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

#61 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:16 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!


The RFL wouldn't fund you direct but may do via SKY money. That's a big decision that if it has to be made should not be made with any reference to the possible "reaction". The RFL are there to do the best for the game itself and the pro game retreating to the M62 probably isn't that.


#62 nath155

nath155
  • Coach
  • 211 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:18 PM

QUOTE (Agbrigg @ Jul 29 2010, 02:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You forgot to mention something else, 'Getting rid of wakefield from SL' topics are the most popular on these forums.


but got to look at the positives least wakefield are what everyones talking about wink.gif

#63 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,921 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:23 PM

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

Which, again, wasn't my question. the question was why is Belle Vue and The Willows better? I'll explain my point as I go through yours...

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
1/ Very little cover proportional to the amount of terracing, i.e. most folk get wet if it rains.

Same as at Belle Vue, and to some extent The Willows (the away stand only has cover for the seats IIRC, not the terrace in front of it).

And, on top of this, if folks were bothered about getting wet, then there is probably enough seating to cover 3/4 of their average crowd this year at Odsal. Could the same be done at Belle Vue? Not a chance.

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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

As opposed to Belle Vue, which has awful terracing at pitch-side. If you're at the front, you're actually below pitch level. The terracing isn't steep enough, so you can't really see very well above the people in front of you.
I'd rather be too far away and be able to see the whole pitch than too low down and see nothing.

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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?)

As opposed to Belle Vue's block of flats? Or The Willows' club house? They make that "blob" look like Buckingham Palace!

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Jul 29 2010, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
By the way your stats say it all. The general downwards trend is really alarming. Wonder what it will be this year

My stats do say it all. Your points before about their crowds only being good a decade ago were way off.
I agree about the dip being alarming though. I've started threads about it in the past and been told to shush by Bradford fans in the past. But then again, I'm a Bradford Sympathiser apparently...

So, to sum up... every point you made can be attributed to Belle Vue and the Willows. And in fact, they're probably worse at those places...
Posted Image

#64 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,921 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:27 PM

QUOTE (Lee @ Jul 29 2010, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If



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



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

Exactly what I was thinking. If it's not an "if something happens", it's just a lie!
Wakefield's away support being as good as Leeds' and Wigan's is laughable! They don't give out franchises for that, anyway.
And as for youth development... how many of these young players have gone on to be SL regulars at Wakefield? 11 overseas players this last weekend. If they were that good, surely they'd figure more in your squad?
Posted Image

#65 Agbrigg

Agbrigg
  • Coach
  • 899 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:34 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Jul 29 2010, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
... how many of these young players have gone on to be SL regulars at Wakefield? 11 overseas players this last weekend. If they were that good, surely they'd figure more in your squad?


Seriously the Wakey reserves bet Cas away on Sunday, bet Wigan on wednesday then backed up against saints at the weekend only loosing 16.18.

Many people ask the same question but Mr Kear decides otherwise.

#66 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,329 posts

Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:58 PM

QUOTE (Lee @ Jul 29 2010, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Having a good group one season doesnt define a successful youth structure, 6th this year so far i believe


That's an excellent point.

If your academy never gets above half way but annually manages a top class player or two it will be a roaring success.

What defines a successful academy is having an academy that is part of a structure above and below it that tries to develop the junior game and offer the best kids a path to the senior game.

So Widnes have a succesful academy and so do Wakefield - box ticked. Harping on about them winning matches doesn't add to the achievement.

When clubs move in on the best players like Leeds move in on Wakey's best juniors, and like clubs pick off Widnes's best whilst they are in the NL's then it shows that it's Ok having an academy but the main thing for a club is to have the money to compete, and not just end up supplying other clubs.

For Widnes Mr. O'Connor is the key, for Wakefield their own ground. I hope it comes off and if it does I reckon it'll be packed when Leeds come to the city!

#67 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,921 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:11 PM

Come on, Lobby. Where's the answer? Why is Belle Vue and The Willows better? What is it about these two grounds that make them better than Odsal? They being a rectangular-shape doesn't count!
Posted Image

#68 widnesvikings

widnesvikings
  • Players
  • 74 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:28 PM

Contrary to popular belief Widnes dont need to reach the play offs this year or next, we have already ticked the box. We are now concentrating on our youth teams and off field preparations to be a super league club. Widnes is now a very professional club since Mr. OConnor took over the reigns. We have everything in place and are awaiting the call. Plus most of our squad wont even be playing in super league if we got the nod. We will be using our kids who will be two years older, and wiser. We will be signing world class players; according Mr. OConnor so its irrelevant as to reaching the play offs. biggrin.gif
Posted Image
WIDNES VIKINGS CHESHIRES MOST FAMOUS RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB

#69 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,087 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:30 PM

QUOTE (widnesvikings @ Jul 31 2010, 04:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Contrary to popular belief Widnes dont need to reach the play offs this year or next, we have already ticked the box. We are now concentrating on our youth teams and off field preparations to be a super league club. Widnes is now a very professional club since Mr. OConnor took over the reigns. We have everything in place and are awaiting the call. Plus most of our squad wont even be playing in super league if we got the nod. We will be using our kids who will be two years older, and wiser. We will be signing world class players; according Mr. OConnor so its irrelevant as to reaching the play offs. biggrin.gif

It's not popular belief, everybody knows you have ticked the box, apart from one or two who refuse to deal in facts and make their own rules and interpretations up to suit their argument. And to think, they criticise the RFL for the same thing.

#70 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:20 PM

QUOTE (Red Willow @ Jul 29 2010, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


This is just completely untrue and not what licensing is supposed to be about.

Licensing is about picking the best 14 clubs at that point, not about adding something to Super League. This comes from the fact that it is a grossly unfair system. You could place Widnes, Barrow and Halifax in Super League in place of Salford, Cas and Wakey and they could be forever excluded as they would add nothing new to Super League.



#71 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:22 PM

I seem to remember last year when Crusaders announced they were going to Wrexham, there was a huge outcry from Widnes fans about it. The local MP Derek Branch (or something like that) even got in on the act complaining that a team in Wrexham would take fans and sponsors away from Widnes. Apparently Wrexham is virtually a suburb of Widnes, with only Chester in between them. Of course it didn't make much difference as the 2 teams are in different divisions.

Surely, if Widnes apply for a Super League licence, the Crusaders would be well within their rights to complain about another team in SL so close to themselves. It would surely be unfair on an expansion team trying to develop its own sponsor and fan base. If it wasn't for the Widnes fans bringing this to the attention of the world no one would've noticed. So on geographic grounds, Widnes should not be allowed in Super League.

As no-one else from the Championship qualifies to apply for a licence, I'd say Wakefield, Castleford and Salford fans can breathe easy. Nowt to worry about lads. wink.gif







#72 mick wilson

mick wilson
  • Coach
  • 4,484 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 08:43 PM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Aug 1 2010, 12:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I seem to remember last year when Crusaders announced they were going to Wrexham, there was a huge outcry from Widnes fans about it. The local MP Derek Branch (or something like that) even got in on the act complaining that a team in Wrexham would take fans and sponsors away from Widnes. Apparently Wrexham is virtually a suburb of Widnes, with only Chester in between them. Of course it didn't make much difference as the 2 teams are in different divisions.

Surely, if Widnes apply for a Super League licence, the Crusaders would be well within their rights to complain about another team in SL so close to themselves. It would surely be unfair on an expansion team trying to develop its own sponsor and fan base. If it wasn't for the Widnes fans bringing this to the attention of the world no one would've noticed. So on geographic grounds, Widnes should not be allowed in Super League.


laugh.gif biggrin.gif tongue.gif

Widnes will stiffle the expansion of the game and be grossly unfair to the Crusaders wink.gif

#73 Brigg Rover

Brigg Rover
  • Coach
  • 1,981 posts

Posted 03 August 2010 - 11:01 AM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Jul 31 2010, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I seem to remember last year when Crusaders announced they were going to Wrexham, there was a huge outcry from Widnes fans about it. The local MP Derek Branch (or something like that) even got in on the act complaining that a team in Wrexham would take fans and sponsors away from Widnes. Apparently Wrexham is virtually a suburb of Widnes, with only Chester in between them. Of course it didn't make much difference as the 2 teams are in different divisions.

Surely, if Widnes apply for a Super League licence, the Crusaders would be well within their rights to complain about another team in SL so close to themselves. It would surely be unfair on an expansion team trying to develop its own sponsor and fan base. If it wasn't for the Widnes fans bringing this to the attention of the world no one would've noticed. So on geographic grounds, Widnes should not be allowed in Super League.

As no-one else from the Championship qualifies to apply for a licence, I'd say Wakefield, Castleford and Salford fans can breathe easy. Nowt to worry about lads. wink.gif


That would be very unfair on Widnes.

But would also be incredibly hilarious to see some of their fans on here having heart attacks!

#74 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 03 August 2010 - 01:32 PM

QUOTE (Brigg Rover @ Aug 3 2010, 12:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That would be very unfair on Widnes.

But would also be incredibly hilarious to see some of their fans on here having heart attacks!

Oh, yeah. Never thought of that biggrin.gif



#75 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 03 August 2010 - 03:23 PM

QUOTE (mick wilson @ Aug 2 2010, 09:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
laugh.gif biggrin.gif tongue.gif

Widnes will stiffle the expansion of the game and be grossly unfair to the Crusaders wink.gif


Just because you use smiley faces doesn't stop this being one of those attacks on Widnes that other posters have spoke of.

You're a man obsessed.

#76 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 03 August 2010 - 03:28 PM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Jul 31 2010, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I seem to remember last year when Crusaders announced they were going to Wrexham, there was a huge outcry from Widnes fans about it. The local MP Derek Branch (or something like that) even got in on the act complaining that a team in Wrexham would take fans and sponsors away from Widnes. Apparently Wrexham is virtually a suburb of Widnes, with only Chester in between them. Of course it didn't make much difference as the 2 teams are in different divisions.

Surely, if Widnes apply for a Super League licence, the Crusaders would be well within their rights to complain about another team in SL so close to themselves. It would surely be unfair on an expansion team trying to develop its own sponsor and fan base. If it wasn't for the Widnes fans bringing this to the attention of the world no one would've noticed. So on geographic grounds, Widnes should not be allowed in Super League.

As no-one else from the Championship qualifies to apply for a licence, I'd say Wakefield, Castleford and Salford fans can breathe easy. Nowt to worry about lads. wink.gif


Hilarious and as per usual a pack of lies. Funnily enough not only Widnes fans noticed that Wrexham was 30 miles away from the heartlands. Not everybody is as ignorant as you.

Derek Twigg wasn't simply moaning about fans and sponsors more the fact that the RFL had allowed a club to fail and them move to the other end of the country without having their license revoked. Especially when a team like Widnes had been left out due to financial arrears. It made a mockery of the licensing system and although most fans would be pretty happy with it now it doesn't change that fact.

#77 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 03 August 2010 - 04:52 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 3 2010, 04:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hilarious and as per usual a pack of lies. Funnily enough not only Widnes fans noticed that Wrexham was 30 miles away from the heartlands. Not everybody is as ignorant as you.

Derek Twigg wasn't simply moaning about fans and sponsors more the fact that the RFL had allowed a club to fail and them move to the other end of the country without having their license revoked. Especially when a team like Widnes had been left out due to financial arrears. It made a mockery of the licensing system and although most fans would be pretty happy with it now it doesn't change that fact.


Definitely a sock puppet this one. Probably Parksider again.

#78 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 03 August 2010 - 07:23 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 3 2010, 04:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hilarious and as per usual a pack of lies. Funnily enough not only Widnes fans noticed that Wrexham was 30 miles away from the heartlands. Not everybody is as ignorant as you.

Derek Twigg wasn't simply moaning about fans and sponsors more the fact that the RFL had allowed a club to fail and them move to the other end of the country without having their license revoked. Especially when a team like Widnes had been left out due to financial arrears. It made a mockery of the licensing system and although most fans would be pretty happy with it now it doesn't change that fact.

My apologies. Maybe I should have made it a bit clearer that I was trying to be mildly amusing. I thought my reference to Derek Branch might've given the game away...

Neither was it an 'attack on Widnes' as stated elsewhere. I really hope Widnes get promoted. I quite like the town. Some of my best friends come from Widnes... (Actually they don't, they all come from Runcorn laugh.gif )







#79 mick wilson

mick wilson
  • Coach
  • 4,484 posts

Posted 03 August 2010 - 10:34 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 3 2010, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Just because you use smiley faces doesn't stop this being one of those attacks on Widnes that other posters have spoke of.

You're a man obsessed.

biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif mwah mwah mwah give him his dummy back pleasssssseeeeeee laugh.gif laugh.gif



#80 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:36 AM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 3 2010, 04:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Derek Twigg wasn't simply moaning about fans and sponsors more the fact that the RFL had allowed a club to fail and them move to the other end of the country without having their license revoked. Especially when a team like Widnes had been left out due to financial arrears. It made a mockery of the licensing system and although most fans would be pretty happy with it now it doesn't change that fact.

Can I pick up on a couple of points here about the RFL allowing a club to fail. Unlike Widnes, Crusaders didn't go into administration. Strictly speaking, other than the 6 guys on dodgy visas, they didn't do anything against the RFL rules.

You also make the point about Crusaders moving. Am I right to assume that, at the time, you think they should've had their licence revoked for this?

What would happen if David Hughes pulled out of Harlequins and, say for example, someone took over on the proviso they could move the club to Milton Keynes. Do you turn round and say 'Sorry, no can do' and throw them out of SL? Or do you accept that for the club to continue it may be the only way to go?

The only problem I had with the whole thing was Widnes fans trying to link their clubs non-appearance in Super League with the Crusaders. Widnes were not allowed in purely because they put themselves into administration. Crusaders promotion had nothing to do with it. Although full credit to the club who have kept a dignified silence through the whole thing.