The Reality of the IMG Grading System

2 hours 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.

Its a nicely timed counterpoint to show that the exact same thing happens in many other sports, its pretty much part of the vast majority of pro and semi pro competitions.

1 minute ago, dkw said:

Its a nicely timed counterpoint to show that the exact same thing happens in many other sports, its pretty much part of the vast majority of pro and semi pro competitions.

The amusing twist is that the league got their rule wrong and gave a bye to the wrong club (apparently). That has now been sorted.

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The amusing twist is that the league got their rule wrong and gave a bye to the wrong club (apparently). That has now been sorted.

Useless RFL and IMG....oh wait..

3 hours 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.

Thanks for the explanation Tommy, @Archie Gordon has answered it perfectly, nothing else to add.

I don't think the football, and the Gateshead story is a particularly valid comparison or vindication of this grading system. In football they use on field competition to determine who is promoted and off field criteria to determine their eligibility. In RL, we're moving to a system where it is a competition both on and off the field for those clubs that are uncertain of which league they will be in.

I think if we'd adopted a similiar approach to football, with P&R subject to minimum standards, then there wouldn't be quite as much debate on the subject as long as implemented fairly (i.e. clubs already in have to also meet those minimum standards)

4 hours 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 am actually pretty disappointed that this isn't so strict. That said, Salford seem to have maxxed out their scores in their current situation too and are still only a B.

Likewise, this is still a compromise that had to be agreed on by the clubs. Turkey's won't generally vote for Christmas.

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for the explanation Tommy, @Archie Gordon has answered it perfectly, nothing else to add.

Archie merely commented on minimum standards and the levels of them in IMG grading. I didn't gather from any of your previous posts that such trivial matters compared to on the pitch performance to you? 

Seems an odd about-turn!

15 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Archie merely commented on minimum standards and the levels of them in IMG grading. I didn't gather from any of your previous posts that such trivial matters compared to on the pitch performance to you? 

Seems an odd about-turn!

It ain't an about turn whatsoever Tommy, the triviality as you put it is part of the process and ultimately the total score alloted just like finances, padded seats for directors, clicks on keyboards, the amount of times a team has matches broadcast, led advertising boards, surely you have seen where I have took umbridge against those?

41 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I am actually pretty disappointed that this isn't so strict. That said, Salford seem to have maxxed out their scores in their current situation too and are still only a B.

Likewise, this is still a compromise that had to be agreed on by the clubs. Turkey's won't generally vote for Christmas.

Have they maxxed out though? From their indicative grading, their biggest failing was finances, where they scored 2.15 out of 4.5. It's not beyond the realms of possibility to see them increase on that score with transfer fees for Dupree, Croft and Ackers accounted for, as well as any money they've had in from the council. If they do, then that plus the fact they scored 4.15/5 for fandom will show some pretty significant gaps between how this system sees clubs and reality.

41 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It ain't an about turn whatsoever Tommy, the triviality as you put it is part of the process and ultimately the total score alloted just like finances, padded seats for directors, clicks on keyboards, the amount of times a team has matches broadcast, led advertising boards, surely you have seen where I have took umbridge against those?

I have, but that is the past. I can't believe that is your position now! Welcome to the IMG lover group mate!

18 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Have they maxxed out though? From their indicative grading, their biggest failing was finances, where they scored 2.15 out of 4.5. It's not beyond the realms of possibility to see them increase on that score with transfer fees for Dupree, Croft and Ackers accounted for, as well as any money they've had in from the council. If they do, then that plus the fact they scored 4.15/5 for fandom will show some pretty significant gaps between how this system sees clubs and reality.

I think I remember I think DaveT surmising it well at the time that for a club like Salford, without a major investor to kick them onto the next level or another major off field change, they'll struggle to get lots more points in most areas. The financial areas you cite are a lot of them balancing the books rather than generating profit as I understand it - they were due to go bust at one point.

The fandom score again is an example of where they are maxxed out.

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I have, but that is the past. I can't believe that is your position now! Welcome to the IMG lover group mate!

Pardon, no such thing, that insinuation is like saying Tommy Robinson should be the next Foreign Secratary !

9 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The financial areas you cite are a lot of them balancing the books 

Which will become the norm for a lot of clubs, "To hell with the game, let's get points on the spreadsheet".

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Pardon, no such thing, that insinuation is like saying Tommy Robinson should be the next Foreign Secratary !

Well I'm sure you won't be going on about minimum standards nonsense again! 

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Which will become the norm for a lot of clubs, "To hell with the game, let's get points on the spreadsheet".

For Salford it was a case of "to hell with the game, lets make sure the club doesn't go bust". I think they would do that under any system at any point in history.

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

For Salford it was a case of "to hell with the game, lets make sure the club doesn't go bust". I think they would do that under any system at any point in history.

I didn't mention Salford Tommy, I just followed your lead:-

"The financial areas you cite are a lot of them balancing the books"

I replied with:-

Which will become the norm for a lot of clubs, 

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I didn't mention Salford Tommy, I just followed your lead:-

"The financial areas you cite are a lot of them balancing the books"

I replied with:-

Which will become the norm for a lot of clubs, 

I made the point in direct reference to Salford.

And likewise, there's the entire rest of the criteria to safeguard against that. Wakefield balanced the books for a decade under Carter, their crowds were often poor, their finances minimal, their stadium falling to pieces - those things also would have been taken into account and hurt them.

10 hours ago, gingerjon said:

The amusing twist is that the league got their rule wrong and gave a bye to the wrong club (apparently). That has now been sorted.

That would never happen in Rugby League.

21 minutes ago, Griff said:

That would never happen in Rugby League.

No they would also get the correction wrong