The Reality of the IMG Grading System

[Taffy Tiger]

9 minutes ago, DEANO said:

Is this the same criteria sl demanded when sky bought the game

Hi DEANO

wasn't sure there were any demands made

 

There were some stipulations around franchising , relating to facilities I think , but not sure if any other demands have been made

[JonM]

Bradford in 4th place currently appears to put them 0.01 point above Leigh, if my maths is correct.

[Taffy Tiger]

2 minutes ago, JonM said:

Bradford in 4th place currently appears to put them 0.01 point above Leigh, if my maths is correct.

Hi JohnM , doesn't look right to me

[Griff]

6 minutes ago, JonM said:

Bradford in 4th place currently appears to put them 0.01 point above Leigh, if my maths is correct.

Is that assuming that nothing else has changed?

[LeeF]

26 minutes ago, JonM said:

Bradford in 4th place currently appears to put them 0.01 point above Leigh, if my maths is correct.

If that decided the 12th/ 13th place then it would create the mother of all meltdowns and accusations of corruption ever seen on this forum with the Moderators issuing more bans than the MRP do on week 1 of a new season

[Harry Stottle]

33 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Yes. I've explained how and why in previous posts. 

Q.  Do you want the Reimagining project to work or to fail?

I must have missed your previous posts please reiterate just so as I can understand.

A. I think I have made my point very clear in previous posts, I don't think that these methods will do the sport any favours collectively under SL, and for that reason in a few years I think the administrators will have a decision to make, stay with IMG and let the rest wither away or reverse this system.

[JonM]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Is that assuming that nothing else has changed?

Yes. I'm assuming that in reality, Leigh will have other things in flight that increase their score.

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, Dave T said:

It's always the struggling teams who will claim this isn't it? And tbh, it looks like it can only really be the case for Cas, and that smacks of excuses. The London one is a unique situation that won't ever happen again under this system.

Wilkin was aiming it at Hull FC also Dave.

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, iffleyox said:

Ironic, when chronic short termism and spending on the team on the pitch at the expense of everything else is the besetting problem that has got us to here...

Who have you got in mind Foxy?

Edited April 17 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, LeeF said:

If that decided the 12th/ 13th place then it would create the mother of all meltdowns and accusations of corruption ever seen on this forum with the Moderators issuing more bans than the MRP do on week 1 of a new season

It couldn't happen could it?

By what press on a keyboard could Bradford be above Leigh, even as it stands at the moment without the upgraded figures entered.

[LeeF]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It couldn't happen could it?

By what press on a keyboard could Bradford be above Leigh, even as it stands at the moment without the upgraded figures entered.

Why couldn’t it happen? Anything is possible. Someone else has done the maths.

BTW have you anything to say on my response to your video of Degsy?
 

[phiggins]

15 hours ago, JonM said:

Bradford in 4th place currently appears to put them 0.01 point above Leigh, if my maths is correct.

Not sure how that works. Leigh's score last year was effectively 12.2, once you remove the cup bonus and Bradford's was 12.02. Performance score alone wouldn't move Bradford past Leigh with a 4th placed finish, given they finished 5th in 2021, so the improvement in performance score would be very small. 

Though, my maths is rarely correct to be fair.

[Harry Stottle]

18 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Why couldn’t it happen? Anything is possible. Someone else has done the maths.

BTW have you anything to say on my response to your video of Degsy?
 

Yes anything is possible, best leave it at that.

You seem to think that Mr Beaumont has thought all that up himself re the financials he speaks about in the video, have you considered that he possibly just has accountants/advisors he utiluses/employs not only in his business life but also in Leigh Leopards club matters?

[LeeF]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes anything is possible, best leave it at that.

You seem to think that Mr Beaumont has thought all that up himself re the financials he speaks about in the video, have you considered that he possibly just has accountants/advisors he utiluses/employs not only in his business life but also in Leigh Leopards club matters?

Have you actually read what I posted? Clearly not, so best leave you to it as that discussion ain’t going anywhere either

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Wilkin was aiming it at Hull FC also Dave.

But what are they focusing off the field instead of on-field? They are a grade A. 

And we saw this claimed a couple of weeks back and that they were accepting mediocrity - they then sacked Smith, showing they weren't accepting it. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But what are they focusing off the field instead of on-field? They are a grade A. 

And we saw this claimed a couple of weeks back and that they were accepting mediocrity - they then sacked Smith, showing they weren't accepting it. 

He was saying how they are not spending money in the playing roster, his words not mine please don't shoot the messenger.

Anyway we will see if they upgrade their spend with whoever the new boss is, then it would seem not fair on Smith if they did spend more on team matters.

Edited April 17 by Harry Stottle

[phiggins]

@Harry Stottle - This is the closest that I can find to the interview with DB that I referenced earlier. Apologies, if it is just quotes from the YouTube interview, but didn't recall him stating that the finance score had been verified by the RFL: https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/derek-beaumont-makes-bold-img-claim-amid-relegation-rumours-87821/

Main claim is that there will be a 2.5 increase in finance score, and that has been verified by the RFL. That would take Leigh's score to 14.7 after the Challenge cup defeat, and I would expect a slight increase in stadium utilisation score. Though, I don't know if there are likely any deductions due because of off field disciplinaries.

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But what are they focusing off the field instead of on-field? They are a grade A. 

And we saw this claimed a couple of weeks back and that they were accepting mediocrity - they then sacked Smith, showing they weren't accepting it. 

For whatever the rights and wrongs of where clubs focus their money and attention, I think the fact that Hull are a grade A is a poor reflection on the system. 

Given an A grade was originally supposed to give immunity (although now not relevant unless 13 or more score 15+), I'm not sure we should be giving that to a club that has performed as Hull have the last few years. I think if we are giving exemptions from relegation, it would be for clubs like Wigan, where you can safely say it would take a freak year to see them finish bottom, and that it would feasible for them to be competitive again the following year.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

He was saying how they are not spending money in the playing roster, his words not mine please don't shoot the messenger.

Anyway we will see if they upgrade their spend with whoever the new boss is, then it would seem not fair on Smith if they did spend more on team matters.

I'm loathe to spend too much time debating Wilkin's words, I think he is useless, but I don't buy that clubs aren't interested in winning and they are just happy with safety. There is no money to be made in RL, so spending money to just be at the top table for a club like Hull makes no sense. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, phiggins said:

For whatever the rights and wrongs of where clubs focus their money and attention, I think the fact that Hull are a grade A is a poor reflection on the system. 

Given an A grade was originally supposed to give immunity (although now not relevant unless 13 or more score 15+), I'm not sure we should be giving that to a club that has performed as Hull have the last few years. I think if we are giving exemptions from relegation, it would be for clubs like Wigan, where you can safely say it would take a freak year to see them finish bottom, and that it would feasible for them to be competitive again the following year.

I'm not sure I agree, although Hull do make it hard to defend as they are a bit of a basket case, but then they were just as bad under the previous few systems we had too. 

But in terms of wanting a league with strong clubs, Hull absolutely would be in there. The fact that they are making bad rugby decisions doesn't massively change that.

Considering they have been poor on field, they still outperform most RL clubs in the country off the field. I suppose it all comes down to whether you buy I to he principal of strong clubs rather than strong teams. 

[JohnM]

16 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi JohnM , doesn't look right to me

JonM not JohnM, though those who know me would agree on my appearance.

[Harry Stottle]

28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I agree, although Hull do make it hard to defend as they are a bit of a basket case, but then they were just as bad under the previous few systems we had too. 

But in terms of wanting a league with strong clubs, Hull absolutely would be in there. The fact that they are making bad rugby decisions doesn't massively change that.

Considering they have been poor on field, they still outperform most RL clubs in the country off the field. I suppose it all comes down to whether you buy I to he principal of strong clubs rather than strong teams. 

I agree with @phiggins If he is saying the bar is set to low for grade A classification, I said it right at the beginning of the process just having 3 grades was nowhere near sufficient at least 6 would be the minimum, never mind this upper and lower sections of grades, give them proper categories where clubs can see the next level to aim for.

Edited April 17 by Harry Stottle

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I agree with @phiggins If he is saying the bar is set to low for grade A classification, I said it right at the beginning of the process just having 3 grades was nowhere near sufficient at least 6 would be the minimum, never mind this upper and lower sections of grades, give them proper categories where clubs can see the next level to aim for.

I don't have an issue with Hull FC being graded as an A club. They are absolutely the kind of club that we should have in SL. I think it's one for their fans and board to be annoyed about that they don't play great rugby!

 

[phiggins]

55 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I agree, although Hull do make it hard to defend as they are a bit of a basket case, but then they were just as bad under the previous few systems we had too. 

But in terms of wanting a league with strong clubs, Hull absolutely would be in there. The fact that they are making bad rugby decisions doesn't massively change that.

Considering they have been poor on field, they still outperform most RL clubs in the country off the field. I suppose it all comes down to whether you buy I to he principal of strong clubs rather than strong teams. 

There is a balance between the principal of strong clubs and teams, and that balance needs to be found by clubs when they decide how to spend the money they have. But my view is that you need to be a strong club to be consistently competitive on the field. For example, Saints might not be favourites to win SL this year, but they will be competitive because of their strong off field systems that supports the first team. If they were to have a freak year of injuries, finish bottom but stay up, you'd fancy them to be competitive again the following year.

Hull haven't been very good on the field for a few years, which to me suggests that the off field stuff isn't as strong as you would hope for a grade A club. If they finish bottom but survive, you wouldn't back them to be much better next year without some significant off field improvements. 

 

 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

There is a balance between the principal of strong clubs and teams, and that balance needs to be found by clubs when they decide how to spend the money they have. But my view is that you need to be a strong club to be consistently competitive on the field. For example, Saints might not be favourites to win SL this year, but they will be competitive because of their strong off field systems that supports the first team. If they were to have a freak year of injuries, finish bottom but stay up, you'd fancy them to be competitive again the following year.

Hull haven't been very good on the field for a few years, which to me suggests that the off field stuff isn't as strong as you would hope for a grade A club. If they finish bottom but survive, you wouldn't back them to be much better next year without some significant off field improvements. 

 

 

I do think though clubs are allowed to make rubbish rugby decisions, that's part of the fun. My team have under-performed over the last couple of years, and Leeds aren't where they maybe should be. But these are the clubs that are strong off the field - playing in good grounds, doing well financially, getting sponsors, big crowds. 

The fact that Hull have been hovering around 8th for the last decade is for them to be peed off with, but they are still delivering 5 figure crowds, including one of the biggest games of every year. 

I think it's OK that a strong club is getting it wrong on the field, that's the interesting sport bit.