Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Which clubs are most at risk of losing their licences?


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

Poll: Who's off to NL1? (92 member(s) have cast votes)

Pick 2 :)

  1. Catalans (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. Castleford (43 votes [27.04%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.04%

  3. Crusaders (5 votes [3.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.14%

  4. Quins RL (11 votes [6.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.92%

  5. Huddersfield (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. Hull KR (2 votes [1.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.26%

  7. Salford (25 votes [15.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.72%

  8. Wakefield (68 votes [42.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.77%

  9. Bradford - lolz (5 votes [3.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.14%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,427 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 01:21 PM

QUOTE (jackknife @ Jul 28 2010, 01:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
does it make any differance who finishes highest in the SL to who gets the chop?

It's over a number of seasons, not just the season before franchises are issued.
Cannibal chiefs chew Camembert cheese,cos chewing keeps them cheeky.

#22 The Best The Beautiful The Only

The Best The Beautiful The Only
  • Coach
  • 1,576 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 01:57 PM

Bradford had a B licence last time did they not, NE?

#23 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,422 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:08 PM

Teams earn one point if they are considered to have made a contribution to the competition - that means averaging a place in the top eight over each of the last three seasons
St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#24 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,461 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:25 PM

This just shows how daft this Franchise lark is. People have so many diiferent opinions yet you could twist facts to justify a team being in SL. Widnes for example are struggling to make the playoffs this year. They have not exactly set the place a light being in the championship. Yet off the field are well set up-probably more so than many SL clubs! You have Quins, Wakey,Cas, Salford and Crusaders who not much better tha Halifax, Barrow and Leigh and have had time to sort things out and done very little. Often they have had problems financially and the grounds are sadly no longer fit for the future of playing in SL. Its the main reason I hate this SL Franchise ###### as its very difficult to say why Crusaders, Quins, Salford, Wakey etc should be in over Halifax, Barrow and Leigh. All of the clubs mentioned are going to be also rans in SL. All are going to seriously struugle to spend the full cap. Some have decent grounds. Others have good academys. But the RFL will fit and twist things to have what they want. I am not sure that us good for the game though. And the biggest fear is that the Championship is just a place to slowly die for clubs who are not in SL.

#25 Chronicler of Chiswick

Chronicler of Chiswick
  • Coach
  • 2,526 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:27 PM

They've been trying to exclude Wakey since the start of SL, and this time round I think they'll succeed. I'm suprised that more people haven't voted for Quins - if the rumours that David Hughes wants to reduce his financial input are true then we only tick the junior development and ground standard boxes.

#26 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,427 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:28 PM

QUOTE (Chronicler of Chiswick @ Jul 28 2010, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
They've been trying to exclude Wakey since the start of SL, and this time round I think they'll succeed. I'm suprised that more people haven't voted for Quins - if the rumours that David Hughes wants to reduce his financial input are true then we only tick the junior development and ground standard boxes.

+ clubs within a 20 mile radius.
I would think the RFL would do all they could to keep a London club in SL.

Edited by terrywebbisgod, 28 July 2010 - 02:31 PM.

Cannibal chiefs chew Camembert cheese,cos chewing keeps them cheeky.

#27 Forever Trinity

Forever Trinity
  • Coach
  • 634 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:35 PM

And Wakey will get that extra point for adding to the comp by finishing an average in the top 8.

Lots of Wakey bashing carry on.

We will or wont get our stadium we will see.

Cas will or wont get their stadium we will wait and see.

Finances of other clubs could come into play rumours are rife about clubs in the mire if one goes down then what will happen then, can some of them sustain their debts? they are Ok with sugar daddies but without them?

#28 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:38 PM

QUOTE (Chronicler of Chiswick @ Jul 28 2010, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
They've been trying to exclude Wakey since the start of SL, and this time round I think they'll succeed. I'm suprised that more people haven't voted for Quins - if the rumours that David Hughes wants to reduce his financial input are true then we only tick the junior development and ground standard boxes.


Nonsense. If they wanted to exclude Wakey they could have done it ages ago if they were so desperate.

#29 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 497 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 05:32 PM

QUOTE (dallymessenger @ Jul 28 2010, 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
down the track if the bulls continue as they are, i can see halifax replacing them

the RFL will just pick off all the clubs with dud grounds, poor finances and replace them with stronger clubs

wakey and cas are the standouts.

after that even a club like bradford is at risk if they continue as they are

hopefully standards rise so all clubs have to keep improving to stay in sl


Bulls are one of very few solvent SL clubs.
Bulls were one of 9 SL clubs NOT warned about their ground.

So two of the concerns you raise are not yet of immediate concern for licences.

That said, If perchance Bulls were in the same position in 2013 as they are now, then yes I would fear for our licence. Not for Halifax replacing us though - I suspect the RFL would take the opportunity to bring in Dublin or Edinburgh or Vladivostok or some other "expansion" place.

Edited by Adeybull, 28 July 2010 - 05:33 PM.


#30 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,338 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 06:27 PM

QUOTE (Lounge Room Lizard @ Jul 28 2010, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The RFL will fit and twist things to have what they want. I am not sure that is good for the game though.


Heaven forbid those who are charged with leading a sport should get what they want!

The sugar daddies may be fed up at three clubs and the grounds may not come off at two

At worst there could be five SL clubs either skint or without a ground.

Will SL improve next time on this?

Will it become like the old first division full of half skint M62 clubs??

Or will it start turning into an anglo french competition?

Fascinating stuff.



#31 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,675 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 07:03 PM

Weren't Wakefield promoted to Super League originally on the basis that they would be improving their ground? I sure they played 1 match in their 1st season (v St Helens) at Barnsley because of this.

Not really progressed too far with that one, have they?







#32 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 07:18 PM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Jul 28 2010, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Weren't Wakefield promoted to Super League originally on the basis that they would be improving their ground? I sure they played 1 match in their 1st season (v St Helens) at Barnsley because of this.

Not really progressed too far with that one, have they?


They're talking about Barnsley again. Well if it worked once...

#33 The Future is League

The Future is League
  • Coach
  • 6,045 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 07:36 PM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Jul 28 2010, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Weren't Wakefield promoted to Super League originally on the basis that they would be improving their ground? I sure they played 1 match in their 1st season (v St Helens) at Barnsley because of this.

Not really progressed too far with that one, have they?


correct.i think thev'e gone this time unless they can produce a rabbit out of the hat. i cant believe they have dragged there heals all these years over a new or revamped ground.

#34 Jill Halfpenny fan

Jill Halfpenny fan
  • Coach
  • 4,450 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 08:54 PM

QUOTE (Lounge Room Lizard @ Jul 28 2010, 03:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This just shows how daft this Franchise lark is. People have so many diiferent opinions yet you could twist facts to justify a team being in SL. Widnes for example are struggling to make the playoffs this year. They have not exactly set the place a light being in the championship. Yet off the field are well set up-probably more so than many SL clubs! You have Quins, Wakey,Cas, Salford and Crusaders who not much better tha Halifax, Barrow and Leigh and have had time to sort things out and done very little. Often they have had problems financially and the grounds are sadly no longer fit for the future of playing in SL. Its the main reason I hate this SL Franchise ###### as its very difficult to say why Crusaders, Quins, Salford, Wakey etc should be in over Halifax, Barrow and Leigh. All of the clubs mentioned are going to be also rans in SL. All are going to seriously struugle to spend the full cap. Some have decent grounds. Others have good academys. But the RFL will fit and twist things to have what they want. I am not sure that us good for the game though. And the biggest fear is that the Championship is just a place to slowly die for clubs who are not in SL.


Just to defend my lot, they ticked the playing box when they won the rail cup.

That done, they've concentrated efforts elsewhere.

That said, I agree with you.

Its a farce.
Just because you think everyone hates you doesn't mean they don't.

#35 3owls

3owls
  • Banned
  • 505 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 09:02 PM

Wakefield are nailed on, sh*t ground, no fans, and not making the top 8 this season will be the final nail in their coffin. Bye bye.

#36 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 09:19 PM

QUOTE (3owls @ Jul 28 2010, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wakefield are nailed on, sh*t ground, no fans, and not making the top 8 this season will be the final nail in their coffin. Bye bye.


Why do some smug fans, like the one above, revel in other clubs misfortunes? What are you getting out of Wakey's failure?

#37 Rioman

Rioman
  • Coach
  • 371 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 09:28 PM

QUOTE (Chronicler of Chiswick @ Jul 28 2010, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
They've been trying to exclude Wakey since the start of SL, and this time round I think they'll succeed. I'm suprised that more people haven't voted for Quins - if the rumours that David Hughes wants to reduce his financial input are true then we only tick the junior development and ground standard boxes.

Not quite true as Wakefield weren't in Super League at the start. Their first season was 1999.

#38 3owls

3owls
  • Banned
  • 505 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 09:28 PM

QUOTE (Bulletproof @ Jul 28 2010, 10:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why do some smug fans, like the one above, revel in other clubs misfortunes? What are you getting out of Wakey's failure?

I'm not revelling, just stating a couple of facts. Failure to make the top 8 will in my opinion seal their fate,that's an opinion not a fact. Their ground is s*it and their crowds are poor, now they're facts. I would rather see promotion and relegation based on a teams results but as seen as this thread is about who's for the chop i don't see your problem with what i've said.

#39 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 10:06 PM

QUOTE (3owls @ Jul 28 2010, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not revelling, just stating a couple of facts. Failure to make the top 8 will in my opinion seal their fate,that's an opinion not a fact. Their ground is s*it and their crowds are poor, now they're facts. I would rather see promotion and relegation based on a teams results but as seen as this thread is about who's for the chop i don't see your problem with what i've said.


If these are all facts, we should be able to put them under scrutiny so let's do that.

You describe their ground in less than glowing terms, but in terms of facilities Headingly (the parts which are safe and open to the public, we all remember the south stand closure against Wigan) is similar. It's the same hotchpotch of modern seating and aging cramped terraces. It would seem the only thing differing the two is the sheer size, and wakefields ground has been adequate for years and only recently put under scrutiny. It would be more appropriate to say "small aging ground" than "sh*t", because otherwise, you could describe the hardly glowing Headingley in the same terms. I personally got much the same experience there as I did watching the game at Odsal, Headingley, Wheldon Road, Knowsley Road etc etc etc. A standing, uncovered area open to the elements. It could be improved, but then so many other teams need to improve too that singling them out is unfair. At least they didn't mix us with large amounts of home fans so to prevent us from building an atmosphere of our own like Leeds did.

Their crowds are relatively poor, but yet again, this is a recent issue, they aren't historically poor and there are other teams which get a pass that Wakefield don't. They arent as poor as Salford's, or Quins. Crusaders posted a 1,400 crowd last week. When can anyone say that happened in Wakefield? It again would be more appropriate to say they are poor for a club which doesn't get some special dispensation and why Salford do remains a mystery to me.

One team from super league is coming down, that much is almost certain. Wakefield are frontrunners, but whoever does is an unfortunate victim of the franchising process which has claimed so many, and I won't be describing it as a "nail in the coffin" or signing them off with a sarcastic "bye bye". I will be wishing them luck, because they'll need it.

#40 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,209 posts

Posted 28 July 2010 - 10:13 PM

QUOTE (The Future is League @ Jul 28 2010, 08:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
correct.i think thev'e gone this time unless they can produce a rabbit out of the hat. i cant believe they have dragged there heals all these years over a new or revamped ground.

Wakefield were going to piggyback on Yorkshire Cricket moving to a new ground next to the M1 at Denby Dale Road, but it never happened.
"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013