Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Bradford and Odsal


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#41 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,027 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 05:57 PM

It's not like we haven't tried to get a new ground...

2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#42 PC

PC
  • Coach
  • 4,216 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 06:11 PM

QUOTE (hindle xiii @ Aug 19 2010, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's not like we haven't tried to get a new ground...

And it's also not as if the Bulls aren't working towards getting as good a score as possible the next time around. As far as I am aware the Bulls are the only club currently doing a dry run license application through the RFL. What are Leight doing? Or Cas? Or Wakey?

You can't just conjure a stadium out of thin air, and like Hindle says, it's not for want of trying. Unfortunately one of Bradford's "flagship" companies did a pretty good job of stuffing that one up. We also don't have a sugar daddy to help us out. The irony is that the best sugar daddy we, or anyone in RL for that matter, could want owns the company that was instrumental in the previous stadium plans falling through.

#43 Manx RL

Manx RL
  • Coach
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 06:35 PM

QUOTE (l'angelo mysterioso @ Aug 19 2010, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think Lobby has a point as well.
Odsal is plug ugly, it's vast and depressing, and he's right about the under cover accommodadtion.
but the actual facilities in themselves are quite good(apart from, again that cover). The main stand is fairly modern and conforms to standards, there is a modern almost new sponsors complex at one end, and massive, reasonably well maintained terracing at the other.
It is a white elephant these days and must cost a fortune to maintain. Odsal is vastly superior to Belle Vue and the Jungle.
That true depth still surpasses what they achieved in succesful years pre SL



Is Odsal one of the grounds you class as a 'death trap'?
- Adepto Successu Per Tributum Fuga -

#44 Wendall

Wendall
  • Banned
  • 6,758 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 06:40 PM

QUOTE (Adeybull @ Aug 19 2010, 04:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Maybe we can get a new stadium pretty well given to us by Tesco to solve the problem at modest cost? Maybe you can give us some tips there?

We DID try that, of course, but local politics killed it off. Others, who were in a much worse state than us, were rather more fortunate, were they not? There but for the grace of God...

Incidentally, Bulls are most definitely NOT "failing in every department". Are we "failing" in junior development, for example? I rather think not.


Your right you need a good council for starters and a few friends in high places to get your new ground like Wire.

I just think every year Bradford are going backwards on and off the pitch. You may have a few juniors to mask over the fact that the big names have gone but they are hardly in the class of Saints young stars.



#45 PC

PC
  • Coach
  • 4,216 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 06:45 PM

QUOTE (Wendall @ Aug 19 2010, 07:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You may have a few juniors to mask over the fact that the big names have gone but they are hardly in the class of Saints young stars.

You can't compare the two. The young Saints players have been introduced into a team with a winning mentality, with a settled core of players and playing some good stuff.

The young Bulls players have been introduced into a team that has lost all but 2 of it's players over the last 5 years, that has been playing poorly and as a result has lost more than it's won.

You could easily say the Saints kids aren't that good and their shortcomings are hidden by Cunningham, Roby, Wellens, Puletua, Pryce etc. The young players at Bradford are not surrounded by those types of players.

#46 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,635 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 07:21 PM

I'm sure I read that the A,B,C system of licence grading is not going to be used this time round. Something to do with the clubs who got a C saying it affects them commercially. I suppose they've got a point. A club with a C grade licence will be seen as not having a secure future - a bit of a risk to deal with long term. Mind you, the RFL don't seem to mind publicly naming clubs who need a new ground, or whose crowds are lagging a bit.

As for Bradford, well they can come out with all the excuses they want about trying to get a new ground and all the problems they've had. The fact is there crowds are falling and the team performance is nowhere near what is once was. Oh, and Odsal 'Stadium' is nothing but a hole in the ground. But, hey, they'll still get a licence next year. It's 2015 they need to worry about.



#47 ShotgunGold

ShotgunGold
  • Coach
  • 858 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 07:34 PM

QUOTE (Adeybull @ Aug 19 2010, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Last time round, Bulls scored 7 out of 10. You needed 5-7 for a B Licence. See below. Might make interesting reading for the pathetic fekkwits who seem to think its all about the newness of and facilities at your ground (clue: its one of TEN criteria)

Capacity of 12,000 YES 1
Premier competition standard ground NO 0
Average crowd of 10,000 YES 1
Operating at 40 per cent full YES 1
Turn over £4million YES 1
Solvent YES 1
Contribution to competition YES 1
Junior development YES 1
No salary cap breaches NO 0
No club within 20 miles NO 0

GRAND TOTAL 7
LICENSING GRADE B

If the same criteria apply this time round, then you would expect worst case 1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0 = 5 = B Grade still. Even now. It could be better depending on crowds and what years are used, and how "contribution to competition is actually judged i.e anything wider than just finishing in the play-off.

Of course, if the criteria change then so could the gradings. But maybe once and for all Gobshîte will shut up about the ground being the be-all and end all???

Incidentally, for the avoidance of doubt, Bulls junior development is beyond question now and the club is one of the few that is solvent (although I gather they are softening the rules on solvency this time round...)

We'd only have to close the Rooley Avenue terrace and thereby reduce ground capacity to earn another point...


The criteria for No. 9 is actually broken the salary cap in the last three seasons, and seeing as you guys cheated in 2005 (punished in 2006) you'll be getting another point there.

However contribution to competition is based on a teams average position being 8th or above in the last three seasons. Seeing as you guys finished 5th in Super League XIII and 9th in Super League IX, then if you finished 10th this season you'd get the point, but if you finished 11th this season you wouldn't get the point.

Also your Super League XIII attendence was 10,287; your XIV was 9,677 and XV at the moment is 8,440. This means that it is highly unlikely you'll get a point for having 10,000 average over the last 3 seasons.

This also means that you won't get the point for having a 40% capacity ground as 40% of 27,000 (which is how much Odsal holds) is 10,800 which is above what you guys have got over the last three years.

So if one of your other things like junior development or solvency was to fall, then you could be getting a C licence and would probably be the only club to actually have gone down a grade. Which would be a disaster for the club especially as teams like Huddersfield Giants and Crusaders have made progress, and especially as in three years times many many clubs will be getting several points for their new grounds.

So back off Lobby - he is not trolling he has actually made a very good point about Bradford's soon to be very poor licence application.


#48 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 495 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 08:08 PM

QUOTE (ShotgunGold @ Aug 19 2010, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The criteria for No. 9 is actually broken the salary cap in the last three seasons, and seeing as you guys cheated in 2005 (punished in 2006) you'll be getting another point there.

However contribution to competition is based on a teams average position being 8th or above in the last three seasons. Seeing as you guys finished 5th in Super League XIII and 9th in Super League IX, then if you finished 10th this season you'd get the point, but if you finished 11th this season you wouldn't get the point.

Also your Super League XIII attendence was 10,287; your XIV was 9,677 and XV at the moment is 8,440. This means that it is highly unlikely you'll get a point for having 10,000 average over the last 3 seasons.

This also means that you won't get the point for having a 40% capacity ground as 40% of 27,000 (which is how much Odsal holds) is 10,800 which is above what you guys have got over the last three years.

So if one of your other things like junior development or solvency was to fall, then you could be getting a C licence and would probably be the only club to actually have gone down a grade. Which would be a disaster for the club especially as teams like Huddersfield Giants and Crusaders have made progress, and especially as in three years times many many clubs will be getting several points for their new grounds.

So back off Lobby - he is not trolling he has actually made a very good point about Bradford's soon to be very poor licence application.


We won't fail on the Salary cap breach. The breaches happened for 2005 and 2006 (and only modest and only then because Harris' image rights paid by Publico were inexplicably treated as falling within the cap, whereas e.g Scully and Gillette, and all those clubs using devices HMRC are attacking were not - don't even go there). Had the 2008 licence application process been in 2009, we would have received an A grade. But I already added the point, so why repeat?

We won't fail on junior development. We'll be graded much higher than last time.

We won't fail on solvency. Without a sugar daddy we HAVE to be solvent, and we are.

I already marked us fail on crowd >10k and crowd 40% capacity and "contribution to the competition". And you will find that "contribution to competition" is a bit more vague than that simple "indicative" guideline anyway.

Lobby has a single agenda against Bradford, regarding the stadium. I don't think he is wired up right over it.

And you seem to have an agenda, But you failed to make any points I had not already recognised, and have set hares running with no justification on two other criteria.

I'm sure you had your reasons.

Edited by Adeybull, 19 August 2010 - 08:11 PM.


#49 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 495 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 08:18 PM

QUOTE (Wendall @ Aug 19 2010, 07:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Your right you need a good council for starters and a few friends in high places to get your new ground like Wire.

I just think every year Bradford are going backwards on and off the pitch. You may have a few juniors to mask over the fact that the big names have gone but they are hardly in the class of Saints young stars.


First point - for sure. Dead right there. Maybe as important is not sharing a city with a struggling soccer club with friends in high places, and the richest man in the city aiding and abetting the opposition.

Second point - re the youngsters: watch this space. Saints and the like have 2-3 years start on us. You haven't really seen the best of the young talent coming through yet - still a bit too young. But you will. Its one of the few things at the moment that is exciting about the future here.

We are also seeing some changes now within the club that I reckon will reverse the decline. Won't
list them on here, but - within the lack-of-sugar-daddy reality we are in, I'm actually cautiously optimistic.

#50 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,027 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 08:23 PM

QUOTE (Adeybull @ Aug 19 2010, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We are also seeing some changes now within the club that I reckon will reverse the decline. Won't
list them on here, but - within the lack-of-sugar-daddy reality we are in, I'm actually cautiously optimistic.
Err, if it's good news then get it the hell on here, we need all the positive arsenal we can muster, the big sharks haven't started to circle yet.

2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#51 ShotgunGold

ShotgunGold
  • Coach
  • 858 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 08:53 PM

QUOTE (Adeybull @ Aug 19 2010, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We won't fail on the Salary cap breach. The breaches happened for 2005 and 2006 (and only modest and only then because Harris' image rights paid by Publico were inexplicably treated as falling within the cap, whereas e.g Scully and Gillette, and all those clubs using devices HMRC are attacking were not - don't even go there). Had the 2008 licence application process been in 2009, we would have received an A grade. But I already added the point, so why repeat?

We won't fail on junior development. We'll be graded much higher than last time.

We won't fail on solvency. Without a sugar daddy we HAVE to be solvent, and we are.

I already marked us fail on crowd >10k and crowd 40% capacity and "contribution to the competition". And you will find that "contribution to competition" is a bit more vague than that simple "indicative" guideline anyway.

Lobby has a single agenda against Bradford, regarding the stadium. I don't think he is wired up right over it.

And you seem to have an agenda, But you failed to make any points I had not already recognised, and have set hares running with no justification on two other criteria.

I'm sure you had your reasons.


I wasn't marking you down for anything concerning junior development or solvency, I just used them as examples of how if one of them were to fall, then you would be a C grade.

And I was also just saying with regards to crowds and capacity it's crystal clear, 100% certain that you won't be getting any points for them. And the way your looking on the pitch it's quite likely that you won't be finishing 10th. However you do have Wakefield next so basically you could say that the match has one franchise point at stake. And yes getting an average of 8th or above is the only criteria regarding "competitiveness".

"Teams earn one point if they are considered to have made a contribution to the competition - that means averaging a place in the top eight over each of the last three seasons."

My agenda was simply to highlight that you are very likely to be the only club getting a lower rating than you got in 2008, which would be an absolute disaster for the club. I have nothing against Bradford personally, infact I'm sad that the Wolves have replaced you as one of the "big four" as opposed to there being a "big five" with Bradford included. It's just that the club seems to be spiraling downwards both on and off the pitch at an alarming rate, whilst clubs like Salford and Hull KR and Castleford; although they're in a worse position then the Bulls at the moment, within a few years could easily be better placed for Super League than the Bulls will be.

Edited by ShotgunGold, 19 August 2010 - 08:56 PM.


#52 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 495 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 09:13 PM

QUOTE (ShotgunGold @ Aug 19 2010, 09:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wasn't marking you down for anything concerning junior development or solvency, I just used them as examples of how if one of them were to fall, then you would be a C grade.

And I was also just saying with regards to crowds and capacity it's crystal clear, 100% certain that you won't be getting any points for them. And the way your looking on the pitch it's quite likely that you won't be finishing 10th. However you do have Wakefield next so basically you could say that the match has one franchise point at stake. And yes getting an average of 8th or above is the only criteria regarding "competitiveness".

"Teams earn one point if they are considered to have made a contribution to the competition - that means averaging a place in the top eight over each of the last three seasons."

My agenda was simply to highlight that you are very likely to be the only club getting a lower rating than you got in 2008, which would be an absolute disaster for the club. I have nothing against Bradford personally, infact I'm sad that the Wolves have replaced you as one of the "big four" as opposed to there being a "big five" with Bradford included. It's just that the club seems to be spiraling downwards both on and off the pitch at an alarming rate, whilst clubs like Salford and Hull KR and Castleford; although they're in a worse position then the Bulls at the moment, within a few years could easily be better placed for Super League than the Bulls will be.


OK thanks for clarifying. Bulls WILL be rated lower, that's without a doubt. And, sadly, it is primarily down to the fans not turning out (for whatever reason and whoever is at fault...) and nothing to do with e.g. quality of stadium.

I AM sure I read that that "contribution to the game" criterion was not as prescriptive as "top 8"-only, and that measure was indicative but not mandatory. Was sure there was a caveat in front of "averaging..." But like you I also read the top-8" measure too. I'll have to try and track down where I came across it, because it DID seem quite important (I think someone from an expansion club was using it to demonstrate why they may well qualify for a point there, but can't be sure).

Edited by Adeybull, 19 August 2010 - 09:14 PM.


#53 Manx RL

Manx RL
  • Coach
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 09:26 PM

QUOTE (Adeybull @ Aug 19 2010, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
OK thanks for clarifying. Bulls WILL be rated lower, that's without a doubt. And, sadly, it is primarily down to the fans not turning out (for whatever reason and whoever is at fault...) and nothing to do with e.g. quality of stadium.

I AM sure I read that that "contribution to the game" criterion was not as prescriptive as "top 8"-only, and that measure was indicative but not mandatory. Was sure there was a caveat in front of "averaging..." But like you I also read the top-8" measure too. I'll have to try and track down where I came across it, because it DID seem quite important (I think someone from an expansion club was using it to demonstrate why they may well qualify for a point there, but can't be sure).


It may very well be down to the quality of stadium that fans are not turning out.

- Adepto Successu Per Tributum Fuga -

#54 NEIL FOX IS GOD

NEIL FOX IS GOD
  • Coach
  • 2,353 posts

Posted 20 August 2010 - 05:58 PM

QUOTE (Tommy The C5t @ Aug 19 2010, 01:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nothing wrong with Odsal, it has more covered seating then Castleford and Wakefield put together.

Odsal main stand


Jungle main stand


Now I could understand if Odsal looked like it did when my dad was following Northern but it doesn't.




i have nothing against Bradford but Odsal is a s@ithole its the 2nd worst ground in SL no prizes for the worst may be the worst in RL biggrin.gif
Cant see how The Bulls get away with it when Salford Cas Sts get so much stick
Posted Image

#55 Konkrete

Konkrete
  • Coach
  • 1,976 posts

Posted 20 August 2010 - 08:57 PM

We don't have a sugar daddy, we can't sell to a supermarket, haven't copped a million quid by 'merging', haven't got the council to fork out. But we're still trying.

We do have an open stadium for a summer sport and taps in the f****** toilets though.

Lobby your rant is getting on for 4/5 years. It doesn't matter what happens at Odsal, small backwater clubs like Leigh with no support, and no potential support will stay where they are. You had an international this year and the crowd you got was an embarrassment.

Edited by Konkrete, 20 August 2010 - 08:58 PM.

Integrity is shown when no-one is looking.

#56 Manx RL

Manx RL
  • Coach
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 21 August 2010 - 12:09 AM

QUOTE (Konkrete @ Aug 20 2010, 09:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We don't have a sugar daddy, we can't sell to a supermarket, haven't copped a million quid by 'merging', haven't got the council to fork out. But we're still trying.

We do have an open stadium for a summer sport and taps in the f****** toilets though.

Lobby your rant is getting on for 4/5 years. It doesn't matter what happens at Odsal, small backwater clubs like Leigh with no support, and no potential support will stay where they are. You had an international this year and the crowd you got was an embarrassment.



So who did Leigh play in this international?

- Adepto Successu Per Tributum Fuga -

#57 PC

PC
  • Coach
  • 4,216 posts

Posted 21 August 2010 - 06:16 AM

QUOTE (Manx RL @ Aug 19 2010, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It may very well be down to the quality of stadium that fans are not turning out.

We got over 24,000 people in that stadium for an SL game once. We used to average over 15,000 in that stadium. I don't think Odsal is the issue.

#58 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,610 posts

Posted 21 August 2010 - 07:10 AM

QUOTE (Manx RL @ Aug 19 2010, 07:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is Odsal one of the grounds you class as a 'death trap'?

no
why do you ask?
It's clear what my views on Odsal are.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#59 Stevo

Stevo
  • Coach
  • 1,577 posts

Posted 21 August 2010 - 07:19 AM

QUOTE (Tommy The C5t @ Aug 19 2010, 01:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Northern should have been kicked out sine die for promoting Websters ale, never mind the state of the ground itself wink.gif
It's not a question of coming down to earth, Mr Duxbury. Some of us, Mr Duxbury, belong in the stars.

#60 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,610 posts

Posted 21 August 2010 - 07:22 AM

QUOTE (Stevo @ Aug 21 2010, 08:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Northern should have been kicked out sine die for promoting Websters ale, never mind the state of the ground itself wink.gif

it was even #### out of hand pumps
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users