IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Exiled Wiganer]

 

  “On 22/11/2024 at 00:02,  Hopie said:

Ruddy hell, a lot of posts hoping this is worse than it looks. Club rivalries should be about hoping other teams lose the match, not that the people working their lose their jobs.”

I posted this on the Salford on the verge of going bust weeks after being confirmed in SL by IMG. It seems more pertinent here. But, but, but they are such experts…

I don’t get that sense at all. What bothers me is that we have supposedly selected 12 teams for next season on an objective basis with finance supposedly a key criterion, only to find out weeks later that there are massive structural issues around Salford’s finances. 

So: 

- do they really need a handout to reach the starting line, in which case they are clearly in a terrible position cash wise? (Seemingly yes.)

- were the criteria so c—p that it didn’t matter whether anyone is on the verge of insolvency? (Probably not, but IMG have no financial expertise so maybe.)

- assuming that IMG’s financial criteria would assess a club’s finances, did IMG do its job? (It certainly doesn’t look like it, unless Salford were selective with the truth.)

- what did Salford say to IMG? (See above. Though even here, anyone who knew anything about league - and I am not assuming the IMG person knows anything at all - would look at Salford’s historic finances, and lack of a backer and take a long hard look at them.)

- when did Salford know what? (There is possibly a get out of jail card for both IMG and Salford, but given that this is a very long running saga, I would be astonished if they hadn’t the faintest notion.)

Unless I missed it, you weren’t concerned about people at Toulouse losing out on Super League jobs. Because unless there are satisfactory answers to all of those questions, Toulouse should be in the 12. 

If I were a Super League boss, I would be very concerned indeed by the ramifications for the whole IMG edifice, and would be looking into the merits of a claim by Toulouse against SL (the RFL?) and/or IMG. They have nothing to(u) lo(u)se after all. 

 

[PREPOSTEROUS]

.

Edited November 23, 2024 by PREPOSTEROUS

[PREPOSTEROUS]

.

Edited November 23, 2024 by PREPOSTEROUS

[PREPOSTEROUS]

.

Edited November 23, 2024 by PREPOSTEROUS

[PREPOSTEROUS]

1 hour ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi Jack , will be as brief as possible

1. In 2024 a new system was implemented to grade clubs on certain criteria , awarding points for each of those criteria

2. Any team scoring 15 points or more under this new system was awarded a Category A status

3. Cas scored 15.02 points , therefore Cas were awarded a Category A status

 

Hope this helps

Simple as that really, Leigh, Trinity and Cas were 11th, 12th and 13th last year and they worked every angle to improve that score. Others didn't, or couldn't. 

 

[Click]

34 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

 

  “On 22/11/2024 at 00:02,  Hopie said:

Ruddy hell, a lot of posts hoping this is worse than it looks. Club rivalries should be about hoping other teams lose the match, not that the people working their lose their jobs.”

I posted this on the Salford on the verge of going bust weeks after being confirmed in SL by IMG. It seems more pertinent here. But, but, but they are such experts…

I don’t get that sense at all. What bothers me is that we have supposedly selected 12 teams for next season on an objective basis with finance supposedly a key criterion, only to find out weeks later that there are massive structural issues around Salford’s finances. 

So: 

- do they really need a handout to reach the starting line, in which case they are clearly in a terrible position cash wise? (Seemingly yes.)

- were the criteria so c—p that it didn’t matter whether anyone is on the verge of insolvency? (Probably not, but IMG have no financial expertise so maybe.)

- assuming that IMG’s financial criteria would assess a club’s finances, did IMG do its job? (It certainly doesn’t look like it, unless Salford were selective with the truth.)

- what did Salford say to IMG? (See above. Though even here, anyone who knew anything about league - and I am not assuming the IMG person knows anything at all - would look at Salford’s historic finances, and lack of a backer and take a long hard look at them.)

- when did Salford know what? (There is possibly a get out of jail card for both IMG and Salford, but given that this is a very long running saga, I would be astonished if they hadn’t the faintest notion.)

Unless I missed it, you weren’t concerned about people at Toulouse losing out on Super League jobs. Because unless there are satisfactory answers to all of those questions, Toulouse should be in the 12. 

If I were a Super League boss, I would be very concerned indeed by the ramifications for the whole IMG edifice, and would be looking into the merits of a claim by Toulouse against SL (the RFL?) and/or IMG. They have nothing to(u) lo(u)se after all. 

 

Yeah, it certainly has come as a complete surprise ...

[Tommygilf]

47 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

assuming that IMG’s financial criteria would assess a club’s finances, did IMG do its job? (It certainly doesn’t look like it, unless Salford were selective with the truth.)

Or, alternatively, as Salford haven't reached the highest grade possible, Salford whilst poor are still overall one of the best 12 clubs in the UK and France, reflecting an indictment on the game's position and that of clubs below them more than anything else.

[Toby Chopra]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Or, alternatively, as Salford haven't reached the highest grade possible, Salford whilst poor are still overall one of the best 12 clubs in the UK and France, reflecting an indictment on the game's position and that of clubs below them more than anything else.

Indeed. From what I can see, Salford have received the appropriate points for the revenue they generate, which given SL status is roughly top-12. They haven't received much/any bonus for having a strong financial underpinning. But that's just the same situation as most clubs in the system - they're running on pretty fine margins. 

The difference this year is that Salford have budgeted for revenues that haven't come on stream yet, so have hit trouble. But that won't show up in the criteria (nor would it have failed any pre-IMG financial rules).

Looking at the IMG criteria scoring, I'd say there should be more points available for really strong financial positions. Currently the financially stronger clubs only get 0.75 pts more than anyone else. 

A bigger differential wouldn't stop a Salford style situation, but it would better reward the clubs that are much less likely to end up in one. That might have seen Toulouse pip Salford if such scoring was in place.

[Exiled Wiganer]

20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Or, alternatively, as Salford haven't reached the highest grade possible, Salford whilst poor are still overall one of the best 12 clubs in the UK and France, reflecting an indictment on the game's position and that of clubs below them more than anything else.

I don’t really see where the “alternatively” comes from there.

Do you mean that yes, the tests were brilliant, properly applied, that Salford gave full and honest disclosure, and were properly scrutinised, and they still ended up a better proposition than Toulouse? If so, then clearly there would be nothing to see here. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Indeed. From what I can see, Salford have received the appropriate points for the revenue they generate, which given SL status is roughly top-12. They haven't received much/any bonus for having a strong financial underpinning. But that's just the same situation as most clubs in the system - they're running on pretty fine margins. 

The difference this year is that Salford have budgeted for revenues that haven't come on stream yet, so have hit trouble. But that won't show up in the criteria (nor would it have failed any pre-IMG financial rules).

Looking at the IMG criteria scoring, I'd say there should be more points available for really strong financial positions. Currently the financially stronger clubs only get 0.75 pts more than anyone else. 

A bigger differential wouldn't stop a Salford style situation, but it would better reward the clubs that are much less likely to end up in one. That might have seen Toulouse pip Salford if such scoring was in place.

IMG can do deals with sponsors and broadcasters. They are not financial experts. It is no wonder their tests appear rubbish, and have been rubbishly applied. 

[Archie Gordon]

I agree both that Salford are (give or take) the 12th best/biggest club we have but also that IMG's measurement is way off if they are closing in on an A grade. 

We really need a 10-team SL for now, with a revitalised Championship.

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

IMG can do deals with sponsors and broadcasters. They are not financial experts. It is no wonder their tests appear rubbish, and have been rubbishly applied. 

The financial test isn't rubbish, but it could have more teeth. But it isn't any worse than what was in place before to stop a club spending money that hadn't come in yet - ie nothing.

As for its application, noting the above paragraph, it was applied just fine.

[Toby Chopra]

2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I agree both that Salford are (give or take) the 12th best/biggest club we have but also that IMG's measurement is way off if they are closing in on an A grade. 

We really need a 10-team SL for now, with a revitalised Championship.

Salford aren't anywhere close to an A grade, they really topped out in the scoring. The biggest points earner for them was on-field performance, so if that dips they'll sink further.

If you see all the things that the clubs that improved to a Grade A did - such as Leigh's crowds and revenues, Cas's stadium improvements - almost none of that seems likely at Salford. So I think they're topped out unless some major investor comes in or the crowds suddenly surge.

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Salford aren't anywhere close to an A grade, they really topped out in the scoring. The biggest points earner for them was on-field performance, so if that dips they'll sink further.

If you see all the things that the clubs that improved to a Grade A did - such as Leigh's crowds and revenues, Cas's stadium improvements - almost none of that seems likely at Salford. So I think they're topped out unless some major investor comes in or the crowds suddenly surge.

I would argue that 13.97, which is a bit more than they scored last year, is a very high B, and close to an A. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

9 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

The financial test isn't rubbish, but it could have more teeth. But it isn't any worse than what was in place before to stop a club spending money that hadn't come in yet - ie nothing.

As for its application, noting the above paragraph, it was applied just fine.

We haven’t paid anyone before to assess teams. A forward looking test should have highlighted that Salford were a very risky proposition. What was required was a level of informed judgement. IMG know nothing about how to do this, but we paid them anyway. They can count social media hits, and do know how to work sponsors and broadcasters. In a way blaming them is futile - it’s like blaming a plumber because they made a rubbish job of mending your roof. 

[JohnM]

53 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

We haven’t paid anyone before to assess teams. A forward looking test should have highlighted that Salford were a very risky proposition. What was required was a level of informed judgement. IMG know nothing about how to do this, but we paid them anyway. They can count social media hits, and do know how to work sponsors and broadcasters. In a way blaming them is futile - it’s like blaming a plumber because they made a rubbish job of mending your roof. 

"we paid them anyway"

How much?

what for?

when?

anything to do with grades?

Edited November 23, 2024 by JohnM

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I don’t really see where the “alternatively” comes from there.

Do you mean that yes, the tests were brilliant, properly applied, that Salford gave full and honest disclosure, and were properly scrutinised, and they still ended up a better proposition than Toulouse? If so, then clearly there would be nothing to see here. 

Absolutely that. 

And clearly, the tests aren't just financial, which is what has helped Salford, for example. Across the sweep of measurements, they are in the top 12 currently.

Ironically it is Salford's on field performances, something which lower division clubs mostly insisted on playing a relevant role in the grading (and has the largest single score), that is keeping them up.

[dboy]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Ironically it is Salford's on field performances, something which lower division clubs mostly insisted on playing a relevant role in the grading (and has the largest single score), that is keeping them up.

Paid for on the never-never.

That's what rankles.

They are in SL on a false premise.

[phiggins]

2 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

The financial test isn't rubbish, but it could have more teeth. But it isn't any worse than what was in place before to stop a club spending money that hadn't come in yet - ie nothing.

As for its application, noting the above paragraph, it was applied just fine.

The financial test does not does not do anything to confirm that operating losses can be covered, which isn’t ideal. 

[Toby Chopra]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

The financial test does not does not do anything to confirm that operating losses can be covered, which isn’t ideal. 

Correct. Or at least nearly anything.

The 'owner investment' and 'balance sheet strength' categories could be effective here, but combined they only award an extra 0.5pts.  So clubs that have support to fall back on if needed aren't really rewarded much more than those that don't.

So I'd be in favour of beefing this up. But for those that don't like principle of gradings in general, this would only take us further into "off field" territory.

[Exiled Wiganer]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

"we paid them anyway"

How much?

what for?

when?

anything to do with grades?

I assume IMG have been paid.

I assume IMG’s job included an assessment of the clubs’ suitability to be in SL. 

I assume they have been paid in accordance with their contractual terms, because I have seen no sign that they are downing tools or walking away. 

I assume IMG either award or recommend grades, with letters such as A, B and C, with A being better than B and so on. 

I assume Salford were awarded their grade based to some extent on financial representations and analysis. 

If any of this is wrong, then that would affect the extent to which the points I made in my longer post above continue to stand.

(Personally, I would not employ IMG to carry out a financial audit, by the way. But others may disagree.)

Edited November 23, 2024 by Exiled Wiganer

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

Correct. Or at least nearly anything.

The 'owner investment' and 'balance sheet strength' categories could be effective here, but combined they only award an extra 0.5pts.  So clubs that have support to fall back on if needed aren't really rewarded much more than those that don't.

So I'd be in favour of beefing this up. But for those that don't like principle of gradings in general, this would only take us further into "off field" territory.

I am not privy to those debates, but given that there is a straight line cause and effect between buying good players and winning, how can considering the ability to pay those players be considered to be “off field”? I suspect we are ad idem on this. 

[Hopie]

12 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I assume IMG have been paid.

I assume IMG’s job included an assessment of the clubs’ suitability to be in SL. 

I assume they have been paid in accordance with their contractual terms, because I have seen no sign that they are downing tools or walking away. 

I assume IMG either award or recommend grades, with letters such as A, B and C, with A being better than B and so on. 

I assume Salford were awarded their grade based to some extent on financial representations and analysis. 

If any of this is wrong, then that would affect the extent to which the points I made in my longer post above continue to stand.

(Personally, I would not employ IMG to carry out a financial audit, by the way. But others may disagree.)

A lot of assumptions there, it would be easier just to find out the facts of grading. It is largely bobbins the way it has been implemented, but the criteria and explanations are available online, as is the fact that IMG has now passed on the responsibility for grading to the clubs.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, dboy said:

Paid for on the never-never.

That's what rankles.

They are in SL on a false premise.

Whilst that is true, if they keep turning up and ultimately not going bust then it's working. It might be questionable, but it's working for them enough to just about keep them where they want to be. It's also not giving them that top grading level, and it's far from comfortable.

A bit of serious effort and resources put into Bradford, Toulouse, York or London could see them pushed out.

[Tommygilf]

31 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I assume Salford were awarded their grade based to some extent on financial representations and analysis

Correct, and it was clearly poor, just as Cas probably is for facilities. Hence this being their score breakdown for finances:

Finance (max score 4.5): – 2.15

Non-centralised turnover £: 1.50 / 2.25
Non-centralised turnover %: 0.15 / 0.75
Adjusted profit: 0.25 / 0.5
Owner investment: 0.25 / 0.5
Balance sheet strength: 0.00 / 0.5

The clubs wanted a model that took a range of factors into consideration. They also wanted on field to be the highest scoring aspect of those factors. Finance, in all it's areas, therefore cannot be worth more than 5 points as that would put it on par with performance.

Salford scored less than half the possible maximum for finances. Financially they clearly don't do very well. However, because they scored well in other areas, they still remain one of the top 12 clubs in the country overall. That may change. 

If it was just on finances, Salford likely wouldn't be in the top 12. That's obvious. 

But it isn't just about finances.