The whole score is down to them. That's it. No need to try and paint otherwise.
No other 'incumbants' since the 60s would have got to the next stage up in fandom.

You don't have to accept it......but you are wrong on this one.

They have gone so like some keep saying “time to move on to a brighter more positive future”.

But your little quips are not moving on as you imply they didn't do it.
Anyway. You are wrong. Let's move on

hopefully everything will start coming out in the next few months. What they've done to this club is a disgrace, good riddance to the pair of failures.

You grovellers need the get over the fact your love children have departed. Rejoice rejoice, for we have been saved, like it or not matt the messiah as saved us

.........And you need to give it a rest.....

Yes they got the points we have today but how many more would it have been without the reduced fandom, social media and league position.
I am now happy to move on are you ?

I've explained that. We wouldn't have got points.

I'll continue that point as it is important in these discussions.
If we are near a threshold, it's worth investing to get passed it to get more points.
The LED are an example of that.
Fandom, and specifically attendances, we are miles away from the next level up and have not had those average attendances in my lifetime, so they are long term gradual lifts, rather than quick fixes.
Carter could have invested 10 million but I don't think we'd have had a 3 year average attendance in the next level (haven't checked but think it's 7.5k)

Being pleasantly surprised by the scoring, I've had a stab at the score breakdown. I have to admit to having to score higher than I predicted in some areas in order to reach the 12.52 score awarded by IMG. But with the score bandings in most sections being structured very much in a way where common sense can rule out any other possibilities - it leaves only a few areas where the scores could differ. (Without knowing unpublished figures within accounts, official stadium capacities for this season etc). The scores do support statements from the club - stronger than I envisaged in the Fandom and Financial areas. I actually do agree with some of the sentiments from Championship clubs that the scoring (particularly in fandom) heavily favors existing Super League clubs. And probably show the correct areas have been prioritised at WT, despite perceptions. As weak as I do think our marketing/social channels have been over the last few years...the stats tick the boxes needed within the criteria. Also attempted to forecast next year's score, again heavily based on guesswork and common sense. But there are some notes to justify my thinking. Grading handbook for ref: https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... pdated.pdf Attempted scoring breakdown: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =882465910

Being pleasantly surprised by the scoring, I've had a stab at the score breakdown. I have to admit to having to score higher than I predicted in some areas in order to reach the 12.52 score awarded by IMG. But with the score bandings in most sections being structured very much in a way where common sense can rule out any other possibilities - it leaves only a few areas where the scores could differ. (Without knowing unpublished figures within accounts, official stadium capacities for this season etc). The scores do support statements from the club - stronger than I envisaged in the Fandom and Financial areas. I actually do agree with some of the sentiments from Championship clubs that the scoring (particularly in fandom) heavily favors existing Super League clubs. And probably show the correct areas have been prioritised at WT, despite perceptions. As weak as I do think our marketing/social channels have been over the last few years...the stats tick the boxes needed within the criteria. Also attempted to forecast next year's score, again heavily based on guesswork and common sense. But there are some notes to justify my thinking. Grading handbook for ref: https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... pdated.pdf Attempted scoring breakdown: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =882465910

They have not departed ,still 100 % wide of the mark again, Mr Carter and John ,were hard at work in there office at 8 am .Why don't you take a day of would be great just to have 24 hours of silence .P S I am righting this slow because i here you are a slow reader

I hear you can’t spell

if you showed a bit of intelligence and was able to spell, I might be able to read it.

Best thing on this site is the ignore button, enabling gratuitously offensive and constantly bitching ingrates to scream into the void that matches the one in their skull.

From the latest Wakefield announcement.........Matt Ellis, Club Owner, said ‘Wakefield Trinity is a club heading for the highest levels of the game. The illustrative grading scores demonstrate a solid foundation for us to build on in 2024 both on and off the field as Daryl builds a team focussed on success in the Championship. We have our eyes firmly set on a return to Super League in 2025. I’d also like to thank John Minards and Michael Carter for their immense efforts in getting us to this grading, it’s a great position to move onwards and upwards from in the coming year.’ https://wakefieldtrinity.com/wakefield- ... -outcomes/

From the latest Wakefield announcement.........Matt Ellis, Club Owner, said ‘Wakefield Trinity is a club heading for the highest levels of the game. The illustrative grading scores demonstrate a solid foundation for us to build on in 2024 both on and off the field as Daryl builds a team focussed on success in the Championship. We have our eyes firmly set on a return to Super League in 2025. I’d also like to thank John Minards and Michael Carter for their immense efforts in getting us to this grading, it’s a great position to move onwards and upwards from in the coming year.’ https://wakefieldtrinity.com/wakefield- ... -outcomes/

Quote ="PopTart"From the latest Wakefield announcement.........Matt Ellis, Club Owner, said ‘. I’d also like to thank John Minards and Michael Carter for their immense efforts in getting us to this grading, it’s a great position to move onwards and upwards from in the coming year.’ https://wakefieldtrinity.com/wakefield- ... -outcomes/'" Obviously he didn’t say that, it’s been made up as we have it on GOOD AUTHORITY that they are failures (I put that bit in CAPS as that makes it a fact apparently )

Quote ="PopTart"From the latest Wakefield announcement.........Matt Ellis, Club Owner, said ‘. I’d also like to thank John Minards and Michael Carter for their immense efforts in getting us to this grading, it’s a great position to move onwards and upwards from in the coming year.’ https://wakefieldtrinity.com/wakefield- ... -outcomes/'" Obviously he didn’t say that, it’s been made up as we have it on GOOD AUTHORITY that they are failures (I put that bit in CAPS as that makes it a fact apparently )

Its a bit of an after thought, that part wasn’t on the original release!

He either said it or he didn't. And it looks like he did to me.

Just been reading this article posted today.
It seems Trinity are still talking to Tony Sutton at the RFL. I hope whoever is leading the discussions can give them a good argument regarding this criteria

Wakefield Trinity Reacts to the Publication of Illustrative Grading Outcomes

Wakefield Trinity welcomes the publication of illustrative Grading outcomes based on the 2023 season. We continue to be supportive of the new method of assessing clubs’ readiness for participation in Super League which go “live” for the 2025 season.

In the light of the difficult times the club have been through, particularly on the field in 2023, we are pleased with our outcome of 12.52 points and a ranking of 11th in the games’ overall pyramid. This reflects a significant improvement from the provisional score of 11.14 indicated to us in August with the improvement being largely due to the strong financial figures contained in our recently filed accounts and progress in our social media reach.

Our results are particularly pleasing because they do not yet reflect the impact of our new East Stand which will be completed next month. We expect the facilities within the new stand to significantly lift our score when it is recalculated in October 2024. Matt Ellis and his new team also have several areas they are working on which are expected to yield even more progress.

The one area we remain disappointed in is that of Catchment. We feel the current methodology is inappropriate and unfair on a major heartland of Rugby League such as the city of Wakefield and we look forward to continuing discussions as to how the measurement of this category might be improved in the coming year.

Matt Ellis, Club Owner, said ‘Wakefield Trinity is a club heading for the highest levels of the game. The illustrative grading scores demonstrate a solid foundation for us to build on in 2024 both on and off the field as Daryl builds a team focussed on success in the Championship. We have our eyes firmly set on a return to Super League in 2025. I’d also like to thank John Minards and Michael Carter for their immense efforts in getting us to this grading, it’s a great position to move onwards and upwards from in the coming year.’

To be honest if I were London I'd put the cat amongst the pigeons and say we're not playing in Superleague next year.

Seriously what is the point for those guys?

The club is entirely right about catchment scores - they don't work.

We'll call it the "Wakefield catchment", but you can't divide the population by 3, nor ignore the "out of area" catchment.

Cas draw fans from the Selby/Goole area.

Both us and Fev draw fans from Barnsley.

The key point though, if any one of the 3 clubs ceased to exist, that club's fans wouldn't simply attach themselves to another local club.

They need to find a better way of measuring the potential "fan capture" of a club.

Bang on and IMG need to take this into account, as there will be fans of Dirty Leeds that live in Wakey/Cas/Fev and other parts of West [iand[/i South Yorkshire.
I wouldn't bother if Trinity didn't exist.

So next year, our score will go up due to the new stand coming online and hopefully some extra easy points for LED boards (would be crazy not to take that easy win).

Our on-field score could go down a slight, but equally, a Championship win/1995 Cup win, will mean our score increases.

Here's a key one though - our centralised income will go down next year = we'll receive less from the RFL (centralised funds), than we would if we were still in SL. Plus Matt Ellis is clearly pumping in more that Carter et al did.

The net result of that is, we will score MORE on finances (revenue as a % of non-centralised funds), than we have previously.

I'll have to guess the figures, but probably safe to say that the RFL funding was 50% of our revenue = that scores 0.3.

If the changes result in the RFL funding being only 30% of our revenue, our score jumps to 0.75.

So potentially an extra 0.45 points that we couldn't have achieved if still in SL. (Though this probably suffers from the 3 year averaging???).

Is this what the previous owners alluded to when they suggested "this year is a good year to go down"?

That's exactly what they meant.
It's important to watch for these extras and that was what Minards was good at.

There's a lot of talk about getting some rugby brains on board and that's absolutely right, but the IMG strategy needs to be purely analytical to get the best result. Shouldn't be swayed by fan opinion on whether the West terrace is pretty enough.

Does the TV gantry on the West terrace qualify as being big enough? Points wise…
I know we’re not going to be on tv (unless challenge cup game) but the IMG scores will be totalled up again straight after the grand final next year for the 2025 season and this area qualifies for points.

Does the TV gantry on the West terrace qualify as being big enough? Points wise…
I know we’re not going to be on tv (unless challenge cup game) but the IMG scores will be totalled up again straight after the grand final next year for the 2025 season and this area qualifies for points.