Ottawa and New York

[Mr Plow]

10 hours ago, HarrogateKnights said:

Presumably relegating/not giving Wakefield a licence as they don't have a 10K stadium then? 

We should have minimum standards anyway. If you don’t meet them then your out. But that would upset a few people

[Toby Chopra]

8 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

They could buy Toronto Wolfpack and along with the Club, would take title of the Participation Agreement the Club holds. If you mean by licence, RFL Membership, Toronto ain't members, they merely hold a participation agreement. 

No doubt, they'd then have to get permission to relocate / rename. Don't think that would be forthcoming for the likes of Leigh/Fev. They'd be stuck having to play a certain minimum of home games somewhere in the Greater Toronto Area. 

Why do you think permission to relocate wouldn't be granted by the RFL or SL? 

Seems to me they'd bite the arm off anyone who would bring the Toronto experiment to an orderly end, while at the same time providing a neat way to bring SL back to 12. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

13 hours ago, HarrogateKnights said:

Presumably relegating/not giving Wakefield a licence as they don't have a 10K stadium then? 

Minimum capacity for SL is 5K.....

[Eddie]

32 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Minimum capacity for SL is 5K.....

I’m surprised that the Trailfinders holds that many. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I’m surprised that the Trailfinders holds that many. 

I believe it's 4000, but the RFL/SL can always allow leeway to the standards. 

[Eddie]

9 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

I believe it's 4000, but the RFL/SL can always allow leeway to the standards. 

It’s not actually a minimum capacity then? Not having a go at you btw, but them saying there is one and then not adhering to it seems pretty pointless. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

It’s not actually a minimum capacity then? Not having a go at you btw, but them saying there is one and then not adhering to it seems pretty pointless. 

I'm sure quite a few grounds don't meet all the supposed minimum standards across all divisions of the 'pro' game (eg Sheffield's OLP has a capacity 500 less than the supposed Championship minimum). As you say it makes a mockery of publishing a document and then not adhering to it, but we've had that since the days of 'Framing the Future' 

[wiganermike]

17 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

I'm sure quite a few grounds don't meet all the supposed minimum standards across all divisions of the 'pro' game (eg Sheffield's OLP has a capacity 500 less than the supposed Championship minimum). As you say it makes a mockery of publishing a document and then not adhering to it, but we've had that since the days of 'Framing the Future' 

I think the requirements now are more concerned with a minimum number of seats (increasing the higher up the leagues you go), a required percentage of covered spectator areas and floodlights, as well as ability to facilitate TV broadcasting in SL rather than insisting on a minimum capacity.

[Smudger06]

3 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Why do you think permission to relocate wouldn't be granted by the RFL or SL? 

Seems to me they'd bite the arm off anyone who would bring the Toronto experiment to an orderly end, while at the same time providing a neat way to bring SL back to 12. 

Relocate, possibly. To Leigh or Featherstone along with a SL Place for 2021, no. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

10 hours ago, wiganermike said:

I think the requirements now are more concerned with a minimum number of seats (increasing the higher up the leagues you go), a required percentage of covered spectator areas and floodlights, as well as ability to facilitate TV broadcasting in SL rather than insisting on a minimum capacity.

There is still a requirement for minimum capacity: SL 5000 (inc 2000 seats), Champ 3000 (750), L1 1000 (500).

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

There is still a requirement for minimum capacity: SL 5000 (inc 2000 seats), Champ 3000 (750), L1 1000 (500).

Did Trailfinders meet that criteria for London last year?

[tms]

13 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Did Trailfinders meet that criteria for London last year?

 

SL 5000 (inc 2000 seats)

they had the seats 2200 but not the capacity 4000

[Spidey]

2 hours ago, POR said:

 

SL 5000 (inc 2000 seats)

they had the seats 2200 but not the capacity 4000

So they didn't fulfil the minimum criteria - If its not enforced there's no point in having it in the first place

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

So they didn't fulfil the minimum criteria - If its not enforced there's no point in having it in the first place

When franchising was dropped it was announced that grounds criteria was being made less onerous - and also that there would be little to no enforcement. Basically, the requirements moved from being required to being a nice idea, if you can.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

So they didn't fulfil the minimum criteria - If its not enforced there's no point in having it in the first place

 

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

When franchising was dropped it was announced that grounds criteria was being made less onerous - and also that there would be little to no enforcement. Basically, the requirements moved from being required to being a nice idea, if you can.

From the Facilities Standards document:

The aim of the Standards is to ensure that Matches are played at Facilities that are appropriate for the relevant competition and the players, spectators, broadcasters and commercial partners of the sport. If a Club is not able to meet any of the Standards it may apply in writing for dispensation from the Board. The Board has absolute discretion in granting any such dispensation (and shall take into account such factors as it considers appropriate) and may make it subject to such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

 

From the Facilities Standards document:

The aim of the Standards is to ensure that Matches are played at Facilities that are appropriate for the relevant competition and the players, spectators, broadcasters and commercial partners of the sport. If a Club is not able to meet any of the Standards it may apply in writing for dispensation from the Board. The Board has absolute discretion in granting any such dispensation (and shall take into account such factors as it considers appropriate) and may make it subject to such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate.

Since the end of franchising are you aware of any request being turned down?

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Since the end of franchising are you aware of any request being turned down?

No, although I can think of some that possibly should have been 

[GUBRATS]

18 hours ago, wiganermike said:

I think the requirements now are more concerned with a minimum number of seats (increasing the higher up the leagues you go), a required percentage of covered spectator areas and floodlights, as well as ability to facilitate TV broadcasting in SL rather than insisting on a minimum capacity.

Indeed , the minimum seat no was ' adjusted ' when CAS got promoted in 2005 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Indeed , the minimum seat no was ' adjusted ' when CAS got promoted in 2005 

Not by enough, even now, given they only have 1500.....

I think there also used to be standards for the number and maximum distance of any spectator from a toilet? I was always under the impression that's why so many portaloos appeared around that time at the Jungle.

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Not by enough, even now, given they only have 1500.....

I think there also used to be standards for the number and maximum distance of any spectator from a toilet? I was always under the impression that's why so many portaloos appeared around that time at the Jungle.

It was 2,000 under framing the future , then changed when they got relegated in 04 

[Man of Kent]

If I’m being honest it’s not one to get the pulses racing but Ottawa have just signed their first player

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

30 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

It was 2,000 under framing the future , then changed when they got relegated in 04 

It's still 2000, they still don't meet it. 

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

If I’m being honest it’s not one to get the pulses racing but Ottawa have just signed their first player

 

I was worried that whoever is investing in Ottawa might get worried and maybe pull out given what’s happened to Toronto, but evidently not so this is good news. 

[Man of Kent]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I was worried that whoever is investing in Ottawa might get worried and maybe pull out given what’s happened to Toronto, but evidently not so this is good news. 

They are going hard on the French thing, it seems. Maybe there’s a grant in it somewhere (which would be a smart move)?

[nadera78]

8 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

If I’m being honest it’s not one to get the pulses racing but Ottawa have just signed their first player

 

It's a very good signing for the level they'll be playing at. Also strengthens the French influence.