BY JOHN DAVIDSON
Much debate has raged since IMG released its club gradings last week. Many supporters, clubs and individuals involved in the sport are unhappy, puzzled and seriously questioning IMG’s criteria and its effectiveness in ‘imagining British rugby league’ two and half years after they were appointed.
I’ve been gathering my own thoughts and perspective on the subject for a few days, and speaking to different people across the sport, when I received an email from a long-time fan, who is also a consultant, by the name of Paul Greenhalgh.
This is some of what Paul wrote to me:
“Here are a few thoughts on the state of the game in the UK, written in nothing more than the spirit of sharing ideas.
1. When I looked at the link that you sent me (which you can read here) about the whole IMG grading thing, I was initially quite impressed, but when I reflected, I started to think a mixture of “no shit” and “so what?”. It was like “mom’s apple pie” and no one could really argue with any of the 6 main aspirations, but that in itself made me think that something was amiss.
2. The next thing that came to mind was that for all its entire history in the UK (c130 years) the game at its top level has been trying and failing to achieve the types of things it is looking to do now. For example, in its earliest days, the Northern Union went so far as to drop from 15 to 13 a-side to make the game more spectator-friendly so there is a theme there. It’s always wanted to change, without ever quite knowing what it wants to be.
3. Then I thought about why hasn’t the game ever really made that step forward that we’re kind of still talking about. There are a range of external factors at play here, such as historical sabotage from the RFU, but often the issues lie within the sport itself and more specifically with the types of people who historically and even now tend to be key. Rugby League club ownership has been and often still is the preserve of the local boy made good. What better way to show you’ve arrived than by buying [insert club here]. Often the fortunes of the clubs can be tied to the arrival, largesse and ultimate departure of these self-made men (I’m sure you can think of a few current and recent examples) and this brings me back to my first point.
4. As I have found in many commercial organisations, the wish to change is genuine. In this context, I don’t think that there is any grand conspiracy at play in favour of or against any club. What I would say though is that, there is often a lack of vision in the people concerned and so despite all the comms from IMG they can’t really define what a super Super League of the future would look like. Also, to most of those involved, change is what everyone else needs to do, not them (another common theme from my working life). Thirdly. there is probably a degree of groupthink going on here too.
5. So what you get are two things: Firstly a muddled (I might be being a bit harsh there) set of criteria that look like they’ve been built from the bottom up rather than from the top down (I hope that I’ve explained that bit well enough in terms of they don’t paint a picture of what a great super league club looks like) and which can and have been easily gamed by quite a few clubs (e.g. the debt question, not just LEDs). Second, an outcome that largely just reinforces the status quo. I have a gut feeling that IMG maybe had a grander vision in mind when they first came on board, but if they couldn’t tease out a vision from the customer (the Super League club owners in this case) then they are left to implement an imperfect compromise.
6. So what am I getting at – I suppose what I’m questioning is whether there is a genuine appetite to re-imagine the game in the UK and if what we’re actually seeing is lip service being paid. Also, that maybe the issue currently for IMG is one of expectations being raised and then them delivering a bit of a damp squib. I don’t think anyone is going to say this in public, but the exercise is about reinforcing the power of the powerful as much as anything else, and by definition entrenching the supporting role of everyone else. Where it has gone wrong though, is that more of the middling fish have got through the net than was expected and this has created the unconvincing illusion that there are more self-sufficient strong clubs than there actually are. Some of the grades don’t pass the sniff test… I haven’t tried this, but I’d be interested to see how Chat GPT answered the prompt “grade all the professional rugby league clubs in the UK by a set of objective criteria”.
Now I thought this was a good idea so I have done this, used Chat GPT with that specific question, and this is what the AI platform came up with:
“Grading professional rugby league clubs in the UK can be approached using several objective criteria. Here’s a framework you could use, with a focus on key areas such as performance, financial stability, fan engagement, facilities, and youth development.
Criteria for Grading:
-
On-field Performance:
-
Historical success (trophies won)
-
Recent league standings
-
Playoff appearances
-
-
Financial Stability:
-
Revenue generation
-
Debt levels
-
Investment in the club (e.g., player wages, facilities)
-
-
Fan Engagement:
-
Average match attendance
-
Social media presence and engagement
-
Community initiatives and outreach
-
-
Facilities:
-
Stadium capacity and condition
-
Training facilities quality
-
Accessibility for fans
-
-
Youth Development:
-
Investment in youth academies
-
Number of players promoted to the first team
-
Success of youth teams in competitions
-
Grading Example:
Here’s a hypothetical grading system based on the criteria above, with clubs assessed on a scale from A to F:
A (Excellent)
-
Wigan Warriors
-
Strong historical success and consistent performance.
-
Robust financial health.
-
High average attendance and strong community ties.
-
Modern stadium with excellent facilities.
-
Notable youth academy with successful player development.
-
B (Good)
-
St Helens
-
Recent success in the league and playoffs.
-
Good financial management.
-
Solid fan engagement and attendance.
-
Well-maintained stadium and training facilities.
-
Active youth development program.
-
C (Average)
-
Leeds Rhinos
-
Competitive but inconsistent recent performance.
-
Decent financial standing but some debt.
-
Moderate fan engagement with good attendance.
-
Reasonable facilities, but some upgrades needed.
-
Youth academy has potential but limited recent success.
-
D (Below Average)
-
Hull FC
-
Struggling in recent seasons.
-
Financial concerns with high debt.
-
Lower attendance figures and fan engagement.
-
Outdated facilities needing improvement.
-
Youth development lacking focus and results.
-
F (Poor)
-
London Broncos
-
Minimal recent success and relegation struggles.
-
Financial instability and limited revenue.
-
Very low attendance and engagement.
-
Inadequate facilities and training resources.
-
Youth program underdeveloped with few pathways to the first team.
-
Conclusion:
This grading system can provide a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of each club. However, it’s important to note that these assessments can vary based on recent developments and performance changes, and additional context should be considered for a fair evaluation.”
Now, make what you will of Paul’s views, and also of the conclusions of Chat GPT above.
Personally, I think they are quite telling and make for interesting reading.
I’ve published Paul’s comments because I think he has articulated the situation well for somewhat of an outsider.
It’s important to constantly gather views from different sources and educate yourself as much as possible.
My own position on IMG and its influence has fluctuated and evolved since May 2022 when they were hired. It is of course a 12-year partnership, and change won’t occur overnight.
But it is reasonable to evaluate as time goes by and check progress.
Is the general consensus at the moment towards IMG fair and reasonable, or overblown or unfair? It is more unjustified negativity, or accurate reflection?
You can draw your own conclusions.
