Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Worzel said:

I’m an IMG Ultra, in fact I might have a t-shirt made now, it sounds great. 

I‘ve watched the game mismanage itself for 30 years. I’ve watched supporters with the mindset of the shopkeepers in the League of Gentlemen criticise sensible attempts at change, and blame outsiders for failure, for those same 30 years. So frankly if criticising them with rational argument counts as “demeaning” and “defaming” them then I’ll stick that quote on the back of a t-shirt too.

Indeed, I am sure you will stick to hammering anyone who deviates from your view.
 

Indeed, your response to my longish post honed in on the only part that deviated from your view. Did you even get to read the rest or did the red mist make it impossible to do so? 

I have seen the game improve immeasurably from where it was when I first started watching it in the 70s. If you had told me then that we would see multiple 5 figure crowds every week, and have over 50 countries playing our game at some level I would have been doing cartwheels. 
 

What you may see and be annoyed about is the gap between our potential and the reality. In which case, that is laudable, and the only difference is that my strong desire to see our game grow starts from a slightly different place.
 

It seems to me that the only things keeping me from the ultras club is 1) my perspective on who should do the assessments, how well they have been done and why and 2) the depth of my despair at the way the game has been run in the time during which it has been my privilege to watch it.


Posted
11 hours ago, JohnM said:

Good point. When are clubs checked?

Are the grading scores re-assessed:

Every season?

Every month?

Every game?

Every day?

Every hour?

We (or at least I) don’t know enough to know what was asked, what the position was and what their answers were, but the one thing we do all know that they were checked and within a few weeks of the decision being made they went begging for an advance to keep themselves afloat. 
 

I assume your position is that 1. The test was a good test. 2. It was properly carried out. 3. Salford replied openly and fully. All of which may be true. Or some of it. Or none of it.
 

If we have got this far,  then perhaps we are agreed that your view is as speculative as any contrary view. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Indeed, I am sure you will stick to hammering anyone who deviates from your view.
 

Indeed, your response to my longish post honed in on the only part that deviated from your view. Did you even get to read the rest or did the red mist make it impossible to do so? 

I have seen the game improve immeasurably from where it was when I first started watching it in the 70s. If you had told me then that we would see multiple 5 figure crowds every week, and have over 50 countries playing our game at some level I would have been doing cartwheels. 
 

What you may see and be annoyed about is the gap between our potential and the reality. In which case, that is laudable, and the only difference is that my strong desire to see our game grow starts from a slightly different place.
 

It seems to me that the only things keeping me from the ultras club is 1) my perspective on who should do the assessments, how well they have been done and why and 2) the depth of my despair at the way the game has been run in the time during which it has been my privilege to watch it.

I read it all. I know it was generally supportive, and merely said I was happy to be an IMG Ultra explaining why.

The fact you saw my response as “red mist” is precisely the underlying point I was making to be honest. My view is reasonably held, reasonably articulated, and consistently disagreeing with others is not an attack on them.

“I’m Spartacus”

PS: The assessments are done internally, IMG don’t do them! It operates precisely as you say you’d like it to

Edited by Worzel
Typo
Posted
2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I read it all. I know it was generally supportive, and merely said I was happy to be an IMG Ultra explaining why.

The fact you saw my response as “red mist” is precisely the underlying point I was making to be honest. My view is reasonably held, reasonably articulated, and consistently disagreeing with others is not an attack on them.

“I’m Spartacus”

 

 

I thought I would re read your response in case I had barked up the wrong tree.
 

Do you think it is reasonable to suggest that anyone who deviates from your position is in the same bracket as the League of Gentlemen local shop for local people?

Because they were the actual words you wrote… 
 

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

We (or at least I) don’t know enough to know what was asked, what the position was and what their answers were, but the one thing we do all know that they were checked and within a few weeks of the decision being made they went begging for an advance to keep themselves afloat. 
 

I assume your position is that 1. The test was a good test. 2. It was properly carried out. 3. Salford replied openly and fully. All of which may be true. Or some of it. Or none of it.
 

If we have got this far,  then perhaps we are agreed that your view is as speculative as any contrary view. 

To be clear (warning: not the same 'clear' that all politicians use prior to being obscure. 😀) I don't have a position on Salfords condition other than wanting them to survive and thrive.

I was asking that poster about grading assessments review periodicity. My interpretation of his comment was that Salfords grade should be reviewed because things have changed. I wanted to know how frequently such reviews take place. 

Edited by JohnM
Posted
On 09/01/2025 at 15:17, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Just listened to this week's podcast with Matty Peet. Was quite funny to listen to Martyn's reaction when Matty said he was a fan of the IMG grading. It clearly wasn't what he was wanting to hear so dropped the subject sharpish.

LE podcast again with Martyn insisting clubs should do more on social media. If only there was a matrix in which they can be scored and rewarded for a good social media presence.

  • Like 5
Posted
10 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

LE podcast again with Martyn insisting clubs should do more on social media. If only there was a matrix in which they can be scored and rewarded for a good social media presence.

Indeed. I think such a thing is being introduced for the next gradings.

Posted
5 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

Indeed. I think such a thing is being introduced for the next gradings.

Its already a thing. It needs refining though as an unintended consequence has just seen clubs turn every bit of content into a pointless 5 second reel to game the system.

Posted
52 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

Its already a thing. It needs refining though as an unintended consequence has just seen clubs turn every bit of content into a pointless 5 second reel to game the system.

Yeah. My point was they're going to try and introduce one that works instead of giving everyone top marks.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Yeah. My point was they're going to try and introduce one that works instead of giving everyone top marks.

Quality not quantity, which is why I mentioned Goole Vikings' efforts.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

So, who is going to create a qualititive measure for social media posts? Sounds like a great opportunity, ay-eye.

Edited by JohnM
Posted

Thing is with the digital stuff, it will be the "bad news" stories that will always get the most interactions. 

In fairness I think IMG have actually been involved in helping clubs produce more quality digital content which is good. But I think it should have been left at that and maybe had a minimum requirements score for the digital stuff. Eg up to date website with player squad list, availability to buy tickets etc 

Without derailing the thread, having 60k clicks on your website scores the same as having a strong balance sheet has been ill thought out and should have been rectified by now IMO 

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, JohnM said:

So, who is going to create a qualititive measure for social media posts? Sounds like a great opportunity, ay-eye.

Indeed. This is why grading is a fairly blunt tool despite suggesting accuracy to 2 dps.

EDIT: Or is it 3? Or even more?

Edited by Archie Gordon
Posted

Has anyone done the 2025 gradings with the performance score removed, making it purely an off field based measure? And if so does it change much?

  • Like 1
Posted
On 17/01/2025 at 07:44, PREPOSTEROUS said:

LE podcast again with Martyn insisting clubs should do more on social media. If only there was a matrix in which they can be scored and rewarded for a good social media presence.

Is there any evidence that social media has attracted new supporters in any number?

Social media is a great communication medium but not sure it gets many extra bums on seats. 

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Has anyone done the 2025 gradings with the performance score removed, making it purely an off field based measure? And if so does it change much?

Back of a fag packet calc, Toulouse 13.58- 2.63=10.95. Salford 13.97-3.54=10.43. London 12.65- 2.29=10.36. York 12.42-2.07=10.35. Bradford 12.15-2.17=9.98.  Nb estimated the finishing positions but think they are close enough.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Just because you think everyone hates you doesn't mean they don't.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Back of a fag packet calc, Toulouse 13.58- 2.63=10.95. Salford 13.97-3.54=10.43. London 12.65- 2.29=10.36. York 12.42-2.07=10.35. Bradford 12.15-2.17=9.98.  Nb estimated the finishing positions but think they are close enough.

Thank you that is much appreciated.

Posted
14 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Is there any evidence that social media has attracted new supporters in any number?

Social media is a great communication medium but not sure it gets many extra bums on seats. 

not all about bums on seats though, thats where I get a bit frustrated by the conversation (not aimed at you here). Social media and information can lead to general interest not just in the clubs heartland but across the country/world. That social media impact keeps/gains supporters. Warrington's social media keeps me informed and keeps me feeling a much closer supporter of the club than I am living in Sheffield. Its also helped my son (and now daughter) become a Warrington supporter and feel part of the club even though (again) we are not close. By doing that we also buy merch online (christmas present for my son this year was a £55 [ffs] 1/4 zip top), we go down to London for challenge cup finals etc.. 

I'm a Denver Broncos fan thanks to channel 4 coverage in the 80s. While I always followed them thanks to the advent of Social Media I feel much closer as a fan than I did, previously you were just an interested person, now I get more info, Im more connected etc I feel more like a fan and Ive never been to Denver (though to the states often enough). As such, again, merch is bought for Denver (I have a really warm bobble hat etc). 

Its all little bits, but its little bits with little or no money or effort, it really is the least they can do but can make a big bottom line impact. Thats before you get to the few that you can convert to being bums on seats even if only occassional bums on seats (now my daughter is interested and they are a bit older etc we are getting over to Warrington more to see them). 

More than that the wider interest that has grown in the game has made them more interested in going to sit on a grass bank to watch Eagles play more often too which is nice so the trickle down of interest in a big club and go and find your local club is also true and developed by social media interaction. How much more can this do if it is actually harnessed properly?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Posted
15 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Is there any evidence that social media has attracted new supporters in any number?

Social media is a great communication medium but not sure it gets many extra bums on seats. 

The research I've read suggests that social media is an audience amplifier, yes. The biggest driver is performance, but not just "winning". Audience growth best correlates with competitive intensity: A close win is best, a close loss 2nd, a big win 3rd and then a medium or big loss is a negative (in terms of consistent themes across a season, not one-offs). It's uncertainty until late in the contest that drives customer experience. 

Effective social media can't counteract the second two scenarios, but the data shows it amplifies the effects of the positives.   

Posted
1 hour ago, RP London said:

not all about bums on seats though, thats where I get a bit frustrated by the conversation (not aimed at you here). Social media and information can lead to general interest not just in the clubs heartland but across the country/world. That social media impact keeps/gains supporters. Warrington's social media keeps me informed and keeps me feeling a much closer supporter of the club than I am living in Sheffield. Its also helped my son (and now daughter) become a Warrington supporter and feel part of the club even though (again) we are not close. By doing that we also buy merch online (christmas present for my son this year was a £55 [ffs] 1/4 zip top), we go down to London for challenge cup finals etc.. 

I'm a Denver Broncos fan thanks to channel 4 coverage in the 80s. While I always followed them thanks to the advent of Social Media I feel much closer as a fan than I did, previously you were just an interested person, now I get more info, Im more connected etc I feel more like a fan and Ive never been to Denver (though to the states often enough). As such, again, merch is bought for Denver (I have a really warm bobble hat etc). 

Its all little bits, but its little bits with little or no money or effort, it really is the least they can do but can make a big bottom line impact. Thats before you get to the few that you can convert to being bums on seats even if only occassional bums on seats (now my daughter is interested and they are a bit older etc we are getting over to Warrington more to see them). 

More than that the wider interest that has grown in the game has made them more interested in going to sit on a grass bank to watch Eagles play more often too which is nice so the trickle down of interest in a big club and go and find your local club is also true and developed by social media interaction. How much more can this do if it is actually harnessed properly?

Spot on. Social media is just how the world communicates these days, so whether it's generating the first vestiges of interest through a tik tok of a great try or a funny interaction with a player, deepening that connection with podcast or  Youtubes of interviews/lifestyle features or smoothing the final yard of someone buying a ticket/ turning on the TV, it's central to that process. We've been patchy at best at all this, which is why we're falling behind in the never-ending struggle for a place at the table. We're generally better at using SM to connect with existing fans, than lapsed ones or potential new ones, because the content needed is different. One of the main things IMG is supposed to helping us with is how to improve on this front.  

In many ways Social Media should be a gift for rugby league. For a sport with such a narrow geographical base and fewer connections with the mainstream media, the ability to communicate though non-geographic channels and connect directly with people across ages and locations without intermediaries is just what we need. And (in our own way and obviously on a different scale), we should be able to generate and sustain a wider fanbase beyond our core markets, just as the US sports have done.       

  • Like 7
Posted

Social media is powerful enough to directly influence who gets elected as President of the USA.

It shouldn't be underestimated.

  • Like 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Spot on. Social media is just how the world communicates these days, so whether it's generating the first vestiges of interest through a tik tok of a great try or a funny interaction with a player, deepening that connection with podcast or  Youtubes of interviews/lifestyle features or smoothing the final yard of someone buying a ticket/ turning on the TV, it's central to that process. We've been patchy at best at all this, which is why we're falling behind in the never-ending struggle for a place at the table. We're generally better at using SM to connect with existing fans, than lapsed ones or potential new ones, because the content needed is different. One of the main things IMG is supposed to helping us with is how to improve on this front.  

In many ways Social Media should be a gift for rugby league. For a sport with such a narrow geographical base and fewer connections with the mainstream media, the ability to communicate though non-geographic channels and connect directly with people across ages and locations without intermediaries is just what we need. And (in our own way and obviously on a different scale), we should be able to generate and sustain a wider fanbase beyond our core markets, just as the US sports have done.       

The sport is also, almost, ahead of its time in that the sport is ideal for social media. Big hits, great sidesteps, pure speed, acrobatic tries, 1 play clips. Our direct competitor in this arena does not have as much of that (it is trying to develop it with rule changes but it is behind).  NFL etc are in a similar position and exploit it. 

Thats before we get to the actual humans. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Spot on. Social media is just how the world communicates these days.     

I think this is it, put perfectly succinctly. 

We should forget what the actual channel is tbh (certain people like to look down their nose at social media) - this is about how we communicate and engage with people. 

That's what this measure is all about.

I think at times people jump to the end goal too quickly and if they can't see a direct correlation, they ignore it. I often compare it to things like getting new carpets in the hospitality lounge, or a lick of paint on the concourses. These don't bring a clear direct ROI, but you know they are the right things and they lead to positive outcomes. Although I think the comms piece is far more direct and I'm surprised if anyone can't see the benefits.

Edited by Dave T
  • Like 3
Posted
16 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Is there any evidence that social media has attracted new supporters in any number?

Social media is a great communication medium but not sure it gets many extra bums on seats. 

Social media has played a big part in the recent "Success" of darts, its been all over twitter, facebook, tik-tok etc and their viewing figures have been boosted, which has seen a significant rise in TV rights valuation. Bums on seats is obviously different as they play at pretty much fill capacity for the major tournaments anyway at historical arenas, not sure if they would ever move to larger ones anyway.

Posted

In my view and experience, YouTube is especially effective in this arena. Watch one sports video even briefly by mistake and next time you look, there they are: suggestions to watch "NRLs 10 biggest hits" or " This weeks MLB highlight" or "Wigan V Warrington - War of the Worlds"  Quick and easy short watches and YouTube keeps them coming. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.