IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[phiggins]

Just now, bobbruce said:

13 clubs would still be 6 games a week. If we can’t monetise more games we are doing something wrong. 

It would still be a restructure mid TV deal.

[bobbruce]

Just now, phiggins said:

It would still be a restructure mid TV deal.

I’m not sure it’s currently a massive issue  and if we start getting close to 12 + A grade clubs.  I'm sure we could have something in place for potentially adding more clubs and more games for Sky. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

Do we know if the potential for more than 12 Grade A clubs has been factored into the TV deal? We currently have a deal based on Sky providing production of 6 games a week. What happens if we move up to 13 or 14 clubs, are Sky signed up to that?

Where is the 13th and or 14th club going to come from?

Haven't the RFL said that from next season the 14 Championship and 10 L1 clubs will merge to form 2 X 12 team leagues with P&R between the divisions?

[Harry Stottle]

40 minutes ago, Worzel said:

In 5 years time we won’t be worrying about IMG points.........

.......... because they will be consigned to history, and we will have moved onto the next enthralling chapter.

[Griff]

4 hours ago, sentoffagain2 said:

     I wish The Championship and League 1 clubs had the b-lls to make a clean break away.For what little money they now get from SL if they can't stand on their own two feet without it the games not worth supporting.

The snag is that you might find that the game's not worth supporting.

No Sky funds, no Wembley trip, no Challenge Cup games against Superleague teams, even for the few - what's not to like?

Quite a bit.

[up the robins]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

Perhaps you’re right. What I would say though is that there is plenty of evidence globally - and the NRL is just one small part of it, not even the best example - that “closed” leagues can be very successful. There’s nothing inherently bad about the absence of promotion and relegation, even factoring in some of the possible ‘dead rubber’ consequences for a small number of fixtures.

The transition will be complicated, and no doubt create some short-term contention, but if you never start something then you never get anywhere so at some point we had to say “let’s get on with it, and map the change out”. That’s what the next few years are about.

The alternative (which I bet IMG preferred) was to pick 12 sides and close the league immediately. This is just a compromise, a way of phasing it in whilst transparently signposting what things would make it more likely a club would make the cut, and giving some a time to try and do it. Nothing more. In 5 years time we won’t be worrying about IMG points, because hopefully we’ll have a 12- or 14-team fixed elite league, which can then grow when the demand grows, and through application and assessment case-by-case.   

Sorry worzel got to disagree with the no promotional relegation argument, do you think when we was in the championship had we not got promoted into super league we would ever have got any where near meeting the criteria for a A licence? 

Not a chance we would have had neither the crowds or investment needed, we took our chance when promoted and built off the back of it.

Why should we prevent others from ever been able to achieve what we have at Rovers.

Having seen our fare share of relegation battles it does generate great crowd interest at the end of the season for the clubs involved and keeps clubs on there toes to the very last game.

[glossop saint]

5 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

Or put a golden ticket in a chocolate bar. Degsy would have all his staff - including the dude on twitter - unwrapping bars 24 hours a day. 

Then he'd publicly shame them for opening the wrappers wrong!

[JohnM]

5 hours ago, Bull Mania said:

I'm open minded on IMG (don't think they're the saviours of the sport, but can see why they've been brought in and willing to give them time) 

For me all the issues we had with licensing the first time are still apparent. In theory it drives up standards etc, but the reality is clubs/ owners know they're safe, so reduce spend (as evident on sky's salary table) why would an owner spend £300k on players when they can lose every game and stay in the divison.

June/July/August will be interesting when there's a number of dead rubbers.

Fans don't suddenly stop going because they hate IMG But  they might miss a game or two because it's a dead rubber and do something else that natch day. Then the following year it's not worth getting a season ticket.  So miss even more games. 

they might miss a game or two because it's a dead rubber

but isn't that true also of middle of the table clubs in a promo/relegation  league?  Why go to a dead -rubber game if one side can't get into the playoffs and the other is just above the relegation position?t

It's worth analysing why a team might be successful on the field. What are the conditions and factors that lead to the on-field success of a team. Once those are determined, then you have in effect a recipe to follow to get on field success 

[Pulga]

16 hours ago, DemonUK said:

 Is this still sport?

 

In every single country in the world except for England, Yes.

 

For some reason English Rugby League can't get their heads around sport in 2024. English Rugby League is not Football (soccer).

It is completely deluded in this day and age to believe your one-horse town deserves to be in the top flight. 

[Roughyed Rats]

15 hours ago, Griff said:

The snag is that you might find that the game's not worth supporting.

No Sky funds, no Wembley trip, no Challenge Cup games against Superleague teams, even for the few - what's not to like?

Quite a bit.

You've essentially just described the current position anyway, so realistically what have clubs got to lose? Leave the 12 on their own, move to separate competition in winter. At least clubs may then attract some SL fans in their off season and could also possibly get a TV deal.  

[Worzel]

16 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

 If as I suggest if it does go to a legal process on a miniscule number of points separating Champ/SL status, in which legals are not the quickest things to sort out, so if leaving the gradings and points awarded declaration till after the season ends maybe late October early November that may only leave say 12 or so weeks before the start of '25 season to collate information then present to and instruct a brief, finalise a date and come to a deliberation could be cutting it very close, and also when considering there will be at least 2 weeks off for Xmas, the announcement date of who will make up SL next season is going to be very important.

It won’t go legal, because all the clubs have signed up to compete on the basis of this being the model, and any internal appeals process being final

[phiggins]

8 hours ago, Pulga said:

In every single country in the world except for England, Yes.

 

For some reason English Rugby League can't get their heads around sport in 2024. English Rugby League is not Football (soccer).

It is completely deluded in this day and age to believe your one-horse town deserves to be in the top flight. 

Struggling to make sense of this post at all.

You seem to put too much emphasis on a town or city's population for how deserving a place in the top flight a club should be. The two lowest attended clubs are based in cities. The lowest attended club in SL is in the biggest city in the country.

Edited April 9 by phiggins

[Click]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Struggling to make sense of this post at all.

You seem to put too much emphasis on a town or city's population for how deserving a place in the top flight a club should be. The two lowest attended clubs are based in cities. The lowest attended club in SL is in the biggest city in the country.

Glad we managed to get a dig in at London.  

[Harry Stottle]

7 hours ago, Pulga said:

In every single country in the world except for England, Yes.

 

For some reason English Rugby League can't get their heads around sport in 2024. English Rugby League is not Football (soccer).

It is completely deluded in this day and age to believe your one-horse town deserves to be in the top flight. 

Not just Rugby League in this country Pulga.

Association Football, Cricket, Union, from the big attended sports all operate a P&R system, we can go almost all the way down the ladder to 'one horse town's' own  ini league system's of any sport/pastime you wish to name, darts and domino's, table tennis, backgammon, bridge and even pub quiz leagues if there is enough clubs/teams for more than one division they will operate a P&R system, it is the British Psych of opportunity and ambition.

Now tell me and be totally honest in the oft quoted NRL in how wonderful it works (and no doubt it does) but if the opportunity was there for other 2nd  standard clubs ( in Queensland/Sydney) to join do you not envisage that there would be many of those 'local' multi-millionaires with more money than they know what to do with who would invest in such? Take the same scenario over to 'The land of opportunity' and consider the fact that there are  (quick Google check) 735 billionaires in America either individually or teaming up do you not think that if the NBA, MLB, NFL, AHL etc could would expand if given the opportunity to do so, and take the number of those leagues to warrant a P&R system.

In a nutshell, I and millions more in the UK enjoy our P&R system, it furnishes ambition by providing opportunities, you obviously prefer your system and you are welcome to it, no need to imply we are deluded each to their own, eh.

 

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, Click said:

Glad we managed to get a dig in at London.  

That wasn't the intention. it's just that they do show that big population doesn't automatically equate to a big club, in response to a rather sneering jibe about "one horse towns". 

[Harry Stottle]

15 minutes ago, Worzel said:

It won’t go legal, because all the clubs have signed up to compete on the basis of this being the model, and any internal appeals process being final

No, nothing has ever been challenged legally after it has been voted on and passed has it?

C'mon all it takes is to find that little gap from the initial model where the system has gone wrong to eventually get a crow bar in and prise it wide open.

We are talking of a challenge eventuating by a fraction of a point which would most probably set out a clubs future financially, IMG are not going to be transparent and publish all and each of the clubs points entered on the spreadsheet are they, yes any individual club will know if their own figures are correct, but they won't know the others, on that basis should they just believe IMG's spreadsheet or would you contest it?

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

You've essentially just described the current position anyway, so realistically what have clubs got to lose? Leave the 12 on their own, move to separate competition in winter. At least clubs may then attract some SL fans in their off season and could also possibly get a TV deal.  

I like your optimism but I fear it's misplaced.

It would be a disaster.

[Ant]

The reality is 

... 

We are 6 games into the first season this system has been operating and no one knows how it will shake out.

What we do know is RL fans would rather complain than support, and are the sports own worst enemies, perhaps after the club chairmen.

 

The plan is to create a level field, for ANY club to get into the top, and to lift all club standards. It's not an easy job, it's not a quick job, so why not wind you whinging, parochial, necks in and look at the bigger picture. 

 

I remember now why I stopped looking at RL sites. 

[Click]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

That wasn't the intention. it's just that they do show that big population doesn't automatically equate to a big club, in response to a rather sneering jibe about "one horse towns". 

Well that is good to hear, as I was always under the impression that London was a big club. Glad you put that to bed.

No one is saying that a club based in a big population automatically becomes a "big club" - Just that they have a lot more potential for a club that is surrounded by millions in a city, rather than a town with 20k people in it. 

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not just Rugby League in this country Pulga.

Association Football, Cricket, Union, from the big attended sports all operate a P&R system, we can go almost all the way down the ladder to 'one horse town's' own  ini league system's of any sport/pastime you wish to name, darts and domino's, table tennis, backgammon, bridge and even pub quiz leagues if there is enough clubs/teams for more than one division they will operate a P&R system, it is the British Psych of opportunity and ambition.

Now tell me and be totally honest in the oft quoted NRL in how wonderful it works (and no doubt it does) but if the opportunity was there for other 2nd  standard clubs ( in Queensland/Sydney) to join do you not envisage that there would be many of those 'local' multi-millionaires with more money than they know what to do with who would invest in such? Take the same scenario over to 'The land of opportunity' and consider the fact that there are  (quick Google check) 735 billionaires in America either individually or teaming up do you not think that if the NBA, MLB, NFL, AHL etc could would expand if given the opportunity to do so, and take the number of those leagues to warrant a P&R system.

In a nutshell, I and millions more in the UK enjoy our P&R system, it furnishes ambition by providing opportunities, you obviously prefer your system and you are welcome to it, no need to imply we are deluded each to their own, eh.

 

I and millions more in the UK enjoy our P&R system..

Pure speculation on your part. Some sports may have "win game , draw game, lose game" points- based league table position- based  relegation/promotion  systems but for the sake of transparency, why not publish the evidence? Seriously, do you think Burnley fans are enjoying P and R? Fans of Leicester, Leeds, etc ditto? Latter might be keen to see promotion but next season will fear demotion. Yo-yo is alive and well. 

Incentivising a teams performance by issuing bullying threats such as" if you get relegated we'll cut your pay, your status, your value in the marketplace and we'll probably cancel your contract" is so "old school"

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Struggling to make sense of this post at all.

You seem to put too much emphasis on a town or city's population for how deserving a place in the top flight a club should be. The two lowest attended clubs are based in cities. The lowest attended club in SL is in the biggest city in the country.

 

28 minutes ago, Griff said:

I like your optimism but I fear it's misplaced.

It would be a disaster.

Even the meagre funding is still essential, and think of the other things if it meant leaving the RFL, insurance is one and where fo they get the refs from?

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, Click said:

Well that is good to hear, as I was always under the impression that London was a big club. Glad you put that to bed.

No one is saying that a club based in a big population automatically becomes a "big club" - Just that they have a lot more potential for a club that is surrounded by millions in a city, rather than a town with 20k people in it. 

Potential is meaningless unless you have the ability to fulfil it.

In context of the post you initially pulled me up on, and the post that was quoting, London deserve their place in the top division because they put together a team of players and coaching staff capable of winning the Championship. 

I also think Leigh deserve their place in the top division for the same reason, and the fact they competed in the first season in the top division. In both cases, the size of town or city is irrelevant.

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, Ant said:

The reality is 

... 

We are 6 games into the first season this system has been operating and no one knows how it will shake out.

What we do know is RL fans would rather complain than support, and are the sports own worst enemies, perhaps after the club chairmen.

 

The plan is to create a level field, for ANY club to get into the top, and to lift all club standards. It's not an easy job, it's not a quick job, so why not wind you whinging, parochial, necks in and look at the bigger picture. 

 

I remember now why I stopped looking at RL sites. 

You were doing OK till you got to the bit I have highlighted, do you actually believe that? There are so many parts of the scoring system that suits the incumbent SL clubs and has the Championship clubs behind the 8 ball.

As for the second highlight, just open your eyes a little wider Ant and see if you can actually see the wood for the trees.

[Click]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Potential is meaningless unless you have the ability to fulfil it.

In context of the post you initially pulled me up on, and the post that was quoting, London deserve their place in the top division because they put together a team of players and coaching staff capable of winning the Championship. 

I also think Leigh deserve their place in the top division for the same reason, and the fact they competed in the first season in the top division. In both cases, the size of town or city is irrelevant.

Sure, London deserved their place this year, through sheer luck rather than truly deserving it. We are a shadow of a club, and whether IMG was involved or not, and London were promoted we wouldn't have spent more money than we are now. 

I can't say looking at how London are performing so far in 2024, we can say that we "deserve" to be in SL. That is the problem with the current system. 

Everyone goes on about how important P&R is, but there is perhaps only 2 or 3 clubs currently outside SL that are truly ambitious enough to want to actually be in it anyway, the rest seem to be quite content with where they are at in the game. 

[Pulga]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not just Rugby League in this country Pulga.

Association Football, Cricket, Union, from the big attended sports all operate a P&R system, we can go almost all the way down the ladder to 'one horse town's' own  ini league system's of any sport/pastime you wish to name, darts and domino's, table tennis, backgammon, bridge and even pub quiz leagues if there is enough clubs/teams for more than one division they will operate a P&R system, it is the British Psych of opportunity and ambition.

Now tell me and be totally honest in the oft quoted NRL in how wonderful it works (and no doubt it does) but if the opportunity was there for other 2nd  standard clubs ( in Queensland/Sydney) to join do you not envisage that there would be many of those 'local' multi-millionaires with more money than they know what to do with who would invest in such? Take the same scenario over to 'The land of opportunity' and consider the fact that there are  (quick Google check) 735 billionaires in America either individually or teaming up do you not think that if the NBA, MLB, NFL, AHL etc could would expand if given the opportunity to do so, and take the number of those leagues to warrant a P&R system.

In a nutshell, I and millions more in the UK enjoy our P&R system, it furnishes ambition by providing opportunities, you obviously prefer your system and you are welcome to it, no need to imply we are deluded each to their own, eh.

 

I'm not sure you've noticed but the English RU domestically is possibly in an even worse state than RL for the exact same reason. 

Millionaires can invest in NRL clubs already, and do. The NRL has a bottom floor for catchment area of around 150k - 200k. There really is no need for anything lower than that and would devalue the brand. 

P&R in its current guise does not furnish ambition. Quite the opposite. The teams without a shot of winning trophies (8/12 teams most years) just have to aim for 11th or better.

I'm sorry but it is delusional. The constant yo-yoing does nothing but hurt the game.