IMG Grading System (Many Merged Threads)

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, Dave W said:

I hope it does flow down throughout the game rather than just the top teams benefitting. 

When we had better TV deals, the lower leagues got more money iirc. 

[Dave W]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

When we had better TV deals, the lower leagues got more money iirc. 

We did indeed and I'm struggling to see how the shortfall is going to be made up. It's sink or swim for a lot of clubs at the moment. Some are trying to improve their income streams but I fear some will fold before central funding improves.

[JohnM]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

Are you arguing with yourself John?

It happens.

[Worzel]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Let me reverse that question to you, If this IMG project in its present form results in clubs below SL struggling and maybe closing down, do you want it to succeed.

1. Yes

2. No

Yes. If the project strengthens the elite comp, enabling us to grow audiences and revenues, then yes I’m fine with some clubs below SL struggling and closing down.

I’d rather they didn’t, but unless we secure the elite comp we’re all ultimately doomed anyway so they’d end up closing down regardless. The sport should come before preserving a few clubs. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

Yes. If the project strengthens the elite comp, enabling us to grow audiences and revenues, then yes I’m fine with some clubs below SL struggling and closing down.

I’d rather they didn’t, but unless we secure the elite comp we’re all ultimately doomed anyway so they’d end up closing down regardless. The sport should come before preserving a few clubs. 

Thanks for your honesty Worzel, but I see you have an overrider - highlighted.

Do you think the RFL will allow it to happen, aren't all clubs no matter of what status they occupy equal members of the same body, albeit I know there was a cockeyed voting system in the IMG ballot.

 

[Worzel]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for your honesty Worzel, but I see you have an overrider - highlighted.

Do you think the RFL will allow it to happen, aren't all clubs no matter of what status they occupy equal members of the same body, albeit I know there was a cockeyed voting system in the IMG ballot.

 

No that wasn't a new overider, it was contained in your initial question: "If this IMG project in its present form results in clubs below SL struggling and maybe closing down, do you want it to succeed?"

The success I talked about was assumed in your question, I just restated it back. The project exists to save and grow the elite comp. Those are its terms for success. Only by saving and growing the revenue-generating elite comp does rugby league at any level have a chance for long-term survival. So if some lower league clubs fail in the transition, they would have failed anyway - whether in the same timeframe, or later.

I would rather we have a stronger Super League in 5 years time, with Keighley and Swinton (or whoever) having folded, than a weaker Super League where many more clubs will be in a far worse position than they are today.

The sport as a whole comes first, before any individual club.  

[Angelic Cynic]

On 17/04/2024 at 10:52, Dave T said:

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!

 

The owner of Hull FC has stated the sport is unsustainable,bar a couple of clubs with wealthy benefactors.

It seems Hull FC are still repaying the Covid loan.

They do not own their stadium and match days means the external takings go to either/both soccer club/Council.

The attendances are decreasing yet despite the  off - field situation they are granted an A grading.

Struggling to find how the sport improves if the 'big ' clubs are in decline.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:

The owner of Hull FC has stated the sport is unsustainable,bar a couple of clubs with wealthy benefactors.

It seems Hull FC are still repaying the Covid loan.

They do not own their stadium and match days means the external takings go to either/both soccer club/Council.

The attendances are decreasing yet despite the  off - field situation they are granted an A grading.

Struggling to find how the sport improves if the 'big ' clubs are in decline.

He seems a bit more upbeat than you tbh. 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/adam-pearson-provides-hull-fc-9046149?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

 

[Gooleboy]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

He seems a bit more upbeat than you tbh. 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/adam-pearson-provides-hull-fc-9046149?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

 

That article is from January. I wonder how upbeat he is now.

[DEANO]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

No that wasn't a new overider, it was contained in your initial question: "If this IMG project in its present form results in clubs below SL struggling and maybe closing down, do you want it to succeed?"

The success I talked about was assumed in your question, I just restated it back. The project exists to save and grow the elite comp. Those are its terms for success. Only by saving and growing the revenue-generating elite comp does rugby league at any level have a chance for long-term survival. So if some lower league clubs fail in the transition, they would have failed anyway - whether in the same timeframe, or later.

I would rather we have a stronger Super League in 5 years time, with Keighley and Swinton (or whoever) having folded, than a weaker Super League where many more clubs will be in a far worse position than they are today.

The sport as a whole comes first, before any individual club.  

Every club lost I one less club for players to start and end their careers 

[dkw]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

When we had better TV deals, the lower leagues got more money iirc. 

To be fair it was combined with much lower running costs to enable clubs to be sustainable, there's a huge amount if oncosts for sports clubs now that didn't exist a few decades ago, or weren't as costly at best.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, dkw said:

To be fair it was combined with much lower running costs to enable clubs to be sustainable, there's a huge amount if oncosts for sports clubs now that didn't exist a few decades ago, or weren't as costly at best.

Aye, I'm simply making the point that if more money comes in from the top tv deals, more is paid to the lower divisions. 

[Liverpool Rover]

On 17/04/2024 at 15:38, Dave W said:

 

Everything listed depends on money. Money - or the lack of it - is the main driver here.

I think that is why fandom forms a big part of it.

[dkw]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Aye, I'm simply making the point that if more money comes in from the top tv deals, more is paid to the lower divisions. 

Yeah I get that, and your obviously right. But I do also think there was more "spare" cash to divvy up then as clubs were run on much less costs.

Either way lower league clubs are going to have to change the way they are run going forward, but it's not impossible to do so.

[Liverpool Rover]

On 17/04/2024 at 16:51, JohnM said:

Exactly. I'm not sure every poster gets that.

In this country I feel it gets overlooked with the “sport is all about results on the field”.

[JohnM]

26 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

In this country I feel it gets overlooked with the “sport is all about results on the field”.

I agree. Results on the field are only achieved by the judicious acquiring  earning and spending of money.

[dkw]

 

[Angelic Cynic]

On 18/04/2024 at 17:59, Dave T said:

He seems a bit more upbeat than you tbh. 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/adam-pearson-provides-hull-fc-9046149?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

 

This was the interview - https://www.totalrl.com/owner-adam-pearson-reveals-hull-fcs-real-salary-cap-spend-and-super-league-clubs-losses/

 

I found this one relevant,as well.   For Premier League read IMG

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6pwiQlXnZYs&pp=ygUMbmlnZWwgY2xvdWdo

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:

This was the interview - https://www.totalrl.com/owner-adam-pearson-reveals-hull-fcs-real-salary-cap-spend-and-super-league-clubs-losses/

 

I found this one relevant,as well.   For Premier League read IMG

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6pwiQlXnZYs&pp=ygUMbmlnZWwgY2xvdWdo

I'm not sure what point you are making, and I'm not sure I can blame you, because the quality of writing in this publication is dire:

"Rugby league is now longer a sport that can be self-sustainable. Hull FC can be, in fact we will move towards that at the end of the year having paid a huge government loan for Covid." 

I have no idea what the above means. Is the 'now'  a typo? If he is saying RL is no long self-sustainable, his next line saying Hull can be doesn't make sense. 

So I have no idea of whether Pearson's interview is positive or negative, because the article makes no sense. 

[LeeF]

6 hours ago, dkw said:

 

I thought it was only RL that prevented clubs from being promoted due to off field criteria. Silly me

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, dkw said:

 

Am I missing something, that you post an official football statement on this site?

[Tommygilf]

6 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Am I missing something, that you post an official football statement on this site?

Promotion in football being outright denied because of off field matters not results on the pitch. P/R isn't blind "simple sporting contest" at all in this country it seems.

[Archie Gordon]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Promotion in football being outright denied because of off field matters not results on the pitch. P/R isn't blind "simple sporting contest" at all in this country it seems.

Not many (any) on here are against minimum standards. Also, a bit odd to use that example in support of the IMG system given Salford's impressive rating with only months left on their tenure. I can only guess that people who regard ground tenure as important are pretty disappointed in the IMG criteria being so lax on that.

[gingerjon]

16 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Not many (any) on here are against minimum standards. Also, a bit odd to use that example in support of the IMG system given Salford's impressive rating with only months left on their tenure. I can only guess that people who regard ground tenure as important are pretty disappointed in the IMG criteria being so lax on that.

I think I said at the time that it was an indicator of the criteria being marked as cheaply as possible.

Doing things in such a way is a rugby league wide problem.

[dkw]

9 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Am I missing something, that you post an official football statement on this site?

Yes.