Jump to content

Wholly Trinity

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wholly Trinity

  1. I'm not 100% sure, but I think they said no tickets on the day? Buy online? https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/leeds-rhinos-v-wakefield-trinity-ticket-update-and-details-of-live-stream-for-wetherby-whaler-festive-challenge-3505183
  2. It was this one from 2016 I was thinking about. https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_docs/FACILITYSTANDARDS2016 final PDF.pdf Minimum 88 x 55
  3. AFAIR, at one point there was just the full size pitch and you had to seek dispensation 'for historical reasons', but now it is back to min and max dimensions, like before, to accommodate soccer pitches permanently, like for the grand final. On my phone atm so difficult to find links.
  4. Getting bored of repeating myself, but... Wakefield have never promised a new/improved ground. This has been claimed many times but as yet no-one has provided any evidence. Feel free to supply some. They have tried everything that other clubs have to achieve a new ground (except lodging with a soccer club, for obvious reasons). It is only with modern facilities that a club is sustainable at SL level, even with central funding. Minimum stadium standards has always been PART of the SL criteria but not the only criterion. When licensing was the method of selection, Wakefield did not score well for the stadium. In other years P&R was used. The sky funding is not enough to build a new stadium. Which clubs have spent central funds on stadiums? The first team to do this would have been uncompetitive and immediately relegated. Wakefield received no central funding when they first won promotion to SL. When the ground criteria were 12k capacity and 5k seating, BV (& WR) were unfeasible as renovations and a new stadium was the only option. Especially as Trinity didn't own their stadium following the 2008 crash until 2019. All schemes for new stadia were led by the developers, not by the club(s).
  5. Flaunt the rules? Really? Wakefield receive reduced central funding because of their ground. Minimum standards have been lowered recently. From 12k with 5k seated to 5k with 2.5k seated. (Unless you're London) Minimum pitch size has also been lowered to accommodate soccer tenants. It's not Wakefield's fault that there have never been 12 (or 14) clubs more closely matching the criteria applied at various times.
  6. This is clearly true. There are 3 teams in Wakefield District. I can't believe none of them can be bothered to share a modern stadium with one of the local soccer clubs. Must be deliberately lowering standards.
  7. MC will have worked out the difference of minus 1k on a couple of games and renting at Dewsbury
  8. I was just trying to tie down a definition of completion. Trying to cut down your wiggle room, as it were. If everything is done but sponsors boards are not fixed until the first week in August then that could be a get out clause. Shall we say some kind of official opening/ribbon cutting before the end of July 2023?
  9. I find Mark Wilson very good at describing action on the pitch and projecting an air of excitement about the game. However, this is on radio (Talksport) which is different to TV and he also seems fairly busy and in demand for other sports on the channel (football, darts, boxing?). Would he be available for 10 games during the season? Kyle Amor was also excellent on the few occasions I've heard him, but similar questions on availability and transfer to TV.
  10. Just to be absolutely clear, if the new east stand is used for spectators for an SL fixture during, or before, the month of July 2023, you will officially change your name via deed poll to Neil Fox?
  11. I can see the attraction of wanting to adopt the name of a true RL legend, but why do you need an excuse? Just do it. You do know the planning process started 12 months ago and after a few delays the 2 related applications are finally being heard next month. Both are likely to pass and after another short delay, to allow for the SOS the opportunity to call it in, work should start in February. 77 weeks projected timescale takes us to when? https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/deed-poll-forms
  12. It's a while ago since I did it. In Cardiff, mid-nineties. Only sat on 2 cases. First was simple and took 5 minutes to agree. Second was more complex with multiple charges. Luckily, I'd taken notes that I could refer back to. I think we were sent home after a week. I also requested to affirm rather than swear on a holy book. They gave us a training briefing at the start. It was quite interesting and eye-opening.
  13. I did figures on another thread, but only as an example of the mechanism. The top teams could get as much as they do now. This was done on the premises that a decision to go to 2x10 had been made and no further finance was forthcoming. The point is, £19M is not enough for 12, 14 or 20 teams. We need more income not fewer teams. 19÷14=£1.36M what size and quality of squad can you get with that? The status quo, or 14 teams, and abandoning everything outside that, is levelling down. The opportunities for growth are severely limited. The threat of relegation to oblivion would still prevent any long term investment. Going to only 10 fully funded clubs is even worse. The stories of Leigh, Widnes, London and Bradford would be repeated. Contracting not expanding. It's like saying we'll only invest in infrastructure in London because that's the only place that makes any money. The rest of the country can wither and die but London would still be thriving. If we're interested in the whole country (sport) thriving we have to level up, not down. The SL1 teams would only play SL2 teams once. You can only improve when you pit yourself against the best. I would still go with 18 teams initially as Whitehaven and probably Batley are perhaps too far off the pace both playing and finance. It would be much easier for Bradford or Widnes to attract investment if they were playing in SL, even if it's in the lower tier. New investors would be reassured to take more risk.
  14. As I said: £20M divided by 14 would also not support an "elite professional sport". How would this not be "dumbing down" from the current position? The job of the league structure is not to generate income but to allow for growth and development of the sport which in turn will attract finance. Rugby League in the Northern Hemisphere has specific challenges. It's underfunded, limited in geographical appeal and limited to the number of games teams can play. The current structure deters investment as the time and money required to get to the top table is prohibitive and the risk of failure is significant. Status quo is pretty much guaranteed combined with managed decline. If a rich investor wanted to get Newcastle, say, to SL and stay there, how long would it take? What are the risks? Why would they bother? Catalans have been the success story but their position was protected at a critical time. If they'd been relegated when they finished below Cas, where would they be now? The game needs broader appeal to attract investment. It needs to grow to sustain that investment. The current system does not support that. The maximum number of teams in a single top flight division would be 14 (assuming the challenge cup and playoffs are kept). Two of those are likely to be French. In your plan these would be the only professional teams with no obvious route to get into that clique without great risk of failure. We can't expect to rely on £20M from a broadcaster to support the whole game, we need other investment. That could be from individuals or more diverse broadcast options. The 20 teams would be full time. The initial tiered SL would allow a soft, low-risk entry point for clubs. Being a single competition means the sky's the limit for their ambitions. A megabucks investor could, in theory, win the competition in the first year.
  15. What questions haven't I answered? Clearly more money is needed but the same is true with 14 clubs. At least there would be more to sell. SL2 would initially be a lower standard, and lower funding, but not the cliff-edge financially that it is now and it would be worse still under your top flight takes all the money scheme. How would new teams get sustainable access to the 'elite 14' ? Sky have shown that they're not interested in paying top dollar for the same old rubbish of 4-6 teams dominating a repetitive league. We need more variety and the opportunity for new teams to come in. 14 teams sharing out £20M wouldn't give an elite competition it would just protect the current top 4 or 5 teams. It would effectively be a closed shop with the bottom teams yo-yoing between full-time and part-time leagues, boom and bust without the opportunity to invest and grow. Do you believe the sport can expand and grow under the current system? Discredited? By whom?
  16. I'm not sure what it is you don't understand. Graduated funding? The central payments are split into 3 chunks. 1. An upfront blanket payment to all clubs. 2. A payment for finishing position in the regular season graded from 1st to 20th, the higher you finish the more you get 3. A final payment dependent on how many playoff games you win. Tiered conferences? Top 10 teams in SL1, next 10 in SL2. Play your own conference home and away and one game against each team in the other conference, 5 home 5 away. Total 28 rounds with cross-conference games spread through the season. 2x9? just means 18 teams split in two. Which just means an odd number of cross conference games each week instead of an even number. The regular fixtures for each club would reduce from 28 to 25 allowing more time for internationals etc. 81 cross conference games in 25 rounds (3 per week for 22 rounds and 5 per week for 3 rounds) instead of 100 in 28 rounds (2 per week for 6 rounds and 4 per week for 22 rounds) A single division of 14 teams would continue the current problems of cliff-edge relegation with 4 to 6 teams every year focused on avoiding potentially terminal relegation. This threat is debilitating to growth. It's been suggested that funding is already down £450k with 12 teams. 14 teams of equal funding would reduce the pie even further. (to £1.3M?) Is that not dumbing down? I don't think the changes will happen in 2023 but will be brought in with a new TV deal in 2024. This can be renegotiated to reflect an increase in teams from 12 to 20 (or 18).
  17. You seem to be limiting choices. 2x10 doesn't have to be endless loop fixtures. It isn't a choice between all equal funding or top 10 get most and SL2 get little. None of these solutions promote growth. Tiered conferences would allow graduated funding, with money awarded depending on finishing position and progress in the playoffs on top of a basic grant for all teams. The top teams would still get similar to what they do now. It's up to the lower teams to generate more income to compete. The issue, as ever, is funding it so that difference between top and bottom isn't too massive. Personally, I would prefer 2x9 to reduce fixtures a bit. It's cliff-edge relegation that is the real existential threat to 'teams like Wakefield' . In your 14 team status quo competition, how would the funding of top teams not reduce? It's already taken a big cut with 12 teams. Also what makes you think 'teams like Wakefield' wouldn't be in your 14 team competition? They finished 10th this year and if just one of their narrow defeats was a win, they'd have finished 8th. At least we're agreed 2x10 separate leagues with 3x fixtures would be a disaster.
  18. Not sure what you mean by dumbing down. The top team would still be league leaders. The top 4 would get the advantage of a week off and a home draw against a lower team. As stated above, more teams playing to a higher standard promotes growth. It's the only thing that worked from the midd58s
  19. But if they were playing for the same potential prize at the start of the season then it would be the same competition whether the conferences were tiered or equal. Amateur teams enter the challenge cup but none of them are going to win it.
  20. It would give a mechanism for expanding the game. As I've mentioned on one of the other threads, after the regular and cross-conference rounds. 2 up 2 down. Playoffs would involve SL1 + top 2 SL2. A bye in round 1 for the top 4. Teams 5-12 highest v lowest knock-out. Round 2 continue highest v lowest knockout with 8 remaining teams. To get to the final the 12th team would have to beat 5th away, 1st away + probably 2nd away in consecutive weeks... not going to happen in RL, but what a story if it did.
  21. That's the point, they'd be the same league. It would be possible (but highly improbable) for a team from SL2 to win the comp. 2 promoted teams would take part in the playoffs. 10 is too small for a viable competition. SL2 would get as much attention as the championship now. Tiered conferences at first, but with an ambition to grow to 2 equal conferences .
  • Create New...