Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



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

#81 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:55 AM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Aug 4 2010, 07:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.

yes never understood this.. anyone with half a brain new that the crusaders were going to get in.. Widnes were up against Slaford, Cas and Wakey for the other spot and it was only finance that stopped them as far as i can see, its those 3 that are lucky and Widnes would have replaced one of them but it was never Widnes v Crusaders, they expanded to 14 and one of htose was always going to be the Crusaders. in the same way IMHO if they had said that this time round it was going to 16 then Tolouse may as well have quite for the year and just started building for super league.

BTW i thought it was quite an ausing post.

Edited by RP London, 04 August 2010 - 07:55 AM.


#82 Swansea Jack

Swansea Jack
  • Coach
  • 252 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:15 AM


I have a sinking feeling about Crusaders mainly based on our past form with expansion as a game and the rumours surrounding Brian Noble, linked to Worcestor if the papers are to be believed, whilst he has his critics I'd have thought they'd have been looking to keep him on as they build for the future if all was well.
[/quote]

If Brian Noble does leave I would like to see Iestyn Harris given an opportunity. He is Welsh and has done an excellent job with the Welsh team last year (European Champions) and has done well as assistant coach at Crusaders in an attacking role.

#83 Bomb Jack

Bomb Jack
  • Coach
  • 2,033 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:47 AM

QUOTE (Swansea Jack @ Aug 4 2010, 10:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I would like to see Iestyn Harris given an opportunity. He is Welsh


Is Oldham in Wales now ? rolleyes.gif
Widnes - Super League's newest Club, and Cheshire's Original Glamour Club. Watch out Warrington, we're back !

#84 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:12 PM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Aug 4 2010, 08:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


For the system to be in any way credible then of course it should have been revoked. We ask clubs to put forward detailed applications that include projections based on their current location. In allowing the club to move they made a farce of this as almost none of their initial application is now based on their current situation. How can you morally exclude one club specifically criticising them for making predictions based on a previous administration at the same location, but justify another clubs continued inclusion that didn't even know it would be moving in 1 years.

Now whether this is right for Rugby League or not is an entirely separate matter. If they were so concerned with this they shouldn't have set up the licensing process in the first place. If they are just going to include whoever they want regardless of what happens then why bother? All they are doing is infuriating genuine fans who see a massive double standard being applied.

As for final point the licensing system was not set up in this way. Crusaders were the weakest application and were weaker than Widnes. This is of course why they were the target for disgruntled fans.


#85 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:15 PM

QUOTE (RP London @ Aug 4 2010, 08:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
yes never understood this.. anyone with half a brain new that the crusaders were going to get in.. Widnes were up against Slaford, Cas and Wakey for the other spot and it was only finance that stopped them as far as i can see, its those 3 that are lucky and Widnes would have replaced one of them but it was never Widnes v Crusaders, they expanded to 14 and one of htose was always going to be the Crusaders. in the same way IMHO if they had said that this time round it was going to 16 then Tolouse may as well have quite for the year and just started building for super league.


Nonsense. Just because we knew they would be included, I personally posted tens of times stating that they would definitely be included, doesn't make it somehow right.

Why bother having a licensing system if there are certain things that trump everything?

#86 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 12:16 PM

QUOTE (mick wilson @ Aug 3 2010, 11:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif mwah mwah mwah give him his dummy back pleasssssseeeeeee laugh.gif laugh.gif


Like I said previously Mick, grow up. You're making a show of yourself now.

#87 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:09 PM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 4 2010, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
For the system to be in any way credible then of course it should have been revoked. We ask clubs to put forward detailed applications that include projections based on their current location. In allowing the club to move they made a farce of this as almost none of their initial application is now based on their current situation. How can you morally exclude one club specifically criticising them for making predictions based on a previous administration at the same location, but justify another clubs continued inclusion that didn't even know it would be moving in 1 years.

Now whether this is right for Rugby League or not is an entirely separate matter. If they were so concerned with this they shouldn't have set up the licensing process in the first place. If they are just going to include whoever they want regardless of what happens then why bother? All they are doing is infuriating genuine fans who see a massive double standard being applied.

As for final point the licensing system was not set up in this way. Crusaders were the weakest application and were weaker than Widnes. This is of course why they were the target for disgruntled fans.

Firstly, whether Crusaders application was weaker than the one put in by Widnes is merely a matter of opinion. Widnes' application would not have been considered, simply because they had gone into administration. In all honesty they could've wrote anything in it, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. But, as an opinion, I agree with you. Indeed the Widnes application would've been stronger than at least 4 other clubs. It was just a matter of bad timing which will be rectified in March next year.

All this leads me to ask, can the RFL revoke a club's licence? It would appear not, but surely if a club entered administration they would have to be relegated. Are there any other reasons why it might happen?





#88 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:14 PM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Aug 4 2010, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Firstly, whether Crusaders application was weaker than the one put in by Widnes is merely a matter of opinion. Widnes' application would not have been considered, simply because they had gone into administration. In all honesty they could've wrote anything in it, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. But, as an opinion, I agree with you. Indeed the Widnes application would've been stronger than at least 4 other clubs. It was just a matter of bad timing which will be rectified in March next year.

All this leads me to ask, can the RFL revoke a club's licence? It would appear not, but surely if a club entered administration they would have to be relegated. Are there any other reasons why it might happen?


They could revoke a license if they wanted to. The fact that licenses are supposedly based on so many factors would make the idea that a club could move almost ludicrous.

The point is that they do what they want regardless of any licensing system.

#89 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 11:57 AM

QUOTE (Maximus Decimus @ Aug 4 2010, 12:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nonsense. Just because we knew they would be included, I personally posted tens of times stating that they would definitely be included, doesn't make it somehow right.

Why bother having a licensing system if there are certain things that trump everything?


which bit of the process was unclear.. A and B liscences get in, C liscences are further scrutinized. this was always happening, it was said in all the documentation and was said all over the shows etc about it.

The point i was making with crusadres is tha they were adding 2 teams to the compeition, to do thi they needed more money, where was this new money coming from, Sky, where are they basing this on.. an extended catchment... Wales. as such one was put aside for them, and yes it does make it right.. if this hadnt happened we would be back to 12 clubs at which point widnes still wouldnt have got in..

part of the liscencing system is also there to make sure the game develops as such things will trump others more that is obvious..

as i say my point is that widnes did not lose out to wales.. they were in... they lost out to umpteen other heartlands clubs caused by their finances.. Wales was not the issue.

Edited by RP London, 05 August 2010 - 11:58 AM.


#90 jannerboyuk

jannerboyuk
  • Coach
  • 4,990 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 12:41 PM

QUOTE (Bomb Jack @ Aug 4 2010, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is Oldham in Wales now ? rolleyes.gif

No but his family is very welsh, with a grandfather who played for welsh ru national side. I'm always bumping into people with english accents but you try telling them they're not welsh.
PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF http://www.rugbyleaguecares.org/ and http://www.walesrugb...-wales-for-2013
Predictions for the future -
Crusaders RL to get a franchise for 2012 onwards -WRONG
Widnes Vikings also to get a franchise - RIGHT
Crusaders RL to do the double over Widnes and finish five places ahead of them -WRONG
Widnes Vikings NOT to dominate rugby league in years to come! STILL TO COME

http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/cardiffdemonsrlfc/
http://www.walesrugbyleague.co.uk/

I promise to pay �10 to the charity of Bomb Jacks choice if Widnes Millionaires finish above the battling underdogs Crusaders RL. I OWE A TENNER!
http://www.jaxaxe.co...89/Default.aspx

#91 Bomb Jack

Bomb Jack
  • Coach
  • 2,033 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 01:16 PM

QUOTE (jannerboyuk @ Aug 5 2010, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No but his family is very welsh, with a grandfather who played for welsh ru national side. I'm always bumping into people with english accents but you try telling them they're not welsh.


If he was born and raised in England then he's English, end of.
Widnes - Super League's newest Club, and Cheshire's Original Glamour Club. Watch out Warrington, we're back !

#92 buford t justice

buford t justice
  • Coach
  • 1,900 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 01:29 PM

QUOTE (Bomb Jack @ Jul 28 2010, 11:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't think there's a cat in hell's chance they will kick two out..........


Regardless of the rest of the criteria for entering super league, if you go on appearing in a final or winning the NRC, only Batley, Widnes, Barrow and HAlifax, plus Toulouse who are now exempt from the criteria (amazing!) can apply.

Batley wont apply, Toulouse and Widnes are definite shoe ins and the RFL have been dying to get a cumbrian side in there too, so Barrow could also be in the mix.

The only sides under threat in super league are saints (no way will they let them go down, hence the move to widnes til the stadiums built) Salford, Cas, Wakey and Hull KR, i would add harlequins and crusaders to that list but the RFL will not turn their back on the "development" club farce they have created.

Whatever happens, Wakefield or Cas, or possibly both will almost certainly be coming to join the championship party!

What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for the law

#93 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,705 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 01:39 PM

QUOTE (buford t justice @ Aug 5 2010, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The RFL have been dying to get a cumbrian side in there too, so Barrow could also be in the mix.


The RFL went out of their way to do a feasibility study on Cumbria and declared them unfeasible for Superleague.

Of course given your list of those who may not make the grade Cumbria could certainly be back on.

Hudgell has just spent big bucks building and opening an ambulance chasers emporium in Armley in Leeds so either that will hinder or help. To help, all HKR fans need to do to secure their club in SL is get their pavement trip claims in fast.

#94 The Clan

The Clan
  • Coach
  • 514 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 01:45 PM

The latest official statement from Wakefield Trinity puts some of the half truths and inaccuracies to bed while spelling out the actual position and strength of the stadium development.

http://wakefieldwild...cats-statement/
QUOTE

Wakefield Trinity Wildcats Statement

During recent weeks the club has become concerned about the number of inaccuracies being reported regarding our move to be anchor tenants at the Newmarket stadium. These inaccuracies have led to speculation amongst shareholders, sponsors and supporters and we would like to take this opportunity to confirm our position on the following points:

The Site:

The land at Newmarket covers just under 214 acres of land of which around 60 acres is being utilised for sport and leisure facilities. The land was originally part of the Newmarket colliery site which makes up 135 acres of brown belt land at the site.

Key Partners:

Colin Mackie is Managing Director of Yorkcourt Properties Limited the Developers.

Sir Rodney Walker is Chairman of the Wakefield & District Community Trust. This Trust has been formed to deliver the sport and leisure complex for the District of Wakefield. The Trust will be the owners of the Stadium once the development completes.

Wakefield Trinity Wildcats have been accepted to be anchor tenant at the Newmarket Stadium.

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council have pledged support to the stadium development in the form of a land donation to Wakefield & District Community Trust. The value of this support is currently 2million and can only be made to a Trust, the Council cannot make a donation to a Limited Company.

Stadium & Leisure:

The Stadium will have a 12,000 capacity with a mix of seated and standing accommodation and has the flexibility to increase to a 15,000 capacity at a later stage.

The plans have been designed to deliver Health, Education, Sport and Leisure for the District and the complex will include a training barn with 3 G pitches. Discussions are well underway with a variety of end users incorporating football; two major Leisure Developers one of which would provide swimming facilities; space for charitable trust partners; local colleges and universities; Health Trusts and park and ride facilities. The Business Plan is in final stages of completion showing a sustainable viable business for the facilities.

Whilst the stadium will be a community stadium it is a private development and not a Council development although we are grateful to the Council for their help and support in the donation of the land to the Trust and their ongoing support for the project.

Stadium Review:

Neither Wakefield nor Castleford were asked to be involved in a feasibility study but were asked to be involved in a review. Each club was asked to partake in a review of their respective stadium developments by Wakefield Council. On receipt of this request Wakefield Trinity wrote to Wakefield Council and confirmed that any review would need to be carried out with Wakefield & District Community Trust and the Developer as the club is only to be the anchor tenant and the other parties would need to be involved in any process.

Wakefield & District Community Trust wrote to Wakefield Council to confirm they would take part in the review process once they had seen the draft scope for the review. During discussions it became apparent that this review would cost around 30,000. Wakefield & District Community Trust, Yorkcourt Properties and the club attended a meeting at Wakefield Council. At this meeting in light of the substantial progress reported and confirmation that funding was available thereby giving it a high likelihood of being successfully delivered it was agreed by all parties that a review was not necessary and that the Newmarket project should forge ahead to deliver sport and leisure facilities for the District.

Ground Share:

Wakefield & District Community Trust wrote to sporting organisations in the District and invited letters of interest in using the facilities at Newmarket. Wakefield Trinity Wildcats confirmed their interest and are to be anchor tenants at the facility. The same letter was sent to Castleford Tigers and Featherstone Rovers who are both developing their own stadiums, neither club were interested in becoming involved at the Newmarket site.

The Club want to place on record that whilst it is delighted to be an anchor tenant at Newmarket it is also looking forward to Wakefield & District Community Trust continuing its work to secure other end users at the facility. The club has always maintained that the facilities need to be widely used and the Trust, the Developer and Wakefield Council are all aware that Wakefield Trinity as anchor tenants are happy to ground share with any other willing partners of the Trust.

In a statement issued on 25th July the club said . . .the Wildcats would concentrate their support for Newmarket and that a move to Glasshoughton was not an option

From this statement many sources have reported that the Club will not ground share, this is not the case. We are happy to ground share but we are not looking to utilise any facilities which may eventually be developed at Glasshoughton.

Timescales:

An application for outline planning permission was made in February 2010, we are hopeful that a decision on this application will now be made in September 2010. Plans for the detailed permission are ready to be submitted and the stadium build is a 46 week process. All parties concerned in the process are aware of the Super League timescale for Licensing.

Yorkcourt Properties have been working with internationally acclaimed architects DLA Limited, if you visit their website on www.dla-architecture.co.uk and look under projects and sport the Newmarket stadium details are listed along with other projects DLA have worked on such as the MEN Arena and other international projects. The architects have been in place since the very beginning of this project and are key to making this work. Detailed plans for the Newmarket stadium are ready to be submitted to the next stage of planning once outline planning is granted.

To place this in context, outline planning permission was granted at Glasshoughton in 2005, on 6th May 2010 Castleford confirmed that architects for the detailed plans were announced from a shortlist of 18.

We feel we have made excellent progress in just under 2 years in reaching this stage and whilst there is still work to be done we are delighted to be in the position we are in.

These are exciting times for everyone involved in this project and the amount of work being done should not be underestimated. Key personnel are already heavily involved in training and preparing for the move to Newmarket and have attended the European Venue Management Institute course for Strategic Stadium Business Management; the Healthy Stadia Network Conference and the Stadium Business Summit Conference in Dublin and will attend the Sports and Events Management Conference at Twickenham later in the year. St. Helens RFL had also attended some of these events as they prepare for their move from Knowsley Road.

The news on the progress made at Newmarket is excellent for the District and it is hoped that once the whole site is operational then 2,000 jobs will be created helping regeneration for the region.


#95 Bomb Jack

Bomb Jack
  • Coach
  • 2,033 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 02:19 PM

All Wakey have to do now is actually start building and they're a shoe in wink.gif
Widnes - Super League's newest Club, and Cheshire's Original Glamour Club. Watch out Warrington, we're back !

#96 Dirk Diggler

Dirk Diggler
  • Coach
  • 1,218 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 08:57 PM

It is a point often over-looked that Castleford have had outline permission for many years now for their project but still have no plans to run with for a detailed approval. I think Cas fans ought to know what has been going on for the last few years since it seems to be possible to move from one planning stage to the next in less time. the general view that Wakefield are years behind Castleford does seem to assume that the two are moving at the same pace and this might not be so.
But I still would not be suprised to see both clubs tossed at the next licencing round.

#97 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 06 August 2010 - 08:16 AM

QUOTE (Dirk Diggler @ Aug 5 2010, 09:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But I still would not be suprised to see both clubs tossed at the next licencing round.

Qusetion is - Who'll be doing the tossing? ohmy.gif





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users