[quote="Wires71":1gv90old] The only positive from it is that it has highlighted the IMG grading method as a farce.[/quote:1gv90old] But is it? Didn’t IMG had a much tougher grading? So much so you could probably count the SL teams on 2 fingers, and most certainly one hand, which would make an A grade. Wasn’t IMG pressured into watering down the strict formula from the RFL and self interest of the SL clubs? So do we point the finger at IMG or the RFL? IMG aren’t completely independent, when it’s the RFL that’s paying them. In IMG’s credit, even the cooler version of what was initially touted, has seen a reaction from SL clubs to drive up their standards. Salford seem an enigma to it.

[quote="rubber duckie":1tr7gkz7]But is it? Didn’t IMG had a much tougher grading? So much so you could probably count the SL teams on 2 fingers, and most certainly one hand, which would make an A grade. Wasn’t IMG pressured into watering down the strict formula from the RFL and self interest of the SL clubs? So do we point the finger at IMG or the RFL? IMG aren’t completely independent, when it’s the RFL that’s paying them. In IMG’s credit, even the cooler version of what was initially touted, has seen a reaction from SL clubs to drive up their standards. Salford seem an enigma to it.[/quote:1tr7gkz7] I said the IMG grading method. If it's grading clubs on the brink of bankruptcy as a 'B' then it's not fit for purpose.