Jump to content

Wholly Trinity

Coach
  • Posts

    890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wholly Trinity

  1. https://www.facebook.com/174947885886159/posts/4352329624814610/?app=fbl
  2. Still awaiting planning permission for the enabling development for the new East stand and facilities which will bring in income. Still not nailed on given the history of the developer. Without this, top flight survival is in serious doubt. When you talk of SL & Championship, how many teams are expecting in each come 2023? At least the new floodlights are finished and the 4g pitch seems to be funded elsewhere.
  3. https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/reduced-broadcast-deal-set-to-leave-wakefield-trinity-ps450000-worse-off-3401664 Reality bites. This is next season still with 12 teams. Assuming they follow through with SL1/2 2×10 and their promise of reducing the cliff edge of demotion, how can it be possible to divide the reduced pot to support more full-time professional teams? In short, they can't. Clubs are now desperate in the extreme to increase and diversify income streams... it could get messy. It could end the sport as a viable professional game in the northern hemisphere.
  4. That's where I nicked the "leaked" picture, from merchandise on the on-line club shop. Home shirt to be launched on Friday 5pm.
  5. This gets everything wrong as far as a logo goes. We did go at least one season in SL without the club name on the shirt. Saying that, the cc semi-final win over Sts in '79, the shirt had no badge at all.
  6. In what radius could you fit Wigan Warrington St Helens Leigh Salford? or even Widnes
  7. So how do you think the money should be split? The deal is 30% down so the status quo would leave everyone on 2/3 of what they currently get. The figures are only to exemplify the system. They could be rejigged to make it closer/more even spread. I'm not sure of the actual figures but wasn't it £25m - £5m for the rfl?
  8. OK, so where am I with this malarkey? It is clear that no structure can be panacea of all ills of RL in the northern hemisphere. What it can do though is act as a mechanism to enable that growth. The current system and the basic 2x10 have many problems which stunt development. There are simply not enough teams in the top flight to retain wider interest and loop fixtures are an absolute turn off. A top 10 SL1 with loop fixtures would be a zero sum game with diminishing input and could be the beginning of the end of professional RL. SL2 would be no more than a reduced and rebranded championship. It seems likely that there would be only 8 English teams in SL1, so a good proportion of the games would be played in France. Who would televise these? The current cliff-edge threat of relegation is debilitating for 1/3 of the league every season. Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself. I would support 2 conferences of 10, but I don't believe the current playing standards are close enough to make 2 equal groups. So, I would have 2-tiered conferences with each playing home and away in their own conference and 5 home 5 away from the other conference. (18 + 10 =28 games). The important thing is that this is one competition, so at least in theory, however unlikely, any team from the 20 could win it at the start of the season. For the Play-offs, the top 4 could have a bye in the first round then 5-12 (i.e. including the top 2 of SL2 would play an elimination round (5v12, 6v11 etc). After that it would be highest placed at home against lowest place etc. straight knock-out. So, the top 4 would all be at home in the second round. The bottom 2 of SL1 would be relegated and replaced by the top 2 of SL2. The bottom 2 clubs (19th & 20th) would undergo a review with recommendations of how to improve. If there are applications to join SL2 these would be considered on a franchising type basis in comparison with the clubs under review. The money (assuming £20M) would be distributed on a sliding scale in 3 chunks, an in initial distribution of £500k to each team, a second tranche depending on finishing position and a third on play-off games won. So, for the current league positions it would look like above. If they finished in the same positions and play-offs all went to form each team would receive the total in the right column. Assuming it finished in the same order, if Catalans were to win the league leaders' and GF they'd receive a total of £1,826,673, but the amounts are mix and match, so if St Helens were to beat Catalans in the GF they'd receive £1,796,669 and Catalans £1,660,001. If Salford were to beat Hull KR in their play-off game they'd receive £1,026,689 It would be possible (unlikely that 9th or 10th could win the GF and get relegated in the same year, although this may a good publicity story, it could be removed with a stroke of a pen by having a rule that grand-finalists can't be relegated. What it allows is the lower placed clubs to progress at their own pace and test themselves against the top teams. If someone wanted to invest heavily in one year, they could win the whole competition, or at least get well up the prize distribution. It would also encourage a big investor to bring a new team into the competition with little risk. Relegation from SL1 would not be a cliff edge, although potentially reduce income from playing more lower teams, although they would likely be a winning team. Clearly, team budgeting would be difficult, but should be possible.
  9. I'm pretty sure it was all accidental. If the development company had fulfilled their legal obligation to build a community stadium 10 years ago we would have been playing in the middle of a bunch of warehouses next to the M62. Perhaps not exactly like Salford as I believe it would have been owned by a Stadium Trust with Trinity as anchor tenants with peppercorn rent and access to matchday revenue, but there would have been nothing stopping other clubs in the area playing there too. (The site is half-way between Belle Vue and Wheldon Road ). It wasn't really that much out of town (3 miles and a continuous conurbation), but it would have been a big change in match day experience. Easier to get to for away fans, perhaps the opposite side of the city to the core support, but within walking distance of Stanley/Lofthouse/Outwood with a population of 22k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley,_West_Yorkshire Anyway, that's all (mostly) in the past now and planning will hopefully be passed in November and development will begin on BV shortly after. It still relies on the 'same' developer and the council showing some determination to push it through, but this is definitely the closest we've ever been. Since the change of leadership in the council they have facilitated a loan to buy back the ground and even some surrounding land. The darkest days of losing ownership of the ground and going into administration following the financial crisis of 2008 and then being bought by a hobby owner who almost sent it back into admin after realising it was going to cost him £500k a year seem to be behind us. Next year could well be one of the most significant in the club's 148 year history.
  10. Were they the club's artists impressions? Were they a con? The drawings were generally from whoever was promising the moon on a stick at that particular time - and then failing to deliver. Each scheme was believed by the club (perhaps naively) to be true. A con would suggest that the club knew each project would fail. Do your have any evidence at all that the club lied about their intentions?
  11. That seems to be the perception of some other clubs' fans. The reality is that if they could have moved they would have. Living on death row for 20 years is no fun. Do you really think that Wakey & Cas said to the RFL, "we're staying put, try and kick us out if you can?" A suitable stadium is an important part of being a successful club but not the only thing.
  12. And what makes you think Wakey and Cas weren't told the same thing? Do you really think that they deliberately ignored these existential threats and thought, nah, we'll be fine where we are, let's just spend all the money we've saved on something else?
  13. Who is having a pop at Salford? Other than demonstrating how difficult finding a suitable home can be. No-one considers Belle Vue SL standard. The club even gets reduced central funding because it doesn't meet those standards. Basic maintenance is expensive. It restricts any potential growth and deters new fans and sponsors. Income is squeezed from all sides. Even player recruitment is made more difficult. So, where is this big advantage of 'deliberately' staying in an outdated, not fit-for-purpose 'stadium' ? A new stadium (or upgrade) costs proper money - not SL squad kind of money. Wakefield have endeavoured to source such funding by any means from many sources over a few decades. Other clubs have had more luck in getting projects completed. There is always some element of luck in procuring a suitable RL facility and compromises are often required. If a refurbishment/rebuild of BV had been seen as remotely feasible 20 years ago, perhaps it would have been done by now? But again, it comes down to ££££
  14. A little off topic and apologies for being repetitive, but do you know off hand how much of Salford/Leigh/Widnes' playing budget was spent on their ground upgrades? The Moor Lane ground looks up to the buffers already from looking at google maps. It would need to be a temporary move (any port in a storm) if they have long-term SL ambitions. (irony overload ) https://www.google.com/maps/place/53°30'49.1"N+2°16'36.4"W/@53.5136068,-2.2762233,211m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d53.5136306!4d-2.276775?hl=en Prior to purchasing the superbowl land etc., Belle Vue was similarly land-locked and difficult to develop, which is why a new build stadium was the only feasible option. Even so, the current footprint of the stadium is significantly bigger than that at Moor Lane. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6697979,-1.4788495,250m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
  15. Indeed. He was tormented by this "error" to his dying day. He had already been awarded the Lance Todd trophy before taking that kick. In modern times of mental health awareness you would hope there would be a different approach. I also wonder whether the club itself was traumatised by that day. (if that's even possible) The club had won its 2nd (consecutive) championship final just a week before (4/5/68). His brother and regular goal kicker Neil Fox was forced to play in that game despite carrying an injury (hamstring?) which he aggravated causing him to miss the challenge cup final. Leeds didn't score a single point that wasn't a direct result of a referee's decision, including possibly the worst penalty try decision in history. Wakefield scored 2 actual tries and Don had already kicked 2 goals. Perhaps the referee, John Hebblethwaite, didn't receive the criticism he deserved as he committed suicide a short while after the final. Still, despite all that, that kick would have given Trinity a league and cup double. Wakefield have never won a major trophy since that moment. RIP Don from Wiki: Don Fox Personal information Full name Donald Fox Born 15 October 1935 Sharlston, Wakefield, England Died 21 August 2008 (aged 72) Wakefield, England Playing information Position Scrum-half, Prop, Loose forward Club Years Team Pld T G FG P 1953–65 Featherstone Rovers 368 162 503 0 1492 1965–70 Wakefield Trinity 117 18 84 0 222 Batley Total 485 180 587 0 1714 Representative Years Team Pld T G FG P 1956/57–≥58/59 Yorkshire ≥3 1956 England 1 0 0 0 0 1963 Great Britain 1 1 2 0 7
  16. It's a shame every thread in which Wakefield are mentioned deteriorates into a stadium slagging off fest. It's true that Belle Vue is not fit for purpose and no team in an elite professional sport should be based in such facilities. It is the Wakefield club that suffers the most from this with reduced cental funding, income and crowds. The club have tried endlessly during the professional era to solve this problem. What has any other club done that Wakefield have not attempted to do over the last 30 years? (other than lodge with a local soccer club, as there isn't one) The low point for BV was the year of promotion to SL 1999. The South was empty land, the North was cordoned off except the front section and had no cover. It was clear at that point a new stadium would be cheaper than trying to renovate the site which was landlocked on all sides. Spending money on it, other than the minimum required, was seen as a waste as there was always a new stadium project in progress. This has changed recently with the purchase of the land between the stadium and Doncaster Road. The club have stopped waiting for the developer to fulfil their legal requirement, which was confirmed by the secretary of state following an expensive public inquiry, to build a community stadium. If they delayed long enough, the club would cease to exist and they could pocket £15M. 130 years is somewhat an exaggeration and it has been pointed out that BV was one of the better stadiums until the 80s, it had cover on 3 sides unlike Headingley.
  17. I'm sure some traditionalists will be disappointed that there is no nod to their humble beginnings and heritage - not a shark in sight .
  18. There's not exactly 'nothing' to play for... Trinity can still get 8th, should Hull FC continue to implode (i.e. get beat at home against an underperforming Wigan). Also, a strong finish will have a positive effect on season ticket sales and merchandise for next season plus save the expense of recruiting a new head coach.
  19. I thought the clock was stopped automatically in the last 5 minutes of a game? Even then, Mr Child signalled time off before the hooter. Lost it in the first half really.
  20. It doesn't seem like any club is busting a gut to fit in the postponed fixtures. Everyone's going to get to 18 , so no-one really cares. I think SL missed a trick here. Of course, games can be postponed for covid issues, but the onus should be on the postponing team to rearrange them. If they fail to do so they should forfeit the points.
×
×
  • Create New...