IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[JohnM]

Oh yes. I AM angry.  Not with the "debate" about issues with the grading system, though. That's what the thread is all about. 

I AM angry about the constant denigrating of the involvement of IMG by a few malcontents on here. They are poisoning the topic, sucking all the air out of it.

I'm done with this now, not that it matters of course.  Let 'em get on with it in their quest for Ultimate Rugby League.

[Dave T]

With respect John, people are allowed to dislike something, and people are even allowed to repeat themselves, which is lucky for all of us here.

I find this publications approach a bit weird (a new article saying very little titled " xxxxx criticises IMG" - this week's version is Newcatle), but Martyn's view is his own and there to be challenged. 

[Archie Gordon]

Martyn seems to getting too much flak.

He can present his £450/750k pa how he wishes - and people can take issue with that presentation or not - but it was actually claimed to be factually wrong when it now seems it may not be.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Martyn seems to getting too much flak.

He can present his £450/750k pa how he wishes - and people can take issue with that presentation or not - but it was actually claimed to be factually wrong when it now seems it may not be.

I'm replying out of respect to the many genuine debaters. I did write 'Not with the "debate" about issues with the grading system, though. That's what the thread is all about. "

I doubt anything will stop the nihilists, though.

 

Edited November 6 by JohnM

[Worzel]

Good news, Hull KR's new full-size 3G training pitch is finished, next to Craven Streat... do we get any extra points? Maybe they can give us an A* now or something.

Personally I'd relegate any club in Hull without one on-site 

Edited November 8 by Worzel

[Worzel]

On 06/11/2024 at 07:41, Archie Gordon said:

Martyn seems to getting too much flak.

He can present his £450/750k pa how he wishes - and people can take issue with that presentation or not - but it was actually claimed to be factually wrong when it now seems it may not be.

No, I suggested he may have misrepresented facts. Not that the facts didn't exist.

You can present facts one way, to create one impression, or choose to present them another, so that your reader forms a different impression. Normally such a choice is driven by a motive. 

[17 stone giant]

On 06/11/2024 at 05:03, JohnM said:

I AM angry about the constant denigrating of the involvement of IMG by a few malcontents on here. They are poisoning the topic, sucking all the air out of it.

As it's only a "few", put them on ignore and you're sorted.

[JohnM]

31 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

As it's only a "few", put them on ignore and you're sorted.

I have, but from time to time I take a quick look and ........well......

[Trojan Horse]

We are truly blessed as Trinity fans this year. 

Works now starting and the whole lower north stand old terracing is going to be removed and replaced! 

There is planning in for another 2/3 upgrades to the stadium. 
 

Potentially new terracing in front of south boxes and a possible new sports bar/restaraunt in the south east corner area. This could open up outside match day revenue options and further match day. 
 

Phttps://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AikjS1MQq/?mibextid=WC7FNe

 

Edited November 8 by Trojan Horse

[Whippet13]

P&R back on the agenda for discussion at next month's RFL Christmas party / December council meeting:

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/promotion-relegation-rugby-league-meeting-9707206

[JohnM]

"It's worth noting that when IMG first proposed an introduction of the grading system, many clubs believed that promotion and relegation would still be attainable through on-field performance"

Many, as in one, two, a lot?  Can't these people read?

Is this really on the meeting agenda? Or AOB? Or is it hopeful speculation on the part of one aggrieved club? I think we should be told.

Edited November 12 by JohnM

[Archie Gordon]

5 minutes ago, JohnM said:

"It's worth noting that when IMG first proposed an introduction of the grading system, many clubs believed that promotion and relegation would still be attainable through on-field performance"

Many, as in one, two, a lot?  Can't these people read?

...

I remember that Leeds was one of them. Gary Hetherington was certainly confused and thought P&R was pretty much certain to be a feature of the new system. 

As you note, it was all in black and white.

[phiggins]

21 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

P&R back on the agenda for discussion at next month's RFL Christmas party / December council meeting:

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/promotion-relegation-rugby-league-meeting-9707206

Not sure P&R for grade B clubs will be feasible, without updates to the system to make an A much harder to get, and in turn, make a B much harder to get to ensure a minimum standard. 

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I remember that Leeds was one of them. Gary Hetherington was certainly confused and thought P&R was pretty much certain to be a feature of the new system. 

As you note, it was all in black and white.

It is hard to believe that anyone would believe that any form of standard P&R was remaining for SL. This was from the RFL website in Sept 2022:

• Participation in the top tier to be based on a range of on and off field measures, delivered through a club grading system with the aim of supporting financial sustainability and encouraging investment into clubs.  ‘Category A’ clubs will be guaranteed participation in the top tier whilst ‘Category B’ clubs will be re-assessed annually with the highest-ranking clubs occupying the remaining slots in the top tier.  

Promotion and relegation will continue on the field of play between the second and third tiers with tier two increasingly filled with strong Category B Clubs.  

[LeytherRob]

36 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

P&R back on the agenda for discussion at next month's RFL Christmas party / December council meeting:

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/promotion-relegation-rugby-league-meeting-9707206

Not a chance that passes a vote. I’m firmly in favour of keeping auto p&r in some capacity providing min standards are met, but you can’t have a system which could see a team like Salford relegated from a playoff spot because everyone below them is able to manipulate the financials to sneak an A grade. Also, no chance SL chairmen vote for an amendment that guarantees expansion because there just isn’t the money yet.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Not a chance that passes a vote. I’m firmly in favour of keeping auto p&r in some capacity providing min standards are met, but you can’t have a system which could see a team like Salford relegated from a playoff spot because everyone below them is able to manipulate the financials to sneak an A grade. Also, no chance SL chairmen vote for an amendment that guarantees expansion because there just isn’t the money yet.

I agree. I'm really not in favour of any half measure bodge job. We've been down that road many times before with the same results every time.

[JohnM]

We don't actually know if this is on the formal agenda, anyway. Just cos  Batley says so doesn't mean that it is. 

I won't believe it until I see the agenda document....and even then, I'd be skeptical.

[DI Keith Fowler]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

It is hard to believe that anyone would believe that any form of standard P&R was remaining for SL. This was from the RFL website in Sept 2022:

• Participation in the top tier to be based on a range of on and off field measures, delivered through a club grading system with the aim of supporting financial sustainability and encouraging investment into clubs.  ‘Category A’ clubs will be guaranteed participation in the top tier whilst ‘Category B’ clubs will be re-assessed annually with the highest-ranking clubs occupying the remaining slots in the top tier.  

Promotion and relegation will continue on the field of play between the second and third tiers with tier two increasingly filled with strong Category B Clubs.  

To be fair I strongly suspect someone from the RFL themselves misunderstood what was being proposed and spread misinformation around the clubs prior to the vote. Too many people kept coming up with the exact same misinterpretation. You'd say maybe there was a hint of deceit maybe to get clubs on board, but it's the RFL so I will assume incompetence over malice.  

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

To be fair I strongly suspect someone from the RFL themselves misunderstood what was being proposed and spread misinformation around the clubs prior to the vote. Too many people kept coming up with the exact same misinterpretation. You'd say maybe there was a hint of deceit maybe to get clubs on board, but it's the RFL so I will assume incompetence over malice.  

Maybe, however the vote for this was over 6m later than the original release that made it clear.

[David Shepherd]

Makes sense to relegate a "B", but only if they finish bottom. Maybe we need to introduce a points penalty for getting the wooden spoon to stop clubs fielding dross like Hull FC did this year, thus putting the "A" status in real jeopardy.

 

[Tommygilf]

39 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Makes sense to relegate a "B", but only if they finish bottom. Maybe we need to introduce a points penalty for getting the wooden spoon to stop clubs fielding dross like Hull FC did this year, thus putting the "A" status in real jeopardy.

 

Despite fielding "dross", Hull FC did not finish bottom. They also sacked a coach, had a dead wood clear out of the squad (subjective I know), and brought in fresh investment and a new rugby recruitment strategy. They sacked their coach earlier than Leeds did too - their year needn't have been a write off.

Realistically to be promoted from the Championship you're going to have to finish very high up the table (Top 2/3 maybe?), win the Grand Final and win the 1895 to get the bonus points for those. I think to argue to relegate one of the top level full time outfits that is fair enough.

[Hopie]

I think the interesting thing is putting the "more than 12" scenario on the negotiation table. It was said that an A guaranteed a Super League place, but I don't think many, if any, thought that meant it guaranteed you kept a place but didn't mean you were guaranteed to gain one. If we get more than 12 it has to be clear what will happen.

The grading rules need change, it will be interesting what the clubs can agree on, if anything. In terms of allowing a B team to get promoted, if it replaces a B team that seems fair (although if teams are genuinely "A grade" they could handle a relegation easily) but how many votes would it need to pass, there are those who would obviously vote yes, and those who would obviously vote no, and as for those it won't realistically affect, what would they want in return to vote one way or the other?

[Archie Gordon]

14 hours ago, Dave T said:

Maybe, however the vote for this was over 6m later than the original release that made it clear.

Bizarrely, there was still some uncertainty at the time of the vote about what P&R would look like in practice. I think all clubs understood that P&R was no longer automatic but there was some selling of the idea that the winner of the Championship would still go up in almost all circumstances.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/chance-of-championship-winners-being-denied-promotion-in-new-img-system-are-very-remote

[Worzel]

14 hours ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

To be fair I strongly suspect someone from the RFL themselves misunderstood what was being proposed and spread misinformation around the clubs prior to the vote. Too many people kept coming up with the exact same misinterpretation. You'd say maybe there was a hint of deceit maybe to get clubs on board, but it's the RFL so I will assume incompetence over malice.  

This wouldn't surprise me at all. More through incompetence rather than deliberately.

Personally I'd be cool with the bottom B being relegated, never quite sat right with me that one club could stay up because they had 0.05 points more than another side who'd lacked the in-built advantages that comes from being in the top division. Like-for-like the latter club would clearly be stronger. If you want a guaranteed spot, get an A. I thought that was the point really.  

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

Bizarrely, there was still some uncertainty at the time of the vote about what P&R would look like in practice. I think all clubs understood that P&R was no longer automatic but there was some selling of the idea that the winner of the Championship would still go up in almost all circumstances.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/chance-of-championship-winners-being-denied-promotion-in-new-img-system-are-very-remote

The issue i have with all this is that owners keep claiming they didn't know stuff (and this goes back years, way before this). 

I ask how this can keep happening - because people at the RFL have changed, IMG are new to the game. The consistent people are the owners who appear to keep being confused by things.

The article is another weird one - one of the biggest narratives around this has been the removal of auto P&R, the case of London being the perfect example. In future they wouldn't be promoted just because they won the Champ. That really was crystal clear. We've all been arguing about it here for ages!