31 replies to this topic

[Lobbygobbler]

Does anyone know if there is any minimum standards for SL for stadiums? Or is it just a criterion that you might not get a tick for?

If there are standards then what are they? I would expect there is a min capacity of 10k, a certain percentage of cover and a certain minimum number of seats, but is this clarified anywhere?

I know there is also a tick for achieving a certain attendance versus capacity but this is dubious at older grounds like Odsal where the capacity reduces every year (thus making it "easier" to get a higher fill ratio.

Why are there no standards regarding the viewing geometry (i.e. whether a stadium is purpose built for rugby/soccer) which related to how the atmosphere comes across on TV. For example I do not think a stadium with some sort of a track around it should tick a box

Also why is there nothing to take into account whether a club owns their own stadium, whether they are the prime tenant or whether they are secondary tenants. Also if they are tenants what about the lease. These are all importnant questions

[bendyas]

It'd be nice to see what clubs are being judged on.

I'm a fan. Quite a loyal, knowledgable fan yet i haven't a clue what's happening with anything anymore.

[shrek]

It'd be nice to see what clubs are being judged on.

I'm a fan. Quite a loyal, knowledgable fan yet i haven't a clue what's happening with anything anymore.

I thought they choose who they wanted then wrote the criteria accordingly!

[brooza]

According to Wikipaedia:

Facilities

Teams will get one point for having a stadium with a capacity of 12,000 or more. Another point will be awarded if the ground meets the standards of a premier competition in the 21st century.

Attendances

A point will be awarded to clubs with an average attendance of around 10,000 spectators. Another point will be awarded if stadiums are operating at 40 per cent capacity.

[Amber Avenger]

I don't suppose it matters, but Odsal doesn't reduce capacity "Every Year" as I suspect you well know. We could return to our former capacity if you would like - sure it would be a lower percentage attendance vs capacity - but there would be the added bonus of people getting injured due to the state of the terracing. I'm sure that will at least create some of the atmosphere you desperately crave.

Edited by Amber Avenger, 28 July 2010 - 02:55 PM.

[Bulligerent]

I knew what the standard of this thread would be when i read "is there any" in the title and i'm assuming from your post Amber, that Lobby is currently recycling the "Bradford announce the capacity of the ground to suit the average attendance" argument.

Seriously, i've had this guy on ignore for 18 months or so now and his points haven't become anymore advanced or indeed relevant; absolutely pathetic.

[Rioman]

Does anyone know if there is any minimum standards for SL for stadiums? Or is it just a criterion that you might not get a tick for?

If there are standards then what are they? I would expect there is a min capacity of 10k, a certain percentage of cover and a certain minimum number of seats, but is this clarified anywhere?

I know there is also a tick for achieving a certain attendance versus capacity but this is dubious at older grounds like Odsal where the capacity reduces every year (thus making it "easier" to get a higher fill ratio.

Why are there no standards regarding the viewing geometry (i.e. whether a stadium is purpose built for rugby/soccer) which related to how the atmosphere comes across on TV. For example I do not think a stadium with some sort of a track around it should tick a box

Also why is there nothing to take into account whether a club owns their own stadium, whether they are the prime tenant or whether they are secondary tenants. Also if they are tenants what about the lease. These are all importnant questions

Easy. It's whatever the various 'sages' on this forum decide.

[Tommy The C5t]

Does anyone know if there is any minimum standards for SL for stadiums? Or is it just a criterion that you might not get a tick for?

If there are standards then what are they? I would expect there is a min capacity of 10k, a certain percentage of cover and a certain minimum number of seats, but is this clarified anywhere?

I know there is also a tick for achieving a certain attendance versus capacity but this is dubious at older grounds like Odsal where the capacity reduces every year (thus making it "easier" to get a higher fill ratio.
Why are there no standards regarding the viewing geometry (i.e. whether a stadium is purpose built for rugby/soccer) which related to how the atmosphere comes across on TV. For example I do not think a stadium with some sort of a track around it should tick a box

Also why is there nothing to take into account whether a club owns their own stadium, whether they are the prime tenant or whether they are secondary tenants. Also if they are tenants what about the lease. These are all importnant questions

Don't talk **** Lobby.

The capacity has and always will stay at 26,000.

[Fully]

Don't talk **** Lobby.

The capacity has and always will stay at 26,000.

27.5k according to Wikipedia.
27k according to Worldstadia.com
26,019 according to BBC, here: http://news.bbc.co.u...gue/4528920.stm
25k according this website: http://www.napit.co....adfordbulls.php

Bit of a conflict there....

[RP London]

Does anyone know if there is any minimum standards for SL for stadiums? Or is it just a criterion that you might not get a tick for?

If there are standards then what are they? I would expect there is a min capacity of 10k, a certain percentage of cover and a certain minimum number of seats, but is this clarified anywhere?

I know there is also a tick for achieving a certain attendance versus capacity but this is dubious at older grounds like Odsal where the capacity reduces every year (thus making it "easier" to get a higher fill ratio.

Why are there no standards regarding the viewing geometry (i.e. whether a stadium is purpose built for rugby/soccer) which related to how the atmosphere comes across on TV. For example I do not think a stadium with some sort of a track around it should tick a box

Also why is there nothing to take into account whether a club owns their own stadium, whether they are the prime tenant or whether they are secondary tenants. Also if they are tenants what about the lease. These are all importnant questions

if you dont know the standards then how do you know there is not any of the other bits? or was thi just an excuse to have an illinformed rant?


There are criteria set out as has been pointed out.. i would expect that they are quite complicated when you look at "premier stadium" and there is much within that.. all of which is no doubt given to clubs so taht they know what to get up to.. but do they really need to give us huge documents for us to poor over who have no specialist knoweledge of what does and does not count etc.. there would be even more arguments of "well this does count" or "well that doesnt count" when looking at these regs but an expert would tell you one way or another, some will agree some will not.. technicalities or leases.. standard of facilities (remember angela powers haing great difficulty deciding if something counted when she did this 2-3 years ago)..

FWIW aquick google to get to the old standards as done by boots and all had 4 points fr stadium related issues:
12k plus capacity
premier competiiont standard (i believe thi is a recognised set of criteria across all sports)
avg crowd of 10k+
working at 40% capacity

[Lobbygobbler]

if you dont know the standards then how do you know there is not any of the other bits? or was thi just an excuse to have an illinformed rant?


There are criteria set out as has been pointed out.. i would expect that they are quite complicated when you look at "premier stadium" and there is much within that.. all of which is no doubt given to clubs so taht they know what to get up to.. but do they really need to give us huge documents for us to poor over who have no specialist knoweledge of what does and does not count etc.. there would be even more arguments of "well this does count" or "well that doesnt count" when looking at these regs but an expert would tell you one way or another, some will agree some will not.. technicalities or leases.. standard of facilities (remember angela powers haing great difficulty deciding if something counted when she did this 2-3 years ago)..

FWIW aquick google to get to the old standards as done by boots and all had 4 points fr stadium related issues:
12k plus capacity
premier competiiont standard (i believe thi is a recognised set of criteria across all sports)
avg crowd of 10k+
working at 40% capacity

The bootsnall standards were not pass/fail criteria though were they? What is premier competition standard? Looking at those criteria, Odsal would not tick a single box, so why are they not lumped in with the usual suspects like Wakey, Cas and Salford - Double Standards!

[Lobbygobbler]

Don't talk **** Lobby.

The capacity has and always will stay at 26,000.

In my playfair annual from the 84/85 season, the capacity of Odsal is stated as 60k

Now who is talking **** Thomas?

[RP London]

The bootsnall standards were not pass/fail criteria though were they? What is premier competition standard? Looking at those criteria, Odsal would not tick a single box, so why are they not lumped in with the usual suspects like Wakey, Cas and Salford - Double Standards!

they were very simple and not looked at in depth but it was 1 point or 0 yes.. but that is the way to do it.. the detail will come in when you have people on equal liscences and so who is closes to the "premier standard" mark.

As i am not a surveyor or anything similar i dont know what premier competition standard is.. as i say it seems to be a recognised mark and can be assesed probably with a 500 page document guiding you if it is similar to half the recognied marks we deal with is anythng to go by..

i would expect becuase they tick other boxes on the liscence application tha wakey, cas and salford do not.. (this is more than a stadium comp asyou well know as you have been told often enough) but why dont you ask the RFL..

[thirteenthman]

Leigh would of course walk straight into Super League with their superb ground.

That is if you overlook the clubs appalling history of financial mis-management, their reliance on Warrington cast-offs, their close proximity to other SL clubs and the fact that they should really be in Championship 1, but for the problems at Gateshead.

And before anyone mentions that Toulouse finished 10th, may I say that if we exclude the bonus points (which are a farce anyway), Leigh and Toulouse would've finished on exactly the same number of points but Leigh had a far worse points difference.

[RP London]

Leigh would of course walk straight into Super League with their superb ground.

That is if you overlook the clubs appalling history of financial mis-management, their reliance on Warrington cast-offs, their close proximity to other SL clubs and the fact that they should really be in Championship 1, but for the problems at Gateshead.

And before anyone mentions that Toulouse finished 10th, may I say that if we exclude the bonus points (which are a farce anyway), Leigh and Toulouse would've finished on exactly the same number of points but Leigh had a far worse points difference.

not that we should go down the line of leigh bashing.. but if you take away tolouse's games from last year and all the points various teams wonagainst them.. Leigh still finnished 2nd to bottom.

[thirteenthman]

not that we should go down the line of leigh bashing.. but if you take away tolouse's games from last year and all the points various teams wonagainst them.. Leigh still finnished 2nd to bottom.

In some parts of the world Leigh bashing is a criminal offence.



Not here though

[Lobbygobbler]

Leigh would of course walk straight into Super League with their superb ground.

That is if you overlook the clubs appalling history of financial mis-management, their reliance on Warrington cast-offs, their close proximity to other SL clubs and the fact that they should really be in Championship 1, but for the problems at Gateshead.

And before anyone mentions that Toulouse finished 10th, may I say that if we exclude the bonus points (which are a farce anyway), Leigh and Toulouse would've finished on exactly the same number of points but Leigh had a far worse points difference.

My post was about stadium criteria.

I didn't mention how underwhelming RL was, in Warrington schools did I? If Warrington is such an RL place why are there no decent amateur clubs there?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

My post was about stadium criteria.

I didn't mention how underwhelming RL was, in Warrington schools did I? If Warrington is such an RL place why are there no decent amateur clubs there?

The Wizards are pretty decent I'd say.

[Lobbygobbler]

The Wizards are pretty decent I'd say.

Are you saying the teams in the summer conference are superior to those in the BARLA National Conference?

[Lee]

Are you saying the teams in the summer conference are superior to those in the BARLA National Conference?

Nope, he said the Wizards were pretty decent