IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Exiled Wiganer]

25 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

Castleford suddenly seem to be finding things a little more difficult. 

https://www.totalrl.com/castleford-tigers-face-waiting-game-for-stand-redevelopment-as-super-league-clubs-new-owner-reveals-property-market-downturn/

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/castleford-tigers-99484-99484/

 

Now Salford have been given a get out of jail free card, it’s open season! 

[Adelaide Tiger]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Now Salford have been given a get out of jail free card, it’s open season! 

EW, please correct me if I am wrong.

Isn’t the IMG score given to Cas solely based on what is in place - across all pillars- at the moment.  Therefore, the comment from Martin Jepson about the downturn in the commercial sector leading to a delay in accessing the funding from Axiom for the stadium upgrade, has absolutely no impact on the score the club received nor will it have any relevance next year.

[Trojan Horse]

5 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

EW, please correct me if I am wrong.

Isn’t the IMG score given to Cas solely based on what is in place - across all pillars- at the moment.  Therefore, the comment from Martin Jepson about the downturn in the commercial sector leading to a delay in accessing the funding from Axiom for the stadium upgrade, has absolutely no impact on the score the club received nor will it have any relevance next year.

That’s the way I see it. It probably highlights that Jepson isn’t a rich owner who’s able to bank roll improvements under his own steam. Much like Trinity previous owners I guess. Perhaps one who can bring stability but with limitations unless there’s outside investment. nothing wrong with that of course.
 

Perhaps he can do what Mynards did for Trinity and get the ball rolling on a significant upgrade/new stand. 

 

Cas will be fine for a couple years. It’s Salford and Hudds who are the ones at risk imo. 

[Tommygilf]

7 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

EW, please correct me if I am wrong.

Isn’t the IMG score given to Cas solely based on what is in place - across all pillars- at the moment.  Therefore, the comment from Martin Jepson about the downturn in the commercial sector leading to a delay in accessing the funding from Axiom for the stadium upgrade, has absolutely no impact on the score the club received nor will it have any relevance next year.

You are absolutely right.

The gradings scores are explicitly about what is there, not what is planned. So for Cas this is bad news for the future they hoped for, but not impactful on their situation now.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

You are absolutely right.

The gradings scores are explicitly about what is there, not what is planned. So for Cas this is bad news for the future they hoped for, but not impactful on their situation now.

Compared to licencing, and other systems, where clubs have promised ground developments as part of the process and then announced a delay or found some different plans.

[dkw]

8 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

EW, please correct me if I am wrong.

Isn’t the IMG score given to Cas solely based on what is in place - across all pillars- at the moment.  Therefore, the comment from Martin Jepson about the downturn in the commercial sector leading to a delay in accessing the funding from Axiom for the stadium upgrade, has absolutely no impact on the score the club received nor will it have any relevance next year.

100% correct, unfortunately facts don't stop those with an agenda from debasing themselves on here daily.

Edited November 26, 2024 by dkw

[Archie Gordon]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

You are absolutely right.

The gradings scores are explicitly about what is there, not what is planned. ...

Whilst I am still not certain on this, if Salford have no deal in place to play at a stadium in 2025, this is certainly about what is planned/promised/projected rather than what is there. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Whilst I am still not certain on this, if Salford have no deal in place to play at a stadium in 2025, this is certainly about what is planned/promised/projected rather than what is there. 

They clearly do have an agreement in place though for the AJ Bell stadium don't they, that is not in doubt. 

[phiggins]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

They clearly do have an agreement in place though for the AJ Bell stadium don't they, that is not in doubt. 

They signed a 12 month extension last December, no doubt on the assumption that the council would’ve completed the purchase by now.
 

Not seen anything about an extension on that, as it’s all been about the Council buying the stadium outright and then renting the ground out on more favourable terms. 

 

[JonM]

A number of tweaks to the scoring system announced here:

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Club IMG Grading Criteria 2025.pdf

All looks sensible. A quick summary:

- Changes to the scoring thresholds for digital engagement - both lower and higher numbers than the previous thresholds, perhaps reflecting that none of our clubs are anywhere near half a million followers on social media, whereas 60K visits to the website was very low (the new target is for max points is 2 million).

- Changes to viewership scoring (takes into account French channels, YouTube, clubs own channels etc.)

- Points deductions for an insolvency event

- Points deduction for late submission of data

- Stadium points previously gained will be temporarily retained through stadium redevelopment works

- Some smaller amount of points given for big screens and LED advertising boards of a lower standard than the specified one, rather than none at all.

- Catchment area can be expanded by signing a RL development agreement with a neighbouring local authority.

[Archie Gordon]

Now only 0.5 pts for not being on TV. But still not understanding that.

[JonM]

2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Now only 0.5 pts for not being on TV. But still not understanding that.

Yes, seems odd.

The requirement for 6 camera quality of production will rule out most/ all of the current championship/L1 clubs offerings, which are mostly single camera. I suppose those clubs could now 'buy' an extra 0.25 points if needed by funding professional filming of 5 regular season games.

These changes take away some of the SL incumbency effect - only six SL clubs will get the full point.

[Archie Gordon]

7 minutes ago, JonM said:

Yes, seems odd.

The requirement for 6 camera quality of production will rule out most/ all of the current championship/L1 clubs offerings, which are mostly single camera. I suppose those clubs could now 'buy' an extra 0.25 points if needed by funding professional filming of 5 regular season games.

These changes take away some of the SL incumbency effect - only six SL clubs will get the full point.

Yes - a nod to TO to sort something, perhaps.

And the 6 SL clubs with the highest average will keep the bias against the 'Friday night' clubs in place and also retain the random element based on broadcaster/channel choice. 

But overall a better metric than this year and generally I like anything that moves us in the right direction.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, JonM said:

A number of tweaks to the scoring system announced here:

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Club IMG Grading Criteria 2025.pdf

All looks sensible. A quick summary:

- Changes to the scoring thresholds for digital engagement - both lower and higher numbers than the previous thresholds, perhaps reflecting that none of our clubs are anywhere near half a million followers on social media, whereas 60K visits to the website was very low (the new target is for max points is 2 million).

- Changes to viewership scoring (takes into account French channels, YouTube, clubs own channels etc.)

- Points deductions for an insolvency event

- Points deduction for late submission of data

- Stadium points previously gained will be temporarily retained through stadium redevelopment works

- Some smaller amount of points given for big screens and LED advertising boards of a lower standard than the specified one, rather than none at all.

- Catchment area can be expanded by signing a RL development agreement with a neighbouring local authority.

Sensible and good moves.

[Hopie]

Confirming the dumb, you get points for not being on TV in the TV section, so that's great, and adding its not about how many people watch as long as you have enough cameras. I can;t see how a ranking helps if it isn't a gradient score, all or nothing for the top 6 doesn't seem justified. More people watching your team than another team, which could be a tiny amount, is likely down to random TV selections by the BBC, or as I recently read, down to fixtures being selected by RL commercial for international weekends in football, certain fixtures are effectively chosen to have higher viewership, so that further poisons the criteria as an effective neutral measurement. 

Interesting that you can expand your catchment now, I imagine that is aimed at the London problem relating to catchment, but wonder what happens if clubs start "peeing in each other's pools" and if can they reduce scores by dividing other team's catchment areas by "moving in"?

[JohnM]

8 minutes ago, Hopie said:

Confirming the dumb, you get points for not being on TV in the TV section, so that's great, and adding its not about how many people watch as long as you have enough cameras. I can;t see how a ranking helps if it isn't a gradient score, all or nothing for the top 6 doesn't seem justified. More people watching your team than another team, which could be a tiny amount, is likely down to random TV selections by the BBC, or as I recently read, down to fixtures being selected by RL commercial for international weekends in football, certain fixtures are effectively chosen to have higher viewership, so that further poisons the criteria as an effective neutral measurement. 

Interesting that you can expand your catchment now, I imagine that is aimed at the London problem relating to catchment, but wonder what happens if clubs start "peeing in each other's pools" and if can they reduce scores by dividing other team's catchment areas by "moving in"?

I guess no one has noticed the bit about points for the number of rain days, frost days and average rainfall, which clearly discriminates  against those clubs in the warmer and dryer..........

[Barley Mow]

https://www.totalrl.com/options-put-forward-to-tweak-img-performance-system-as-new-championship-club-airs-discontent/

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

https://www.totalrl.com/options-put-forward-to-tweak-img-performance-system-as-new-championship-club-airs-discontent/

So the clubs want less weighting assigned to things like finance?

[JohnM]

44 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

https://www.totalrl.com/options-put-forward-to-tweak-img-performance-system-as-new-championship-club-airs-discontent/

"Although we support IMG ..." 

It certainly sounds like it, doesn't it. 

"We believe that on the field should be a lot more.”

" in England promotion and relegation is in our DNA,” 

[RP London]

48 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So the clubs want less weighting assigned to things like finance?

I'm not quite sure the argument he is making either.. I do totally understand the P&R argument and, as previously in the thread, I largely think P&R should be on the field for Grade Bs but his argument seems odd when he says winning league 1 gets you 0.1 out of 20 but wining the champ gets you 0.25.. isnt that actually what he wants? surely winning the champ is worth more points than league 1. If he wants the weighting changed that the total should be 40 instead of 20 then ok I get that but the differential would still be the same for where you finish, its just that your total would be higher and hold more sway than say finances.. 

I've found this a few times with these arguments. I get where people are coming from but the way it is then put forward and the "solutions" just dont make any sense.. IMHO

[Trojan Horse]

34 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So the clubs want less weighting assigned to things like finance?

The clubs need to fall in line and any submitted suggestions should only be looked at during scheduled reviews. 
 

To pander to every club would be wasteful. 

[sheddingswasus]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

So the clubs want less weighting assigned to things like finance?

No they want less attention given to ridiculous things such as height of camera gantry. Position of visiting directors seating, LED advertising etc. 

What needs remembering is that we are a sport, and in an entertainment business. As Bill Quinn says if you take away the jeopardy you take away the cutting edge, the interest and desire. You also make a bland boring product. Look at the Premiere League. It is the excitement of chasing survival and chasing promotion to it that drives the crowds and increases that jeopardy and the crowds. 

If say Salford or Huddersfield are failing on the pitch then they should be relegated if they have a bad season. But if they struggle for crowds but make ends meet ( not a good example with Salford, I agree) then this shouldn’t be a reason to be relegated. 

Drive up standard yes, but keep the game competitive. 

One final observation. Success is cyclic. Look at Hull. They have been failing now for several years, after several years of relative success. If they fail on the fields again then why should they be protected? Same could happen said about Castleford. 
 

 

[Tommygilf]

16 minutes ago, sheddingswasus said:

given to ridiculous things such as height of camera gantry. Position of visiting directors seating, LED advertising etc. 

For a modern professional sport in a very competitive field of which we are almost always on the back foot, whilst they are quite boring, they are very important.

They aren't important in the part time local league, admittedly, but the top of the sport (has to) aspire beyond that.

[sheddingswasus]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

For a modern professional sport in a very competitive field of which we are almost always on the back foot, whilst they are quite boring, they are very important.

They aren't important in the part time local league, admittedly, but the top of the sport (has to) aspire beyond that.

I get that and they are important. But that should be part of the package not more important than the on field performance. By all means make sure that teams who are aiming to win the Championship tick the boxes, but on field must be number one priority. 

[The Art of Hand and Foot]

23 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

For a modern professional sport in a very competitive field of which we are almost always on the back foot, whilst they are quite boring, they are very important.

They aren't important in the part time local league, admittedly, but the top of the sport (has to) aspire beyond that.

Of course they do. But when you are penalised for moving from a community ground with a maximum capacity of  c 1,000 to a former Premier league stadium with a capacity of 13,000, then something needs tweeking!!! I would argue, and I'm sure you would as well, that Boundary Park is more aspirational than whitebank!