Jump to content

IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, TrueBull said:

I always thought every club would have 2 numbers - tickets sold for that game (ST’s and walk-ups) which is the legal number that the taxman needs to know. 
And then probably by half time, the stadium manager would know the actual number of people through the gates. Both numbers are correct for their purpose. 
Up until this year, which number was released didn’t matter, but now IMG have decreed that the optics of a full stadium are important, the actual attendance is the one to be released. 

Without wanting to take this off thread, I went to the Bradford v York play-off game last month.

Having not been to Odsal for a few years, but having seen plenty of images/videos where your crowds were visible I was surprised when the attendance was announced. To me it didn't look significantly down on the 4,000+ crowds that had been announced during the regular season, but it was sub-3,000.

I suppose with it being a play-off match, they weren't able to announce the non-attending season ticket holders as will have been done during the regular season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


15 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I'm not sure what's so controversial about the London score, they performed a minor miracle going the Championship and gaining promotion.

Also any clubs moaning should just crack on with trying to improve their score for when the actual gradings come out for 2025, isn't that exactly the point of the indicative gradings?

London has thrown a bit of a spanner in the works but I doubt once this year is over the system will throw up anything like that again.

To me it looks ripe for a 14 team SL in 2025

As I pointed out at the time if the criteria was strictly applied then London wouldn't have even got full marks for catchment, as many would presume, as they play in the London borough of Merton which is listed as 215k.

In the grand scheme of things it obviously made no real difference and they were badly lacking in other areas too. It does highlight some of peculiarities though of the criteria.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Not sure Cutting investment will help Londins cause at all.

TBH if London just want to go up, pocket the SL funding with a view to being in the Champ next year, then fine, the whole point of the restructure is for a longer term view.

There was always going to be a few anomalies in this transition year.

I think asking for heavy investment in the hope of winning 5 back to back championships and pulling in 5k a week to see Whitehaven - to then be considered worthy of going up - is a bit hopeful.

Doesn't mean the Championship can't still be worthwhile in its own right.

If the teams for 2025 are largely done - they might as well crack on this season with it.

Edited by Leonard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Barley Mow said:

Without wanting to take this off thread, I went to the Bradford v York play-off game last month.

Having not been to Odsal for a few years, but having seen plenty of images/videos where your crowds were visible I was surprised when the attendance was announced. To me it didn't look significantly down on the 4,000+ crowds that had been announced during the regular season, but it was sub-3,000.

I suppose with it being a play-off match, they weren't able to announce the non-attending season ticket holders as will have been done during the regular season.

I think many of us believe this is the one that was wrong this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

We don't have promotion and relegation any more, I think a lot of people are still stuck in that mindset. 

We have what I'd call "dynamic licensing" which is a rolling process of licensing with longer licenses the better you score. 

This is what the clubs voted for. 

Yes, I think dynamic licencing describes it quite well. If they stick with a 12 team SL, as things settle down (probably between Wakefield and Toulouse) and the incumbency advantages really kick in, it will become less and less "dynamic".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I suspect that the clubs that have an issue will be the most likely ones to reveal their figures.

The clubs that don't have an issue will be happy to sit back and accept IMG's verdict.

Given that this new system is so radically different from what has gone before, with major ramifications for the clubs and the competitions, whether you are in favour of it or not, I would have thought that maximum transparency was required.

IMG would then be potentially giving up private data though? I know its grading but for that you can read into other things which are potentially private as private companies.. 

I dont think its quite as clear cut as "maximum transparency".. I agree there should 100% be an independent auditor that people can have faith in (as with many of these things) but I think IMG would have to be careful here.. If they were publicly listed companies then fair enough but they aren't. 

Its up to the clubs to be more transparent to their fans where they are lacking and where they need to improve and for the fans then to hold the owners accountable for not getting the club to that desired level (whatever that may be).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Leonard said:

"local player have no relevance to the grading"

Seems a flawed system then.

There's an interesting question of whether the new system and grading scores are to be set in stone or whether they will evolve over time.

I would hope for the latter.

I would have thought that the performance criteria, for example, will be difficult to sustain, given that a club's position in the competitions will no longer be based on on-field performance from 2025.

I do think there are a lot of factors currently absent from the grading criteria that could have been included.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Barley Mow said:

Yes, I think dynamic licencing describes it quite well. If they stick with a 12 team SL, as things settle down (probably between Wakefield and Toulouse) and the incumbency advantages really kick in, it will become less and less "dynamic".

Quite - it is a self fulling prophecy to a large degree.

Just like there are far larger sides in the Championship than the Premier League, but incumbency and Premier League money has reduced the yo yo to negligible levels. So now we would have Bournemouth and Fulham being bigger clubs than Sunderland or Leeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't fully understand the calculations but it would seem to me that if your team is playing away against a side with a similar score, it's beneficial for your club if you don't attend as taking away fans boosts your opponent's score. Could we see a situation where the gradings leads to boycotting of away games?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Northern Eel said:

If Toulouse had won the playoff and Newcastle’s financial woes had not yet come to light, these scores would be largely very predictable. 

Yes which highlights how one bad season or one unlucky result can scupper a huge amount of good work off the pitch.. which is dangerous in a sport like ours and is potentially/arguablly going to put investors off from investing in it.. no matter how many times people say people will pull out when they see this, if I were an investor i'd feel as though you have just given me a guide to success which is rare in business!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

There's an interesting question of whether the new system and grading scores are to be set in stone or whether they will evolve over time.

I would hope for the latter.

I would have thought that the performance criteria, for example, will be difficult to sustain, given that a club's position in the competitions will no longer be based on on-field performance from 2025.

I do think there are a lot of factors currently absent from the grading criteria that could have been included.

I would have thought a system supposed to be best for the game at large would consider generation of players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colin James said:

I don't fully understand the calculations but it would seem to me that if your team is playing away against a side with a similar score, it's beneficial for your club if you don't attend as taking away fans boosts your opponent's score. Could we see a situation where the gradings leads to boycotting of away games?

Not an issue with London !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bulls2487 said:

One of best supported clubs outside SL

Have a elite academy and run a team at every level.

That's probably the difference between Bulls and other clubs.

 

Leaving aside the controversy over auditing attendances, they'd only score 0.5 points over most other Championship clubs for attendances. And if you can point me to where it states that you get points for having an elite academy (or indeed any academy)  or running a team at every level - other than being a prequisite before being granted an A grade - I'd be grateful.

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Grading Handbook (Final Version).pdf

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Leaving aside the controversy over auditing attendances, they'd only score 0.5 points over most other Championship clubs for attendances. And if you can point me to where it states that you get points for having an elite academy (or indeed any academy)  or running a team at every level - other than being a prequisite before being granted an A grade - I'd be grateful.

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/Grading Handbook (Final Version).pdf

 

I think that just shows the system is flawed - albeit that is the system as it is.

A team that produces talent is given more credit than one that relies on journeymen and Aussies on a pension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Colin James said:

I don't fully understand the calculations but it would seem to me that if your team is playing away against a side with a similar score, it's beneficial for your club if you don't attend as taking away fans boosts your opponent's score. Could we see a situation where the gradings leads to boycotting of away games?

Yes, and if you do go to an away match don't buy a pie or a pint because that could help your opponent's finance score.

Also don't visit other clubs' social media.

And don't move house to the catchment area of another club.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colin James said:

 Could we see a situation where the gradings leads to boycotting of away games?

I can see that happening, at least for those who are deemed to be rivals for placings on points scored off the pitch.

Please view my photos.

 

http://www.hughesphoto.co.uk/

 

Little Nook Farm - Caravan Club Certificated Location in the heart of the Pennines overlooking Hebden Bridge and the Calder Valley.

http://www.facebook.com/LittleNookFarm

 

Little Nook Cottage - 2-bed self-catering cottage in the heart of the Pennines overlooking Hebden Bridge and the Calder Valley.

Book now via airbnb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OdsalBull said:

I think many of us believe this is the one that was wrong this year

Ive posted pictures elsewhere on this forum of the Bradford V Fax game where over 4k was announced. The photos are pretty damming when it comes to how honest Bradford are been with attendance figures. I doubt it is a one off either.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too much of a shock for the gradings - It has been very much a peak of happiness at FT in Toulouse, to gradually going down and down due to what I knew would happen - I.e. London getting relegated before the first whistle was blown.

I am a bit shocked about how low we are on the gardings, but again not hugely. 

I am not sure if London will continue to survive in future years, IMO, London cannot survive as a Championship club. Fans will never come in great numbers to watch them play second tier rugby, London only works as a SL club, and to get there in future means a huge amount of money has to go into every aspect of the club without getting a return through gate receipts, etc. 

I don't foresee DH continuing his investment moving forward (next 5 or so years), as we have seen it has decreased significantly in recent years anyway. 

Should be an interesting 1 season in SL, I will go to watch at the beginning of the year and see how much I can take of watching a PT team lose every week to FT teams.  (The last year I had a season ticket was at Barnet where we won a grand total of 1 game all year, which I happened to miss)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RP London said:

now your just making things up as you go along to try and get annoyed from what i can see.. 

If they had finished 9th and had back to back seasons in SL then the simple "butterfly effect" principle comes into play.. everything changes, the amount of money, the bank balance, the ability to get more people interested etc etc.. the whole score changes... Lets stop the "what if" as that is a rabbit hole not worth exploring otherwise no one is getting any work done. 

The simple fact is that London have had a good season and got into Super League but off the field they are still a mess (as everyone points out and has done for years). They now have a document telling them where to improve. Read the document and you can see that there can be some quite big jumps made with investment in the right places, investment that can actually reap rewards that can then make you a much stronger club for when Super League comes a long (and not one that could bankrupt itself very easily). As a Sheffield fan I was hoping we would lose either to you or to Fev as i really didn't want the risk of going up and ending up killing ourselves in super league.  

your doing a lot of comparing with other clubs too, you don't know what their scores are or where so that is difficult but its like a kid who's been caught nicking sweets saying "yeah but they took more" maybe but you still took some and your still in trouble.. its not about everyone else, dont drag them down to your level get your level up.

I don't think you need to infer what I do or don't think to be honest. 

More than happy to watch London in a competitive championship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Click said:

Not too much of a shock for the gradings - It has been very much a peak of happiness at FT in Toulouse, to gradually going down and down due to what I knew would happen - I.e. London getting relegated before the first whistle was blown.

I am a bit shocked about how low we are on the gardings, but again not hugely. 

I am not sure if London will continue to survive in future years, IMO, London cannot survive as a Championship club. Fans will never come in great numbers to watch them play second tier rugby, London only works as a SL club, and to get there in future means a huge amount of money has to go into every aspect of the club without getting a return through gate receipts, etc. 

I don't foresee DH continuing his investment moving forward (next 5 or so years), as we have seen it has decreased significantly in recent years anyway. 

Should be an interesting 1 season in SL, I will go to watch at the beginning of the year and see how much I can take of watching a PT team lose every week to FT teams.  (The last year I had a season ticket was at Barnet where we won a grand total of 1 game all year, which I happened to miss)

Quite - I am of the view I will pass on the season. Watching hammerings is a bit pointless.

I also would not be surprised to see the plug pulled. That or Broncos becoming a posh Skolars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Not sure Cutting investment will help Londins cause at all.

TBH if London just want to go up, pocket the SL funding with a view to being in the Champ next year, then fine, the whole point of the restructure is for a longer term view.

There was always going to be a few anomalies in this transition year.

I doubt there's going to be much pocketing of money. It's not as if it's that much in the grand scale of things, and they'll need to spend it all just to make the start line, even if they keep a part time core.   

Plus why would DH spend his own money first? He'll spend whatever comes in and come the end of 2024 he'll decide if he wants to carry on subsidising the club.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.