Stadium we are ahead on, finances we are ahead on and catchment we are ahead on.

I really don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you think.

By the time the actual gradings are done we'll be using the next set of financials that will, according to MC, previously show us making a significant loss. And whilst the new stand should make us money it won't happen overnight, it will take time to build up that revenue generation and even longer for it to show on the balance sheet. It's also worth baring in mind there's a £3million loan sat on the negative side balance sheet as well. The stadium weighting is important but isn't as high as i'd hoped and expected. Ridiculously with a relatively small amount of ground investment (big screen, fan zone, floodlights etc) they wouldn't be far behind us scoring wise.

One thing for sure given the importance given to on field performance then relegation this year would be a major problem.

“Look over there while we pick who we want to be in SL”.
As suspected, the criteria is vague enough to make square pegs fit in round holes when it suits & leaves more questions than it answers.
My advice to fans is not to get drawn into measuring contests. It’s so subjective & open to interpretation that the only thing it will do is cause upset.

Indeed, they want who they want and have set the criteria accordingly. The catchment in relation to adjacent clubs is tailor made for expansion teams.

Yes but this represents only 10% of the rating. If we want to stand any chance we need to be in SL, in the Championship even if we were rated grade B we would not be in SL.

Jeez. How to try and turn everything into a drama. We have a chance to do well at this but people can only see the negatives.
There are lots of things there we can achieve and those we can't yet, should be a target for 2025.

There’s not enough detail to draw a conclusion… a simple brief on the criteria and their weighting hardly scratches the surface

As with all assessment models there will need to be detailed criterion… a method of self and external assessment … means of weighting the criterion… a concept (and practice) of quantifying each criterion against best (known) practice ..there will need to be a verified and independent process training assessor’s to be competent, independent and fair…

This will be a huge investment of time effort and stress for club officials… I work with assessment criteria for business excellence models and with companies who voluntarily seek to use systems like this for business improvement, recognition and kudos… although voluntary, the work involved is huge, and testing ….

Yet this is mandatory… (and still unclear)

I would need to see the full set of criteria… criterion… how business drivers and enablers are considered… then how the results (pretty much the bit we’ve seen so far) are analysed in the creation of a score/ grade… there must be no subjectivity… any hint or suggestion of this and the model will fail.

To be honest … in MCs place I would walk away at this point too!☹️

Looking at the breakdown we are already a B not a C.
An A is going to be tough as 5 points out of 20 are on League performance. It depends whether we get even 1 point for our league position but A grade is 15 and above so if not we are a B no matter what.
I'd suggest Bs will be judged on how many points within their band they get so still all to play for.

To summarise your points ,is it fair to say that this is all no more than a load of ball ccocks. The only fact I can see in all this ,is that it's an excuse for lenignan, MC Manus et al to keep a big share of the funding cake and to have full control who will join them at the table.

Really surprising that developing homegrown players doesn't score you any points...

I'm all for every club making improvements and making the game as a whole stronger but how can it be a fair system when 1 of the criteria is impossible for certain teams to score points on?

Surely any fair system would give every club the opportunity to score points on every part of it?

Agree with an earlier comment.....if I was MC i'd be out of there too...without hesitation...

We really do need to up the output via social media.

Apparently IMG gave us a good review of that.
Could be improved to get top marks but we are not bad.

Completely agree.
The major concern here is that, someone, somewhere, has decided who they want in SL and the criteria is being designed to achieve a particular result.
Therefore look at who may want to be in SL that isn't currently there and see where they would score.
York, Newcanstle, Toulouse Fev and Braford will be the most likely contenders, plus the current SL clubs.

Like you, I dont understand why community work and junior development isn't right up there but, of course, certain SL clubs really struggle with this, as do many of the Championship contenders.

A B rating whilst being in SL can only be bettered by an A rating in the Championship unless you finish in the relegation position. I doubt any club in the Championship would attract this rating based on the criteria because they would fail on attendances and we would out score them on league position based on the way it is calculated. The downside is however if they decide to go with a 10 club SL.
The bottom line is we must stay in SL to give us any chance.

Let's remember these are proposals, the clubs still have to decide whether this is what they want to happen to improve standards across the board. I know it's supposedly written in stone that they will accept, but you never know......!