The Reality of the IMG Grading System

[LeeF]

17 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

It's currently a disaster.

It’s far from a disaster currently unless you would like to provided specific examples?

[Harry Stottle]

18 minutes ago, Worzel said:

It’s not going to happen. This isn’t Sydney with hundreds of thousands of South’s fans marching through a global city. It’s British rugby league, with a few hundred annoyed people in a small town. 

Hopefully it doesn't come down to a fraction of a point to form a legal challenge, but if the system is not transparent then there is most definitely reason to dispute it.

Let me just clarify something you said in your first post, you said

"all the clubs have signed up to compete on the basis of this being the model, and any internal appeals process being final"

My question to you is, do you honestly know for sure that the documentation that was signed, included a clause which would give IMG complete jurisdiction on any internal appeals process being finite? Or have you made that bit up?

I have signed many contracts in my time but would never go anywhere near one that to all intents and purpose gives one party complete freedom to act as they wish in all important respects. More fool any club that has put their name to that, I doubt one Neil Hudgell would do that considering his background.

[Magic XIII]

18 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.

I hate comparing to Aus but NRL franchise based (with the glass ceiling) below which hugely popular, well supported, TV screened, vibrant Queensland and NSW Cup competitions, some teams twinned with NRL clubs. It's a mind set thing, with SL being seen as the be all and end all.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours 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

Association football ran an elected league system for decades till it grew so financially and numerically massive it could afford standards based P/R across 11 tiers of ever increasing numbers. It doesn't have its equivalents of Hunslet or Swinton anywhere near its equivalents of Southampton or Hull City.

Cricket has quite literally a major counties only league. The second division being introduced to split the number of red ball matches being played by those special 18 counties who otherwise all compete on the same level.

Union only went pro and had "proper" leagues in the relatively recent past. Even then, in England it is heading to a closed top/top 2 tiers - In Wales, Scotland and Ireland it already is like that.

Rugby League is the prime example of a competition set up specifically for one type of club, "professionals"! We've never had a "pyramid" because we've always had a clear distinction between the amateur and "professional" clubs. For the past 25 years, if not the past 35 years, the sport has grappled with whether there should be a distinction between the fully professional and semi professional levels too.

[Magic XIII]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

The lowest attended club in SL is in the biggest city in the country.

Is currently a basket case, ill run and underperfomring since the 00s. Done well, it would be a different story.

[bobbruce]

20 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hopefully it doesn't come down to a fraction of a point to form a legal challenge, but if the system is not transparent then there is most definitely reason to dispute it.

Let me just clarify something you said in your first post, you said

"all the clubs have signed up to compete on the basis of this being the model, and any internal appeals process being final"

My question to you is, do you honestly know for sure that the documentation that was signed, included a clause which would give IMG complete jurisdiction on any internal appeals process being finite? Or have you made that bit up?

I have signed many contracts in my time but would never go anywhere near one that to all intents and purpose gives one party complete freedom to act as they wish in all important respects. More fool any club that has put their name to that, I doubt one Neil Hudgell would do that considering his background.

Don’t all clubs agree to something similar with all RFL comps. Effectively once you’ve been through the process the RFL decision is final. 

[dboy]

13 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Don’t all clubs agree to something similar with all RFL comps. Effectively once you’ve been through the process the RFL decision is final. 

Yes.

It's a condition of membership that a club can't take legal action against the RFL (without first resigning from the RFL - which closes the matter).

[DemonUK]

22 hours ago, LeeF said:

Can you detail either the 96% or even the  4% if that’s easier, mentioned in point 1 as I’m struggling to get to either number?
 

Also what do you mean by “manipulated” and where do you get the 50% figure from? 

Ok, I will try and explain what I meant. A maximum of 4 points is available based on on-field performance based on a teams average position calculated over 3 years.  0.25pts is available to challenge cup winners and 0.75 is available to the grand final winner.

In summary if you don't win the CC or GF a maximum of 4 points is available, but that can only be achieved if you have finished top of the league for the last 3 seasons.

If one team wins both the CC and GF then they could in theory gain the maximum 5 pts (25% of total available) leaving the rest with a maximum of 4pts (20%) available and I have detailed above what you have to do to get 4 pts towards your score.  Without being too detailed, every position from 1-35 subtracts a further 0.13 or so from the maximum of an average 1st place finish (4pts).  So even simple logic states that all bar one or two clubs out of all the clubs can exceed 4pts in any one seasons gradings (the CC and GF points are removed each new season).

As for the manipulation, internet impressions and finances (accounts & foundation areas) as described in the img manual can be easily manipulated by accounting experts.  Several clubs have announced significant investment around the start of the season.  Where were these investors in past years.  Crowd figures I am not sure about, but why have some clubs suddenly got an aversion to publishing them each week.

I see your counter argument re improving facilities and infrastructure etc however there is not the money in the game and monies distributed below SL do not help clubs in the championship achieve this unless they have a rich owner.

My opinion, which I am allowed to have, is that can a sport be a sport where some clubs don't seem to care about the sporting performance simply because there is no relegation because if you are a Grade A or high grade B you receive 2 million quid.  You also have to feel for the situation London find themselves in which is basically right place at the wrong time.

This is simply my thoughts with a few substantiated figures.

 

[Liverpool Rover]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

For each Burnley, Leicester and Leeds you will have other clubs and fans exhibiting excitement and euphoria, it gives them the chance to improve themselves.

Just think about that one, you get SL coaches even the one from your adopted club who when questioned last week about two player's absent because of suspension saying, it presents others with the opportunity to impress and stake a claim.

As for pure speculation on my part, and just on football who employ the system seeing that you have used that sport for your example, operating a P&R system as they do, does not seem to do them any harm whatsoever, there are many who go to watch it live, many pay subscriptions to watch it on the box, TV companies are clamboring over each other offering million £ contracts, trade mags are in big supply, newspapers sell for their football coverage, do you want me to go on? The P&R system is not broken, it don't need tampering with John.

This country is obsessed with football. The EFL Championship is probably one of the best attended leagues in Europe and with the amount of money in the game there are a lot of EFL clubs who can be promoted to the Premier League and do well, so maybe in football P&R isn’t broken. However in both codes of rugby it is different.

The RFL and RFU championship equivalent league in football would be well down their pyramid. Before starting this post I had a look at some of the RFU championship grounds and a lot of them are woeful for what is meant to be their second tier and will no way support a fully pro premiership team. Rugby League has a wide disparity of clubs condensed in to three levels that in football would be spread through ten so while League 1 clubs are only two tiers below Super League in reality they are miles away. 

P&R works in football as it has a strong pyramid to support it, RLs pyramid is too weak.

[Griff]

34 minutes ago, Magic XIII said:

I hate comparing to Aus but NRL franchise based (with the glass ceiling) below which hugely popular, well supported, TV screened, vibrant Queensland and NSW Cup competitions, some teams twinned with NRL clubs. It's a mind set thing, with SL being seen as the be all and end all.

The only weakness of your argument is that you're comparing (arguably) the most popular sport in one country to a minority sport in another.

[Harry Stottle]

25 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Association football ran an elected league system for decades till it grew so financially and numerically massive it could afford standards based P/R across 11 tiers of ever increasing numbers. It doesn't have its equivalents of Hunslet or Swinton anywhere near its equivalents of Southampton or Hull City.

Cricket has quite literally a major counties only league. The second division being introduced to split the number of red ball matches being played by those special 18 counties who otherwise all compete on the same level.

Union only went pro and had "proper" leagues in the relatively recent past. Even then, in England it is heading to a closed top/top 2 tiers - In Wales, Scotland and Ireland it already is like that.

Rugby League is the prime example of a competition set up specifically for one type of club, "professionals"! We've never had a "pyramid" because we've always had a clear distinction between the amateur and "professional" clubs. For the past 25 years, if not the past 35 years, the sport has grappled with whether there should be a distinction between the fully professional and semi professional levels too.

Tommy, I distinctly said "it is the British Psych" and mentioned the major pro sports which you are taking to task, I also said P&R is very evident in many other sports/pastimes if there are enough in the teams in the system to have more than one division, you have for reasons of your own failed to mention, somehow you have missed the intention of my post.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Roughyed Rats said:

It's currently a disaster.

Rubbish.

[Harry Stottle]

15 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

This country is obsessed with football. The EFL Championship is probably one of the best attended leagues in Europe and with the amount of money in the game there are a lot of EFL clubs who can be promoted to the Premier League and do well, so maybe in football P&R isn’t broken. However in both codes of rugby it is different.

The RFL and RFU championship equivalent league in football would be well down their pyramid. Before starting this post I had a look at some of the RFU championship grounds and a lot of them are woeful for what is meant to be their second tier and will no way support a fully pro premiership team. Rugby League has a wide disparity of clubs condensed in to three levels that in football would be spread through ten so while League 1 clubs are only two tiers below Super League in reality they are miles away. 

P&R works in football as it has a strong pyramid to support it, RLs pyramid is too weak.

Football is nationwide and as you say an obsession so will do well in all those respects, both codes of rugby are basically regional games, that will never change and as such we will always struggle, anyway no need to explain it to me it was JohnM who brought it up.

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, Griff said:

The only weakness of your argument is that you're comparing (arguably) the most popular sport in one country to a minority sport in another.

Yeah, the only similarities are the rules of the game.......... oh hang on a minute!

Edited April 9 by Harry Stottle

[Click]

25 minutes ago, DemonUK said:

Ok, I will try and explain what I meant. A maximum of 4 points is available based on on-field performance based on a teams average position calculated over 3 years.  0.25pts is available to challenge cup winners and 0.75 is available to the grand final winner.

In summary if you don't win the CC or GF a maximum of 4 points is available, but that can only be achieved if you have finished top of the league for the last 3 seasons.

If one team wins both the CC and GF then they could in theory gain the maximum 5 pts (25% of total available) leaving the rest with a maximum of 4pts (20%) available and I have detailed above what you have to do to get 4 pts towards your score.  Without being too detailed, every position from 1-35 subtracts a further 0.13 or so from the maximum of an average 1st place finish (4pts).  So even simple logic states that all bar one or two clubs out of all the clubs can exceed 4pts in any one seasons gradings (the CC and GF points are removed each new season).

As for the manipulation, internet impressions and finances (accounts & foundation areas) as described in the img manual can be easily manipulated by accounting experts.  Several clubs have announced significant investment around the start of the season.  Where were these investors in past years.  Crowd figures I am not sure about, but why have some clubs suddenly got an aversion to publishing them each week.

I see your counter argument re improving facilities and infrastructure etc however there is not the money in the game and monies distributed below SL do not help clubs in the championship achieve this unless they have a rich owner.

My opinion, which I am allowed to have, is that can a sport be a sport where some clubs don't seem to care about the sporting performance simply because there is no relegation because if you are a Grade A or high grade B you receive 2 million quid.  You also have to feel for the situation London find themselves in which is basically right place at the wrong time.

This is simply my thoughts with a few substantiated figures.

 

I don't understand why people think that clubs won't be challenging to win games because there is no relegation, it isn't like the clubs that have been in the bottom 3 for the last 5 years have miraculously improved because of relegation, they buy the players that they can afford. When they don't play well, that budget gets lower and lower. 

Why though? Even I as a London fan don't feel sorry for "us". There is nothing about us "London" that is a Super League club, we are in the situation that we are in through poor decision making for the last 10/20 years.

 

[phiggins]

59 minutes ago, Magic XIII said:

Is currently a basket case, ill run and underperfomring since the 00s. Done well, it would be a different story.

Yes. My initial point was that it cannot be said that a club deserves, or doesn't deserve a place in SL based purely on population alone. There are lots of other factors on how well run a club is, how good the infrastructure is, how well they reach their existing and new fans etc..

To be fair, I think the IMG criteria does try to take this rounded view, I just think the scoring system we have has too many flaws.

My preference would be to have an improved scoring system with P&R on the condition of achieving a minimum score.

[LeeF]

33 minutes ago, DemonUK said:

Ok, I will try and explain what I meant. A maximum of 4 points is available based on on-field performance based on a teams average position calculated over 3 years.  0.25pts is available to challenge cup winners and 0.75 is available to the grand final winner.

In summary if you don't win the CC or GF a maximum of 4 points is available, but that can only be achieved if you have finished top of the league for the last 3 seasons.

If one team wins both the CC and GF then they could in theory gain the maximum 5 pts (25% of total available) leaving the rest with a maximum of 4pts (20%) available and I have detailed above what you have to do to get 4 pts towards your score.  Without being too detailed, every position from 1-35 subtracts a further 0.13 or so from the maximum of an average 1st place finish (4pts).  So even simple logic states that all bar one or two clubs out of all the clubs can exceed 4pts in any one seasons gradings (the CC and GF points are removed each new season).

As for the manipulation, internet impressions and finances (accounts & foundation areas) as described in the img manual can be easily manipulated by accounting experts.  Several clubs have announced significant investment around the start of the season.  Where were these investors in past years.  Crowd figures I am not sure about, but why have some clubs suddenly got an aversion to publishing them each week.

I see your counter argument re improving facilities and infrastructure etc however there is not the money in the game and monies distributed below SL do not help clubs in the championship achieve this unless they have a rich owner.

My opinion, which I am allowed to have, is that can a sport be a sport where some clubs don't seem to care about the sporting performance simply because there is no relegation because if you are a Grade A or high grade B you receive 2 million quid.  You also have to feel for the situation London find themselves in which is basically right place at the wrong time.

This is simply my thoughts with a few substantiated figures.

 

Cheers thanks for the comprehensive reply. It’s appreciated. 

I don’t necessarily agree with your thoughts and not with your conclusions but that’s the point of the forum.

IMO the points in the first 3 paragraphs are stretching the calculations but that’s what happens with statistics as we probably both know. The points available for places achieved are clearly stated and known by everyone.

The next paragraph about manipulation does come across a bit conspiracy theory. Accounts and foundations can’t be as easily manipulated as you claim. 
 

The new investment should be applauded. Yes in some cases it has been a long time coming but it is overdue in a number of instances. If the introduction of this grading structure has been the catalyst then that’s a massive win for the game. BTW crowd figures have to be reported to the Governing Body and to the local authority so I wouldn’t be looking to use this as a supporting argument to claim its being manipulated. 

It has for many many years been the same about a rich owner being required below the top division so that’s not new.

London weren’t ready for SL by their own admission. 

Finally no club gets £2m pa from the RFL. That myth has been debunked many times on this forum. They may get three quarters of the figure you claim

Anyway not looking for an argument and thanks once again for responding. 

[JohnM]

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I've not got this right, but the Champions League TV rights are 5 billion € pa. To play, you have to qualify, so no promotion or relegation. Same for the Europa League, same for the European Championship, same for the World Cup.

If the RL Championship clubs want to break away and run their own version of the sport, and if any current SL clubs want to joint them, then just do it, for that way lies oblivion. 

The one issue I have with the RFL's approach to SL is that it requires clubs and their fans to think long term, with the emphasis on "think". As the end of the first quarter of the 21st. century approaches, thanks to IMG, the sport is finally becoming professionally run. 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hopefully it doesn't come down to a fraction of a point to form a legal challenge, but if the system is not transparent then there is most definitely reason to dispute it.

Let me just clarify something you said in your first post, you said

"all the clubs have signed up to compete on the basis of this being the model, and any internal appeals process being final"

My question to you is, do you honestly know for sure that the documentation that was signed, included a clause which would give IMG complete jurisdiction on any internal appeals process being finite? Or have you made that bit up?

I have signed many contracts in my time but would never go anywhere near one that to all intents and purpose gives one party complete freedom to act as they wish in all important respects. More fool any club that has put their name to that, I doubt one Neil Hudgell would do that considering his background.

It’s standard in sporting competitions for disputes to have to go through a pre-agreed resolution process, the recourse to law is always deliberately limited. Those who aren’t happy with those terms have the option to not enter the openly tendered competition in the first place if they don’t like it - they’re not forced to participate.

A sports league is not a free market, by design they’re invitational and exclusive. Governing bodies have a lot more power than organisations in other markets.

[Roughyed Rats]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Rubbish.

Outside the elite, the semi-pro game is a disaster. £12,000 of central distributions for my club last season. No TV revenue. What would my club and other clubs really have to lose?

[Click]

2 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Outside the elite, the semi-pro game is a disaster. £12,000 of central distributions for my club last season. No TV revenue. What would my club and other clubs really have to lose?

Well, I guess for your club, it would be £12,000 of central distributions, as well as any other assistance the club may receive from RFL officials. 

People keep bringing up TV, but no one is interested in paying to televise the Championship/League 1.  

[sentoffagain2]

     Does anyone think that todays SL clubs are better than those of 20 years ago?.And with no relegation the standard apart from  the top half a dozen clubs will continue to regress.The Championship has been improving over the last 12 years more so when there was a chance of promotion.I am afraid that now it will also regress and fans will vote with their feet.There was a chance to expand the game and develop younger players with two SL divisions of 10 and a League 1 or championship below.But SL clubs don't want to give up SKY money for the long term good of the game.

[Roughyed Rats]

15 minutes ago, Click said:

People keep bringing up TV, but no one is interested in paying to televise the Championship/League 1.  

Exactly my point. Move to winter rugby and there might be some interest from TV and SL fans coming to games.

[JohnM]

19 minutes ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Outside the elite, the semi-pro game is a disaster. £12,000 of central distributions for my club last season. No TV revenue. What would my club and other clubs really have to lose?

Existence, extinction, relevance, stadiums, crowds, players, visibility, ....

[JohnM]

1 minute ago, Roughyed Rats said:

Exactly my point. Move to winter rugby and there might be some interest from TV and SL fans coming to games.

Give it a go then. Let's us know how it goes. You'll probably need your own rules as the RFL may well own the copyright, so your rules might have to be substantially different. It'll cost money for the lawyers to work it out 

Edited April 9 by JohnM