RFL needs to reform access to SL for Co-Op C. Clubs

[The Parksider]

"Are you drunk? Normally what you type is just of a weird opinion"

"Stop ranting - it's affecting your ability to think"

Some respect for posters please Wellsy, L'Angelo will have you........

Having mulled over your idea I think it's a good idea at times to have some intense local rivalry. We see this working well at Saints/Wigan.

However as a policy for the future you have to remember that a real rivalry is perhaps born of years of the two clubs competing closely, the Hull and the Sants/Wigan derbies can be traced back many many years.

So you can't really invent these rivalries, often based on false "hatreds". As many posters agreed on here the third "best" derby Leeds.v.Bradford actually has no real historical basis, and besides the crowds peaking very high for this derby they have somewhat now fallen away sharply. It is just another game and the hype wasn't swallowed for long.

Of course false or not Derby's do attract good gates, but I do think you need to split any "Derby" factor from the fact that the away fans in many cases may have shorter journeys than the home fans.That's a strength of M62 Rugby - games are accessible to away supporters. Having said that is it a good policy to continue for the future?

I don't think so because all it would do is concentrate the pro game along the M62.

If Rugby League wants a rivalry factor that stirs people to come to games then the perfect one for the future has to be such as England.v.Wales.v.France. Currently the M62 terraces empty as the Catalans or Crusaders pop up the Motorway, but league has to hope that one day clubs coming from other countries will be what stirs the interest rather than a club from the mill town popping over the hill to the mining village.

I think we saw a few years back a policy of promoting RL along the "derby" lines and we saw derbies in the Millenium Magic being actually engineered. Again the only two that worked were the usual two, but even then playing each other in league, cup, play off and then millenium magic simply dilutes and makes these games just another game rather than an event. I'm sure when Notts county finally manage to bump into Notts forest there'll be a stirring of interest on the derby factor, but the derby "policy" in RL has really been there, done it, not as important as other policies.

The Saints/Wigan derby works best for me, that's the one. Of course everyone in Hull can disagree and that's fine. The Hull derby certainly doesn't work when every time you go to Craven Park the crowd is sub 10,000. No point making excuses, it doesn't work half the time and that is a fact and not a "weird opinion". I also believe that the Hull (home) derby works tremendously well, but can't stop thinking how good it would be if all those good young Hull lads were all in one side, and the best imports were attracted to the club which in turn had 20,000 gates for every match rather than just one. Not my club, not my City and if one lucrative game a year is a good policy to you then fine.

I won't call you drunk or suggest your a ranter.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

So you'll be happy to have 14 pro teams followed by a near amateur sub-1k crowd environment

no I wouldn't.

I was even less happy with the mess that the game was in before and that was a real situation rather than a self serving hypothesis created by you

Edited September 11, 2010 by l'angelo mysterioso

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I thought cricket did?

A system of two up two down is employed in the county championship and many other leagues at all levels.

My mistake. I don't watch cricket, but was under the impression that there was "major" and "minor" club status. On reading about the set-up, there is P&R between the top two leagues, but none after that. Would you be happy with P&R from the SL to the Championship, but then cutting off P&R from the Championship to below that? Genuine question.

[West Country Eagle]

My mistake. I don't watch cricket, but was under the impression that there was "major" and "minor" club status. On reading about the set-up, there is P&R between the top two leagues, but none after that. Would you be happy with P&R from the SL to the Championship, but then cutting off P&R from the Championship to below that? Genuine question.

There are two divisions of fully pro clubs - though they struggle - with a system of "minor counties" (amateur/semi-pro) below that.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Your just too ahead of me Wellsy

I wasn't trying to be ahead of you. I wasn't even replying to anything you said, I was just trying to offer an alternative view with a balanced argument. I don't mind having my opinions picked apart (it happens regularly) but if people aren't even going to bother to read the full point and just pick parts of it selectively it's kind of irritating.

Right. Superleague could aim for two clubs in one area then move on. Let's try it....

Wigan/Saints

Oldham/Rochdale

Leeds/Bradford

Toulouse/Catalans

Hull/HKR

Crusaders/Scorpions

Quins/Skolars.

BINGO.....................

Fits absolutely perfectly mate, good one, we have the next round of licenses and you heard it here first.

To be honest with you, that's the kind of set-up I'd be looking at. Maybe not them specific teams, but that sort of idea. Oldham/Rochdale for example is clearly not going to happen for a very very very long time given their current set-ups. Warrington/Widnes would work just as well.

Give Hull a cheer from me.........

I couldn't go. It was my brother's wedding yesterday. He's taken a lot of flack during the week for the scheduling, but on hindsight, it was probably a good thing!

[Blind side johnny]

I thought cricket did?

By the way the crowds for the bigger clubs in the co-op champ are lower than they were under P&R. This will decreased further after the next round ater the likes of Fax, Leigh, Fev, and Barrow become more demoralised with the prospect of another 4 years in the wilderness. The likes of Batley Dewsbury etc are already minimal because they accepted their fate 10 years ago.

Watch this space.....

Your wealth of insight and understanding is awesome and beyond the grasp of most of us. However a little historical context would never come amiss would it?

Gates were higher everywhere and in every sport in the 40's/early 50's yet the gates at clubs such as Dewsbury and Batley were still comparatively low. As RL gates in general declined so did theirs to the point where in the 80's gates were around the 700/800 mark; we still had P&R in the 80's.

Dewsbury last played in the old 1st Division in 86 - their average gate was less than 1900. The following year it was less than 700.

Dewsbury declined to join the original NU in 1895 because they feared that the small gates that they would attract would mean that they couldn't sign any of the leading players, so wouldn't compete, so their gates would decline.

Plus ca change plus ca la meme chose, as they say in Batley.

If you could actually produce some convincing factual/statistical evidence to support your argument rather than basing it entirely upon the emotions generated by being condemned to watch leigh play in the Championship for the next 5+ years, then you may have generated some sympathy for your views. as it is you are just making yourself seem like an idiot.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Some respect for posters please Wellsy, L'Angelo will have you........

Sometimes I'm a little bit "too the point", but I stand by them.

The first post you quote was about a completely incoherent rant with many points made being untrue or just not thought through.

The quote about your post, I genuinely thought you were drunk. It certainly wasn't the same sort of thing you type, as at least your usually just having an opinion. On that case, your facts were just completely wrong.

Having mulled over your idea I think it's a good idea at times to have some intense local rivalry. We see this working well at Saints/Wigan.

However as a policy for the future you have to remember that a real rivalry is perhaps born of years of the two clubs competing closely, the Hull and the Sants/Wigan derbies can be traced back many many years.

So you can't really invent these rivalries, often based on false "hatreds". As many posters agreed on here the third "best" derby Leeds.v.Bradford actually has no real historical basis, and besides the crowds peaking very high for this derby they have somewhat now fallen away sharply. It is just another game and the hype wasn't swallowed for long.

Of course false or not Derby's do attract good gates, but I do think you need to split any "Derby" factor from the fact that the away fans in many cases may have shorter journeys than the home fans.That's a strength of M62 Rugby - games are accessible to away supporters. Having said that is it a good policy to continue for the future?

I don't think so because all it would do is concentrate the pro game along the M62.

If Rugby League wants a rivalry factor that stirs people to come to games then the perfect one for the future has to be such as England.v.Wales.v.France. Currently the M62 terraces empty as the Catalans or Crusaders pop up the Motorway, but league has to hope that one day clubs coming from other countries will be what stirs the interest rather than a club from the mill town popping over the hill to the mining village.

I think we saw a few years back a policy of promoting RL along the "derby" lines and we saw derbies in the Millenium Magic being actually engineered. Again the only two that worked were the usual two, but even then playing each other in league, cup, play off and then millenium magic simply dilutes and makes these games just another game rather than an event. I'm sure when Notts county finally manage to bump into Notts forest there'll be a stirring of interest on the derby factor, but the derby "policy" in RL has really been there, done it, not as important as other policies.

All very good points, particularly the part about rivalries being born out of history rather than manufactured. This is in itself is an argument for having clubs spend some time at a lower level and developing these sort of rivalries rather than just throwing them in at the top with nothing interesting about them.

Your points about Bradford are fair, although their drop from the top half of the league could have more to do with why that rivalry went by the wayside. At the time, they were the two most successful clubs in West Yorkshire as well as the two best supported. Perhaps the number of clubs concentrated in the same area is the reason why this rivalry has been based on success of the two best clubs in the area (i.e. if one ends up being rubbish, it goes to the next club).

The Saints/Wigan derby works best for me, that's the one. Of course everyone in Hull can disagree and that's fine. The Hull derby certainly doesn't work when every time you go to Craven Park the crowd is sub 10,000. No point making excuses, it doesn't work half the time and that is a fact and not a "weird opinion". I also believe that the Hull (home) derby works tremendously well, but can't stop thinking how good it would be if all those good young Hull lads were all in one side, and the best imports were attracted to the club which in turn had 20,000 gates for every match rather than just one. Not my club, not my City and if one lucrative game a year is a good policy to you then fine.

The Saints/Wigan derby works better because they are both more successful clubs and have been for the best part of the SL era and even many years before that, so there is always more of an interest from the neutral as it usually affects who is going to win the competition. The Hull derby at the moment is different as it hasn't really decided anything significant in the game, yet still brings in a huge amount of interest regardless. If they had the success of Saints and Wigan then the interest would change significantly.

At the moment, there is little we can do about Craven Park being small. That's just RL grounds for you. They aren't all big. You can "only" get 17k into Saints, but you could get over 20k in both Leeds and Bradford's grounds. Did it make one more interesting than the other? It's just one of them things.

I don't understand why you would say it "doesn't work" either? What doesn't work about it? How is that a fact?

And again, you keep harking on about this "one Hull side" and what it would be like. Rovers weren't in the SL for nearly a decade of the time Hull were. We still attract the overseas players. We still produce youngsters. We're still an average side. But we make more money and have much larger crowds than we've ever had in our history since they came back. It's a nice theory to think that adding two clubs together will make one super club, but it rarely does. There are many other factors.

I won't call you drunk or suggest your a ranter.

...but you will tell me I'm "looking up my own bum". Respect is a two way street. You lost a lot of people's respect when you decided to troll a few months back. And you didn't start your discussion with me on this thread in the most respectful of ways, so if you want me to show you respect then I expect you to show me the same. I aren't bothered either way.

[The Parksider]

You lost a lot of people's respect when you decided to troll a few months back.

Funny how desperate you have to get to try to get the upper hand in what should be a civil debate. Funny how I aren't banned from the board, but obviously it suits you in this instance to believe the nonsense you post, and nicely takes the debate completely onto something different and away from what I think is a bit of a losing position for you - Stick to the debate and don't be so childish and spitefull. I suggest you apologise for the sleight?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Funny how desperate you have to get to try to get the upper hand in what should be a civil debate. Funny how I aren't banned from the board, but obviously it suits you in this instance to believe the nonsense you post, and nicely takes the debate completely onto something different and away from what I think is a bit of a losing position for you - Stick to the debate and don't be so childish and spitefull. I suggest you apologise for the sleight?

Parky, you brought up respect, not me. You made the first disrespectful comment, not me. Don't go getting all upset that you aren't getting the respect you want, because when you basically tell someone they're talking out of their arris when only reading half a post (then realising all the points you argued were already covered in the part of the post you couldn't be bothered to read) what do you expect?

I don't want the upper hand. I really aren't that bothered. Discuss the points I've made and we can forget all about this meaningless "respect" discussion. But you won't be getting an apology from me as I've done nothing wrong. So let's move on...

[JohnM]

So we want to be like two foreign sports with tiny crowds?

Keep up, sonny!

my post was in response to one claiming that no other sports managed without P and R.

anyway, they do better than Leigh " league attendances alone were approaching 500,000 in the season just finished, with average crowds above 2,000 overall, and more than 4,000 in Nottingham. That overall average is bigger than Conference (BlueSquare Premier) football in England, above any domestic rugby union league below Guinness Premiership level, and on a day-to-day or monthly basis, is bigger than the number of people paying to watch County Championship cricket."

[dallymessenger]

this whole thread is based on the presumption that all clubs outside SL have a right to be in it.

this is wrong.

SL is the elite competition and unless a club meets certain standards it shouldnt be allowed in

i say P&R still exists now into SL

rather than P&R happening annually and be based only on on field performance, it now exists on a 3 year basis and determined by more than just on field performance.

the way into SL is there for championship clubs. other than widnes, none deserve it.

[RP London]

Regarding the P&R issue, why does rugby league feel it has to differ from practically every other major UK sport in this aspect?

How many clubs have sorted out their academy set ups, SL or Championship, as a result of licencing? How many clubs have sorted out their grounds as a result of licencing? So far I would say that it is the ages of grounds and inability to maximise revenue that has driven the likes of Saints to move forward. Which clubs are actually playing in stadiums that were built to win or keep a licence? Widnes, for example already had the ground and that was nothing to do with licencing,

Clubs like Workington and Oldham went bust because at the time all the money was polarised in SL and there was no safety net. Licencing has not changed this. Had P&R not been around Salford and Cas would have gone the same way as Workington and Oldham when they were relegated. Thanks to P&R those clubs fans stayed with them, the infrastructure they had could be kept in place and the teams kept to gether to try and reach to top level.

I don't see how subjective decision making by unknown officials using a process that is far from widely known or transparent can eb better than P&R. I'll go back again to my original question of why rugby league feels it has to be different to other major UK sports.

to answer your original question.

Why does different have to be wrong? Rugby League is not like most other major sports, in fact each major sport has different issues. Cricket has franchising of a type underneath the second division, Rugby Union has been talking of ring fencing for years, Northern Irish Football has a liscencing system. Ice Hockey has a closed shop etc..

as for the grounds.. whether it is lisencing or becuase they are old dilapidated and cant make money is arguable i suppose.. though its funny that they have been scrambling since the liscencing was announced but before that they just plodded along making what thye could without the outlay of a new ground and patching up holes.. and maybe talking of a new ground but not actually doing anything.. as i say this has concentrated the minds.

[BBR]

Perhaps all CC clubs should make a pact to not pay players for the next 5 years and go totally amateur.

All the money they save on wages they can use to improve grounds/youth set up etc.

After all, why meet the salary cap and try to do well other than to try and boost the feeble crowds by a few?

[RP London]

So you'll be happy to have 14 pro teams followed by a near amateur sub-1k crowd environment

or of course franchising/liscencing may actually work and you get two strong divisions with more professionally ruin business style clubs taht actually make money from other sources and can afford to continue to run a rugby league club and we are all in a much stronger position. We also manage to expand the sport to new regions and new supporters which helps with a better national profile and a better sport. but we may lose some of the older clubs to the amatuer ranks becuase they cannot last... sadly that happens and it happens in these fantastic P&R sports too.. there are many teams that do well for a bit and then disapear off.. football being one.. Rugby Union has some very famous old clubs that did not do well in the new pro era, some who started doing very well went bust etc..

P&R is not perfect and does not keep old clubs around... some of these old clubs have only been kept semi pro and kept going becuase of the ring fencing of ch1 or the NFP or its numnber of predecessors.. with pure P&R they would have gone for a burton..

Liscencing is not perfect but we have to at least give it a chance to work where P&R has not. expansion and development of clubs.

[The Parksider]

Parky, you brought up respect, not me. You made the first disrespectful comment, not me. Don't go getting all upset that you aren't getting the respect you want, because when you basically tell someone they're talking out of their arris when only reading half a post (then realising all the points you argued were already covered in the part of the post you couldn't be bothered to read) what do you expect?

I don't want the upper hand. I really aren't that bothered. Discuss the points I've made and we can forget all about this meaningless "respect" discussion. But you won't be getting an apology from me as I've done nothing wrong. So let's move on...

Fair enough I'm OK to move on, but your final accusation was unfounded and nasty

That doesn't bother me, it just suprises me coming from you!!

On the Hull/HKR thing as regards one club, or two or three or whatever, as I've posted before, "the model" is Leeds where when Hunslet nearly made a comeback to the big time it neither suited Uncle Mo's plan nor suited gary Hetherington. The indications were that there were kids playing RL in the city who would become pros (e,g, ablett, walker, McGuire, Bailey, Hall, etc etc) there were people who wanted to watch top class RL and business people who wanted to back it.

The Hunslet that would have gone up allegedly had access to funds like Hudgell provides HKR today, and thus the two clubs would be competing for these resources and ultimately having to accept sharing them.

Hetherington was of no help to Hunslet and since then we see what he has done with Leeds. We also saw before HKR's comeback where Hull were starting to go, I was at OT with them in the SL grand final. I suspect it will be a long time before either of them ever get there again now especially when the overseas quota bites.

I know what I make of that as applied to Hull. I also know what several Hull people said in reply and that was that if HKR were not in SL the whole of East Hull would go over to soccer.

Pretty polarised views there......... But the first scenario happened, the second of course is yet to happen and will supposedly do so if Hudgell pulls out.

Maybe you can play derbies with Hull City?

[The Parksider]

This whole thread is based on the presumption that all clubs outside SL have a right to be in it.

And that they can afford to be in it.....

And that their directors actually want to be in it.......

[StevieM13]

to answer your original question.

Why does different have to be wrong? Rugby League is not like most other major sports, in fact each major sport has different issues. Cricket has franchising of a type underneath the second division, Rugby Union has been talking of ring fencing for years, Northern Irish Football has a liscencing system. Ice Hockey has a closed shop etc..

as for the grounds.. whether it is lisencing or becuase they are old dilapidated and cant make money is arguable i suppose.. though its funny that they have been scrambling since the liscencing was announced but before that they just plodded along making what thye could without the outlay of a new ground and patching up holes.. and maybe talking of a new ground but not actually doing anything.. as i say this has concentrated the minds.

You haven't given one reason why RL has to differ from other major sports. With respect to any Ice Hockey fans on here or elsewhere, can it really be considered a major UK sport? Bradford and Salford have been looking at new grounds for years. Wakefield and Cas were doing so before licensing came along. The passage of time and grounds generally needing to be replaced is what has moved things along. Leigh and Widnes getting new grounds was nothing to do with licensing. same goes Warrington, Wigan, Saints etc etc.

As long as a ground is safe and clean with decent facilities with the relevant safety certificate, I really don't see the need to build new until it becomes too expensive to sustain an older facility.

Going to an all seat stadium is fine with me, but then so is going to somewhere like Odsal. The problem lies in particular for me at places like Belle Vue and The Willows where there are terrible sight lines all over the grounds and they really od hark back to too long ago. Wheldon Road is not so bad because of the angle of the terracing, though the main stand is a shack.

Reading John Drake's piece in this month's RLW he talks of the fascination with crowds, well I think there is an over fascination with stadia. There's not much better than standing on the terraces at a game with like minded people and enjoying the banter that goes with it, and watching a great sport. You just don't get that in all seat stadiums.

In my opinion the ground issue is being used as a way to shut the door and create an elite league that will only be open to clubs outside the heartlands in future. A bit like the NFL or NRL as they are now. Once this next round has passed I don't see any change in the make up of SL for several cycles unless a club inside it chooses to drop out.. Whoever drops this time, assuming the licensing panel makes such a decision, will be destined to go under.

Assuning Widnes are invited to join SL, there are no other heartland clubs that have stadia or will score better better than any of the older ones already in, or are in the right geographic areas for expansion. You won't see, for example, a Cas or Bradford replaced by a Halifax or a Featherstone.

What you will see in my opinion is a situation where the die is cast and those clubs inside will spread their influence in terms of player recruitment< and along with RFL regulations, preventing those outside from competing and producing talent, see Daryl Powell's comments, and thus widening the gap between the have's and have not's.

I think most fair minded fans want to see the game expand and prosper, but the way that cetain clubs seem to be treated differently suggests that the game is pretty much corrupt and licensing is merely a way to facilitate any changes the RFL wants to make due to it's entirely subjective framework and objectives. By rights Crusaders should have been stripped of their National League points and thrown out of SL. however the RFL chose to whiteqash the whole thing and allow the club to move and re-brand.

Look at the difference in treatment between Hull Fc and Halifax in the Challenge Cup. SL club gets a fine, Championship club has to cancel a game just hours before kick off and is thrown out of the competition. Ian Lenagan is allowed, despite it being a clear breach of RFL Operational Rules, to be the majority shareholder in two clubs. This is allowed to continue for almost three years before the RFL acts.

[StevieM13]

Fair enough I'm OK to move on, but your final accusation was unfounded and nasty

That doesn't bother me, it just suprises me coming from you!!

On the Hull/HKR thing as regards one club, or two or three or whatever, as I've posted before, "the model" is Leeds where when Hunslet nearly made a comeback to the big time it neither suited Uncle Mo's plan nor suited gary Hetherington. The indications were that there were kids playing RL in the city who would become pros (e,g, ablett, walker, McGuire, Bailey, Hall, etc etc) there were people who wanted to watch top class RL and business people who wanted to back it.

The Hunslet that would have gone up allegedly had access to funds like Hudgell provides HKR today, and thus the two clubs would be competing for these resources and ultimately having to accept sharing them.

Hetherington was of no help to Hunslet and since then we see what he has done with Leeds. We also saw before HKR's comeback where Hull were starting to go, I was at OT with them in the SL grand final. I suspect it will be a long time before either of them ever get there again now especially when the overseas quota bites.

I know what I make of that as applied to Hull. I also know what several Hull people said in reply and that was that if HKR were not in SL the whole of East Hull would go over to soccer.

Pretty polarised views there......... But the first scenario happened, the second of course is yet to happen and will supposedly do so if Hudgell pulls out.

Maybe you can play derbies with Hull City?

How would Hunslet being in Sl affect Leeds Rhinos? How would it affect what Hetherington is doing? Caddick woould still be there, Headingley Carnegie would still be there etc etc Similarly how has the resurgence of Hull KR affected where Hull FC were starting to go?

[JohnM]

You haven't given one reason why RL has to differ from other major sports.

why should it be the same? It differs becuase it is er..different. It has its own set of opportunities and its own set of problems. In any case there are numerous examples of different P and R arrangements. I'm not a hockey fan, ice or otherwise, I'm not a basketball fan, nor am I an American Football fan but you need to really understand how popular some of these sports are. You'll get a surprise!

I think most fair minded fans want to see the game expand and prosper, but the way that cetain clubs seem to be treated differently suggests that the game is pretty much corrupt and licensing is merely a way to facilitate any changes the RFL wants to make due to it's entirely subjective framework and objectives.

the game is pretty much corrupt Utterly broken? That's a bit strong isn't it? Where is the evidence for that?

entirely subjective framework and objectives. I have to admit I am struggling to understand your meaning. Its all written down and published openly in the Operational Rules.

[RP London]

You haven't given one reason why RL has to differ from other major sports.

conversly you havent given a reason why they cannot differ.. different does not mean wrong..

With respect to any Ice Hockey fans on here or elsewhere, can it really be considered a major UK sport?

depends what you mean by major.. can RL be conisdered a major uk sport outside of us on here... really.. truly.. hand on heart?

Bradford and Salford have been looking at new grounds for years. Wakefield and Cas were doing so before licensing came along. The passage of time and grounds generally needing to be replaced is what has moved things along. Leigh and Widnes getting new grounds was nothing to do with licensing. same goes Warrington, Wigan, Saints etc etc.

thats one interpretation the other is that they were sitting on it till they were forced.. Saints i totally disagree with they have been doing sweet fa till the last couple of years..

As long as a ground is safe and clean with decent facilities with the relevant safety certificate, I really don't see the need to build new until it becomes too expensive to sustain an older facility.

i agree i dont see the need to build a new one but you have to make sure that the old one is top notch to help with the business development. and many are not or are too expensive to get up to premier stnadard which as a sport trying to be a major sport is where you need your facilities to be at.

Going to an all seat stadium is fine with me, but then so is going to somewhere like Odsal. The problem lies in particular for me at places like Belle Vue and The Willows where there are terrible sight lines all over the grounds and they really od hark back to too long ago. Wheldon Road is not so bad because of the angle of the terracing, though the main stand is a shack.

but yet these stadiums pass all the things you want above so why change them.. oh yes becuase they are being told they have to!

Reading John Drake's piece in this month's RLW he talks of the fascination with crowds, well I think there is an over fascination with stadia. There's not much better than standing on the terraces at a game with like minded people and enjoying the banter that goes with it, and watching a great sport. You just don't get that in all seat stadiums.

I dont disagree i hate all the stadium debates and hte crowd issues i think there is a lot more around it.. but i also understand that a stadium isnt just a venue to watch RL it is a venue for business to be done, to attract corporate business etc.. and this has to be considered. You also have to look at the ability to develop withing grounds etc..

In my opinion the ground issue is being used as a way to shut the door and create an elite league that will only be open to clubs outside the heartlands in future. A bit like the NFL or NRL as they are now. Once this next round has passed I don't see any change in the make up of SL for several cycles unless a club inside it chooses to drop out.. Whoever drops this time, assuming the licensing panel makes such a decision, will be destined to go under.

your opinion..

i see it differently.. i see it that all the clubs are being asked to have an up to date stadium with all the trappings needed to help the clubs build a vibrant business for the next 20 -30 years. They arent asking them to build a new one but to be able to make sure that their stadium is able to cope with the growth in the game. By doing that thye hope to increase income streams and levesl for lower clubs to help them build themselves up to the standard where the drop from one division to the next is not so marked.

i see the ability for expansion int he number of clubs next time around becuase i see the game growing with new people attracted by the spectacle on the pictch, as such and becuase of the better corportate facilities at new and referbed old grounds alike this can bring in more business and more sponsorship etc growing hte game imeasurably.

As you say the ground is one part, it has a knock on effect to the business plan and revenue streams etc but it is one part.. no one is saying that the ground is the be all and end all but the ground could be the tipping point for many of the poor clubs.. what else is there to hose between say Salford, Wakefield and Cas.. other than the ground they trade points with each other pretty much and they certainly all fall in the same grade.

[RP London]

Assuning Widnes are invited to join SL, there are no other heartland clubs that have stadia or will score better better than any of the older ones already in, or are in the right geographic areas for expansion. You won't see, for example, a Cas or Bradford replaced by a Halifax or a Featherstone.

i have said before that if i were cas and wakey i would be looking over my shoulder at fev very carefully .. they are developiung well and the stadium is no worse so they could be given a shot (with development on their ground).. Halifax may have a shout with dvelopment of business plans and turnover etc and could replace a bradford if they dotn get their act together.. you may not see it that is your opinion.. i see the other way i think there are those who could replace them easily.

What you will see in my opinion is a situation where the die is cast and those clubs inside will spread their influence in terms of player recruitment< and along with RFL regulations, preventing those outside from competing and producing talent, see Daryl Powell's comments, and thus widening the gap between the have's and have not's.

and this has to be carefully monitored i agree

I think most fair minded fans want to see the game expand and prosper, but the way that cetain clubs seem to be treated differently suggests that the game is pretty much corrupt and licensing is merely a way to facilitate any changes the RFL wants to make due to it's entirely subjective framework and objectives. By rights Crusaders should have been stripped of their National League points and thrown out of SL. however the RFL chose to whiteqash the whole thing and allow the club to move and re-brand.

sorry but get a grip... do we yet know where the actual balme for the whole crusaders immigration fiasco falls? until we do if we ever do a crass judgement like the above IMO is just whitewashing what happened as well. This could be nothign to do with crusaders becuase they did all their due dilligance.. that is what due dilligance is there for and you cannot and would not convict anybody in a court or in any other form of hearing for doing their due dilligance as per the regs set out.. alternativly we can just destroy all the hard work done in wales on the whim of people not furnished with facts..

the rebrand was a big big risk.. ut so would letting another club into the comp with no time to prepare.. they chose for the good of the game as a whoel to allow the rebrand to happen.. lets hope it pays off.. for the good of the game.

the game is run for the best interests of the game as a whole you may see that as corrupt but then it is run by those who run the leagues, it is their league to do what they will with, the clubs apply to be part of it no matter what level you play at.. you can always play somewhere else and not be a part if you disagree its happened before. Some of the clubs you talk about when looking at this dispassionalty are lucky to still be there and with true P&R would probably have gone into the amateur ranks by now but soldier on from one year to the next in the semi pro ranks.. if the game is to expand which iwll make for a bigger major sport and a succesful one some of hte "heartland clubs" will become amateur and disapear.. sadly

Look at the difference in treatment between Hull Fc and Halifax in the Challenge Cup. SL club gets a fine, Championship club has to cancel a game just hours before kick off and is thrown out of the competition. Ian Lenagan is allowed, despite it being a clear breach of RFL Operational Rules, to be the majority shareholder in two clubs. This is allowed to continue for almost three years before the RFL acts.

Hull vs Halifax i believe the difference was the complication of sortuing out the HUll one as it was a couple of rounds down the line before anyone spotted it where as Halifax was the next round and just beofre the match.. the two cases are not identicle at all.. one cannot be solved as easily as the other.. both are a farce and a cock up but your not comparing apples to apples..

there was no buyer for lenaghans shares... London would have lost the super league club if they had forced this issue.. would that have been better?? you can have your own opoinion on this but the point is they chose what they thought was most important thing.. keeping an SL presence in London.

[StevieM13]

why should it be the same? It differs becuase it is er..different. It has its own set of opportunities and its own set of problems. In any case there are numerous examples of different P and R arrangements. I'm not a hockey fan, ice or otherwise, I'm not a basketball fan, nor am I an American Football fan but you need to really understand how popular some of these sports are. You'll get a surprise!

the game is pretty much corrupt Utterly broken? That's a bit strong isn't it? Where is the evidence for that?

entirely subjective framework and objectives. I have to admit I am struggling to understand your meaning. Its all written down and published openly in the Operational Rules.

Basketball and Ica Hockey and American Football are how popular over here? In my experience they have all tried and failed to break into the UK sports market in any real way and can't be considered major UK sports. I remember Manchester Storm used to play at the M.E.N in the early days of SL, where are they now?

The factors that make these sports so popular in other countries don't appear to be sufficiently common in this country. What are the problems RL faces that are so restrictive that it cannot operate like any other major UK sport?

You only have to read some of the licensing panel comments on clubs applications to see that there is a huge amount of subjectivity in how decisions are made. There is a huge amount of freedom for movement in the decision making, rather than the framework that is set down being rigidly applied.

[StevieM13]

i have said before that if i were cas and wakey i would be looking over my shoulder at fev very carefully .. they are developiung well and the stadium is no worse so they could be given a shot (with development on their ground).. Halifax may have a shout with dvelopment of business plans and turnover etc and could replace a bradford if they dotn get their act together.. you may not see it that is your opinion.. i see the other way i think there are those who could replace them easily.

and this has to be carefully monitored i agree

sorry but get a grip... do we yet know where the actual balme for the whole crusaders immigration fiasco falls? until we do if we ever do a crass judgement like the above IMO is just whitewashing what happened as well. This could be nothign to do with crusaders becuase they did all their due dilligance.. that is what due dilligance is there for and you cannot and would not convict anybody in a court or in any other form of hearing for doing their due dilligance as per the regs set out.. alternativly we can just destroy all the hard work done in wales on the whim of people not furnished with facts..

the rebrand was a big big risk.. ut so would letting another club into the comp with no time to prepare.. they chose for the good of the game as a whoel to allow the rebrand to happen.. lets hope it pays off.. for the good of the game.

the game is run for the best interests of the game as a whole you may see that as corrupt but then it is run by those who run the leagues, it is their league to do what they will with, the clubs apply to be part of it no matter what level you play at.. you can always play somewhere else and not be a part if you disagree its happened before. Some of the clubs you talk about when looking at this dispassionalty are lucky to still be there and with true P&R would probably have gone into the amateur ranks by now but soldier on from one year to the next in the semi pro ranks.. if the game is to expand which iwll make for a bigger major sport and a succesful one some of hte "heartland clubs" will become amateur and disapear.. sadly

Hull vs Halifax i believe the difference was the complication of sortuing out the HUll one as it was a couple of rounds down the line before anyone spotted it where as Halifax was the next round and just beofre the match.. the two cases are not identicle at all.. one cannot be solved as easily as the other.. both are a farce and a cock up but your not comparing apples to apples..

there was no buyer for lenaghans shares... London would have lost the super league club if they had forced this issue.. would that have been better?? you can have your own opoinion on this but the point is they chose what they thought was most important thing.. keeping an SL presence in London.

Why just Cas and Wakey? Why not Salford?

Only by some entirely subjective process that is built on subjective opinion, can you replace a Bradford with a Halifax. Or a Cas with Featherstone. Neither Halifax or Featherstone could hope to match or top, for example, the crowds currently attracted?

As regards the Crusaders whitewash, there has not been a word from the RFL on this. Six illegals were deported, the club was fined

[Big Picture]

Why just Cas and Wakey? Why not Salford?

Only by some entirely subjective process that is built on subjective opinion, can you replace a Bradford with a Halifax. Or a Cas with Featherstone. Neither Halifax or Featherstone could hope to match or top, for example, the crowds currently attracted?

As regards the Crusaders whitewash, there has not been a word from the RFL on this. Six illegals were deported, the club was fined

[Wellsy4HullFC]

In regards to the Hull CC incident, there was no RFL rule in place at the time to throw them out. It was because of the Hull incident that the RFL made the rule, and thus why Halifax were subsiquently ejected from the competition.

The rules changed between the two incidents, so two different outcomes. None of this "it's because they're in SL" rubbish. Had it happened to any club that year, the same would have happened.