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
- - - - -

At least one Super League club to lose licence in 2011


  • Please log in to reply
210 replies to this topic

#1 Wendall

Wendall
  • Banned
  • 6,758 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 01:41 PM

http://news.bbc.co.u...gue/8885900.stm

My money is on Wakefield to lose its place in SL.



#2 EastLondonMike

EastLondonMike
  • Coach
  • 4,171 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 01:47 PM

The RFL will be brave if they get rid of more than one team..

Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk


#3 ShotgunGold

ShotgunGold
  • Coach
  • 858 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 01:47 PM

QUOTE (Wendall @ Aug 4 2010, 02:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Before that any Championship side wishing to apply for a place in Super League has to meet the following minimum criteria before being allowed to try to win a place.

They are:

1 Club has reached a Championship final or won the Northern Rail Cup in 2009 or 2010.

2 Club has a stadium with an operational capacity of 10,000.

3 No insolvency event has occurred during the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons.

4 Club has turnover of at least 1,000,000 in financial year ending 2009 or 2010 (turnover of charitable foundation can be included in this figure).

5 Club has an average attendance of at least 2,500 in 2009 or 2010.

At present only four clubs, Halifax, Widnes, Barrow and Batley, meet the criteria.


These four clubs fit in with the first criteria, but not the others. As far as I know Craven Park and Mount PLeasant don't hold 10,000. And do Halifax have a turnover of 1 million?? In fact do Widnes Vikings even have a turnover of 1 mil?

Anyway it seems likely that it'll be goodbye Wakefield/Castleford and hello Widnes.

#4 Wendall

Wendall
  • Banned
  • 6,758 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 01:55 PM

QUOTE (ShotgunGold @ Aug 4 2010, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anyway it seems likely that it'll be goodbye Wakefield/Castleford and hello Widnes.


I agree it will be a miracle if both Calder clubs survive at least one will go. And Widnes must be 100% nailed on.

It will be a fairly mundane process unless we have a few suprise bids from Toulouse and Stade Francais to spice up the proceedings.



#5 Northern Exposure

Northern Exposure
  • Coach
  • 8,506 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:04 PM

Wakey and Bradford out.

Fax and Barrow in.

Edited by Northern Exposure, 04 August 2010 - 02:05 PM.

Posted Image

#6 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,702 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:05 PM

I hate to say it but that sounds like it's been tailored to Widnes.

We are the only club averaging over 2,500 for a start.

The 1m pound thing is a problem, but I'm guessing the charitible donation would come from Steve O'Connor.

Either that or it's a late attempt to get Halifax and Barrow to massively up their attendances.

That said after reading the headline once again Wendall has sensationalised it. It says they are 'set to lose a license,' not that they definitely will.

Edited by Maximus Decimus, 04 August 2010 - 02:06 PM.


#7 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,787 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:15 PM

4 Club has turnover of at least 1,000,000 in financial year ending 2009 or 2010 (turnover of charitable foundation can be included in this figure).

5 Club has an average attendance of at least 2,500 in 2009 or 2010.

I don't recall either of these criteria being mentioned by the RFL at the start of the 3-year cycle

And again, as I've said before, there is a huge chicken and egg situation in the second division. The majority of potential fans aren't going to games because of the lack of a guarantee of going up

#8 Chronicler of Chiswick

Chronicler of Chiswick
  • Coach
  • 2,422 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:16 PM

Unless Quins sort out their financial situation, they'll be gone - as things stand at the moment, no David Hughes, no club.

#9 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,787 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:18 PM

QUOTE (Chronicler of Chiswick @ Aug 4 2010, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Unless Quins sort out their financial situation, they'll be gone - as things stand at the moment, no David Hughes, no club.


Why not just limit player spend to sky income?

#10 Bulletproof

Bulletproof
  • Coach
  • 2,242 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:19 PM

QUOTE (EastLondonMike @ Aug 4 2010, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The RFL will be brave if they get rid of more than one team..


Why though? If there are two failing clubs, why is it any braver to drop them than to get two CC clubs a chance instead of abandoning them for another three years? It seems controversial to stick even failing super league clubs in the championship, but not to keep clubs already down there inside indefinitely. Because I guarantee, as time goes on teams will weaken. The likes of Widnes, Halifax, Leigh, deserve their chance. Certain clubs can count themselves incredibly lucky to have been included in the first place, why should their places at the top be assured forever?

Drop one, two or three if it suits as far as I'm concerned. It's the nature of licensing.

#11 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,787 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:27 PM

QUOTE (Bulletproof @ Aug 4 2010, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why though? If there are two failing clubs, why is it any braver to drop them than to get two CC clubs a chance instead of abandoning them for another three years? It seems controversial to stick even failing super league clubs in the championship, but not to keep clubs already down there inside indefinitely. Because I guarantee, as time goes on teams will weaken. The likes of Widnes, Halifax, Leigh, deserve their chance. Certain clubs can count themselves incredibly lucky to have been included in the first place, why should their places at the top be assured forever?

Drop one, two or three if it suits as far as I'm concerned. It's the nature of licensing.


I agree with you. However I think the preferred clubs for the chop (Cas and/or Wakey) are doing rather well this year, which will make it difficult to chop both. I still think that Wakey making the CC SF a couple of years ago, saved them from being demoted instead of Widnes being promoted.

I don't think the RFL has any intention of chopping Bradford or Salford as they are "big city" teams (Wakey is not really known as a big city)

I'm also hoping that Quins don't get a licence unless they move from the Stoop

#12 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,702 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:27 PM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Aug 4 2010, 03:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
4 Club has turnover of at least 1,000,000 in financial year ending 2009 or 2010 (turnover of charitable foundation can be included in this figure).

5 Club has an average attendance of at least 2,500 in 2009 or 2010.

I don't recall either of these criteria being mentioned by the RFL at the start of the 3-year cycle

And again, as I've said before, there is a huge chicken and egg situation in the second division. The majority of potential fans aren't going to games because of the lack of a guarantee of going up


I agree with your first point, that these have only been stipulated recently, which suggests to me that the RFL have somebody in mind.

Aside from Widnes there are Championship clubs that would perform as well as some Super League clubs. I really resent the idea that they have to offer something unique or much better than what is currently there. Many clubs are only in the situations that they are in now Championship or SL because of timing, yet some SL clubs feel like they have a divine right to stay there.

There are at least a few current Super League clubs who given a few years in the Championship would not be meeting the above criteria.

#13 ShotgunGold

ShotgunGold
  • Coach
  • 858 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:27 PM

QUOTE (Chronicler of Chiswick @ Aug 4 2010, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Unless Quins sort out their financial situation, they'll be gone - as things stand at the moment, no David Hughes, no club.


I think the Crusaders, or "Wrexham Village", are having some trouble too. Apparently they have mounting debts and county court judgements. I really don't know the in's and out's of it but both Crusaders and Wrexham FC fans are annoyed. Apparently Wrexham Village Limited is run by idiots. The fact that they schedule a match for 6pm on a Friday backs that up!

So it might not be as clear cut as we all think - Wakefield, Castleford, Salford, Harlequins and Crusaders could easily get the chop if financial problems continue.

Edited by ShotgunGold, 04 August 2010 - 02:33 PM.


#14 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,633 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:38 PM

So are we to assume from this story that there will be no 'parachuting in' of a club like Toulouse, who probably won't meet the criteria? That's despite the conspiracy theorists being convinced it will happen.

Widnes are now pretty much certain to be promoted. If another CC side makes the grade (Halifax or Leigh are the only likely contenders - Leigh would have to make the GF of course) why shouldn't the RFL promote 2 CC sides? There'll be more than 2 SL teams who'll be in worse shape than the CC sides.



#15 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,959 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:41 PM

QUOTE (ShotgunGold @ Aug 4 2010, 05:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think the Crusaders, or "Wrexham Village", are having some trouble too. Apparently they have mounting debts and county court judgements. I really don't know the in's and out's of it but both Crusaders and Wrexham FC fans are annoyed. Apparently Wrexham Village Limited is run by idiots. The fact that they schedule a match for 6pm on a Friday backs that up!

So it might not be as clear cut as we all think - Wakefield, Castleford, Salford, Harlequins and Crusaders could easily get the chop if financial problems continue.


I don't think there are any "financial problems" at Salford. Their hold on a SL licence is tenuous for other reasons, ie. their ground (this is being fixed as we speak) and attendances.

Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#16 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,842 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:47 PM

There's always Toulouse;
QUOTE
A1:6 (a) There shall be no promotion or relegation between Super League and Championship
from the 2008 Season onwards. Instead for the 2009 Season and for every 3 seasons
after that, the Board shall invite applications for membership of Super League from: (i)
current Super League Clubs; (ii) Clubs in the Championships that meet minimum
standards set by the Board; and (iii) any overseas clubs invited to apply by the Board.
Those Clubs being offered and accepting a Super League Licence for 3 years shall
participate in Super League for the avoidance of doubt, all Clubs offered a Licence
shall be obliged to re-apply for a further 3 year Licence at the end of each 3 year
Licence period. Those either not being offered a place or not accepting a place offered
shall: (i) in the case of Super League Clubs, participate in the Championship; (ii) in the
case of Clubs in the Championships compete in the League they are currently in, unless
they are relegated or promoted in accordance with the rules below, which shall take
precedence; or (iii) in the case of overseas clubs invited to apply by the Board and who
are not currently in the Super League or the Championships, the Board shall have the
discretion to offer a place in one of the Championships or reject the application outright.


Taken from here

Seems they don't have to meet the criteria outlined above or have I misread it, plus it flys in the face of an article I don't have to hand but am sure was in League Express, wasn't there a whole load of confusion/controversy about this some months back?

Is this a subtle change to the rules or has it always been like this?


#17 ShotgunGold

ShotgunGold
  • Coach
  • 858 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:49 PM

QUOTE (tonyXIII @ Aug 4 2010, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't think there are any "financial problems" at Salford. Their hold on a SL licence is tenuous for other reasons, ie. their ground (this is being fixed as we speak) and attendances.


Yeh sorry I phrased that wrong. I meant Quins/Crusaders for possible financial problems and the other three for ground problems. But I do think these five are the possibles whereas the other nine seem to be fine.

#18 Jonty

Jonty
  • Coach
  • 3,014 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 02:57 PM

QUOTE (shrek @ Aug 4 2010, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There's always Toulouse;


Taken from here

Seems they don't have to meet the criteria outlined above or have I misread it, plus it flys in the face of an article I don't have to hand but am sure was in League Express, wasn't there a whole load of confusion/controversy about this some months back?

Is this a subtle change to the rules or has it always been like this?

No change - if you read the date of publication of the Op. Rules that you have linked to, it is Jan 2010, before the Toulouse issue raised it's head in the press (end-Feb, early-March). I'm pretty sure this rule predates that - maybe from the 2009 publication, although 2008 is different as it was pre-licensing.
disques vogue

The club where Eurovision isn't a dirty word. A waltz through the leopard skin lined world of Tom Jones, Bert Kampfert and Burt Bacharach. Step out to the sound of the happy hammond and swing to the seductive sounds of the samba.

DJ's, raffles, cocktails and wide collars. Please dress smart. Gentlemen might like to wear a suit.

Same price. Same music. Same rubbish prizes.

#19 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,959 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 03:03 PM

QUOTE (ShotgunGold @ Aug 4 2010, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeh sorry I phrased that wrong. I meant Quins/Crusaders for possible financial problems and the other three for ground problems. But I do think these five are the possibles whereas the other nine seem to be fine.


No problem. Actually, I've been thinking and Salford also struggle on the Junior Development front as well. In fact, that's three boxes we either don't tick at all (attendance figures), haven't ticked yet (ground) or don't tick convincingly (Junior Development). Red Willow, Segovia Carpet or Diablo may be able to refute my doubts about Junior Development, though, as they are much closer to the action.


Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#20 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,842 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 03:07 PM

QUOTE (Jonty @ Aug 4 2010, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No change - if you read the date of publication of the Op. Rules that you have linked to, it is Jan 2010, before the Toulouse issue raised it's head in the press (end-Feb, early-March). I'm pretty sure this rule predates that - maybe from the 2009 publication, although 2008 is different as it was pre-licensing.


Your probably right, I don't keep my old League Express's but there was defiantly some confusion at the time I vaguley recall the story and the fuss without to much detail(!) that this article refers to;
QUOTE
Of course, there was controversy earlier in the season when it was suggested that the club's president had said that they had been told they can apply regardless, a claim that was refuted by the RFL. It did, however, tug on the suspicions of some fans


In Full.

EDIT,

Found the Halifax Courier quoting League Express, that'll have to do!

A few quotes;
QUOTE
RFL U-turn over Super League licence for Toulouse?

Published Date: 02 March 2010
By James Roberts
RUGBY Football League officials were forced to beat an embarrassing retreat over the Super League licensing process last night after claims French hopefuls Toulouse had been given exemption from the criteria applied to English Championship clubs.
Under the governing body's own rules, which were originally released in 2008 and re-affirmed only last summer, only clubs that have appeared in a Championship Grand Final or won the Northern Rail Cup can lodge applications for a top flight place in 2012 and beyond.


QUOTE
But a report yesterday in the 'League Express' newspaper, which quoted an unnamed RFL official, claimed Toulouse would be judged by "different criteria", including being exempt from that requirement.


QUOTE
But by early evening, the RFL had performed a U-turn, issuing a brief statement insisting that Toulouse would have to pass the same on-field milestones as other clubs.

While the background to yesterday's confusion remains unclear, it will have done little to inspire confidence in a system that is already regarded with suspicion by many observers.


Article In Full.

But as you point out the date of the publication of the op rules was January 2010, and they clearly state;
QUOTE
(iii) any overseas clubs invited to apply by the Board.


Hence my confusion over if that was originally in there or subtly added after the story, sorry for the long winded way of getting here!!!



Edited by shrek, 04 August 2010 - 03:15 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users