https://www.londonbroncosrl.com/david-h ... mg-grading Does this have more or less impact releasing this now? Or is anyone bothered what he thinks?

https://www.londonbroncosrl.com/david-h ... mg-grading Does this have more or less impact releasing this now? Or is anyone bothered what he thinks?

Following a 4 months IMG consultation, clubs strongly supported the principle of a grading system in October 2022. The final criteria were approved by a strong majority of clubs (including London Broncos) in April 2023.

Grading crtieria are openly published and the Broncos provisional score of 8.07 (rank 24) was certainly in line with what I personally expected.

Let's see how Hughes comments stack up.

[iOur promotion last year was a magnificent achievement and it should have put us back in a position to push the club forward and to grow the sport in the country’s capital. However, instead of planning for the future where we can once again establish ourselves in Super League, we find ourselves being graded on the last 3 years - which have arguably been the toughest in the club's history. London Broncos have been in Super League for 21 out of the 28 years of its existence.[/i

Not surprisingly, the performance pillar is the joint largest single element of the grading system representing 25% of the score available. Judging performance over 3 years seems perfectly reasonable if straightforward promotion and relegation is no longer the system. Arguably Hughes did not know when he assembled such a dismal playing and coaching squad for 2022 that this would count towards the grading for the 2025 season but the chickens have come home to roost. While that squad did get bolstered in order to avoid relegation, the 11th place Championship finish in 2022 is clearly now doing us no favours. Our score will improve in this area by virtue of being in SL for 2024 but not by enough to make a difference.

[iLondon Broncos were relegated from Super League in 2019 the same year in which the COVID pandemic struck the globe. Relegation and the pandemic forced the club to become part-time, a very difficult but necessary financial decision. During this period clubs have since fallen into financial troubles, with some going into administration and others disappearing altogether. At no point have we suffered such issues yet some of those clubs receive a higher score for finances than ourselves.[/i

The finance pillar represents 22.5% of the points available. The majority of that comes from revenue diversification. Basically meaning turnover that is generated by the club rather than derived from central funding. This makes absolute sense if you want to encourage sustainable clubs. However, it is an area Hughes has consistently failed to focus on since he took over sole control and indeed he has overseen steady erosion of the fanbase and the subsequent ability to generate income. We have seen a rather obsessive focus on selling premium tickets but not much else. Reliance on the wealth of an individual to support the club is not a good model (and therefore does not score well).

[iWe have worked tirelessly within our community to discover talent and create a pathway to professional rugby league. In a part of the world which is dominated by other sports, in particular rugby union, we have been very successful. We have helped to produce countless players who now ply their trade in Super League and even current England players (Mike McMeekan & Kai Pearce Paul) have come through our academy. In last season’s Championship winning squad there was just one person who was born in the north of the country - that was the head coach Mike Eccles.

We made the difficult decision not to run our academy in 2024 - a decision that was made with the new IMG grading criteria in mind. We will instead run a new ‘Lions Development’ programme which will still see us create a pathway for youngsters in London and the surrounding areas. Within the IMG grading criteria there is no direct reward for having an academy and producing players. We all share the same ambition to grow the sport, so why would this not be included in the criteria yet something like the amount of social media followers a team has is?[/i

The academy has proved to be a good pipeline but we do not retain the best players. In the past (LMS, Clubb etc) it seemed we tended to get a few seasons out of them before they moved on. Despite that, we have a large proportion of the squad fed by the academy and for that reason the academy should have been retained despite it not forming part of the grading criteria. Having a talent & perfomance pathway is part of the (non scoring) minimum standard to be graded A or B so the club really had no choice but to do that. Seems to me Hughes' decision here is a hissy fit.

[iWe embrace the challenges that we face by being the only professional club south of the midlands and the only Super League club south of Castleford (in the UK). We acknowledge that we still have a long way to go to establish the club and sport within London. However, there can be no denying that due to its size and population London’s potential remains as big as it has ever been. Yet despite being in London and being the only professional club in the south of the country we were awarded the lowest possible score for our catchment area. This needs to be re-looked at.[/i

The community pillar represents 12.5% of the criteria scoring. Within this pillar, 60% of the score is given to a calulation of area population of Local Authority District (2021 census) divided by number of Tier 1 and 2 clubs in that area. I don't see how we were awarded the lowest possible score which would be 0.5 grading points for <130K. Merton's population is 215,324. This should gain 1 grading point as the relevant band is 130K - 260K. Only a further 0.5 point is available with 260K+ being awarded 1.5 grading points. If Hughes is correct that we were awarded the lowest score then this should simply be appealed. (FYI Ealing has a population of 344,837)

[iPromotion and relegation should be a staple of all sports. We are proud of this tradition whereas in other countries promotion and relegation is not always the case. It’s what brings the excitement to sport! Condemning a club to relegation before a ball has even been kicked takes away the jeopardy and drama that makes the millions tune in week on week, year after year. If London Broncos finish the 2024 season in 11th place or higher there has to be a scenario in place in which we stay in the division.[/i

He maybe has a point but the time to take this stand was probably when the criteria were being voted on. Several Championship and League 1 clubs did vote against and a couple abstained. Hughes voted for a system based on grading instead of promotion and relegation. Maybe when he voted he should have been thinking about the scenario of us getting promoted but perhaps given the squad we had in April 2023 that was not in his mind.

[iWe all share the same goal of improving rugby league and we are aware that in scenarios like this it is impossible to universally please everyone. London Broncos want to work with IMG to improve as a club and we continue to have the long term aim of achieving a Grade A status - but we also urge IMG to consider the points being put to them by the many clubs who have raised similar concerns. This is not to act as a moan but simply to once again open up the conversation about the criteria being put forward by IMG as how to grow but protect the sport in which we all love.[/i

Fair enough, I'm sure the grading system is not perfect but it delivered the score we deserved (given the criteria as published).

We are actually paying the price of Hughes decisions over a period of years. I note Hughes only indirectly mentions areas relating to the fandom pillar which is the joint highest scoring at 25% of grading points and an area where we will have scored particularly badly.

[iWe acknowledge that we still have a long way to go to establish the club and sport within London.[/i

Indeed, even despite moving to a bigger stadium (which will have boosted our score given the 15% of grading points awarded to this), Hughes has failed to invest in promoting the club and arresting the declining fanbase. We will get better scoring as a result of visiting fans next season but this is not the answer to our problems. The required focus for Hughes to improve the club is straightforwardGrow the home support
[*]Become financially sustainable
[*]Be a consistently competitive Championship club
[*]Reinstate the academy

Doing these things will improve our ratings and pave the way for a SL return on a sound basis.

If Hughes cannot commit to this then his priority should be to find an investor who will.

Dear Dave
I know you're a huge fan of these forums where a dozen or so "old whiners" reside and proffer advice from th comfort of their armchairs.
Just a short note to reiterate what was being said back as early as 2002.....oh...and to add YOU CAN'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED.
If you'd not have nudged Paul Brown out, employed McKay, pi55ed off Harlequins union, spat your dummy out after the loss to Wigan in the cup then let the EFL shop us to Barnet, make the accountant CEO then followed that by shifting us to the wedding venue (remember the video when you said it was perfect) and then bounced us south of the river on the whim of a t-shirt salesman and a hockey fan, both of whom were failing in their roles but needed a distraction.
Promotion both times was lucky.....your failure to spend anything on promotion and fan retention has been criminal, so suck it up buttercup and stop whining like a spoilt brat. YOU CAUSED THIS long before IMG.

Ok I can see they’ve just posted about a local event with businesses. Who knows how well these things do but that is the type of thing they need to do - so that’s a positive.

No offence to the club but looking at the pics from the business group meeting it looks like the representative from the clubs offices has turned up in a pair of old jeans.Really?
It looks like the people from businesses have turned up smartly but what sort of impression does that give to prospective future sponsors with the impression that the club wants to give out.

I confess in the spirit of unremitting negativity I wondered about that as well. I also wondered if, bearing in mind that they are FT now and this is an important area for development we need to get better at whether we could have got an additional player involved. Obviously we don’t want more players than guests but maybe they could identify someone who also could do a good job along with Natoli. I suspect Oli L, Lovell, Parata could all do a job but suspect they are all PT. what about Williams or even Jack Hughes- suspect he’s had a good education and could make a decent job of it. Situation was crying out for Dalton G but he’s moved on.

It is not the first time that at meetings with sponsors or potential sponsors, the club representatives have turned up looking like homeless people.

Are you using IMG as an excuse? Didn’t the great man vote yes for this!

Difficult for me to unpick where you’re coming from on this response as doesn’t relate to my post. I assume you had a hard day on the ale.