Maximus Decimus

Neither I, nor Widnes created the licensing system. I would happily accept a return to promotion and relegation but it's not coming back any time soon. What's the point in Widnes going all out to win the Championship but not meeting the off-field criteria for Super League? You're continued attacks on Widnes are based on not understanding how licensing works or choosing to ignore it. There's no point continually going on about how Widnes should not be included based on something that the RFL aren't going to base it on. If you had a tiny bit of intelligence you'd recognise that if we did still have promotion and relegation and on the field results did matter then the priorities of a club like Widnes would be very different. Your a troll so ergo your opinion is pointless.

Do you have any idea what the actual setup is and how it works? If you did you'd see that it is more about off the field than on the field. That's why promoting teams like Barrow and Fev despite not meeting criteria to be a successful SL club would be the real farce. Featherstone's own chairman has even said that they aren't ready. You'd also see that the RFL set up a minimum on the field criteria that Widnes met, so that there was no point doing any more. If you had half a brain you'd also see that if we didn't have licensing then the make up and priorities of the league would be very different. The clubs very probably wouldn't have voted to reduce the salary cap as it naturally evens out the league. How exactly does our squad with a salary cap of 300k indicate how we will do in a league where the salary cap is

With a game scheduled at 6pm on a Friday it can be the only reason.

You're probably right about what the RFL will do and why but that doesn't make it right. Salford are very fortunate, they are easily the worst heartland club to have been a regular fixture since Super League began. However, because of the promise of a new stadium (that they used to get themselves a license in 2008 as well) and because of the failure of Rugby League in places like Oldham and Swinton they look set to be a permanent fixture in Super League. It's a sure sign that a club has a poor bid when it is using scaremongering tactics. We had it last time with Celtic Crusaders and how Samuels wouldn't wait and we would miss a golden opportunity. Now we are apparently going to lose a whole region to Union if Salford are left out. Nothing to do with the merits of their own bid, just what might happen if they are left out. When Wakefield, a club that also have an awful stadium yet have improved immeasurably on and off the field, are left out for another club that hasn't but is using the 'potential' card, it will be another sad day for RL. The RFL should judge each club on their individual merits and if Salford's stadium is in anyway delayed, they should be left out and told to reapply in 2015 with the new stadium.

'New stadia,' doesn't have to mean new stadia since they were last in the league.

What an insightful post. 1) I suggest you look up the difference between a club and a team. 2) I don't know how you've missed this but I suggest you find out about licensing and how it replaced traditional promotion and relegation. 3) Learn some manners.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. The idea that whoever comes up has to add something to the game or be part of a long term plan. Licensing wasn't an abandonment of total promotion and relegation or an admittance that we now had the 14 strongest clubs in the top flight. It was about stability and giving clubs a fair chance over 3 years. Every 3 years it reviews those 14 strongest clubs based on an understanding that the strongest top flight possible is what is best for rugby league. That of course includes expansion clubs but all Widnes or any other club need to do is indicate that they will do a better job than one of the clubs currently in that 14. The long term is for the RFL to sort out not to burden those clubs wishing to fairly be given their chance where other clubs through their good fortune, have been given theirs. The Salford issue is an entirely separate one but the question exists how many failing clubs do we continue to prop up in Super League purely on the bounds of a geographical ideal? If we include Salford in this that is 3 clubs that are in Super League purely for their location alone, where do you draw the line?

Carney is of course correct, the 14 strongest clubs should be in Super League. However I don't like this presumption that the 14 strongest clubs are already in Super League and that the RFL may have cocked up. This is far from the case. The reality is that there are approximately 4 or 5 clubs in Super League that could be replaced by 3 or 4 in the Championship that would do a similar if not better job than those in Super League. It is only timing and one-off games that has determined which of the clubs are in which division. If licensing had occured in 2005, Widnes and Leigh would be in and Hull KR would not. Widnes, Fax, Barrow and Leigh would all do as good a job as Salford or Wakey and some would do better. The RFL in guaranteeing a place to a Championship club made no gamble, there was always going to be at least one Super League club that could be interchanged for a Championship club without weakening Super League in the slightest.

The problem with Salford is that they have nothing else aside from a potential stadium. On every other front they are easily the worst heartland club in Super League yet the stadium and the stadium alone could get them another 3 years.

On a separate point, if Halifax get a crowd of 4,705 for their final game against Batley then they will have made the 2,500 average. Surely something worth marketing for? Barrow need 8,755.

If a Cumbrian club could guarantee 7,000 in a decent stadium then I'd say have them in. At the moment they can't so they aren't viable.

Nonsense. We made a profit in Super League. We went bust trying to get back into Super League after we'd been relegated, we took a gamble that being in Super League would be more beneficial to gaining a Super League license than not being in Super League. This was of course true. The top point is irrelevant. I like Salford and I hope they get their new stadium, I really do. They are the last RL bastion of that area and it would be terrible for the game if they were lost to the Championship forever. However... When it comes to licensing they are the weakest heartland club by some distance. They were awarded a license last time based purely on this new stadium and it won't have been delivered until the next round of licensing. I'm no expert on the process but I have heard enough guarantees that have fallen through that I think any club should need the stadium in place before they can use it in their applications. Salford look set to get a license (again) purely on the potential of a new stadium and I think this is wrong. Castleford have better crowds than any of those clubs being touted to go down or come up and have done for some time. Wakefield used to be an atrocious club, yet they sorted out their playing side of things, their youth and managed to double their crowds at the worst stadium in Super League. In comparison to this Salford have done nothing. Their crowds are still as poor as they were 10 years ago, their team has done nothing in the last 2 years, I never hear anything from their youth but as somebody involved in youth RL in the area, they have few if any amateur clubs at that level. It will of course be very hard (though not impossible) for the RFL to leave Salford out if they do have the stadium half built. However if they don't then they should spend some time in the Championship. If the stadium is so certain to be built they can build it there and then reapply when they have it. Without a new stadium for any of the 3 clubs being touted, Salford are by far the worst candidate.

We actually finished higher than 5th last year. Just to get the actual figures regarding Barrow and their surge for glory, Barrow 2010 average: 1,805 (2,280) Down 20.8% Widnes 2010 average: 3,061 (3,808) Down 19.7% So from a much higher base Widnes' crowds have actually fallen less than Barrow's. So Mick's incessant insistence that Widnes' are on a downward spiral compared to Barrow's upwards curve is incorrect. Just because Barrow are in Cumbria means nothing. I remember they were in Cumbria the last few times they were in the top flight and I don't recall anything special then. Also Workington were the only club in Cumbria when they were in Super League and they only got crowds around 2,000. Granted they were a poor side but it doesn't change this fact. Certain posters are trying to play the geography card simply because they have nothing else. We heard it all last time with Celtic Crusaders about how they had a massive geographical area from which to draw support. We have licensing for a reason, Barrow should spend the next 3 years getting themselves in a place where they can justify their inclusion through concrete things not some useless rhetoric.

We didn't actually do this. Don't forget the cap went down to 300k this year. It's easy to look at our league position and think this is the case but we had probably as competitive a side this year as last. We've had major issues this year such as losing a head coach for much of it and losing key players like a captain and your two starting props. Despite this we still haven't had what you would call a beating. People seem to be making the mistake of thinking that we aimed to finish where we have this year.

What Mick fails to point out is that despite winning the league Barrows crowds have fallen percentage wise around the same if not more than Widnes'. Doesn't quite fit with the 'Barrow are on the up and Widnes are on a spiral' story that he tries to portray here.

For the record I meant averages. Talking about individual crowds is useless, heck I'm sure even Salford or Quins could drag a big crowd out from somewhere in the distant past.

Why does your opinion deserve it's own thread?

You must be blind then. How about better crowds, better stadium and better youth development for a start.

Yes they should have been, they were announced way way in advance.

Saints 26 Leeds 14 Attendance: 14100.

Doubt it. They never got over 5k in Super League despite finishing 3rd one year I think.

That's what I'm saying, they cannot add it on unless they are bringing a club up otherwise they surely open themselves up to legal action. You can't give clubs criteria a month before they can do something about it. Out of interest Widnes' turnover last year was

Doesn't trolling get boring? The above is just a blatant lie.

I only hate it because I don't want to get too ahead of myself, but if I was an outsider I'd say it made Widnes look a shoe in. The fact that they have put attendances that only Widnes meet says everything. It is a bit odd though because what is to stop Halifax or Barrow letting people in for free for their remaining games just to try and get it above that figure?