IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Worzel]

Just now, Dave T said:

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!

Some of the owners aren't competent, so don't 100% understand, and then some of the others are competent but aren't straight-shooters and would rather hide from the decisions they've made when a minority of their club's fans complain about them.

sic semper erat, et sic semper erit 

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Worzel said:

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.  

Yes, i don't mind that discussions are ongoing about the best way, but I'm not sure it's see a great system being proposed.

This year we have Salford, Huddersfield and Hull FC as the SL grade B clubs. They could all have a really good season, all finishing in the playoffs, and then you relegated one of them. It doesn't work.

[The Blues Ox]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, i don't mind that discussions are ongoing about the best way, but I'm not sure it's see a great system being proposed.

This year we have Salford, Huddersfield and Hull FC as the SL grade B clubs. They could all have a really good season, all finishing in the playoffs, and then you relegated one of them. It doesn't work.

Why? The on field product is not really that important in the criteria and teams spending money on squads when they could be spending it on off field improvements is what could be holding the game back. Or at least that is what could be taken from the grading criteria so getting rid of a B grade club no matter of their standing and replacing them with a Championship club who could have the potential to get an A grade totally makes sense.

As we have seen from London and their one year in SL, the points improvement is massive for holding that SL spot and what is to say that any number of teams in the Championship could not improve to an A grade if given that same opportunity. 

[Archie Gordon]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

...

This year we have Salford, Huddersfield and Hull FC as the SL grade B clubs. They could all have a really good season, all finishing in the playoffs, and then you relegated one of them. It doesn't work.

But isn't that the system we now have?

[gingerjon]

Scottish football leads the way in finding a way to make licencing and on field "performance" linked.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/clygx55vlnqo

[Dave T]

35 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Why? The on field product is not really that important in the criteria and teams spending money on squads when they could be spending it on off field improvements is what could be holding the game back. Or at least that is what could be taken from the grading criteria so getting rid of a B grade club no matter of their standing and replacing them with a Championship club who could have the potential to get an A grade totally makes sense.

As we have seen from London and their one year in SL, the points improvement is massive for holding that SL spot and what is to say that any number of teams in the Championship could not improve to an A grade if given that same opportunity. 

Your post is contradictory. Hull FC could finish 6th with 14.9pts and be replaced by Widnes who invest in players to win the Champ but get only 9.5pts.

 

[Dave T]

36 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

But isn't that the system we now have?

No. It would be putting far too much weight on on field performance of the lower division club, and ignore the on field performance of the SL club. So if Widnes finished top of the Champ that is worthy of reward, but finishing 6th (or higher in SL) is not.

Hull FC could finish 4th, with a very strong B grading, yet be replaced by a team who is weaker on the field and off it. 

It simply doesn't work.

[Archie Gordon]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

No. It would be putting far too much weight on on field performance of the lower division club, and ignore the on field performance of the SL club. So if Widnes finished top of the Champ that is worthy of reward, but finishing 6th (or higher in SL) is not.

Hull FC could finish 4th, with a very strong B grading, yet be replaced by a team who is weaker on the field and off it. 

It simply doesn't work.

The point is simply that a B club now could get demoted after finishing the season in the play-offs.

[JohnM]

I appreciate the efforts of posters who analyse and debate the detail of the grading scheme, it's definition, implementation, operation, advantages and disadvantages etc . Maybe not those who are just trying to rationalise their fundamental opposition.

Don't forget the high-level big- picture view, which in my opinion is worth restating.

1. It's a 12 year project, not a one year project, so don't expect it to yield immediate results. Rather, expect a gradual improvement. 

2. We're only 2 seasons in, and the foundation has only just solidified.

3. As the whole project develops, it's reasonable to expect development, adjustment, progression etc.

4. The objective of the grading system is to put clubs in a position to deliver better on-field performance and to create a higher value sport  worth increased TV revenues. Benchmarking re other clubs, other leagues, other sports. It's what IMG are equipped to do.

5. It's important that the facts are presented accurately and not distorted by the schemes opponents. That's why the recent response from Matt Dwyer was needed. The RFL should in my opinion, do more in this respect, to counter any misleading information. 

6. The RFL could make a start by clarifying the position around the £450k payment. The uncertainty has only helped the schemes opponents to spread more FUD.

Edited November 14, 2024 by JohnM
Numbering corrected and minor text edit.

[Forever Trinity]

Why not have Champoinship winners play the bottom of SL at the Champoinship clubs ground winner is SL a bit more excitement.

[up the robins]

9 minutes ago, Forever Trinity said:

Why not have Champoinship winners play the bottom of SL at the Champoinship clubs ground winner is SL a bit more excitement.

We could call it the million pound game.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

The point is simply that a B club now could get demoted after finishing the season in the play-offs.

Yes, and in fact, an A club could too. 

But we know that it is your club ranking that does this. So if you get replaced, it is basically because you have done the exact thing that you shouldn't (spent your money on the pitch as opposed to strengthening your club both on and off the field).

The issues isn't around getting relegated from 6th in itself, it is getting relegated from 6th by a far weaker club because we've decided that on-field performance trumps everything else - which is something that directly contradicts grading.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Yes, i don't mind that discussions are ongoing about the best way, but I'm not sure it's see a great system being proposed.

This year we have Salford, Huddersfield and Hull FC as the SL grade B clubs. They could all have a really good season, all finishing in the playoffs, and then you relegated one of them. It doesn't work.

Sorry, my comment wasn't clear, which is my fault entirely: I'd do it *only* if they finished bottom.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Worzel said:

Sorry, my comment wasn't clear, which is my fault entirely: I'd do it *only* if they finished bottom.

yeah, I think things like this are what would make it workable, but I'm not sure it would be strong enough for Champ clubs to be happy as they ultimately dont have any control over this P&R. And would this sit alongside the standard grading piece?

 

[Worzel]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

yeah, I think things like this are what would make it workable, but I'm not sure it would be strong enough for Champ clubs to be happy as they ultimately dont have any control over this P&R. And would this sit alongside the standard grading piece?

 

Yes I don't think it would satisfy them, but then ultimately this is just a transitional phase as we move to a closed league when standards have risen, so I'm not sure satisfying them is ever really one of the outcomes anyway?

Just think that small tweak would be fairer. If a B-grade club wins the Championship, no harm in replacing a similar club in Super League. That Super League club knows where they needed to invest in order to get total security, so they already had an advantage and to an extent didn't take it when they had it. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Worzel said:

Yes I don't think it would satisfy them, but then ultimately this is just a transitional phase as we move to a closed league when standards have risen, so I'm not sure satisfying them is ever really one of the outcomes anyway?

Just think that small tweak would be fairer. If a B-grade club wins the Championship, no harm in replacing a similar club in Super League. That Super League club knows where they needed to invest in order to get total security, so they already had an advantage and to an extent didn't take it when they had it. 

I think if your first paragraph is true, and i don't disagree, then we just leave it as is and crack on.

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Your post is contradictory. Hull FC could finish 6th with 14.9pts and be replaced by Widnes who invest in players to win the Champ but get only 9.5pts.

 

Sounds perfect to me

 

 

[Gerrumonside ref]

I’ve not posted much on this thread but it seems like some clubs have responded positively to the idea that off the field development of their club is important like signing the right players and hiring the right coaching team.

Obviously this might have happened anyway at some clubs, but now there is a tangible reward for doing this everywhere and for everyone.

That has to be better than gambling the house so to speak on advancement only through on the field results.  We need everyone to grow to grow the sport.

 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Sounds perfect to me

 

 

It was the craziest scenario I could come up with

[up the robins]

27 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I’ve not posted much on this thread but it seems like some clubs have responded positively to the idea that off the field development of their club is important like signing the right players and hiring the right coaching team.

Obviously this might have happened anyway at some clubs, but now there is a tangible reward for doing this everywhere and for everyone.

That has to be better than gambling the house so to speak on advancement only through on the field results.  We need everyone to grow to grow the sport.

 

I agree that clubs been encouraged to spend and develop better is a good thing overall for the sport, my concern is how hard it is to meet the standards required to be a super league club without being in super league.

As I posted previously if my club was in the position we was in before promotion to super league we would never of been in a position to   develop our stadium or invest in our other off and om field development and our crowds would never have got anywhere near super league clubs. In short we would never of obtained a A grade.

We got where we are now a top four team  challenging for honours with sell out crowds in a relatively good stadium by being able to build as a club via promotion and relegation.

Having reached the position we are in now I find it highly unfair for me to say lift up the draw bridge sod the rest.

I'm not against the sport being encouraged to invest better by IMG but not destroying the dreams of the clubs outside of super league.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

1 hour ago, up the robins said:

I agree that clubs been encouraged to spend and develop better is a good thing overall for the sport, my concern is how hard it is to meet the standards required to be a super league club without being in super league.

As I posted previously if my club was in the position we was in before promotion to super league we would never of been in a position to   develop our stadium or invest in our other off and om field development and our crowds would never have got anywhere near super league clubs. In short we would never of obtained a A grade.

We got where we are now a top four team  challenging for honours with sell out crowds in a relatively good stadium by being able to build as a club via promotion and relegation.

Having reached the position we are in now I find it highly unfair for me to say lift up the draw bridge sod the rest.

I'm not against the sport being encouraged to invest better by IMG but not destroying the dreams of the clubs outside of super league.

A man who has not forgot where he came from.  Well said.

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

This year we have Salford, Huddersfield and Hull FC as the SL grade B clubs. They could all have a really good season, all finishing in the playoffs, and then you relegated one of them. It doesn't work.

You could get good odds on that happening Dave, the odds are that they will all finish in the top 6 would be very big indeed, conversely the odds for one of them finishing bottom would be less attractive.

This past season there was great interest in 'Would London not finish bottom" there would have been far more interest had relegation been in play, and I think that interest would have been greater in the Championship as it happened Wakefield could have lost the Championship GF and still been 'promoted', I have always been of the opinion that success should be rewarded and finishing bottom should carry the consequences of being relegated, now for the contentious bit, it should apply to who ever finishes bottom irrespective of grading.

Just like the suggestion a while ago that some teams should be exempt from relegation whilst playing in the same division competing for the same points as those who could suffer jeopardy is abhorrent and could lead to 'gamesmanship' in some fixtures, the difference was it was not long ago that 2 from 12 teams were suggested they should be protected, now we have 9 from 12.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

A man who has not forgot where he came from.  Well said.

The grass is much greener on the other side Jill.

[Dave T]

40 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

1. You could get good odds on that happening Dave, the odds are that they will all finish in the top 6 would be very big indeed, conversely the odds for one of them finishing bottom would be less attractive.

2. This past season there was great interest in 'Would London not finish bottom" there would have been far more interest had relegation been in play, and I think that interest would have been greater in the Championship as it happened Wakefield could have lost the Championship GF and still been 'promoted', I have always been of the opinion that success should be rewarded and finishing bottom should carry the consequences of being relegated, now for the contentious bit, it should apply to who ever finishes bottom irrespective of grading.

3. Just like the suggestion a while ago that some teams should be exempt from relegation whilst playing in the same division competing for the same points as those who could suffer jeopardy is abhorrent and could lead to 'gamesmanship' in some fixtures, the difference was it was not long ago that 2 from 12 teams were suggested they should be protected, now we have 9 from 12.

1. Grading is either a thing or it isn't. Ignoring personal preferences, the sport has decided to decide SL places by a ranking system, which already bakes in on-field performance. If you give a place because somebody has won a Championship Grand Final irrespective of score, then you have basically repeated the London issue. Because if a weak club goes up, they are guaranteed to go down again at the end of that season just like London. The only way this stuff works if if you pretty much scrap grading. They can't really be crashed together.

2. I actually disagree. Much of the 'interests about London was driven by your owner keep repeating himself because of his beef with Hull FC, publications like this just keep recycling Mike Eccles please to be kept in SL.  In reality, most people were focusing on the top end of the table.

3. Nobody has any protection under the current system. Technically any club could exit SL at the end of the 2025 season.

[The Blues Ox]

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

Your post is contradictory. Hull FC could finish 6th with 14.9pts and be replaced by Widnes who invest in players to win the Champ but get only 9.5pts.

 

London gained 4.5pts after their season in SL, what is to say another Championship team could not do the same taking them well above the dregs of SL?