IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Worzel]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Making no comment, except to point out that, yet again, a programme and system being implemented for the whole of the game, is being pored over simply for what it means for the maybe 4 clubs outside Super League that the nature of promotion to it might affect.

Or, to put it another way, detail that is simply not relevant to about 90% of clubs.

Precisely this. Meanwhile the clubs it is designed for continue to attract inward investment, and are using take actions to improve the quality of customer experience and long-term strength of their organisations. How awful...!! 

[RP London]

43 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

It's just not a very obvious causal chain at all.

Leigh and Hull KR's path to where they are now pre-dated IMG. You could make a case that nothing they've done would be different in a counterfactual world where grading didn't happen.

Wakefield's rise kind of runs parallel to IMG. I say that insofar as Ellis's improvements go way wider than the IMG criteria - he's investing in a lot of things that don't get points. I am massively impressed by what he's doing.

Lots of the other club-by-club improvements are undoubtedly worthy but the better tool would have been minimum standards. The actual impact of grading/ranking - separate from what could have been achieved by minimum standards - is really not clear to me.

Is he? why is he investing in those? is it so that it helps the balance sheet or helps the club build for the future, then yes it does have an impact on different IMG criteria. Its not just those clubs, Castleford take over and investment in the ground, the movements at Hull... we have been told in umpteen posts on this thread that IMG grading would stifle investment and yet the evidence shouts that that is patently just not true. 

I have said your last sentence many many times, I would be in favour of STRICTLY adhered too minimum standards.. and kicking out teams that did not meet those which would IMHO, ironically, have left us with the exact same set as at the moment and the exact same set of clubs needing to do XYZ to get themselves up to minimum standards. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by RP London

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

But they may be 4 or 5 points below another club just for the simple reason they don't have the extra points that been in SL brings. London are a good example as they were thought to be miles away and ended up actually been 2 spots away from keeping their SL spot been the 14th ranked club. Take a team with a starting point of around 12 points and if they get promoted those extra points gained for being in SL could be enough to take them to an A grade. Its a chance we have to take to make sure we are simply not carrying teams in SL no matter of on field performance at the top level.

I take your point, however if a team is 4 points behind other teams playing in the same division, that is an indicator of their strength as a club. Many clubs were able to strengthen their scores this year from the indicative grading, that isn't gonna be possible every time.

I think it is flawed in assuming that weak clubs will easily be able to add 4 or so points from one season in SL. London were relatively unique in that they were a bit of a basket case in the first place. The only way that this kind of proposal could begin to work is if the bar for a Grade B was substantially raised to around that 12.5 mark anyway where the top Championship clubs are playing. But even then, it undermines the grading system.

[RP London]

32 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

You can look back at the past and see how things have changed.  For example, lets take the first seasons Superleague, from memory there was talk of pulling up the drawbridge at that point as well, and compare it to last seasons.  Six of last seasons clubs were not in the original and a seventh took part but had been relegated before a ball was kicked. Of the six, three made the play offs (Hull KR, Leigh and Salford) and two, Hull and Catalans are considered by most of us to be amongst the biggest clubs in the league. Just because of were you where at a current point in time should not define your future.

And yet the game is circling the bowl, which is the big problem.. sometimes what you say may be great for the clubs involved but is it great for the game as a whole?? there is an argument for both sides, but with where we are at the moment perhaps another avenue is needing to be tried..

(As I have said many many times. I would prefer P&R. I would prefer strictly adhered to minimum standards.. however, i also understand that things need to change and its not ALL about the system of the leagues its also about what IMG can leverage through those clubs etc to get more money into the game as a whole.. this is a means to a much larger goal).

[RP London]

32 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well we have been through this many times on this thread Mr Beaumont developed his 5 year plan when IMG's process for RLwas a twinkle in Matt Dwyers eye.

Mr Beaumont's plan was to put a team out in the Championship that would be guaranteed to get promoted and to then improve the squad with SL quality players before the season ended long before the GF to secure promotion, that has evidently worked, has Matt Ellis followed the same path of course he has.

And as we have all said many many times to you, its not all about you.. 

You, I believe, were one of those that said (many many pages back) that IMG would stifle investment and yet that evidentially is not true and its not just Leigh (I know that might shock you), its Wakefield, Castleford, new ownership at Hull letc etc we were told by the nay sayers that this would not happen and yet it is.

[Worzel]

45 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

It's just not a very obvious causal chain at all.

Leigh and Hull KR's path to where they are now pre-dated IMG. You could make a case that nothing they've done would be different in a counterfactual world where grading didn't happen.

Wakefield's rise kind of runs parallel to IMG. I say that insofar as Ellis's improvements go way wider than the IMG criteria - he's investing in a lot of things that don't get points. I am massively impressed by what he's doing.

Lots of the other club-by-club improvements are undoubtedly worthy but the better tool would have been minimum standards. The actual impact of grading/ranking - separate from what could have been achieved by minimum standards - is really not clear to me.

I only speak for my own club. Hull KR got promoted in 2006, that's almost 20 years ago now. We did make progress in that time, albeit with limited resources, because the club had a resilient custodian and bright people in it. But the last 2 years have been significantly different because we have been able to attract investors, and use their money to accelerate things both on and off the field. Those investors committed because of IMG, which gave them a high degree of confidence we would have the time in Super League for it to be worth making that investment. I know this because I've asked two of them directly. 

I'm pretty sure that Matt Ellis has said similar things about Wakefield. He knew what he would have to do, and was confident he could influence things to get an A-grade in a way that P&R was still a lottery even with investment. You only have to look at Featherstone's long experience to know that. 

 

 

[Harry Stottle]

16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

People bring up Leigh and HKR as if that is some sort of gotcha, but they are precisely what the grading process is trying to achieve - ie clubs making themselves SL level operators before being in SL.

And that is also the point people are saying Tommy, Leigh and HKR hatched their pains before IMG became the flavour of the month, would they have done any different had IMG not been involved what do you think, and include Matt Ellis in the equation of those decisions being a 'business venture' the owners have promoted their businesses, and are reaping the rewards and are continually taking the next step of improving, do you honestly believe they would have just sat on their Laurels had IMG not been involved? They don't do that in their professional 'day job' why would they do it in their professional 'hobby'.

[RP London]

21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly Ginger, but there are those on here who are doing just that stating it will not be long before the Championship is all but jettisoned in favour of a 'closed shop'

As Worzel said only in the past couple of days "but then ultimately this is just a transitional phase as we move to a closed league" endorsed by Dave T.

Funny isn't it that comments such as these get very little reaction or comment from a lot of the forum members, yet those who's comments are positive on protecting the Championship are seemingly scowled upon.

Perhaps becuase if the game improves its ability to make money then all can benefit from it and that the game can move forward. I remember the football league basically being a closed shop and teams like Wycombe not being able to be promoted even though they won the conference for years. Then standards below Div 4 (or whatever it was called then) rose and there is now pretty much standard P&R between the divisions. That can happen here but without a break to raise those standards and raise that injection of money then "protecting the champ" is potentially killing the game... This is a new attempt to make some change, simply put, becuase everything else we have done has failed to halt the decline. 12 year plan... 

The one thing we can all meet on is that we ALL want what is best for the game as a whole (I think) its just how we get there.

Edited November 14, 2024 by RP London

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

10 minutes ago, RP London said:

yes thats the point I'm making.. everything in the whole world works like this.. at some point the music stops and everyone needs to grab a chair (or not).. they have put their mark in the sand now and this is where we need to restart. 

 

The whole of the world works like this ? I must have been off work the day they announced that from today you are stuck were you are now.

[gingerjon]

24 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly Ginger, but there are those on here who are doing just that stating it will not be long before the Championship is all but jettisoned in favour of a 'closed shop'

As Worzel said only in the past couple of days "but then ultimately this is just a transitional phase as we move to a closed league" endorsed by Dave T.

Funny isn't it that comments such as these get very little reaction or comment from a lot of the forum members, yet those who's comments are positive on protecting the Championship are seemingly scowled upon.

Your hero with his five year plan has stated his desire for a 2x10 that would jettison clubs 21 onwards. The only thing he disagrees with the closed shop SL wanters (I'm not one of those, by the way) is he sets the closed shop under club 20 rather than 12 or 16.

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

The whole of the world works like this ? I must have been off work the day they announced that from today you are stuck were you are now.

sorry but thats a daft analogy.

"Luck" is everywhere.. Timing is key.. pretty much every autobiography of businessmen say that.. you have to make your luck and you can only benefit from that luck or from the timing if you are in position to do so.. Some clubs have got themselves to that position some have been woefully negligent towards their clubs (some is historic and not on the person today, but they are where they are) and they are struggling to make the most of this now.. 

 

Edited November 14, 2024 by RP London

[RP London]

14 minutes ago, RP London said:

And as we have all said many many times to you, its not all about you.. 

You, I believe, were one of those that said (many many pages back) that IMG would stifle investment and yet that evidentially is not true and its not just Leigh (I know that might shock you), its Wakefield, Castleford, new ownership at Hull letc etc we were told by the nay sayers that this would not happen and yet it is.

@Harry Stottle why the sad reaction.. people are investing in the sport its a good thing! is it becuase you are desperate for IMG to fail which actually means you want the sport to damage itself in the process??

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Your hero with his five year plan has stated his desire for a 2x10 that would jettison clubs 21 onwards. The only thing he disagrees with the closed shop SL wanters (I'm not one of those, by the way) is he sets the closed shop under club 20 rather than 12 or 16.

Oh back to juvenile remarks are we, if you remember I have said many times in the past that I don't agree with everything "my hero" says and I do not agree at at all with 2 x 10.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

 I do not agree at at all with 2 x 10.

Good to know. But it's what Beaumont will be pushing for - a closed shop. And that will be factoring in to why he's gone back on his word to leave the club altogether.

[Archie Gordon]

4 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I only speak for my own club. Hull KR got promoted in 2006, that's almost 20 years ago now. We did make progress in that time, albeit with limited resources, because the club had a resilient custodian and bright people in it. But the last 2 years have been significantly different because we have been able to attract investors, and use their money to accelerate things both on and off the field. Those investors committed because of IMG, which gave them a high degree of confidence we would have the time in Super League for it to be worth making that investment. I know this because I've asked two of them directly. 

...

I take this point.

I'm sure that IMG are name-checked by HKR investors as it is surely advantageous to have (almost) a guarantee of tenure. But having 99% certainty of SL tenure in 3 years time (where HKR are under grading, I would say) is little different to having 98% certainty (where HKR or any other well-run big club would be under P&R in the current 12-team SL). 

But I accept that perception is important and the perception of 'drawbridge up' may have helped bring money in.

It's also worth restating that the additional investors came in when HKR were already in SL. If IMG had arrived on the scene 5 years earlier, one might suggest that this additional investment - and the success of HKR - would be unlikely. Which side of the drawbridge you are on might be crucial.

I think Oldham will be the test case as to whether investors are attracted to a Championship club over the medium- or long-term. They might well be. My fear is that the Championship will become moribund if we have no movement between it and SL.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

@Harry Stottle why the sad reaction.. people are investing in the sport its a good thing! is it becuase you are desperate for IMG to fail which actually means you want the sport to damage itself in the process??

I stopped reading after "And as we have all said many many times to you, its not all about you"

Please tell me who's we all, and what is all about me, I have opinions just like every one else even you who stated just a few posts back "and kicking out teams that did not meet those which would IMHO, ironically.......", was that all about you?

Sorry if you don't agree with what I say, but keep your childish comments to yourself.

[RP London]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

I stopped reading after "And as we have all said many many times to you, its not all about you"

Please tell me who's we all, and what is all about me, I have opinions just like every one else even you who stated just a few posts back "and kicking out teams that did not meet those which would IMHO, ironically.......", was that all about you?

Sorry if you don't agree with what I say, but keep your childish comments to yourself.

its always "but leigh do xyz" from you yet its not all about leigh and people are using other examples to prove their point.. 

when someone comes back at you with something you have previously said that turns out to be awkward for you its "juvenile" or "childish".. 

fab.. I've liked discussions we have had but this is ridiculous way to go.. 

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

its always "but leigh do xyz" from you yet its not all about leigh and people are using other examples to prove their point.. 

when someone comes back at you with something you have previously said that turns out to be awkward for you its "juvenile" or "childish".. 

fab.. I've liked discussions we have had but this is ridiculous way to go.. 

Only when the cap fits.

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Good to know. But it's what Beaumont will be pushing for - a closed shop. And that will be factoring in to why he's gone back on his word to leave the club altogether.

When did he say he was leaving the club altogether? I recall saying he would step aside with the club debt free and cash in the bank should folk come in with the funds to take it forward - nobody came forwardBeaumont doesn’t want a closed shop but realises the stupidity of promoting a cashless part time club in October - we have been in that position before btw. Folk with vision and half a brain cell will know that a funded 2x10 FT divisions is the most inclusive solution for stability and growth - FUNDED being the key word

[Dave T]

I do think we have a bit of a fundamental challenge here in that I just don't think we have really set out the problem that we are trying to fix with grading.

This ultimately is a change to P&R mechanics, that's the difference between two years ago and now. 

If we look at some of the criticisms of auto P&R, one of the key ones is that clubs invest in on-field only and are a shell of a club really. London Broncos illustrated this perfectly. That will now be prevented. They've come in to SL twice in recent years, lost most games and gone straight back down, bringing little to the comp. In effect this brings some minus standards in, as if you aren't at a certain level off the field you won't be allowed in. That feels like it addresses a genuine issue.

Other issues that are raised though are around the shock that P&R brings to a club as a whole, with the huge shift in funding and turnover. Yet this doesn't appear to have been addressed. The 12m cycle offers no certainty, even if you are an A grade club it turns out. Ultimately you could score well, strengthen yourselves as a club, make long term decisions, but miss out when they are announced and you have that club shock again. It's less transparent than standard p&r as you only know your own score.

We then have the challenge that clubs struggle to recruit a strong team following promotion, yet this does nothing to address that issue. You could argue that it does in fact encourage overspending in the Championship as you look to build a team at the lower level that can step up, not unlike Leigh, Toronto and Wakefield have, but then we see with Fev how that can work the other way.

I also feel we are unnecessarily bringing 3rd division clubs into this, with metrics that aren't necessarily appropriate at that level.

I'm only seeing one point addressed here, and it's one that could easily have been addressed through strong minimum standards.

Whilst I'm supportive of letting this play out, and certainly supportive of the wider involvement of expertise through IMG, I can't help that the execution of Grading leaves a lot to be desired (and I don't mean the criteria). It genuinely feels like a poorer version of licensing.

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It genuinely feels like a poorer version of licensing.

Understand without necessarily agreeing with your concerns - except this. Licensing was the poorer version of licensing. Nothing really changed. This time we are seeing clubs take steps to address their scores. That simply did not happen last time, at all.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Only when the cap fits.

So producing evidence to disprove someone's belief is childish... well that says everything... time to just ignore now... 

Edited November 14, 2024 by RP London

[Damien]

20 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Understand without necessarily agreeing with your concerns - except this. Licensing was the poorer version of licensing. Nothing really changed. This time we are seeing clubs take steps to address their scores. That simply did not happen last time, at all.

I do agree with your point that the stick seems to be here this time, which wasn't the case with licensing. I do wonder though how much of this has been helped by it being much clearer in terms of clubs that finished in the top 12, which was basically the status quo anyway, and not really having any conentious calls to make. Previously we had much more ambiguity and existing SL clubs in far worse situations.

The rest though is uncannily similar to licensing. I didn't really realise this until I looked at licensing again properly a few weeks ago. Licensing for slow learners if you will.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Damien said:

I do agree with your point that the stick seems to be here this time, which wasn't the case with licensing. I do wonder though how much of this has been helped by it being much clearer in terms of clubs that finished in the top 12, which was basically the status quo anyway, and not really having any conentious calls to make. Previously we had much more ambiguity and existing SL clubs in far worse situations.

The rest though is uncannily similar to licensing. I didn't really realise this until I looked at licensing again properly a few weeks ago. Licensing for slow learners if you will.

Possibly it's just timing. Licensing, especially by the second go round, was really, really, really badly done and built in complacency. The 'stick' element being here this time appears to be essential to things happening.

Also, I think the fact that clubs have to be more visible - this is not just RL, it's what sports in a social media age look like - means they do actually have to visibly do things.

There's a fair bit that needs tweaking and fixing, and we have a long way to go, but it still looks like the right direction to me. And it still looks a lot better than licencing.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I do agree with your point that the stick seems to be here this time, which wasn't the case with licensing. I do wonder though how much of this has been helped by it being much clearer in terms of clubs that finished in the top 12, which was basically the status quo anyway, and not really having any conentious calls to make. Previously we had much more ambiguity and existing SL clubs in far worse situations.

The rest though is uncannily similar to licensing. I didn't really realise this until I looked at licensing again properly a few weeks ago. Licensing for slow learners if you will.

Part of that is because this was a compromise to an extent.