Death to the Rah Rah's

I don't see anything wrong in allowing London the chance to develop the ground in stages as the need applies, or any other club for that matter. A 3000 capacity stadium is ample for their needs at present. If they manage to average crowds of 2500 this season then the argument is there to further develop the ground to 5 or 6000 in conjunction with the union club. I accept that in the early years of Super League there was a genuine need to 'raise the bar' of expectation in the sport and minimum standards were applied to membership of the competition for good reason. But things change and RL has bigger problems to address than ground capacities, ie: making clubs develop stadiums that are less than 50% full on match days. The same applies to the Championship. Yes clubs need standards, but common sense should prevail. Swinton are a good example, with crowds of 500-600, surely 250 seats would be ample. Again if they have success on the pitch and crowds increase then the need is there for further ground development

That's a shame. I'm personally not a fan or follower of speedway at all, but you don't want to see any sporting organisation fail locally, as let's face it, Cumbria sporting wise hasn't had a lot to celebrate in recent years. The Comets really put Workington on the speedway map last season, but as I understand it, with the exception of the last few meetings, crowds have declined year on year making the project unsustainable. Laura Morgan and her family deserve praise for personally bankrolling the club over the past few years and it must have been heart breaking for them to come to the decision to withdraw from the league. I'm maybe being over cynical here, but I can't see the club being resurrected for next season. I think Allerdale BC will ring fence the possibility of any future lease so they can sell the land to offset the cost of the new stadium. Potentially it could be a gamebreaker for the stadium development, but at the expense of any future speedway in the town

If the office rents can generate that sort of return then I would say 'crack on' as it will make the stadium self financing, greatly reducing the financial risk to both Town and Reds should they fail to reach their respective crowd targets. But as the council are forecasting initial losses in the £ millions, then I very much doubt this is the case. But all the speculation on here and facebook is pure conjecture until someone from the Council goes public with facts and figures

who knows ...and there lies the problem!!

you know Rockerlad without sounding disrespectful to the Reds and the Red's Junior football side which has multiple teams, why hasn't someone at the club taken on the role of identifying a suitable site locally for the community side of the club to develop their own ground and facilities along the lines of Whitehaven Amateurs? I've noticed Workington Reds Ladies have been playing their home games at Maryport. Surely there's a piece of land somewhere in Workington that could be utilised for the football club? How about the old Salterbeck rugby pitch just up from Asda or at Moorclose, somewhere they can put down roots and call a home? I'm sure an argument for their own site could be argued as part of the stadium scheme as the only way Reds will ever climb up the league ladder is by producing their own players, and better training and pitch facilities would allow them to do that. I should have mentioned that this scheme is in addition to the stadium

If you listened to the radio interview, the guy said they had approached Allerdale for their views but the request was denied. Like him or loathe him, Mark Jenkinson is asking valid questions about the viability and sustainability of the scheme. Allerdale have paid some company a fee in the 100's of thousands of pounds to come up with a proposal to put forward to councillors, so on what basis have they arrived at crowds of 7500 and 2600 average gates for Town and Reds? 20% revenue streams towards the rent from those projected figures is one thing, 20% on crowds of 1000 and 500 is something totally different, so what happens if Town and Reds don't achieve those figures, does the council or whoever takes over the running of the stadium have the power to 'implement clauses' to increase rental costs? If he borrowing is going to be over 30 years, are Sellafield and the NHS going to take out a 30 year lease on the office space with strict exit clauses should they vacate earlier than expected? What percentage of borrowings will be covered by the office rental fees and what percentage will be covered by match day revenues based on a sliding scale based on crowds of 500 through to the magical 8000 figures? The council have already projected losses circ £3.5 million in the opening years, so what happens if Town don't get into Super League or Reds into the Conference, how long are the council willing to under right continued losses, because it will be the rate payer through increased Council Tax who will be picking up the tab ! In the event of Derwent Park becoming vacant in the future, will the site be sold for housing or industrial with any monies raised used to offset the stadium costs? All valid points, and someone from the council needs to openly come out and explain (in layman's terms) how this scheme is going to work. I sincerely hope this does come off in one form or another, but the whole scheme seems very rushed and ill thought out in an effort to stage one or possibly two World Cup games.

those numbers really have been plucked out of the air to justify the building of a stadium that size - where's the evidence to support the crowd projections? I hope both clubs insist on built in safeguards in regards to rental payments, as there's not a cat in hells chance of either club averaging crowds as big as that - and Super League in 5 years !!

No doubt its a step in the right direction in making the project financially viable, but the article doesn't specify if its going to be Sellafield picking up the £10 million tab for the additional works, or if it will be the council paying and then recouping in rent. I would hope its the former, with payment up front as the interest alone on £10 million would be eye watering and if for some reason the tenants leave could see the council dumped with one almighty funding gap! Jesus, who made up those crowd assumptions ??

At one point have I argued against it? I'm all for the building of a stadium, but a scaled back scheme which is more suited to current needs and that more than allows for the manageable expectation of increased support should Reds or Town be successful in the future. In regards to building costs, of course it will cost more, builders price per metre!

Not being negative mate, there's a big difference between being negative and having realistic ambition. This part of West Cumbria has a population of about 100,000, so the chances of 8% of the population attending regular live sports will never happen. Town and Haven can't muster 2,000 between them, Reds 500 on a good day. Town under Peter Walsh enjoying their first success in decades only averaged about 3,000 when they were winning trophies. Whitehaven probably about 2500 Apart from a very very odd occasion (ie World Cup game), this area is never going to go close to filling an 8,000 capacity stadium. If you look at all professional sport (top Premier League clubs excluded), they won't draw more than an average of 2-5% of the local population to matches - that isn't speculation, its a fact. Do a little research and see for yourself. I'm fully behind the scheme to build a modern stadium, but it has to be funded, so why pay for something that's never going to be used but still has to be maintained, and not forgetting part of the attraction of attending live sports is for the atmosphere. What atmosphere is going to be generated by a stadium less than 10% full !! If the powers that be are confident that they can regularly fill a stadium close to capacity, then alter the design so the stadium can be added to at some point in the future as and when the need arises. Having a smaller stadium which is close to capacity every game is actually a better financial option, as it encourages people to buy tickets well in advance without having to heavily reduce ticket prices, so there are multiple benefits to scaled ambition. Anyway, Allerdale still haven't come out and said how the stadium is going to be funded, or how much cost will be passed on to ratepayers, so until the first sod is dug, I'll see it when I believe it

I know its a multipurpose stadium, but you will never convince me the area needs an 8,000 capacity structure. For the few music events the stadium may host, there's also the added capacity of using the pitch as a standing area which would easily add an additional 5,000 to any capacity subject to temporary toilets and refreshment outlets being added

I was never a fan of franchising, but I think that's the way the game is heading in both codes of rugby. In some respects it would be a good thing as it would allow the clubs in the Championship and League One to take a step back and re-evaluate the current competition and see how it can be improved to create a better spectator experience. It would also stop clubs paying excessive full time wages they can ill afford to players in their effort to reach Super League. Let's go back to all clubs being semi-pro below Super League, but at the same time have some sort of mechanism in place which would give successful ambitious teams the chance to join Super League provided they meet the criteria. As has been said countless times, small town teams like Town, Haven, Barrow just don't have the population to support a Super League side. An 8,000 stadium isn't going to bring Super League rugby to Workington, and anyone who thinks it will is living in cloud cuckoo land. Better to build a smaller 5,000 capacity stadium and have it looking full (ish) than rattle about in a soulless empty stadium

What makes anyone think the final would be any more attractive just by moving venues? When the final moved to Wembley originally, it was one of the few occasions the 'northern working class' had a chance to leave their home town and experience the capital to watch their side in a major final. Fast forward 90 years and we have cheap air travel which can see us jet off to anywhere in Europe for (in some cases) a fraction of the cost of a return train ticket to London, plus hotels, £5 average per pint !! Its cheaper to have a week in Tenerife than a weekend in London !! In addition, access to live sport on a host of mobile devices has never been greater, plus Sky, You Tube, BBC, Amazon, BT etc all streaming live sport on TV. I would be interested to know the age bands of attendees for the last 10 finals at Wembley. When I used to regularly attend back in the 80's and early 90's, there was a wide range of supporters sporting their club colours and all of different ages. I obviously don't have the figures, but I would hazard a guess that the majority of supporters attending these days will be 45 - 70 years old and classed as the 'traditional RL fan' who still enjoys the occasion of a big match atmosphere! Sport and the way we view sport has changed. Marketing has never been more important, but the RFL seen incapable of anything but the most basic of marketing, which as several people have already highlighted, usually involves heavily discounting tickets. For the record, I still believe its important to keep the final at Wembley, but even more important that it plays out to a full house. The stadium sells out for NFL games regardless of whose playing, and with proper marketing there's no reason why the final shouldn't gradually build back up to near capacity. The RFL and the clubs have to share some responsibility for the decline in the competition. Seeded draws, too many amateurs entries, too many one-sided games with little chance of an upset have created a stale competition. Only the handful of 'elite' amateur clubs should be allowed to enter the competition and in its place, the amateur game should have its own new competition involving NCL clubs and the Regional Leagues with the final being played as the curtain raiser at Wembley. That would raise the profile of the community game and also give the community lads something to aspire to. The game needs fresh ideas and quickly before it fades into oblivion

yet another example of how inept an organisation the RFL have become. The FA Cup has seen lower league sides grace their final in previous years and with a favourable draw, this could easily happen in the Challenge Cup with a Championship side reaching the final two. Maybe the RFL should concentrate on marketing what used to be the most attractive RL cup competition in the world to the southern counties to try and introduce a new audience to the game as opposed to asking 'Johnny Foreigner' to 'plug the hole' of potential lost revenue should they have the audacity to reach the final ! Gone (for most people) are the days when the annual trip to London was booked 12 months in advance. The RFL should be using this long established competition to market the final to help develop the game in the south of the country and help to boost participation and attendances at both London clubs. If we are just to reply on 'northerners' traveling to the capital, then the final might as well be moved to the Ethiad or St James Park and make it a truly northern affair

Can anyone highlight the last time Town or Reds were averaging over 5,000 to watch their games? I would hazard a guess that it was the 1950's when pro RL was relatively new to the area and Reds had just been admitted to the Football League. Which begs the question, does the area need an 8,000 capacity stadium and what cost savings would be made by reducing the capacity to a more manageable 5,000? There has been a huge shift in the way people watch sport and the next big thing is streaming games for subscribers. Bradford Bulls have started to do this, the Championship stream all midweek games which allows away supporters to follow their team from the comfort of their own home. The demand for modern stadia with large capacities will decrease as clubs look for income streams which are cheaper to run and potentially increase audiences globally with exiled Town supporters over the world able to sign up to watch games, as well as the local 'armchair supporters which have slightly more than a passing interest in Town or Reds, but can't be arsed to go to the stadium on matchdays. In all fairness I think Mark is getting a bit of a 'digging' on here for highlighting concerns which in all fairness should have been part of any initial proposal. Basic things like 'how the stadium will be financed' affects all of the rate payers in the Borough, unless funding is being raised by selling off Council land to make the project cost neutral. West Cumbria is a backwater and the stadium certainly would be an asset to the area, indeed the only modern stadium in the county, but it as to be paid for and needs to be sustainable. I would hope the Council have already carried out due diligence to ensure this is the case, but at the minute it all seems a very rushed process purely in the hope of bringing a RL World Cup game to the county in a couple of years time.