Wholly Trinity

So, potentially 3 elite academies in Wakefield District next year? I think the argument is for quality over quantity with the added bonus of increased geographical spread. It needs the sums to be done to get the balance right between developing the top youngsters and impinging on community clubs. How many academy players get 1st team contracts each year across the sport?

Not heard of this. That would seem unfair if only selected SL clubs get an extra 200k? What do other clubs get in return? A draft system? Regional academies would make sense in the heartlands, but who runs them?

This was a "plan" of the previous owner from 2017 before the club secured the freehold of the stadium and surrounding land. This is not the current plan. Phase 1 only comprises a new all-seater stand with facities and renovation of the current terraced stand.

https://www.runcornandwidnesworld.co.uk/sport/19319607.rugby-league-clubs-awarded-elite-academy-licences-2022-27/?ref=rss The criteria are set out in the article above. There was potential for up to 12 academies but only 10 were initially awarded elite status according to these criteria. The advantages of having an elite academy seem to be overplayed. From a purely Wakefield perspective there is clearly no salary cap loophole advantage as they currently do not use the current limit. The financial cost has been widely put at £400k per year. Is this value for money? Or would that be better spent on the first team to get closer to equal spend with other clubs? The benefits for a club like Wakefield are in recruitment/development of quality players over the medium/long term. Signing established players is more expensive and difficult for such a club which cannot offer success or even top quality facilities.

Yes, bad management was to blame, but giving away gold bars to increase attendance is also bad management. The attendance would not have increased without this bad management. 4k before and 4k after. There is latent support for Wakefield, but lack of success means they're not prepared to pay full price and discounts were not sustainable.

I don't have access to actual income figures, as I suspect you don't either, but losing 600k per year and almost entering administration for a second time in 3 years suggests it was unsustainable. On top of huge discounts for season tickets, there were many freebies given out. It was a gamble for instant success which didn't pay off. Merchandising was also particularly poor at that time, lots of cheap tat, not least the Macron replica shirts. "Scrimping" is only a race to the bottom if the business is shrinking rather than growing, however slowly. The alternative of spending money you don't have without an "investor" is a huge gamble with the future of the club (see Bradford). Trinity have certainly been "getting away with it" for over 20 years now, but the growth of other clubs means that time is running out. Hopefully, the new development will increase income and therefore competitiveness. Otherwise, the end is nigh. Finishing in the top 10 for the last 6 years has been against the odds for a club with the lowest cap spend, but investment in other aspects of the club (youth, community, women, minority groups) has strengthened the infrastructure. Diverting cash to the first team only (Salford?) and spending above income was, and is, a big short-term gamble. It is yet to be decided whether this longer-term approach will succeed, but the alternative did and would have failed. Sub 5k attendances are unsustainable in the long term, but slow growth whilst maintaining SL status was really the only option, despite the poor optics. P.S. I don't think the database was lost, that was from 2 regimes ago

Using Wakefield's figures is somewhat disingenuous as this was a period where attendance figures were important to licensing. Probably half of that 8k weren't actually paying, and the club almost went bust again shortly after as the then owner was losing 600k per year. Steady growth has taken place from 3.9k to 4.7k. With no significant external finance and no on-field success, it is understandable even if unsatisfactory. The important metric is income not attendance figures.

Yes, a similar result of an away win would be my choice too Not sure what's happening mentally within the squads of both clubs atm, but whichever sorts it out will get a comfortable win. Leeds must be favourites on this count with their new coach, but at least Wakefield will have some centres playing this time.

If he's the anser, I'm not sure what the question is.

You should be able to get it on the Internet only link where there's no soccer. During the match only. https://www.rugbyleagueontv.com/radio

Ok, but you're comparing chalk and cheese. Huddersfield and Wakefield are in completely different situations. Huddersfield have someone to supplement any shortfall in income and as such can give discounts for attendance (especially season tickets). Wakefield have an accountant in charge and no sugar daddy. They must maximise income in a limited market (poor/limited facilities and decades of no success). £25 x 4000 = £100k. If it was £10 entry they would need 10k attendance to match this amount. How many do you think would attend at £10 in current circumstances? 5 or 6k? Half the income.(Capacity is currently limited to 7k anyway). ATEOTD income not attendance is king in professional sport. Despite the cheaper prices and "better experience", Huddersfield's crowds are not much better. From a personal point of view, I find the "experience" at Huddersfield far inferior. I dislike sitting to watch RL and lack of atmosphere makes it bland. I might as well stay at home and watch on TV. My sofa is more comfortable than a plastic seat. Under the previous administration Wakefield were getting 8k crowds in a "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" mentality, but the owner was losing £600k a year which almost sent the club bust. It's a difficult and slow process growing a club like Wakefield and they've ridden their luck, but there are no quick fixes without a sugar daddy and they've progressed immensely since 2015. The changes are not obvious to outsiders, but they are truly on the verge of turning it around.

Ahem... Wakefield were back to back champions in 1967 and 1968, so much more recent than the early 60s It is though one of the major factors in retaining fans. Castleford and Featherstone have had more success in living memory.

£15 (£5 kids) for Trin v Pies on Sunday https://trinity.mysportstickets.co.uk/events/home/Wigan_Warriors_967

I think this may be Oxen's corporate mission statement "You can never have too many mugs prepared to buy cheap tat at inflated prices"

I guess you're referring to Cas & Wakey as those who didn't "do the right thing". This was not a choice. Both clubs tried everything to get a new stadium and have suffered over the years from having facilities not fit for purpose. It's purely twist of fate that all that bad luck turned out ok in the end. After seeing how it panned out for Salford, maybe the collapse of Newmarket was a bullet dodged. Relegation for Trinity during these 20+ years would have been the end. Good luck to Salford if they move. They could just make it work.

*founded 1926

Indeed. Maybe Wakefield got a tip-off? Lucky really and a turning point for the club.

https://citizen.wakefield.gov.uk/districts-rugby-league-clubs-set-for-a-6m-boost/?utm_content=bufferf72ca&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Although it does suggest that the proposed RL Resilience Fund of up to £2M each can be used to meet RFL conditions on stadium facilities but the main thrust is on increasing community usage. A condition is to produce an annual report on impact. Whilst it's obvious that the 4g pitch and refurbishment of the existing clubhouse for community use at BV will go a long way to meeting these requirements, the picture is less clear at WR. They will probably need significantly more than £2M to improve the stadium and increase community use. Hopefully, they will decide on the future of WR quickly and seek additional funding. The overpayment for buying back BV is an urban myth. On face value, Manni Hussein bought it from Bank of Ireland for £1.7M and the club paid £3M. However, MH got it for an absolute bargain because (for rather mysterious reasons best known to the council leader and a certain Knight of the Realm) the club was told not to bid for it. What the club eventually bought was not only the stadium but also all the land up to Doncaster Road which had been cleared of existing buildings (superbowl, wimpy, etc.). They also paid the market rate as, at the time, MH was on no rush to sell.

The new stand includes a 300 seat restaurant/function room. This is additional to those in the current clubhouse. A big source of income will be the multi-use 4g pitch. Talk of Wakefield FC returning from Fev. Money will be saved on renting facilities for training and playing at many sites for the multitude of teams, firsts, reserves, academy, women, pdrl, ldrl etc.

How much will it cost? I think the contribution from the developers was mooted at 7.8 or 8.4 million previously. There are other sources of income and the chairman has been negotiating hard to squeeze a suitable amount from the developers. The total budget I think includes the new stand with all the facilities detailed, north terrace refurb and remodel, car park and fan zone, roof on the current clubhouse, new floodlights, a 4g pitch, permanent big screen and I think the community refit of the clubhouse once the new stand is open.

Indeed, and if you're planning on moving to a brand new stadium, there's no point in spending any more than the minimum to keep it open. The latest drops in capacity were a few years ago when they found the safety barrier anchor points were not secure. An initiative from fans to do the structural work on many of them meant it still got a certificate. The stadium is mainly built on ash covered with concrete which is well past its sell-by date. 19th century engineering.

I think the current limit for the safety certificate is 7400 or 7600. The exact same layout had a capacity of 11000 for the first 'million pound' game against Cas. The North terrace capacity will increase slightly with renovation even with removing the NE corner. The new east stand may be actually a reduction to 2500 all-seater (not sure of the current mixed capacity). The Western terrace and benidorm flats in the south will not be changed in this phase. Renovating the crumbling west would probably put it back up to something like 11k. The overall effect will be a modest increase in capacity, but a big increase in facilities that can generate income.

Good. Thanks for that, but there are a lot that are. A few months could remove some of their reasons, hopefully . Other than the ground, which they have tried to solve for 20+ years, and the related attendance figures, Wakefield do a lot right as an SL club. Elite academy producing players, a reserve team when others didn't want one, women's, PDRL, LDRL teams, some excellent community work, a successful college team, a top-line sponsor and other commercial links and all keeping financially within their means without a sugar daddy to bail them out... Should the planning permissions get through soon, the club will be in a much stronger position going forward.

I know any excuse to have a bash at Wakefield is a valid one, but I think there's some confusion here between trademark and copyright or even design right (which would more suitably cover a shirt design). The more serious crime is "passing off", which is difficult to prove. Trademarks need to be renewed every 10 years. https://www.gov.uk/renew-your-trade-mark You can easily search UK trademarks online. The nearest current mark is for Great British Cola. https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmtext/page/Results In fact, I'm not sure "British Coal" was ever registered as a trademark.

https://www.rugby-league.com/flipbooks/2019-operational-rules-tiers-1-3/mobile/index.html#p=17 I guess these from 2019? Can't see anything there on capacity. Which section of A2? https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_docs/FACILITYSTANDARDS2016 final PDF.pdf Found this from 2016? I would suggest that BV meets those minimum standards. 5000 capacity with 2000 seats and a safety certificate. But even these include rfl discretion