Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Northern Exposure

Which clubs are most at risk of losing their licences?

Who's off to NL1?   92 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick 2 :)

    • Catalans
      0
    • Castleford
      43
    • Crusaders
      5
    • Quins RL
      11
    • Huddersfield
      0
    • Hull KR
      2
    • Salford
      25
    • Wakefield
      68
    • Bradford - lolz
      5

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

97 posts in this topic

They've been trying to exclude Wakey since the start of SL, and this time round I think they'll succeed. I'm suprised that more people haven't voted for Quins - if the rumours that David Hughes wants to reduce his financial input are true then we only tick the junior development and ground standard boxes.

+ clubs within a 20 mile radius.

I would think the RFL would do all they could to keep a London club in SL.

Edited by terrywebbisgod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Wakey will get that extra point for adding to the comp by finishing an average in the top 8.

Lots of Wakey bashing carry on.

We will or wont get our stadium we will see.

Cas will or wont get their stadium we will wait and see.

Finances of other clubs could come into play rumours are rife about clubs in the mire if one goes down then what will happen then, can some of them sustain their debts? they are Ok with sugar daddies but without them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They've been trying to exclude Wakey since the start of SL, and this time round I think they'll succeed. I'm suprised that more people haven't voted for Quins - if the rumours that David Hughes wants to reduce his financial input are true then we only tick the junior development and ground standard boxes.

Nonsense. If they wanted to exclude Wakey they could have done it ages ago if they were so desperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
down the track if the bulls continue as they are, i can see halifax replacing them

the RFL will just pick off all the clubs with dud grounds, poor finances and replace them with stronger clubs

wakey and cas are the standouts.

after that even a club like bradford is at risk if they continue as they are

hopefully standards rise so all clubs have to keep improving to stay in sl

Bulls are one of very few solvent SL clubs.

Bulls were one of 9 SL clubs NOT warned about their ground.

So two of the concerns you raise are not yet of immediate concern for licences.

That said, If perchance Bulls were in the same position in 2013 as they are now, then yes I would fear for our licence. Not for Halifax replacing us though - I suspect the RFL would take the opportunity to bring in Dublin or Edinburgh or Vladivostok or some other "expansion" place.

Edited by Adeybull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RFL will fit and twist things to have what they want. I am not sure that is good for the game though.

Heaven forbid those who are charged with leading a sport should get what they want!

The sugar daddies may be fed up at three clubs and the grounds may not come off at two

At worst there could be five SL clubs either skint or without a ground.

Will SL improve next time on this?

Will it become like the old first division full of half skint M62 clubs??

Or will it start turning into an anglo french competition?

Fascinating stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't Wakefield promoted to Super League originally on the basis that they would be improving their ground? I sure they played 1 match in their 1st season (v St Helens) at Barnsley because of this.

Not really progressed too far with that one, have they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weren't Wakefield promoted to Super League originally on the basis that they would be improving their ground? I sure they played 1 match in their 1st season (v St Helens) at Barnsley because of this.

Not really progressed too far with that one, have they?

They're talking about Barnsley again. Well if it worked once...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weren't Wakefield promoted to Super League originally on the basis that they would be improving their ground? I sure they played 1 match in their 1st season (v St Helens) at Barnsley because of this.

Not really progressed too far with that one, have they?

correct.i think thev'e gone this time unless they can produce a rabbit out of the hat. i cant believe they have dragged there heals all these years over a new or revamped ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This just shows how daft this Franchise lark is. People have so many diiferent opinions yet you could twist facts to justify a team being in SL. Widnes for example are struggling to make the playoffs this year. They have not exactly set the place a light being in the championship. Yet off the field are well set up-probably more so than many SL clubs! You have Quins, Wakey,Cas, Salford and Crusaders who not much better tha Halifax, Barrow and Leigh and have had time to sort things out and done very little. Often they have had problems financially and the grounds are sadly no longer fit for the future of playing in SL. Its the main reason I hate this SL Franchise ###### as its very difficult to say why Crusaders, Quins, Salford, Wakey etc should be in over Halifax, Barrow and Leigh. All of the clubs mentioned are going to be also rans in SL. All are going to seriously struugle to spend the full cap. Some have decent grounds. Others have good academys. But the RFL will fit and twist things to have what they want. I am not sure that us good for the game though. And the biggest fear is that the Championship is just a place to slowly die for clubs who are not in SL.

Just to defend my lot, they ticked the playing box when they won the rail cup.

That done, they've concentrated efforts elsewhere.

That said, I agree with you.

Its a farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wakefield are nailed on, sh*t ground, no fans, and not making the top 8 this season will be the final nail in their coffin. Bye bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wakefield are nailed on, sh*t ground, no fans, and not making the top 8 this season will be the final nail in their coffin. Bye bye.

Why do some smug fans, like the one above, revel in other clubs misfortunes? What are you getting out of Wakey's failure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They've been trying to exclude Wakey since the start of SL, and this time round I think they'll succeed. I'm suprised that more people haven't voted for Quins - if the rumours that David Hughes wants to reduce his financial input are true then we only tick the junior development and ground standard boxes.

Not quite true as Wakefield weren't in Super League at the start. Their first season was 1999.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do some smug fans, like the one above, revel in other clubs misfortunes? What are you getting out of Wakey's failure?

I'm not revelling, just stating a couple of facts. Failure to make the top 8 will in my opinion seal their fate,that's an opinion not a fact. Their ground is s*it and their crowds are poor, now they're facts. I would rather see promotion and relegation based on a teams results but as seen as this thread is about who's for the chop i don't see your problem with what i've said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not revelling, just stating a couple of facts. Failure to make the top 8 will in my opinion seal their fate,that's an opinion not a fact. Their ground is s*it and their crowds are poor, now they're facts. I would rather see promotion and relegation based on a teams results but as seen as this thread is about who's for the chop i don't see your problem with what i've said.

If these are all facts, we should be able to put them under scrutiny so let's do that.

You describe their ground in less than glowing terms, but in terms of facilities Headingly (the parts which are safe and open to the public, we all remember the south stand closure against Wigan) is similar. It's the same hotchpotch of modern seating and aging cramped terraces. It would seem the only thing differing the two is the sheer size, and wakefields ground has been adequate for years and only recently put under scrutiny. It would be more appropriate to say "small aging ground" than "sh*t", because otherwise, you could describe the hardly glowing Headingley in the same terms. I personally got much the same experience there as I did watching the game at Odsal, Headingley, Wheldon Road, Knowsley Road etc etc etc. A standing, uncovered area open to the elements. It could be improved, but then so many other teams need to improve too that singling them out is unfair. At least they didn't mix us with large amounts of home fans so to prevent us from building an atmosphere of our own like Leeds did.

Their crowds are relatively poor, but yet again, this is a recent issue, they aren't historically poor and there are other teams which get a pass that Wakefield don't. They arent as poor as Salford's, or Quins. Crusaders posted a 1,400 crowd last week. When can anyone say that happened in Wakefield? It again would be more appropriate to say they are poor for a club which doesn't get some special dispensation and why Salford do remains a mystery to me.

One team from super league is coming down, that much is almost certain. Wakefield are frontrunners, but whoever does is an unfortunate victim of the franchising process which has claimed so many, and I won't be describing it as a "nail in the coffin" or signing them off with a sarcastic "bye bye". I will be wishing them luck, because they'll need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
correct.i think thev'e gone this time unless they can produce a rabbit out of the hat. i cant believe they have dragged there heals all these years over a new or revamped ground.

Wakefield were going to piggyback on Yorkshire Cricket moving to a new ground next to the M1 at Denby Dale Road, but it never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wakefield were going to piggyback on Yorkshire Cricket moving to a new ground next to the M1 at Denby Dale Road, but it never happened.

if its true that they had 11 overseas players in their side when they played saints last weekend thats not helping their Super League future either. in my opinion its an absolute disgrace that a heartland club has so many overseas players in their side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is full of half truth, rumour and misinformation :lol:

Does anyone else think the licences will be awarded by the RFL to suit their long term plan? If you do then all this is academic.

The team wanting to come into SL will probably have to offer something different to the other licences, which would put Barrow at the top of the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+ clubs within a 20 mile radius.

I would think the RFL would do all they could to keep a London club in SL.

I'd forgotten about the 20 mile qualification, but if DH pulls out would the RFL fund us? I can just imagine the reaction if they did!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bulls are one of very few solvent SL clubs.

Bulls were one of 9 SL clubs NOT warned about their ground.

So two of the concerns you raise are not yet of immediate concern for licences.

That said, If perchance Bulls were in the same position in 2013 as they are now, then yes I would fear for our licence. Not for Halifax replacing us though - I suspect the RFL would take the opportunity to bring in Dublin or Edinburgh or Vladivostok or some other "expansion" place.

Who is not solvent in SL?

In all seriosness though why on Earth were Bradford not one of the clubs warned? Is it because purely and simply they are a city club? I think it is?

Odsal is quite honestly the most inappropriate stadium in SL, and does not give RL a good image on TV (even worse with sky cameras which do not give "bigger picture" angles like the SL show/BBC. Also the club does not own the stadium

Ask yourself this - If Fax or Batley had an Odsal like stadium, in all but name, would they be considered for SL. The answer is NO

Bradfords crowd also do not justify not being considered for the chop. I seriosuly question their last grading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if its true that they had 11 overseas players in their side when they played saints last weekend thats not helping their Super League future either. in my opinion its an absolute disgrace that a heartland club has so many overseas players in their side.

cas only had 4 overseas players playing against cru's not that it matters just thought id stat the fact :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is not solvent in SL?

In all seriosness though why on Earth were Bradford not one of the clubs warned? Is it because purely and simply they are a city club? I think it is?

Odsal is quite honestly the most inappropriate stadium in SL, and does not give RL a good image on TV (even worse with sky cameras which do not give "bigger picture" angles like the SL show/BBC. Also the club does not own the stadium

Ask yourself this - If Fax or Batley had an Odsal like stadium, in all but name, would they be considered for SL. The answer is NO

Bradfords crowd also do not justify not being considered for the chop. I seriosuly question their last grading

When I get bored, I read this forum on my phone. The screen isn't big enough to fit the whole page on, so I just browse through the posts and can't see which users are posting what unless I scroll to the side. Incidentally, I can tell every time it's a "Lobbygobbler" post, simply because it includes some illogic about how Bradford have the worst ground in the SL or shouldn't be in the SL, etc.

Wakefield and Salford are city clubs. They were warned. So that's that weird theory out of the way. But it won't stop you arguing it.

The club doesn't own its stadium is a pretty new one for you. How many clubs in the SL do? Why does it matter?And, according to Wikipedia (not the best source of knowledge, I know), the Bulls have controlling rights of the stadium after taking them back from the council after they left Valley Parade.

Odsal wasn't inapproporiate when they used to get good crowds there. It wasn't THAT long ago. What do you expect clubs to do? Just knock down parts of the stadium if the crowds dip? It's a much better ground than Belle Vue and the Willows. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. But you will still argue that it isn't. So let's change the question from "Why is Odsal the worst ground" to "How are Belle Vue and The Willows better than Odsal?"

Change the record.

Why am I wasting my time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I get bored, I read this forum on my phone. The screen isn't big enough to fit the whole page on, so I just browse through the posts and can't see which users are posting what unless I scroll to the side. Incidentally, I can tell every time it's a "Lobbygobbler" post, simply because it includes some illogic about how Bradford have the worst ground in the SL or shouldn't be in the SL, etc.

Wakefield and Salford are city clubs. They were warned. So that's that weird theory out of the way. But it won't stop you arguing it.

The club doesn't own its stadium is a pretty new one for you. How many clubs in the SL do? Why does it matter?And, according to Wikipedia (not the best source of knowledge, I know), the Bulls have controlling rights of the stadium after taking them back from the council after they left Valley Parade.

Odsal wasn't inapproporiate when they used to get good crowds there. It wasn't THAT long ago. What do you expect clubs to do? Just knock down parts of the stadium if the crowds dip? It's a much better ground than Belle Vue and the Willows. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. But you will still argue that it isn't. So let's change the question from "Why is Odsal the worst ground" to "How are Belle Vue and The Willows better than Odsal?"

Change the record.

Why am I wasting my time?

Ah, the Bradford-sympathiser! What's up are you frightened you upset the Bullys on here?

The difference between Bradford and Wakey/Salford, is that Bradford WERE (past tense) successful and DID GET (past tense) good crowds about 10 years ago. I think the RFL still seems them as such even though they are not anymore. As such I think the RFL has turned a blind eye to what is a shocking modern-day stadium (there is hardly any cover FFS).

As for your last comment, I actually think it is a much WORSE ground than Belle Vue and the Willows, and Wheldon Road. I would rather watch RL in those grounds.

If Bradford could put a cover on the terraces, and move the terraces toward the pitch, and get 20k gates there would be no issues. But this ain't going to happen unless they can re-incarnate peter Deakin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd forgotten about the 20 mile qualification, but if DH pulls out would the RFL fund us? I can just imagine the reaction if they did!

They have in the past, but can't see it being accepted again especially if they remain as Quins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, the Bradford-sympathiser! What's up are you frightened you upset the Bullys on here?

:lol:

That's the problem with this forum - too many people tip-toeing around not saying what they really mean for fear upsetting people!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, the Bradford-sympathiser! What's up are you frightened you upset the Bullys on here?

I sympathise not. I just don't like illogical arguments that have been proven so time and time again.

The difference between Bradford and Wakey/Salford, is that Bradford WERE (past tense) successful and DID GET (past tense) good crowds about 10 years ago. I think the RFL still seems them as such even though they are not anymore. As such I think the RFL has turned a blind eye to what is a shocking modern-day stadium (there is hardly any cover FFS).

You just spouting rubbish again.

Define good crowds?

2003 (when they moved back to Odsal) was 7 years ago, not 10. Not that that was the last time they got "good crowds".

Let's have a look since they moved back to Odsal...

2003 - 14,936 (best in SL)

2004 - 13,500 (2nd best)

2005 - 13,367 (3rd best)

2006 - 11,263 (3rd best)

2007 - 12,084 (4th best)

2008 - 10,287 (5th best)

2009 - 9,677 (5th best)

2010 - 8,642 (6th best)

They still posted five-figure crowds 2 years ago, which I would consider the benchmark for "good crowds".

They're still in the top 6 of SL crowd averages despite a HUGE drop in attendances over the last 7 years. So if they have poor crowds, then most of SL is in a worse state.

As for your last comment, I actually think it is a much WORSE ground than Belle Vue and the Willows, and Wheldon Road. I would rather watch RL in those grounds.

That doesn't answer the question. How is Odsal "much WORSE" than the two grounds I mentioned?

"I would rather watch RL in these grounds" isn't an answer. Why would you?

If Bradford could put a cover on the terraces, and move the terraces toward the pitch, and get 20k gates there would be no issues. But this ain't going to happen unless they can re-incarnate peter Deakin

So Bradford have to get 20k crowds (more than any SL club has achieved on more than 3 occasions in a single season)? That's a ridiculous benchmark for a poor argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017