At least one Super League club to lose licence in 2011

[Wendall]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/8885900.stm

My money is on Wakefield to lose its place in SL.

[EastLondonMike]

The RFL will be brave if they get rid of more than one team..

[ShotgunGold]

Before that any Championship side wishing to apply for a place in Super League has to meet the following minimum criteria before being allowed to try to win a place.

They are:

1 Club has reached a Championship final or won the Northern Rail Cup in 2009 or 2010.

2 Club has a stadium with an operational capacity of 10,000.

3 No insolvency event has occurred during the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons.

4 Club has turnover of at least

[Wendall]

Anyway it seems likely that it'll be goodbye Wakefield/Castleford and hello Widnes.

I agree it will be a miracle if both Calder clubs survive at least one will go. And Widnes must be 100% nailed on.

It will be a fairly mundane process unless we have a few suprise bids from Toulouse and Stade Francais to spice up the proceedings.

[Northern Exposure]

Wakey and Bradford out.

Fax and Barrow in.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Northern Exposure

[Maximus Decimus]

I hate to say it but that sounds like it's been tailored to Widnes.

We are the only club averaging over 2,500 for a start.

The

Edited August 4, 2010 by Maximus Decimus

[Lobbygobbler]

4 Club has turnover of at least

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

Unless Quins sort out their financial situation, they'll be gone - as things stand at the moment, no David Hughes, no club.

[Lobbygobbler]

Unless Quins sort out their financial situation, they'll be gone - as things stand at the moment, no David Hughes, no club.

Why not just limit player spend to sky income?

[Bulletproof]

The RFL will be brave if they get rid of more than one team..

Why though? If there are two failing clubs, why is it any braver to drop them than to get two CC clubs a chance instead of abandoning them for another three years? It seems controversial to stick even failing super league clubs in the championship, but not to keep clubs already down there inside indefinitely. Because I guarantee, as time goes on teams will weaken. The likes of Widnes, Halifax, Leigh, deserve their chance. Certain clubs can count themselves incredibly lucky to have been included in the first place, why should their places at the top be assured forever?

Drop one, two or three if it suits as far as I'm concerned. It's the nature of licensing.

[Lobbygobbler]

Why though? If there are two failing clubs, why is it any braver to drop them than to get two CC clubs a chance instead of abandoning them for another three years? It seems controversial to stick even failing super league clubs in the championship, but not to keep clubs already down there inside indefinitely. Because I guarantee, as time goes on teams will weaken. The likes of Widnes, Halifax, Leigh, deserve their chance. Certain clubs can count themselves incredibly lucky to have been included in the first place, why should their places at the top be assured forever?

Drop one, two or three if it suits as far as I'm concerned. It's the nature of licensing.

I agree with you. However I think the preferred clubs for the chop (Cas and/or Wakey) are doing rather well this year, which will make it difficult to chop both. I still think that Wakey making the CC SF a couple of years ago, saved them from being demoted instead of Widnes being promoted.

I don't think the RFL has any intention of chopping Bradford or Salford as they are "big city" teams (Wakey is not really known as a big city)

I'm also hoping that Quins don't get a licence unless they move from the Stoop

[Maximus Decimus]

4 Club has turnover of at least

[ShotgunGold]

Unless Quins sort out their financial situation, they'll be gone - as things stand at the moment, no David Hughes, no club.

I think the Crusaders, or "Wrexham Village", are having some trouble too. Apparently they have mounting debts and county court judgements. I really don't know the in's and out's of it but both Crusaders and Wrexham FC fans are annoyed. Apparently Wrexham Village Limited is run by idiots. The fact that they schedule a match for 6pm on a Friday backs that up!

So it might not be as clear cut as we all think - Wakefield, Castleford, Salford, Harlequins and Crusaders could easily get the chop if financial problems continue.

Edited August 4, 2010 by ShotgunGold

[thirteenthman]

So are we to assume from this story that there will be no 'parachuting in' of a club like Toulouse, who probably won't meet the criteria? That's despite the conspiracy theorists being convinced it will happen.

Widnes are now pretty much certain to be promoted. If another CC side makes the grade (Halifax or Leigh are the only likely contenders - Leigh would have to make the GF of course) why shouldn't the RFL promote 2 CC sides? There'll be more than 2 SL teams who'll be in worse shape than the CC sides.

[tonyXIII]

I think the Crusaders, or "Wrexham Village", are having some trouble too. Apparently they have mounting debts and county court judgements. I really don't know the in's and out's of it but both Crusaders and Wrexham FC fans are annoyed. Apparently Wrexham Village Limited is run by idiots. The fact that they schedule a match for 6pm on a Friday backs that up!

So it might not be as clear cut as we all think - Wakefield, Castleford, Salford, Harlequins and Crusaders could easily get the chop if financial problems continue.

I don't think there are any "financial problems" at Salford. Their hold on a SL licence is tenuous for other reasons, ie. their ground (this is being fixed as we speak) and attendances.

[shrek]

There's always Toulouse;

A1:6 (a) There shall be no promotion or relegation between Super League and Championship

from the 2008 Season onwards. Instead for the 2009 Season and for every 3 seasons

after that, the Board shall invite applications for membership of Super League from: (i)

current Super League Clubs; (ii) Clubs in the Championships that meet minimum

standards set by the Board; and (iii) any overseas clubs invited to apply by the Board.

Those Clubs being offered and accepting a Super League Licence for 3 years shall

participate in Super League

[ShotgunGold]

I don't think there are any "financial problems" at Salford. Their hold on a SL licence is tenuous for other reasons, ie. their ground (this is being fixed as we speak) and attendances.

Yeh sorry I phrased that wrong. I meant Quins/Crusaders for possible financial problems and the other three for ground problems. But I do think these five are the possibles whereas the other nine seem to be fine.

[Jonty]

There's always Toulouse;

Taken from here

Seems they don't have to meet the criteria outlined above or have I misread it, plus it flys in the face of an article I don't have to hand but am sure was in League Express, wasn't there a whole load of confusion/controversy about this some months back?

Is this a subtle change to the rules or has it always been like this?

No change - if you read the date of publication of the Op. Rules that you have linked to, it is Jan 2010, before the Toulouse issue raised it's head in the press (end-Feb, early-March). I'm pretty sure this rule predates that - maybe from the 2009 publication, although 2008 is different as it was pre-licensing.

[tonyXIII]

Yeh sorry I phrased that wrong. I meant Quins/Crusaders for possible financial problems and the other three for ground problems. But I do think these five are the possibles whereas the other nine seem to be fine.

No problem. Actually, I've been thinking and Salford also struggle on the Junior Development front as well. In fact, that's three boxes we either don't tick at all (attendance figures), haven't ticked yet (ground) or don't tick convincingly (Junior Development). Red Willow, Segovia Carpet or Diablo may be able to refute my doubts about Junior Development, though, as they are much closer to the action.

[shrek]

No change - if you read the date of publication of the Op. Rules that you have linked to, it is Jan 2010, before the Toulouse issue raised it's head in the press (end-Feb, early-March). I'm pretty sure this rule predates that - maybe from the 2009 publication, although 2008 is different as it was pre-licensing.

Your probably right, I don't keep my old League Express's but there was defiantly some confusion at the time I vaguley recall the story and the fuss without to much detail(!) that this article refers to;

Of course, there was controversy earlier in the season when it was suggested that the club's president had said that they had been told they can apply regardless, a claim that was refuted by the RFL. It did, however, tug on the suspicions of some fans

In Full.

EDIT,

Found the Halifax Courier quoting League Express, that'll have to do!

A few quotes;

RFL U-turn over Super League licence for Toulouse?

Published Date: 02 March 2010

By James Roberts

RUGBY Football League officials were forced to beat an embarrassing retreat over the Super League licensing process last night after claims French hopefuls Toulouse had been given exemption from the criteria applied to English Championship clubs.

Under the governing body's own rules, which were originally released in 2008 and re-affirmed only last summer, only clubs that have appeared in a Championship Grand Final or won the Northern Rail Cup can lodge applications for a top flight place in 2012 and beyond.

But a report yesterday in the 'League Express' newspaper, which quoted an unnamed RFL official, claimed Toulouse would be judged by "different criteria", including being exempt from that requirement.

But by early evening, the RFL had performed a U-turn, issuing a brief statement insisting that Toulouse would have to pass the same on-field milestones as other clubs.

While the background to yesterday's confusion remains unclear, it will have done little to inspire confidence in a system that is already regarded with suspicion by many observers.

Article In Full.

But as you point out the date of the publication of the op rules was January 2010, and they clearly state;

(iii) any overseas clubs invited to apply by the Board.

Hence my confusion over if that was originally in there or subtly added after the story, sorry for the long winded way of getting here!!!

Edited August 4, 2010 by shrek

[Bulletproof]

So are we to assume from this story that there will be no 'parachuting in' of a club like Toulouse, who probably won't meet the criteria? That's despite the conspiracy theorists being convinced it will happen.

Widnes are now pretty much certain to be promoted. If another CC side makes the grade (Halifax or Leigh are the only likely contenders - Leigh would have to make the GF of course) why shouldn't the RFL promote 2 CC sides? There'll be more than 2 SL teams who'll be in worse shape than the CC sides.

Considering they've amended the rule so that foreign teams can be "invited" to join super league it is not such a certainty.

[dallymessenger]

its important for a SL club to lose its spot because of the following :

1. it shows championship clubs that if they develop themselves they will be in SL.

2. it shows SL clubs if you fail to deliver your promises you will be replaced

wakey for widnes will strengthen SL.

no other club deserves to be booted more than wakey

[Bulletproof]

its important for a SL club to lose its spot because of the following :

1. it shows championship clubs that if they develop themselves they will be in SL.

2. it shows SL clubs if you fail to deliver your promises you will be replaced

wakey for widnes will strengthen SL.

no other club deserves to be booted more than wakey

I agree with all but the final line. I think Salford can count themselves really lucky, as can Harlequins and Crusaders. Wakefield, if they are the ones to come down, are an unfortunate club in the wrong area, same with Castleford.

[Exiled Wiganer]

Quins and Crusaders can count themselves really lucky that they serve a wider purpose to the game. Crusaders could be a focal point for the excellent development work being done elsewhere and could in time help support a Welsh national side. If Wales win the Euro cup thing this year, then they could go into the 4 Nations with a fair few genuine Welsh players next year. Who knows where RL in Wales could be in 5 years time.

Quins serve 2 useful purposes. They could act as a focal point and catalyst for some essential junior development away from the heartlands and they give us a southern presence, however tenuous.

The only basis on which clubs should be "invited" in is if they can acquire their own TV deal or show that they can pay for themselves. We have enough on our hands supporting Wales and the Quins.

I have written this 1000 times, but the instant we have more than 14 clubs with decent facilities this ridiculous anti-sporting franchise system must go. I can see it serving a purpose to get clubs to get their act together, but once that has been achieved we must go back to p and r or risk losing once great clubs who could be great again!!!

Finally, I will raise a glass of bubbles when Widnes retain their deserved place at the top table next year. The criteria look perfectly designed for them.

[Bomb Jack]

I hate to say it but that sounds like it's been tailored to Widnes.

I thought that also as soon as i read it......