Bradford and Odsal

[Lobbygobbler]

Its a licence issue, and you can rant all you like

The RFL released the grading of each of the 14 clubs on 23 July 2008.[10]

A licence

Hull FC

Leeds Rhinos

Warrington Wolves

B licence

Bradford Bulls

St Helens

Wigan Warriors

C licence

Castleford Tigers

Catalans Dragons

Celtic Crusaders

Harlequins

Hull KR

Huddersfield Giants

Salford City Reds

Wakefield Trinity Wildcats

So there you have it, and thats why Cas, Wakey and Salford are turding it.

Now can this thread be put to bed.

Bradford go a "B" last time largely on the fact that their attendace before was not too bad (despite the obvious downward trend) and because they had finished consistently high in SL. That is no longer the case and now stadiums are coming much more under scrutiny. Even Saints had rightly had a scare and they were a grade B, but why not Bradford? Their stadium is utter ##### #### for modern day RL. My original thread was to question why Odsal is not in the mix this time around.

[RP London]

Something that is really making my blood boil at the moment is seeing all the ground status's of Salford, Wakey, Cas under pressure on Boots'n'all and SLS yet Odsal is never mentioned despite being far worse than Salford and Cas due to the sheer lack of cover and poor design for RL. Yes I know it is because the RFL did not mention it as an "at risk" ground. However why is that exactly? It is the worst ground to watch on telly by a country mile and completely unsuitable due to the threat of getting wet thru

Ange Powers said last week that a ground had to have 10k people under cover, yet Odsal does not have this so again surely it is time that this ground was put at risk too

It is the weakest link - goodbye

i would presume that there is more to the ground being a premier stadium than angela powers has commented on or than you can see from the tv..

just a guess of course..

plus not only that but yes they have been succesful and so they are not an at risk club with all the other crietria where as cas, wakey and salford all have issues and the stadium is on eof hte big dividers.. who ever doesnt have one is in trouble.

[1976PMJwires]

Bradford go a "B" last time largely on the fact that their attendace before was not too bad (despite the obvious downward trend) and because they had finished consistently high in SL. That is no longer the case and now stadiums are coming much more under scrutiny. Even Saints had rightly had a scare and they were a grade B, but why not Bradford? Their stadium is utter ##### #### for modern day RL. My original thread was to question why Odsal is not in the mix this time around.

Ok, They are currently "B", I agree with the decline etc etc, so when the next lot of licences are out we can agree we expect to see a "C" grade.

Bradford will then have to react in the same way as Cas, Wakey and Salford are currently doing.

and that my friend is the end of the matter.

[tonyXIII]

In the last licensing round, Bradford were a strong club and got a B licence. This time round, they have failed to reach the play-offs in 2009 and 2010, so they are weaker there. I don't know what their juniors are like (junior development is supposed to be one of the criteria), but their ground is a cause for concern. It is quite conceivable that Bradford will be seen as weaker this time and that will put them under real pressure for the next licensing round. Lobby, I think you are 3 years ahead of your time!

[1976PMJwires]

In the last licensing round, Bradford were a strong club and got a B licence. This time round, they have failed to reach the play-offs in 2009 and 2010, so they are weaker there. I don't know what their juniors are like (junior development is supposed to be one of the criteria), but their ground is a cause for concern. It is quite conceivable that Bradford will be seen as weaker this time and that will put them under real pressure for the next licensing round. Lobby, I think you are 3 years ahead of your time!

SPOT ON 100%

Gobby Lobby is three years ahead of his time

He is as bad as Paris

When the next criteria is out, Bradford will have to react accordingly ( as Cas, Salford, Wakey & Saints have /are)

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Whatever you say he makes a very valid point - Brafords succes over the years is still fresh in peoples memories so they are seen as one fo the bigger clubs buit are they really?

The stadium IS rubbish, fact

The true depth of Bradfords support is now being shown as not that much greater than Cas or Wakefield

I think Lobby has a point as well.

Odsal is plug ugly, it's vast and depressing, and he's right about the under cover accommodadtion.

but the actual facilities in themselves are quite good(apart from, again that cover). The main stand is fairly modern and conforms to standards, there is a modern almost new sponsors complex at one end, and massive, reasonably well maintained terracing at the other.

It is a white elephant these days and must cost a fortune to maintain. Odsal is vastly superior to Belle Vue and the Jungle.

That true depth still surpasses what they achieved in succesful years pre SL

[Wolford6]

Not to mention the pre-match entertainment.

[Adeybull]

In the last licensing round, Bradford were a strong club and got a B licence. This time round, they have failed to reach the play-offs in 2009 and 2010, so they are weaker there. I don't know what their juniors are like (junior development is supposed to be one of the criteria), but their ground is a cause for concern. It is quite conceivable that Bradford will be seen as weaker this time and that will put them under real pressure for the next licensing round. Lobby, I think you are 3 years ahead of your time!

Last time round, Bulls scored 7 out of 10. You needed 5-7 for a B Licence. See below. Might make interesting reading for the pathetic fekkwits who seem to think its all about the newness of and facilities at your ground (clue: its one of TEN criteria)

Capacity of 12,000 YES 1

Premier competition standard ground NO 0

Average crowd of 10,000 YES 1

Operating at 40 per cent full YES 1

Turn over

[Adeybull]

It needs a serious overhaul over there at Bradford, the days of them having 20,000 crowds and regular final appearances is long gone, and the fans have gone with it! I don't think they are in danger of losing their superleague licence, but its job on for those in charge to get them moving forward as a club because in every depatment from marketing to player base they are failing.

Maybe we can get a new stadium pretty well given to us by Tesco to solve the problem at modest cost? Maybe you can give us some tips there?

We DID try that, of course, but local politics killed it off. Others, who were in a much worse state than us, were rather more fortunate, were they not? There but for the grace of God...

Incidentally, Bulls are most definitely NOT "failing in every department". Are we "failing" in junior development, for example? I rather think not.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Adeybull

[Tommy The C5t]

Last time round, Bulls scored 7 out of 10. You needed 5-7 for a B Licence. See below. Might make interesting reading for the pathetic fekkwits who seem to think its all about the newness of and facilities at your ground (clue: its one of TEN criteria)

Capacity of 12,000 YES 1

Premier competition standard ground NO 0

Average crowd of 10,000 YES 1

Operating at 40 per cent full YES 1

Turn over

[Tommy The C5t]

The point you make about contribution to the competition is actually judged over a five year time span.

So in 2012 we will have:

2007: Play-Offs and Challenge Cup Semi-Final

2008: Play-Offs and Challenge Cup Quarter-Final

2009: 9th place finish and Challenge Cup 4th Round

2010: ?? place finish and Challenge Cup Quarter-Final

2011:

That to the RFL will get us a point for contribution to the competition.

[Tommy The C5t]

I'm sorry Lobby but Leigh playing Blackpool away in the Northern Rail Cup isn't going to get you in Super League.

[1976PMJwires]

Maybe we can get a new stadium pretty well given to us by Tesco to solve the problem at modest cost? Maybe you can give us some tips there?

We DID try that, of course, but local politics killed it off. Others, who were in a much worse state than us, were rather more fortunate, were they not? There but for the grace of God...

Incidentally, Bulls are most definitely NOT "failing in every department". Are we "failing" in junior development, for example? I rather think not.

I've been nice today and I'm a wire

[Adeybull]

I've been nice today and I'm a wire

Most Wires are - good lot in the main. We all have a few Fekkwits though!

[1976PMJwires]

Most Wires are - good lot in the main. We all have a few Fekkwits though!

Talking of Fekkwits, wheres gobby lobby gone, looking for his licence

[hindle xiii]

It's not like we haven't tried to get a new ground...

[PC]

It's not like we haven't tried to get a new ground...

And it's also not as if the Bulls aren't working towards getting as good a score as possible the next time around. As far as I am aware the Bulls are the only club currently doing a dry run license application through the RFL. What are Leight doing? Or Cas? Or Wakey?

You can't just conjure a stadium out of thin air, and like Hindle says, it's not for want of trying. Unfortunately one of Bradford's "flagship" companies did a pretty good job of stuffing that one up. We also don't have a sugar daddy to help us out. The irony is that the best sugar daddy we, or anyone in RL for that matter, could want owns the company that was instrumental in the previous stadium plans falling through.

[Manx RL]

I think Lobby has a point as well.

Odsal is plug ugly, it's vast and depressing, and he's right about the under cover accommodadtion.

but the actual facilities in themselves are quite good(apart from, again that cover). The main stand is fairly modern and conforms to standards, there is a modern almost new sponsors complex at one end, and massive, reasonably well maintained terracing at the other.

It is a white elephant these days and must cost a fortune to maintain. Odsal is vastly superior to Belle Vue and the Jungle.

That true depth still surpasses what they achieved in succesful years pre SL

Is Odsal one of the grounds you class as a 'death trap'?

[Wendall]

Maybe we can get a new stadium pretty well given to us by Tesco to solve the problem at modest cost? Maybe you can give us some tips there?

We DID try that, of course, but local politics killed it off. Others, who were in a much worse state than us, were rather more fortunate, were they not? There but for the grace of God...

Incidentally, Bulls are most definitely NOT "failing in every department". Are we "failing" in junior development, for example? I rather think not.

Your right you need a good council for starters and a few friends in high places to get your new ground like Wire.

I just think every year Bradford are going backwards on and off the pitch. You may have a few juniors to mask over the fact that the big names have gone but they are hardly in the class of Saints young stars.

[PC]

You may have a few juniors to mask over the fact that the big names have gone but they are hardly in the class of Saints young stars.

You can't compare the two. The young Saints players have been introduced into a team with a winning mentality, with a settled core of players and playing some good stuff.

The young Bulls players have been introduced into a team that has lost all but 2 of it's players over the last 5 years, that has been playing poorly and as a result has lost more than it's won.

You could easily say the Saints kids aren't that good and their shortcomings are hidden by Cunningham, Roby, Wellens, Puletua, Pryce etc. The young players at Bradford are not surrounded by those types of players.

[thirteenthman]

I'm sure I read that the A,B,C system of licence grading is not going to be used this time round. Something to do with the clubs who got a C saying it affects them commercially. I suppose they've got a point. A club with a C grade licence will be seen as not having a secure future - a bit of a risk to deal with long term. Mind you, the RFL don't seem to mind publicly naming clubs who need a new ground, or whose crowds are lagging a bit.

As for Bradford, well they can come out with all the excuses they want about trying to get a new ground and all the problems they've had. The fact is there crowds are falling and the team performance is nowhere near what is once was. Oh, and Odsal 'Stadium' is nothing but a hole in the ground. But, hey, they'll still get a licence next year. It's 2015 they need to worry about.

[ShotgunGold]

Last time round, Bulls scored 7 out of 10. You needed 5-7 for a B Licence. See below. Might make interesting reading for the pathetic fekkwits who seem to think its all about the newness of and facilities at your ground (clue: its one of TEN criteria)

Capacity of 12,000 YES 1

Premier competition standard ground NO 0

Average crowd of 10,000 YES 1

Operating at 40 per cent full YES 1

Turn over

[Adeybull]

The criteria for No. 9 is actually broken the salary cap in the last three seasons, and seeing as you guys cheated in 2005 (punished in 2006) you'll be getting another point there.

However contribution to competition is based on a teams average position being 8th or above in the last three seasons. Seeing as you guys finished 5th in Super League XIII and 9th in Super League IX, then if you finished 10th this season you'd get the point, but if you finished 11th this season you wouldn't get the point.

Also your Super League XIII attendence was 10,287; your XIV was 9,677 and XV at the moment is 8,440. This means that it is highly unlikely you'll get a point for having 10,000 average over the last 3 seasons.

This also means that you won't get the point for having a 40% capacity ground as 40% of 27,000 (which is how much Odsal holds) is 10,800 which is above what you guys have got over the last three years.

So if one of your other things like junior development or solvency was to fall, then you could be getting a C licence and would probably be the only club to actually have gone down a grade. Which would be a disaster for the club especially as teams like Huddersfield Giants and Crusaders have made progress, and especially as in three years times many many clubs will be getting several points for their new grounds.

So back off Lobby - he is not trolling he has actually made a very good point about Bradford's soon to be very poor licence application.

We won't fail on the Salary cap breach. The breaches happened for 2005 and 2006 (and only modest and only then because Harris' image rights paid by Publico were inexplicably treated as falling within the cap, whereas e.g Scully and Gillette, and all those clubs using devices HMRC are attacking were not - don't even go there). Had the 2008 licence application process been in 2009, we would have received an A grade. But I already added the point, so why repeat?

We won't fail on junior development. We'll be graded much higher than last time.

We won't fail on solvency. Without a sugar daddy we HAVE to be solvent, and we are.

I already marked us fail on crowd >10k and crowd 40% capacity and "contribution to the competition". And you will find that "contribution to competition" is a bit more vague than that simple "indicative" guideline anyway.

Lobby has a single agenda against Bradford, regarding the stadium. I don't think he is wired up right over it.

And you seem to have an agenda, But you failed to make any points I had not already recognised, and have set hares running with no justification on two other criteria.

I'm sure you had your reasons.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Adeybull

[Adeybull]

Your right you need a good council for starters and a few friends in high places to get your new ground like Wire.

I just think every year Bradford are going backwards on and off the pitch. You may have a few juniors to mask over the fact that the big names have gone but they are hardly in the class of Saints young stars.

First point - for sure. Dead right there. Maybe as important is not sharing a city with a struggling soccer club with friends in high places, and the richest man in the city aiding and abetting the opposition.

Second point - re the youngsters: watch this space. Saints and the like have 2-3 years start on us. You haven't really seen the best of the young talent coming through yet - still a bit too young. But you will. Its one of the few things at the moment that is exciting about the future here.

We are also seeing some changes now within the club that I reckon will reverse the decline. Won't

list them on here, but - within the lack-of-sugar-daddy reality we are in, I'm actually cautiously optimistic.

[hindle xiii]

We are also seeing some changes now within the club that I reckon will reverse the decline. Won't

list them on here, but - within the lack-of-sugar-daddy reality we are in, I'm actually cautiously optimistic.

Err, if it's good news then get it the hell on here, we need all the positive arsenal we can muster, the big sharks haven't started to circle yet.