on this thread, RL fans often use the 'turkeys voting for Christmas' analogy, but then criticise the turkeys and not the people putting forward a proposal that will see them slaughtered.

[binosh]

5 hours ago, JohnM said:

"All that is mentioned in the articles I have seen is that IMG suggested no loop fixtures"

The specific and burning issue has been that certain opponents of the project have been  lying about the £450k 

"Dwyer also corrected inaccurate reports stating that IMG had received £1.3million so far for their work in the sport. They have received £450,000 to date for their work across three years, much less than had been reported."

No words of contrition, no apology from the guilty. Dwyer's words are not good enought, it seems, since some of those opponents are now asking, "Yes, but he doesn't say what they'll receive next year ....".  Or, " he didn't deny..."

Hence my earlier comment likening their questioning of the IMG statement to  "have you stopped beating your wife yet.,yes or no".

IMG can't and never will win with these provincials. Fortunately they are a tiny minority. Unfortunately, they have a megaphone. 

Agree with this, however for clarity I do wish both the RFL and IMG had been this definitive in the outset it could have saved quite a lot of speculation (and hundreds of pages on here) over he last 3 years, there is no harm in being 100% transparent on the final agreement that was made. 

Now it appears to me there is some disharmony between the parties with each side making separate statements and some subtle changes to the initial “wording” as pointed out by other posters.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

I guess it will be a case of the grading system being a deliverable of IMG's that they have passed over. But I would still expect IMG to be working on any tweaks to that system as time goes on. This quote feels like a defensive passing of the buck to me to be honest.

I thought the whole interview was laced with defensiveness. See also the comment about Karl Fitzpatrick's criticism. I thought Dwyer was spot on tbh in basically throwing it back to KF too.

I'm OK with them being vocal though, as that's been one of the biggest criticisms.

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, gingerjon said:

No, it is remarkable.

We had nothing more to offer. It appears that there were no rival bids and we had no more 'content' to create.

And yet the offer rose - seemingly only after IMG got involved. Left to the RFL and the 'do things as we have always done' it would not have risen.

That is not something to be downplayed.

So for arguments sake, the initial offer from Sky was £18 M for 2 games screened a week, but a counter offer from IMG was say £21 M for Sky screening 6 games which Sky agreed to, that being the case the contract was undersold.

Just a thought.

PS, the next negotiations will be good, now we have nothing else to bargain with as far as SL goes.

Edited November 5, 2024 by Harry Stottle