Wholly Trinity
-
Posts
963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wholly Trinity
-
-
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
-
4 hours ago, bobbruce said:
Was there ever a minimum pitch size I thought there was an ideal size and clubs were expected to get as close to it as there grounds allowed.
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.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Marauder said:
Not one of them have a local soccer club who play at a decent standard to share a ground with, unless They all move in with Hark to Mopsey AFC.
Indeed
-
Just now, Ovenden Grunt said:
Balderdash. Wakefield and Castleford have been taking the SL funding for years on false promises of new/improved grounds which never materialised. Spending the brass on players instead of improving facilities which has always been part of the official SL criteria has kept both clubs where they are and kept other clubs who have improved their facilities out of the so called promised land.
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).
-
2
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Ovenden Grunt said:
They did. Wakefield and Castleford take no notice and are allowed to flaunt the rules without any comeback.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Kirmonds pouch said:
Not really, the old east stand and terrace only held 3k but was rarely anywhere near that in occupation. BV holds 7.4 k at present, so that leaves 4,5k but with some extra seating that will be about 5. Means we lose out on maybe 2 games on last years figures, a small price to pay for a 50% modernisation of the ground. At the end of the day sacrifices have to be made.
MC will have worked out the difference of minus 1k on a couple of games and renting at Dewsbury
-
2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:
Hmmm. You’ve hedged it there, chief!
Again, from experience, I know these things can be partially open - yet incomplete - by the scheduled date. As, indeed, your question implies
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?
-
8 hours ago, Waynebennettswinger said:
In this week’s League Express, Garry Schofield has humbly suggested the following panel to spice up TV coverage - Rod Studd as anchor, Mark Wilson commentating and Kyle Amor as touchline reporter. Oh and to summarise…Garry Schofield.
As this whole thread suggests there is a wide variety of opinion, personally I just think we need something fresh. What Channel 4 do, they normally do well IMHO, so will be interesting to see which direction they head….as long as it’s not Garry Schofield
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.
-
On 24/11/2021 at 21:45, Man of Kent said:
Wakey hoping to have their swanky new grandstand open by July 2023. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/wakefield-trinity-belle-vue-stadium-22260883?utm_source=leeds_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=rugby_league_lve_newsletter&utm_medium=email
Commendable target date but if it is open by then I'll change my name by deed poll to Neil Fox.
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?
-
2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:
Damn! How silly of me to forget construction projects always run to their projected timescale.
We'll see
-
11 hours ago, Man of Kent said:
Wakey hoping to have their swanky new grandstand open by July 2023. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/wakefield-trinity-belle-vue-stadium-22260883?utm_source=leeds_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=rugby_league_lve_newsletter&utm_medium=email
Commendable target date but if it is open by then I'll change my name by deed poll to Neil Fox.
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
-
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.
-
2 hours ago, Damien said:
No figures then.
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.
-
11 hours ago, Damien said:
How would you would fund these 20 teams to not dumb down standards of the elite division, not destroy SL and not make it less attractive to broadcasters and fans?
How do you keep the teams in the Championship, which is what the nonsensical SL2 really is, competitive?
You cant do one without failing to do the other. In reality, just as the bottom of SL struggles to be competitive on equal funding, it is impossible for small Championship clubs to be competitive with the top SL clubs even with equal funding. You aren't even proposing this but a sliding scale. Its also really odd that you think 14 teams sharing out £20M wouldn't give an elite competition and that it would just protect the current top 4 or 5 teams but yet 20 teams sharing £20 million does the opposite.
How will you divide around £20 million to pay for your proposal? You keep rabbiting on about a sliding scale so please tell us how you would divide this £20 million to achieve this utopia for the game? I'm genuinely intrigued as to how you would do this because basic maths tells us what you are saying is impossible.
As I said:
12 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:Clearly more money is needed but the same is true with 14 clubs. At least there would be more to sell.
£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.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Damien said:
You seem awfully reluctant to give any answers to the questions I posed and any examples when it comes to the financials. This is because it is unworkable. You are just rehashing arguments that were discredited on the league restructure thread.
12 to 14 elite clubs is certainly more workable than trying to prop up 20 full time mediocre clubs and wasting vast amounts on a 2nd tier that generates absolutely no TV revenue. Anything below SL should be funded to a part time level only because it contributes nothing to the overall pot and only serves to divert money away from the top flight and the very thing that Sky pay handsomely for. As we have seen by making the top flight worse then the game overall suffers and there is less for everyone. A strong SL and the entire game benefits, as per the last TV deal.
If we are to have one huge division with 2 conferences then that should be the Championship and League 1 were all teams are funded equally on a part time basis. This obviously does not preclude clubs from being full time if they desire but they should not be funded to be so, as happens now with a select group of Championship clubs. There is certainly a far stronger argument to do that at that level and at that level of funding with a clear demarcation between the full time and part time professional game.
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?
-
21 minutes ago, Damien said:
This really makes no sense. It seems like loads of random sentences. 2x9s just beggars belief.
Please tell me how you would fund these 20 teams to not dumb down standards of the elite divison, not destroy SL and make it less attractive to broadcasters and fans but yet somehow keep the teams in the Championship, which is what the nonsensical SL2 really is, competitive. You've around £20 million to divvy up.
I also never said that Wakefield wouldn't be in a 14 team SL. Of course funding will reduce slightly compared to now but its growing the top flight and the pie and gets rid of loop fixtures. It is certainly better than fantasy nonsense of trying to split the funding 20 ways, which is what is needed for any sort of fantasy SL1 and SL2 cross competition nonsense to work. Even at that it doesn't.
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).
-
1 hour ago, ghost crayfish said:
I think 2x10 playing each other three times would be ridiculous, but think a messy 'super 8s' style integration would be equally so. What might work to create more games is a separate comp for the 20 teams. 4 pools of 5, QF, SF, final. This would create an extra tv product to sell, extra events, and extra home and away games against teams for the different level.
How would the pools be split?
Is this for the playoffs or the whole season?
-
7 minutes ago, Damien said:
I didn't say that so don't put words in my mouth. I want a 14 team SL and growth. If we are to have P&R I actually wouldn't mind seeing 2 up and 2 down. I don't want contraction and loop fixtures which 2 x 10's is.
I can't say I find it surprising that Wakefield fans are arguing for an epic dumbing down of SL and the Championship to be propped up with games against SL sides when Wakefield would very likely be one of those most under threat with the introduction of 2 x 10s. It's the same dumbing down that clubs towards the bottom of SL have been fighting for, and getting away with, for 2 decades. Now, when their place in SL is under threat, they now want that dumbed down even further to Championship level.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Damien said:
But they aren't.
Even if they were it's stupid and dumbing things down even more.
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
-
1 minute ago, Damien said:
Because they are 2 different divisions. They are not 2 conferences in the same division.
And yes it is pointless, boring and repetitive and that's why many are against it.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Just seems like its dumbing things down
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.
-
27 minutes ago, JM2010 said:
I don't think there will be any inter divisional games just play each other 3 times and then top 5 play offs. 1 up 1 down
A great plan for continual contraction of the sport.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Agreed. Why on earth would they have league games between teams in different leagues??
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 .
Sun 26 Dec: Boxing Day Friendly: Leeds Rhinos v Wakefield Trinity KO 11:30 (OurLeague)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
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