The Reality of the IMG Grading System

[gittinsfan]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

I don't watch sport for relegation battles. Neither does anyone in the NRL, and there seems to be plenty of sporting contest down there. 

Not really. Hull KR are a Grade A club, they got relegated less than 10 years ago. But the whole point is to work to a league full of Grade A clubs, who will all have security from relegation. This phase-in period is only that, a phase-in. 

So when you have 12 clubs who all have security from relegation,you have a closed shop.Where is the incentive for the majority of clubs iin RL to improve.Will IMG come up with something for them or will their job be done once they have sorted out the elite.

[Harry Stottle]

39 minutes ago, Worzel said:

It's not a ridiculous advantage, its a sensible way of suggesting which clubs have the greater potential for audience growth. 

That word - highlighted - has followed Toulouse around for a good few years now, yet we still have to see that potential realised.

[Hopie]

39 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Well we know that promotion & relegation don't seem to improve it. Team after team coming up, only to get battered each week having only been able to cobble together a rough hewn squad in the few weeks available to do so. Unless your owner has blown £1m in the Championship building the squad a year early. I mean, that sounds like a really fair, healthy way to decide which teams are in Super League eh? 

 

Promotion doesn't improve things so we should keep the teams we have next season forever? Even though most of those were teams promoted into the Super League?

If you prefer no relegation that is an opinion and you can't be wrong about an opinion, but at least pay attention to the facts of the situation. Promoted teams can stay up, and some teams have used relegation as a starting point for improvement.

[Wakefield Ram]

48 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Will IMG's methods increase the quality of what happens on the field of play?

If No, when we have 12 'A' grades and no threat of relegation what is going to entice the punters through the gates or to buy subscriptions, or will those punters just be happy to turn up irrespective if games are meaningless, keep rolling out the NRL it seems to be the stock answer to go to, we do things different up here.

One of the strengths of the NRL is that the top teams change. 

Before a ball is kicked in SL, we know Saints or Wigan will win the GF, London will be relegated. 

The NRL GF has had 13 different winners, SL has had 4 and Bradford unlikely ever to win it again. In the last 19 years it's 3 teams. The NRL have even allowed new teams to join expending the game whilst SL financially punish new clubs like Toronto and Catalans by forcing them to pay travel costs for the other clubs. 

The marquee player route is just a salary cap dodge to keep the top few clubs with more money ahead of the rest. Same clubs winning the same trophies. 

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, gittinsfan said:

So when you have 12 clubs who all have security from relegation,you have a closed shop.Where is the incentive for the majority of clubs iin RL to improve.Will IMG come up with something for them or will their job be done once they have sorted out the elite.

If there are 12 grade A clubs they have said the league should expand.

[Barley Mow]

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

If there are 12 grade A clubs they have said the league should expand.

Are you sure? I thought there had to be 13 Grade A's for it to expand.

[Ovenden Grunt]

2 hours ago, glossop saint said:

Yet more top quality balanced debate.

Thank you.  

[Chrispmartha]

14 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Are you sure? I thought there had to be 13 Grade A's for it to expand.

Not as far as I'm aware, there’s even nothing stopping them expanding the league at any time if the clubs vote for it.

IMG doesn’t run the game they are consultants.

[Barley Mow]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

Not as far as I'm aware, there’s even nothing stopping them expanding the league at any time if the clubs vote for it.

IMG doesn’t run the game they are consultants.

Yes, of course there's nothing to stop them expanding if that's what is voted for. I was referring to the situation that IMG/RFL had set out when introducing the new system:

I thought it was that SL has 12 clubs unless more than 12 attain Grade A status.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

3 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

 

I thought it was that SL has 12 clubs unless more than 12 attain Grade A status.

That is my understanding.

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

That seems a proportionate, well considered, rational response to the situation. Thanks. Halifax haven't been able to get into Super League for over 20 years under the current model, so they're hardly creating a new barrier for you. 

Technically not true with some of the years we have been in this league there has been no promotion. Unfortunatley for us our purple patch came in the years when there was no promotion.

42 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

If there are 12 grade A clubs they have said the league should expand.

I think they said there was a possibility that it would expand rather than it certainly would. End of the day the SL clubs have the power and when we do have 12 clubs which will likely be in 2 or 3 years then unless the TV deal has gone up there is not a chance in hell that the SL clubs would vote to expand the league.

[LeeF]

4 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Harry is correct in so far as he wouldn’t invest, that’s because he is totally opposed to IMG.

However the reality is that people have invested after IMG cane in, which kind of shoots massive holes in his argument.

Havent Oldham also had investment after IMG cane in?

And isn’t Degsy on record stating that he would up his investment on the back of IMG?

[gittinsfan]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

If there are 12 grade A clubs they have said the league should expand.

Once you have your 12 grade A clubs I very much doubt if a grade B club would qualify as A while being in the championship

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, gittinsfan said:

Once you have your 12 grade A clubs I very much doubt if a grade B club would qualify as A while being in the championship

Im not sure where it’s been stated that they would have to be grade A for the league to expand? As i say its ultimately down the what the clubs vote for

[gittinsfan]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Im not sure where it’s been stated that they would have to be grade A for the league to expand? As i say its ultimately down the what the clubs vote for

What do you think the SL clubs will vote for? I'm sure the rest of the clubs won't have a say.As Worzel says,there will be 12 clubs with the security of no relegation.

[Chrispmartha]

7 minutes ago, gittinsfan said:

What do you think the SL clubs will vote for? I'm sure the rest of the clubs won't have a say.As Worzel says,there will be 12 clubs with the security of no relegation.

The rest of the clubs will have a vote just the same as they did for the IMG proposals.

I'm not saying the clubs will vote for 14 teams, and IMO part of the problem is the clubs having the say on it in the first place.

[Harry Stottle]

44 minutes ago, LeeF said:

And isn’t Degsy on record stating that he would up his investment on the back of IMG?

No he said he would leave his money in the club in such a way that it improves the financial scoring, isn't that something you said would not be possible to fudge the finances? Then if it wasn't you I apologise for inferring it was.

[gittinsfan]

11 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The rest of the clubs will have a vote just the same as they did for the IMG proposals.

I'm not saying the clubs will vote for 14 teams, and IMO part of the problem is the clubs having the say on it in the first place.

Various posters on this forum sugges that only SL clubs have a say in expanding SL.I accept this may not be true.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, gittinsfan said:

Various posters on this forum sugges that only SL clubs have a say in expanding SL.I accept this may not be true.

To be fair, that may be true I'm not sure.

[LeeF]

22 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

No he said he would leave his money in the club in such a way that it improves the financial scoring, isn't that something you said would not be possible to fudge the finances? Then if it wasn't you I apologise for inferring it was.

 You are only allowed to show certain transactions in certain ways and if by his statement he meant equity or capital instead of sponsorship or a different income stream that’s definitely not fudging but you probably already know that

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

To be fair, that may be true I'm not sure.

I should imagine it is very true, I can not see for one moment that SL clubs would allow the L1 clubs or the amatuer game to have a say how their funding would be shared out.

[JonM]

2 hours ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Toulouse will score 1.5 points for population.  Castleford and Wakefield will score 0.5 points. 1 point equates to 9 places on the league ladder. Overcoming poor performance when you're being gifted ridiculous advantages like that probably says more about the scoring system than anything else.

London Broncos having a lower population catchment area than say Whitehaven (and around a third of the catchment population of York) shows just how well thought through the whole system is. I live around 90 minutes drive from York, but count for their population score. Someone living on Riverside Road less than thirty seconds walk away from the Cherry Red Records stadium doesn't count for London Broncos catchment.

[Barley Mow]

9 minutes ago, JonM said:

London Broncos having a lower population catchment area than say Whitehaven (and around a third of the catchment population of York) shows just how well thought through the whole system is. I live around 90 minutes drive from York, but count for their population score. Someone living on Riverside Road less than thirty seconds walk away from the Cherry Red Records stadium doesn't count for London Broncos catchment.

Your general point is correct, but York might not be as good an example as you think - Their score is based on the City of York Council area,. York is not included in the (relatively) new North Yorkshire unitary authority. Living in Wensleydale, you will not count towards their score.

If Scarborough Pirates were still going in the pro-ranks, you would count towards theirs though! 

Edited April 11 by Barley Mow

[JonM]

1 minute ago, Barley Mow said:

Your general point is correct, but the York might not be as good an example as you think - Their score is based on the City of York Council area,. York is not included in the (relatively) new North Yorkshire unitary authority. Living in Wensleydale, you will not count towards their score.

If Scarborough Pirates were still going in the pro-ranks, you would count towards theirs though! 

So out of interest, on what basis do they decide which local council to use? The York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority is in charge of some things - police, fire brigade, quite a big chunk of devolved central government funding for housing, transport, infrastructure etc. and the city council is responsible for others - education & social care for example.  Is it who collects the bins, or who collects speeding tickets that matters  ?

[glossop saint]

29 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

In 2022 Toulouse finished 12th, in 2023 Toulouse finished 14th (2nd in championship), in 2024 its possible to get relegated from 12th but to be on the safe side lets say they finished 13th in the championship (25th overall) So 12+14+25=51. If we divide 51 by 3 we get 17 which would be there or thereabouts where Toulouse would finish on the performance ladder.  The population point would improve that position by 9 places on Wakefield and Castleford.  So, by my calculations it seems it would be possible for them to get relegated and still achieve SL. It would seem the original poster may be correct even though we both know Toulouse won't get relegated. Hope you enjoyed the maths.

I always enjoy maths! But sorry about the sarky comment, it was uncalled for.

Thanks for explaining that in more detail and you are correct that the averaging out over three years does make a difference. However that would represent a fall in their performance score meaning that there would have to be an improvement elsewhere (not in the population as that won't change). That still means a significant strengthening of the club would be needed and thus suggesting they are the right club to have in SL.