IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[RP London]

23 minutes ago, sheddingswasus said:

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. 

and what is the suggestion for that that he is making? The points at the moment are commensurate with where you finish in the table. Perhaps a higher weighting for this part of the score but his argument appears (from this article) to be an odd one.. they get what they get for where they finish.

We have to get the other bits off the field correct, we can see from the noises from some of the clubs that they simply just are not interested/willing to do some of these things (Social Media, Ground upgrades etc) and that is fine they need to be left behind. 

Oldham are doing all the right things. The Boundary Park issue does show a couple of anomalies up that had been pointed out before. If Oldham got promoted this year, after a freak year, then the danger is (and has happened too many times) that they overstretch and go Pop (Oldham should know this). By making sure there is a stable club underneath that has taken its time to go through the leagues then maybe they become a strong team in the top tier if they get there.. (Edit: added this bit) I see you are saying that you make sure those with aspirations have these things and that is what this does, its just going to take a few shuffles of the deck to get them all to the top of the champ/super league. Or do we go for minimum standards which then get ignored becuase someone has a nice drawing or becuase its just too difficult to enforce?

The aim is stronger clubs who have an ability to give a really good product for the TV audience (which is massivly important) and advertisers. Whilst also having clubs up at the top who can help drive general interest. Again whether this is 100% the right way to do that or not I am still not sure but what we do know is that the old way didnt because too many clubs cruised and we did not grow.. 

Edited December 10, 2024 by RP London

[Tommygilf]

29 minutes ago, sheddingswasus said:

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. 

They aren't more important than on field performance

[RP London]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

They aren't more important than on field performance

To be fair the scoring %ages are:

Fandom = 25%

Performance = 25%

Finances = 22.5%

stadium = 15%

community = 12.5%

So there is an argument that off field is more important than on. However, I also get that on field are the most important metric along with Fandom. There is sense in the above I'd tweak it a bit but there is sense. 

 

[Taffy Tiger]

Whilst I do underdstand the 'On/Off Field Performance' debate , didn't Oldham get promoted this year purely on their 'On Field Performance' ?

[The Art of Hand and Foot]

31 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Whilst I do underdstand the 'On/Off Field Performance' debate , didn't Oldham get promoted this year purely on their 'On Field Performance' ?

Yes, but got a reduced img score at the same time, even though we tripled the attendance and improved the playing facilities!?? So something not quite right.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

Yes, but got a reduced img score at the same time, even though we tripled the attendance and improved the playing facilities!?? So something not quite right.

well without being a pedant.. it was absolutely right by the scoring and everyone knows and can see where you lost it, which is good. 

Now, whether you should have lost the points for the stadium move is absolutely debatable and I'm not sure quite what the logic is behind the grades around that. I can understand what they are trying to do but they are missing the mark. Luckily there are not many this affects but I think they could do with having a look at some of the weightings in that. You should, at  the least, have stayed the same in the final total as what you have done is upgrade the quality even if it is pretty much empty etc, the next job is to fill it which will be easier now than previously so it does seem harsh

[Taffy Tiger]

47 minutes ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

Yes, but got a reduced img score at the same time, even though we tripled the attendance and improved the playing facilities!?? So something not quite right.

Hi AoH , you will have lost stadium points on utilistaion , by moving to a bigger stadium . However , the move to Boundary Park is essential for any future SL participation . Your points should now get gradually higher as attendances and other areas improve year on year. 

Although it may not seem like it to you at the moment , The IMG criteria will help teams like Oldham in the long run . The 3 year average means that teams who do make the grade and the subsequent elevation to SL , should be in a much stronger position to maintain top flight rugby for the future .

[JohnM]

If we want  our sport to be successful, we need to present the media with something worth printing/broadcasting/streaming to a mass readership/audience and spectators.

By requiring all clubs to address the realities of  the 21st century, we are slowly but surely, as part of the "Re-imagining Rugby League" initiative, making our clubs, stadiums, etc more appealing to broadcasters and to newbie spectators.

Get the grading system up and running, get clubs to improve their gradings, and after a few years, start to evolve things as we make progress. 

Jumpers for goalposts, string for try-lines and oranges at half time no longer hack it...

Evolve or endure a slow, lingering death...

Edited December 10, 2024 by JohnM

[Taffy Tiger]

15 minutes ago, JohnM said:

If we want  our sport to be successful, we need to present the media with something worth printing/broadcasting/streaming to a mass readership/audience and spectators.

By requiring all clubs to address the realities of  the 21st century, we are slowly but surely, as part of the "Re-imagining Rugby League" initiative, making our clubs, stadiums, etc more appealing to broadcasters and to newbie spectators.

Get the grading system up and running, get clubs to improe their gradings, and after a few years, start to evolve things as we make progress. 

Jumpers for goalposts, string for try-lines and oranges at half time no longer hack it...

Evolve or endure a slow, lingering death...

Agree , although last line may be a little OTT 

Edited December 10, 2024 by Taffy Tiger

[JohnM]

My last line is NOTHING compared to some of the guff some of the critics have posted, though. 

[Wakefield Ram]

15 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi AoH , you will have lost stadium points on utilistaion , by moving to a bigger stadium . However , the move to Boundary Park is essential for any future SL participation . Your points should now get gradually higher as attendances and other areas improve year on year. 

Although it may not seem like it to you at the moment , The IMG criteria will help teams like Oldham in the long run . The 3 year average means that teams who do make the grade and the subsequent elevation to SL , should be in a much stronger position to maintain top flight rugby for the future .

It will be near impossible for any team outside SL to get higher points than a team inside SL. It's incumbency bias as has been pointed out before.

And as SL clubs votes count double, they can vote down any change that will threaten them with relegation.

[Worzel]

19 hours ago, RP London said:

and what is the suggestion for that that he is making? The points at the moment are commensurate with where you finish in the table. Perhaps a higher weighting for this part of the score but his argument appears (from this article) to be an odd one.. they get what they get for where they finish.

We have to get the other bits off the field correct, we can see from the noises from some of the clubs that they simply just are not interested/willing to do some of these things (Social Media, Ground upgrades etc) and that is fine they need to be left behind. 

Oldham are doing all the right things. The Boundary Park issue does show a couple of anomalies up that had been pointed out before. If Oldham got promoted this year, after a freak year, then the danger is (and has happened too many times) that they overstretch and go Pop (Oldham should know this). By making sure there is a stable club underneath that has taken its time to go through the leagues then maybe they become a strong team in the top tier if they get there.. (Edit: added this bit) I see you are saying that you make sure those with aspirations have these things and that is what this does, its just going to take a few shuffles of the deck to get them all to the top of the champ/super league. Or do we go for minimum standards which then get ignored becuase someone has a nice drawing or becuase its just too difficult to enforce?

The aim is stronger clubs who have an ability to give a really good product for the TV audience (which is massivly important) and advertisers. Whilst also having clubs up at the top who can help drive general interest. Again whether this is 100% the right way to do that or not I am still not sure but what we do know is that the old way didnt because too many clubs cruised and we did not grow.. 

Oldham happen to have a wealthy backer at the moment, but otherwise have barely made a scratch on the national rugby league conciousness for decades. The whole point of the new era is that clubs can't be miraculously lifted up by a local car dealer chucking £500k-£1m a season in for 2 or 3 years, only to blow up when they get bored and leave. I know that some current clubs carry that risk too, but not to the same extent as a fast-grower like Oldham and of course every organisation sets a higher bar for new entrants.

If Oldham carry on doing the right things to build a stable, resilient club over the long-term then there is a pathway into Super League. The IMG model shows you what you need to invest in, as well as spending money the first team playing and coaching squad. If the investors are truly serious, then they will do that and we'll have a great Super League club in Oldham. If they aren't serious enough to do that, then they aren't as committed to the project as they say they are (or as we need them to be), and so under the old model would have been likely to fail when tested anyway. 

This is how it's supposed to work, and what it is supposed to do. 

[Wakefield Ram]

Just now, Worzel said:

Oldham happen to have a wealthy backer at the moment, but otherwise have barely made a scratch on the national rugby league conciousness for decades. The whole point of the new era is that clubs can't be miraculously lifted up by a local car dealer chucking £500k-£1m a season in for 2 or 3 years, only to blow up when they get bored and leave. I know that some current clubs carry that risk too, but not to the same extent as a fast-grower like Oldham and of course every organisation sets a higher bar for new entrants.

If Oldham carry on doing the right things to build a stable, resilient club over the long-term then there is a pathway into Super League. The IMG model shows you what you need to invest in, as well as spending money the first team playing and coaching squad. If the investors are truly serious, then they will do that and we'll have a great Super League club in Oldham. If they aren't serious enough to do that, then they aren't as committed to the project as they say they are (or as we need them to be), and so under the old model would have been likely to fail when tested anyway. 

This is how it's supposed to work, and what it is supposed to do. 

There is no pathway into SL. That is the point. It will be near impossible for a club outside SL to get more IMG points than a club inside SL. 

[Worzel]

48 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

It will be near impossible for any team outside SL to get higher points than a team inside SL. It's incumbency bias as has been pointed out before.

And as SL clubs votes count double, they can vote down any change that will threaten them with relegation.

There should be an incumbency bias. We need to give existing clubs some security, so that investors will invest for the long term (as the last 3 years have clearly shown us they will, with that new security). At present we don't have the media rights values to justify cutting the cake into more slices, so we have a very high bar for a new entrant because it almost certainly requires the removal of a present club. That club will have contributed to the overall value of the league, so has earned some protection. But with greater security, and greater investment, should come an increase in the quality of the product leading to an increase in media rights values. That then enables new clubs to join, through expansion of numbers.

That is what we are now seeing in the NRL. Expansion on the basis of any new club adding value to the whole. 

We all know Super League makes more sense at 14 clubs (in terms of fixtures), but we need 14 stable, resilient clubs with decent media revenues. That's the mission.

Rome wasn't built in a day. 

 

[Wakefield Ram]

33 minutes ago, Worzel said:

There should be an incumbency bias. We need to give existing clubs some security, so that investors will invest for the long term (as the last 3 years have clearly shown us they will, with that new security). At present we don't have the media rights values to justify cutting the cake into more slices, so we have a very high bar for a new entrant because it almost certainly requires the removal of a present club. That club will have contributed to the overall value of the league, so has earned some protection. But with greater security, and greater investment, should come an increase in the quality of the product leading to an increase in media rights values. That then enables new clubs to join, through expansion of numbers.

That is what we are now seeing in the NRL. Expansion on the basis of any new club adding value to the whole. 

We all know Super League makes more sense at 14 clubs (in terms of fixtures), but we need 14 stable, resilient clubs with decent media revenues. That's the mission.

Rome wasn't built in a day. 

 

But not at a cost that pretty much prevents any chance of promotion.

And most SL clubs have already had 20 plus years to get their act together. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

And most SL clubs have already had 20 plus years to get their act together. 

To be fair, so has every club.

[Wakefield Ram]

Just now, gingerjon said:

To be fair, so has every club.

The non-SL clubs haven't had £1m+ Sky money each year plus all the additional sponsorship, crowds etc that come with being in SL by default....

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The non-SL clubs haven't had £1m+ Sky money each year plus all the additional sponsorship, crowds etc that come with being in SL by default....

That is true. But they have had time and a lot of them have had periods with significant money thrown at them.

And yet, here we all are.

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The non-SL clubs haven't had £1m+ Sky money each year plus all the additional sponsorship, crowds etc that come with being in SL by default....

indeed but there has been p&r so they have had the ability to get up without the incumbency bias this points system has. They could have invested on the pitch and got themselves promoted to then be able to take advantage of this £1m+ sky money etc 

Unless, of course, P&R isn't the panacea and doesn't solve all the ills?

What we have found is that some clubs have tried that and its backfired, some clubs have spent over the odds just to be at the top on the pitch but with no stable foundation meaning one slight issue and the whole thing implodes. What we have seen is that a few clubs have invested in the foundations and they seem to be quite stable and, apart from the odd poor year on the pitch, are there or there abouts for the play offs year in year out. 

the years of P&R were not conducive to building what is needed for the sport to move forward, that is a proven fact by looking where we are now. There needs to be an incentive to build off the field and the clubs/RFL were incapable of enforcing minimum standards becuase that would have meant kicking out some incumbents so (to coin a phrase oft used on these forums) it would be Turkeys voting for Christmas. We are now left with this option, fix it and fix it now. 

Some clubs will be left out in the cold potentially but I wager that the clubs that find themselves in the doll drums are those not wanting to embrace the "new world" of social media (jeez look at Swinton's kit launch for one example), good quality TV, good facilities etc. There will be some who would love to do it but cant afford it but sadly thats life. Some clubs will help form a strong Championship which will be a good thing. This grading system is not necessarily here to stay if enough clubs get there then they may well re open P&R, if that is something that can bring more money into the game at that time.

I bemoan the loss of P&R as much as the next but its where we are and this idea that it adds jeopardy and bums on seats is fair but its not enough and potentially doing more harm than good in the long term.. and this is the first time IMHO that there has been a proper view of the long term for as long as I can remember. 

[Harry Stottle]

20 hours ago, RP London said:

Oldham are doing all the right things. The Boundary Park issue does show a couple of anomalies up that had been pointed out before. If Oldham got promoted this year, after a freak year, then the danger is (and has happened too many times) that they overstretch and go Pop (Oldham should know this

Pray tell me apart from London who has been the last three teams to win promotion? None have gone 'pop' and two off them have finished in the top 6 for the last two seasons with both visiting Wembley last year and one the GF this year, the third team have followed the 'plan' of preparing for life in the top division whilst still in the Championship.

It keeps being rolled out by many that teams with aspirations to get to the top division will go as you put it 'pop' unless IMG's methods are adopted, but evidence shows that is not the case.

[RP London]

17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Pray tell me apart from London who has been the last three teams to win promotion? None have gone 'pop' and two off them have finished in the top 6 for the last two seasons with both visiting Wembley last year and one the GF this year, the third team have followed the 'plan' of preparing for life in the top division whilst still in the Championship.

It keeps being rolled out by many that teams with aspirations to get to the top division will go as you put it 'pop' unless IMG's methods are adopted, but evidence shows that is not the case.

But they are following IMGs methods, you say it yourself "they have followed the 'plan' of preparing for life in the top division whilst sill in the championship". The danger comes from those that just finance on the field and go up (and there are examples of that at each level over the past 20 years, including Oldham, do I really need to name them?), as was pointed out in the rest of the quote that you decided not to actually quote..

You are selectively quoting to somehow try and "make a point" (not sure what it is, is it to for people to say "didnt Leigh do well.." or something?).. the point has already been covered and explained in the post that you have "clipped". 

 Its seems quite a disingenuous way to have a conversation to be honest.

Edited December 11, 2024 by RP London

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, RP London said:

But they are following IMGs methods, you say it yourself "they have followed the 'plan'

I should have been more explicit RP, the 'plan' I refer to was the clubs own plans not IMG's in the case of HKR and Leigh, and albeit Wakefield have vastly improved their facilities Mr Ellis is emulating what Mr Beaumont has done at Leigh, by preparing on the field for life in SL whilst still in the Championship.

[gingerjon]

Completely unrelated, I've just been listening to a podcast about '15 minute cities' and how there was opposition around the world to a specific one. The council involved listened, noted and then withdrew the 15 minute cities idea.

Well, they changed the name. They still did the same things but no one protested.

But, anyway, must get back to a debate about what to call doing the exact things required under the grading system.

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, RP London said:

You are selectively quoting to somehow try and "make a point" (not sure what it is, is it to for people to say "didnt Leigh do well.." or something?).. the point has already been covered and explained in the post that you have "clipped". 

I apologise if you take it my reply to be rude, but I was answering what I believed to be the most relevant point of your post and a point that keeps being thrown up time and again, that promoted clubs will fail in SL unless we adopt IMG's methods, I was merely pointing out that this is not the case in the recent past, yes it once was but that way of doing things in the quest for promotion has also evolved, it happened on the field of play and progressed.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

Oldham happen to have a wealthy backer at the moment, but otherwise have barely made a scratch on the national rugby league conciousness for decades. The whole point of the new era is that clubs can't be miraculously lifted up by a local car dealer chucking £500k-£1m a season in for 2 or 3 years, only to blow up when they get bored and leave. I know that some current clubs carry that risk too, but not to the same extent as a fast-grower like Oldham and of course every organisation sets a higher bar for new entrants.

If Oldham carry on doing the right things to build a stable, resilient club over the long-term then there is a pathway into Super League. The IMG model shows you what you need to invest in, as well as spending money the first team playing and coaching squad. If the investors are truly serious, then they will do that and we'll have a great Super League club in Oldham. If they aren't serious enough to do that, then they aren't as committed to the project as they say they are (or as we need them to be), and so under the old model would have been likely to fail when tested anyway. 

This is how it's supposed to work, and what it is supposed to do. 

It would be more exciting if the Oldham owner could come in and spend a couple of million pound and get Oldham in to SL within a couple of years though wouldn't it? I mean SL is pretty stale isn't it and just like Leigh have shook it up a little, there is no reason Oldham couldn't do the same. As nice as it sounds, I doubt waiting 7 or 8 years to get anywhere near SL status only to have SL teams do a rug pull, that can't be very exciting.