Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


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

#41 The Future is League

The Future is League
  • Coach
  • 5,964 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 06:50 AM

QUOTE (Trojan @ Jul 28 2010, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


if its true that they had 11 overseas players in their side when they played saints last weekend thats not helping their Super League future either. in my opinion its an absolute disgrace that a heartland club has so many overseas players in their side.

#42 Red Willow

Red Willow
  • Coach
  • 4,679 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 07:16 AM

This thread is full of half truth, rumour and misinformation laugh.gif

Does anyone else think the licences will be awarded by the RFL to suit their long term plan? If you do then all this is academic.

The team wanting to come into SL will probably have to offer something different to the other licences, which would put Barrow at the top of the list.

#43 Chronicler of Chiswick

Chronicler of Chiswick
  • Coach
  • 2,422 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 08:20 AM

QUOTE (terrywebbisgod @ Jul 28 2010, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
+ clubs within a 20 mile radius.
I would think the RFL would do all they could to keep a London club in SL.

I'd forgotten about the 20 mile qualification, but if DH pulls out would the RFL fund us? I can just imagine the reaction if they did!

#44 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,787 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 08:26 AM

QUOTE (Adeybull @ Jul 28 2010, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


Who is not solvent in SL?

In all seriosness though why on Earth were Bradford not one of the clubs warned? Is it because purely and simply they are a city club? I think it is?

Odsal is quite honestly the most inappropriate stadium in SL, and does not give RL a good image on TV (even worse with sky cameras which do not give "bigger picture" angles like the SL show/BBC. Also the club does not own the stadium

Ask yourself this - If Fax or Batley had an Odsal like stadium, in all but name, would they be considered for SL. The answer is NO

Bradfords crowd also do not justify not being considered for the chop. I seriosuly question their last grading

#45 jackknife

jackknife
  • Coach
  • 2,048 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 09:40 AM

QUOTE (The Future is League @ Jul 29 2010, 07:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
if its true that they had 11 overseas players in their side when they played saints last weekend thats not helping their Super League future either. in my opinion its an absolute disgrace that a heartland club has so many overseas players in their side.

cas only had 4 overseas players playing against cru's not that it matters just thought id stat the fact biggrin.gif
COME ON THE CORN
CLASSY CAS 4EVA
Go Go Go York City Knights!

#46 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,719 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 10:14 AM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Who is not solvent in SL?

In all seriosness though why on Earth were Bradford not one of the clubs warned? Is it because purely and simply they are a city club? I think it is?

Odsal is quite honestly the most inappropriate stadium in SL, and does not give RL a good image on TV (even worse with sky cameras which do not give "bigger picture" angles like the SL show/BBC. Also the club does not own the stadium

Ask yourself this - If Fax or Batley had an Odsal like stadium, in all but name, would they be considered for SL. The answer is NO

Bradfords crowd also do not justify not being considered for the chop. I seriosuly question their last grading

When I get bored, I read this forum on my phone. The screen isn't big enough to fit the whole page on, so I just browse through the posts and can't see which users are posting what unless I scroll to the side. Incidentally, I can tell every time it's a "Lobbygobbler" post, simply because it includes some illogic about how Bradford have the worst ground in the SL or shouldn't be in the SL, etc.

Wakefield and Salford are city clubs. They were warned. So that's that weird theory out of the way. But it won't stop you arguing it.

The club doesn't own its stadium is a pretty new one for you. How many clubs in the SL do? Why does it matter?And, according to Wikipedia (not the best source of knowledge, I know), the Bulls have controlling rights of the stadium after taking them back from the council after they left Valley Parade.

Odsal wasn't inapproporiate when they used to get good crowds there. It wasn't THAT long ago. What do you expect clubs to do? Just knock down parts of the stadium if the crowds dip? It's a much better ground than Belle Vue and the Willows. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. But you will still argue that it isn't. So let's change the question from "Why is Odsal the worst ground" to "How are Belle Vue and The Willows better than Odsal?"

Change the record.

Why am I wasting my time?
Posted Image

#47 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,787 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 11:33 AM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Jul 29 2010, 11:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
When I get bored, I read this forum on my phone. The screen isn't big enough to fit the whole page on, so I just browse through the posts and can't see which users are posting what unless I scroll to the side. Incidentally, I can tell every time it's a "Lobbygobbler" post, simply because it includes some illogic about how Bradford have the worst ground in the SL or shouldn't be in the SL, etc.

Wakefield and Salford are city clubs. They were warned. So that's that weird theory out of the way. But it won't stop you arguing it.

The club doesn't own its stadium is a pretty new one for you. How many clubs in the SL do? Why does it matter?And, according to Wikipedia (not the best source of knowledge, I know), the Bulls have controlling rights of the stadium after taking them back from the council after they left Valley Parade.

Odsal wasn't inapproporiate when they used to get good crowds there. It wasn't THAT long ago. What do you expect clubs to do? Just knock down parts of the stadium if the crowds dip? It's a much better ground than Belle Vue and the Willows. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. But you will still argue that it isn't. So let's change the question from "Why is Odsal the worst ground" to "How are Belle Vue and The Willows better than Odsal?"

Change the record.

Why am I wasting my time?


Ah, the Bradford-sympathiser! What's up are you frightened you upset the Bullys on here?

The difference between Bradford and Wakey/Salford, is that Bradford WERE (past tense) successful and DID GET (past tense) good crowds about 10 years ago. I think the RFL still seems them as such even though they are not anymore. As such I think the RFL has turned a blind eye to what is a shocking modern-day stadium (there is hardly any cover FFS).

As for your last comment, I actually think it is a much WORSE ground than Belle Vue and the Willows, and Wheldon Road. I would rather watch RL in those grounds.

If Bradford could put a cover on the terraces, and move the terraces toward the pitch, and get 20k gates there would be no issues. But this ain't going to happen unless they can re-incarnate peter Deakin

#48 bowes

bowes
  • Coach
  • 10,888 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 12:12 PM

QUOTE (Chronicler of Chiswick @ Jul 29 2010, 09:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'd forgotten about the 20 mile qualification, but if DH pulls out would the RFL fund us? I can just imagine the reaction if they did!

They have in the past, but can't see it being accepted again especially if they remain as Quins

#49 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,697 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 12:15 PM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 12:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ah, the Bradford-sympathiser! What's up are you frightened you upset the Bullys on here?


laugh.gif

That's the problem with this forum - too many people tip-toeing around not saying what they really mean for fear upsetting people!!
SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#50 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,719 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 12:32 PM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 12:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ah, the Bradford-sympathiser! What's up are you frightened you upset the Bullys on here?

I sympathise not. I just don't like illogical arguments that have been proven so time and time again.

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 12:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The difference between Bradford and Wakey/Salford, is that Bradford WERE (past tense) successful and DID GET (past tense) good crowds about 10 years ago. I think the RFL still seems them as such even though they are not anymore. As such I think the RFL has turned a blind eye to what is a shocking modern-day stadium (there is hardly any cover FFS).

You just spouting rubbish again.
Define good crowds?
2003 (when they moved back to Odsal) was 7 years ago, not 10. Not that that was the last time they got "good crowds".

Let's have a look since they moved back to Odsal...
2003 - 14,936 (best in SL)
2004 - 13,500 (2nd best)
2005 - 13,367 (3rd best)
2006 - 11,263 (3rd best)
2007 - 12,084 (4th best)
2008 - 10,287 (5th best)
2009 - 9,677 (5th best)
2010 - 8,642 (6th best)

They still posted five-figure crowds 2 years ago, which I would consider the benchmark for "good crowds".
They're still in the top 6 of SL crowd averages despite a HUGE drop in attendances over the last 7 years. So if they have poor crowds, then most of SL is in a worse state.

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 12:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As for your last comment, I actually think it is a much WORSE ground than Belle Vue and the Willows, and Wheldon Road. I would rather watch RL in those grounds.

That doesn't answer the question. How is Odsal "much WORSE" than the two grounds I mentioned?
"I would rather watch RL in these grounds" isn't an answer. Why would you?

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 12:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If Bradford could put a cover on the terraces, and move the terraces toward the pitch, and get 20k gates there would be no issues. But this ain't going to happen unless they can re-incarnate peter Deakin

So Bradford have to get 20k crowds (more than any SL club has achieved on more than 3 occasions in a single season)? That's a ridiculous benchmark for a poor argument.
Posted Image

#51 winnyason

winnyason
  • Coach
  • 384 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 12:38 PM

As a aussie looking in, to me a cumbria superleague franchise is a must it is a heartland area, no doubt wakefield have to go they ###### about the stadium. Quins have big question marks but will stay as will crusaders, catalans are safe given there decent crowds and stadium upgrade.
Widnes will no doubt replace wakefield, but will a 2nd side drop could only think castleford or the crusaders.

#52 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,787 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 12:48 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Jul 29 2010, 01:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I sympathise not. I just don't like illogical arguments that have been proven so time and time again.


You just spouting rubbish again.
Define good crowds?
2003 (when they moved back to Odsal) was 7 years ago, not 10. Not that that was the last time they got "good crowds".

Let's have a look since they moved back to Odsal...
2003 - 14,936 (best in SL)
2004 - 13,500 (2nd best)
2005 - 13,367 (3rd best)
2006 - 11,263 (3rd best)
2007 - 12,084 (4th best)
2008 - 10,287 (5th best)
2009 - 9,677 (5th best)
2010 - 8,642 (6th best)

They still posted five-figure crowds 2 years ago, which I would consider the benchmark for "good crowds".
They're still in the top 6 of SL crowd averages despite a HUGE drop in attendances over the last 7 years. So if they have poor crowds, then most of SL is in a worse state.


That doesn't answer the question. How is Odsal "much WORSE" than the two grounds I mentioned?
"I would rather watch RL in these grounds" isn't an answer. Why would you?


So Bradford have to get 20k crowds (more than any SL club has achieved on more than 3 occasions in a single season)? That's a ridiculous benchmark for a poor argument.


Okay - in a nutshell here's why it is worst:

1/ Very little cover proportional to the amount of terracing, i.e. most folk get wet if it rains.

2/ Terracing and stands are too far away from the pitch for a proper RL viewing, thus losing atmosphere (especially for the TV viewing experience). This is the biggest issue I have with Odsal

3/ The other end of the pitch is a complete joke with the makeshift blob of a building (Hwy didn't they build a stand? Did they think they would be on the move when that thing was built?)

By the way your stats say it all. The general downwards trend is really alarming. Wonder what it will be this year


#53 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,697 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 01:23 PM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Okay - in a nutshell here's why it is worst:

1/ Very little cover proportional to the amount of terracing, i.e. most folk get wet if it rains.

2/ Terracing and stands are too far away from the pitch for a proper RL viewing, thus losing atmosphere (especially for the TV viewing experience). This is the biggest issue I have with Odsal

3/ The other end of the pitch is a complete joke with the makeshift blob of a building (Hwy didn't they build a stand? Did they think they would be on the move when that thing was built?)

By the way your stats say it all. The general downwards trend is really alarming. Wonder what it will be this year


Point 1, is fair enough. Points 2 and 3 are your opinion, and whilst valid in that sense (you were asked for it after all) - it is just that and certainly not enough for the RFL to give Bradford a "warning", because such criterion do not and will not ever exist judging by the sheer lack of people who are rushing into support you on this issue - especially the distance from the pitch/atmosphere thing.

As for "the blob" - it was always supposed to be mid-term temporary whilst they did up the stadium(!). The reason it is that instead of a stand is because it is there purely for hospitality reasons - the existing hospitality pre-2000 was disgraceful by all accounts and was preventing the club from attracting sponsors. If you ever have the chance to go inside the Coral Stand,it is actually impressive despite the outside, and I suspect it's paid for itself numerous times over. Ironically for you, the hospitality stand is most likely in Bradford's favour when it comes to juding the stadium!

Edited by Amber Avenger, 29 July 2010 - 01:33 PM.

SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#54 nath155

nath155
  • Coach
  • 211 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 01:24 PM

what is really interesting to see is how everyone is having ago at wakefield come this time of year because if wakefield can prove there stadium is on the way wouldnt they get a grade B licence as they have the extra tick for stadium and the extra tick for contribution to the compertion expeshilly if they make it into the top 8 this year.

i love how everyones having ago at how bad they are when if im not mistaken they finished 5th last season. there accadamy u18s team won the under18s compertion showing there youth system is working and if you check wakefield are second on the list of bringing through you youngsters into superleague i believe tied with leeds and behind quins.

wakefield are a team that everyone just likes to put down they average 550 people on average less than cas not really they average more than crusaders, quins and salford. but what nobody looks at is how many people wakefield take to away games wakefield average away attendence is as good as wigan and leeds and far above teams like castleford and salford yet everyone will still have a go at wakie.

if they get this stadium on the move by spring then i think they will be given a licence for the next 3 years and tbh deserve it

#55 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,324 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 01:29 PM

QUOTE (nath155 @ Jul 29 2010, 02:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
and if you check wakefield are second on the list of bringing through you youngsters into superleague i believe tied with leeds and behind quins.
Which list is this? I would like to see the list, and if it puts Wakefield above the likes of Saints and Wigan, then fair play.

Also, are Quins really top?


#56 nath155

nath155
  • Coach
  • 211 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 01:42 PM

yeah quins are top and i will find the list and post it wakefield have played more players from there youth system than saints and wigan in the in the past 3 season i will find the list for you. but this is actually a fact i think its 14 players quin and wakie have 12 with leeds. i can proberly name them kyle bibb jay pitts ( now at leeds) arron murphy, dale morton, kieron hyde techniqually via bradford that one but still got put into youth system then given a chance, dale fergurson, cain southernwood, luke george, ben gledhill, james davey, luke blake, josh griffen and off the top of my head that all i can think off but hyde and gledhill i dont think will be on that list.

players just coming through now like matty wilde and kyle trout could become good players

Edited by nath155, 29 July 2010 - 01:44 PM.


#57 The Future is League

The Future is League
  • Coach
  • 5,964 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 01:46 PM

QUOTE (jackknife @ Jul 29 2010, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
cas only had 4 overseas players playing against cru's not that it matters just thought id stat the fact biggrin.gif


the point i am making is that for a heartland club to field 11 overseas players is dire. there can't have been much junior development there over the years.
when you consider the amout of British players the Quins had playing last weekend it shows to me that it can be done. for too many years in this country some clubs have only played lip service to junior development, and have gone for the easy option of overseas players.

#58 Lee

Lee
  • Coach
  • 5,115 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 01:54 PM

QUOTE (nath155 @ Jul 29 2010, 02:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
what is really interesting to see is how everyone is having ago at wakefield come this time of year because if wakefield can prove there stadium is on the way wouldnt they get a grade B licence as they have the extra tick for stadium and the extra tick for contribution to the compertion expeshilly if they make it into the top 8 this year.


If

QUOTE (nath155 @ Jul 29 2010, 02:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
i love how everyones having ago at how bad they are when if im not mistaken they finished 5th last season. there accadamy u18s team won the under18s compertion showing there youth system is working and if you check wakefield are second on the list of bringing through you youngsters into superleague i believe tied with leeds and behind quins.


Having a good group one season doesnt define a successful youth structure, 6th this year so far i believe

QUOTE (nath155 @ Jul 29 2010, 02:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
wakefield are a team that everyone just likes to put down they average 550 people on average less than cas not really they average more than crusaders, quins and salford. but what nobody looks at is how many people wakefield take to away games wakefield average away attendence is as good as wigan and leeds and far above teams like castleford and salford yet everyone will still have a go at wakie.


Wakefields away support is on a par with ours, and thats ###### all to shout about laugh.gif

As good as Leeds and Wigans laugh.gif






A lot of Yorkshiremen believe that when God created the world, he made it with perfect balance.
He balanced the hot areas with the cold areas. the dry areas with the wet areas.
And, in creating Yorkshire, he created the most glorious place on earth - full of majestic beauty and sporting giants.........and for balance he created....... Lancashire.

#59 nath155

nath155
  • Coach
  • 211 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:04 PM

averages dont lie just check them up for your self if you like.

and 6th if im not mistaken is in the playoffs which is where they want to be id want to be and yeah but they signed 8 of the youngsters to profesional contracts if im not mistaken which is only good for the game

wakefield like cas have been given 2m towards at the moment hopefully that can get the ball rolling tpwards the new stadium.

#60 Agbrigg

Agbrigg
  • Coach
  • 897 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:14 PM

QUOTE (nath155 @ Jul 29 2010, 02:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
what is really interesting to see is how everyone is having ago at wakefield come this time of year because if wakefield can prove there stadium is on the way wouldnt they get a grade B licence as they have the extra tick for stadium and the extra tick for contribution to the compertion expeshilly if they make it into the top 8 this year.

i love how everyones having ago at how bad they are when if im not mistaken they finished 5th last season. there accadamy u18s team won the under18s compertion showing there youth system is working and if you check wakefield are second on the list of bringing through you youngsters into superleague i believe tied with leeds and behind quins.

wakefield are a team that everyone just likes to put down they average 550 people on average less than cas not really they average more than crusaders, quins and salford. but what nobody looks at is how many people wakefield take to away games wakefield average away attendence is as good as wigan and leeds and far above teams like castleford and salford yet everyone will still have a go at wakie.

if they get this stadium on the move by spring then i think they will be given a licence for the next 3 years and tbh deserve it


You forgot to mention something else, 'Getting rid of wakefield from SL' topics are the most popular on these forums.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users