IMG Gradings confirmed

[nathan_rugby]

I don't understand why people are questioning the results? The criteria is plain to see.

I could understand if people were questioning the criteria or the weightings.... (Which, on a high level, I disagree with as academies aren't mentioned and you get penalised on weightings).

I would like to see the specific results so we can compare against St Helens and Leeds and see where we have fallen down and where we could improve upon.

[southportcdm]

Does this mean that Wakey could effectively block a team from coming up from the championship next season? i.e. if Wakey finish bottom nobody can come up even if they win the league and get graded at A?

I know lots of us disagree with the various gradings but the most obvious bone of contention for me is the crowd size. How can it be right that team averaging 7 500 score the same points as a team averaging nearly 14 000? They should have a sliding scale with fractions of points for every additional 500 or 1 000.

[nathan_rugby]

Does this mean that Wakey could effectively block a team from coming up from the championship next season? i.e. if Wakey finish bottom nobody can come up even if they win the league and get graded at A?

I know lots of us disagree with the various gradings but the most obvious bone of contention for me is the crowd size. How can it be right that team averaging 7 500 score the same points as a team averaging nearly 14 000? They should have a sliding scale with fractions of points for every additional 500 or 1 000.

If you get Grade A then you get a place in super league, unless there are more than 12 teams in Super League then it needs to get the existing super league clubs approval as it would require splitting the central funding pot further.

[WarriorWinger]

Does this mean that Wakey could effectively block a team from coming up from the championship next season? i.e. if Wakey finish bottom nobody can come up even if they win the league and get graded at A?

I know lots of us disagree with the various gradings but the most obvious bone of contention for me is the crowd size. How can it be right that team averaging 7 500 score the same points as a team averaging nearly 14 000? They should have a sliding scale with fractions of points for every additional 500 or 1 000.

If you get Grade A then you get a place in super league, unless there are more than 12 teams in Super League then it needs to get the existing super league clubs approval as it would require splitting the central funding pot further.

In that scenario IMG/RFL should not reveal what the gradings for the 'upcoming' season are, therefore the clubs in theory would be voting blind to include or exclude the new club, that way if the newly graded A club has a higher score than one of the lower graded A clubs they would replace an existing SL club, otherwise the clubs will always block a new entrant if it means slicing the pie thinner

[the pieman]

as i put on my post on the other thread Wakey and Cas should be nowhere near GRADE A, and the farce that is IMG / RFL etc now has them scoring higher than Salford, Huddersfield and Hull. All 3 have far better grounds, Hull definitely better supported, and Salford have had a period of relative success in terms of league position, GF etc,

one noticeable thing from the above though is that none of those clubs own their own ground, so have they been marked down like Wigan, because they choose to do something at the start of SL, and invest in new stadia

[nathan_rugby]

Does this mean that Wakey could effectively block a team from coming up from the championship next season? i.e. if Wakey finish bottom nobody can come up even if they win the league and get graded at A?

I know lots of us disagree with the various gradings but the most obvious bone of contention for me is the crowd size. How can it be right that team averaging 7 500 score the same points as a team averaging nearly 14 000? They should have a sliding scale with fractions of points for every additional 500 or 1 000.

If you get Grade A then you get a place in super league, unless there are more than 12 teams in Super League then it needs to get the existing super league clubs approval as it would require splitting the central funding pot further.

In that scenario IMG/RFL should not reveal what the gradings for the 'upcoming' season are, therefore the clubs in theory would be voting blind to include or exclude the new club, that way if the newly graded A club has a higher score than one of the lower graded A clubs they would replace an existing SL club, otherwise the clubs will always block a new entrant if it means slicing the pie thinner

Good point.

Either they vote to expand Super League for all Grade As, or the lowest ranked Grade A goes down...

[the pieman]

Looking at the comparison between 2023 & 2024 scoring. i've not yet looked at the specific towers but should be able do that later

Wigan 16.78 to 16.91 - so winning everything gave us .13. We have the highest average attendance, won everything, need i say more. yes there are things that can be improved on, but at the minute, our score can in reality only go down as we wont win all the trophies

Leeds 17.49 to 16.84. On pitch performance has been poor, but that suggests failings in other areas too

Saints 16.87 to 17.02 i personally dont see what they've done, as their on pitch performance has fallen, so that score would be down, but what have they done to increase by 0.15 which is more than Wigan in the last 12 months

other noticeable
Wakey 12.52 to 15.09 - built new stand (fair enough) but still not GRADE A IMO
Cas 12.16 to 15.02 - added about 100 seats in a stand, def not GRADE A IMO
Leigh 12.45 to 15.12 - credit to DB (much as many of us dont like him) as he has rebranded, game day entertainment and pulled in some decent crowds at the sports village

I was expecting a big jump for Bradford too, as there is always a clamour for them to be a SL side, but being fair their scoring hasnt changed much and reflective of where they are, but thats also what should have happened elsewhere (see above)

[nathan_rugby]

Looking at the comparison between 2023 & 2024 scoring. i've not yet looked at the specific towers but should be able do that later

Wigan 16.78 to 16.91 - so winning everything gave us .13. We have the highest average attendance, won everything, need i say more. yes there are things that can be improved on, but at the minute, our score can in reality only go down as we wont win all the trophies

Leeds 17.49 to 16.84. On pitch performance has been poor, but that suggests failings in other areas too

Saints 16.87 to 17.02 i personally dont see what they've done, as their on pitch performance has fallen, so that score would be down, but what have they done to increase by 0.15 which is more than Wigan in the last 12 months

other noticeable
Wakey 12.52 to 15.09 - built new stand (fair enough) but still not GRADE A IMO
Cas 12.16 to 15.02 - added about 100 seats in a stand, def not GRADE A IMO
Leigh 12.45 to 15.12 - credit to DB (much as many of us dont like him) as he has rebranded, game day entertainment and pulled in some decent crowds at the sports village

I was expecting a big jump for Bradford too, as there is always a clamour for them to be a SL side, but being fair their scoring hasnt changed much and reflective of where they are, but thats also what should have happened elsewhere (see above)

I am not sure how you can comment on these aspects without knowing the results?

Part of the grading is based on:
- Viewership
- Digital
- Revenue Diversification
- Sustainability
- Profitability
- annual turnover of the club's charitable foundation

[medlocke]

Another interesting effect of these grading is Wakefield can’t be relegated next season. So despite potentially having the worst squad and finishing bottom they will be immune.

So in theory any of the grade B sides can go down instead and if Wakey can get grade A status (which does baffle me) then so could another championship side.

I thought this year was the last year for relegation

Grade A teams can’t go down Grade B teams can.

Was not aware of that Dave, cheers

[doc]

If Saints crowd is a higher %age capacity compared to ours I guess they got browny points for that. Quite likely as Good Friday match was at their place this year and the ground capacity is lower.

May also get browny points for womens performance.