East ,west divide

[dboy]

1 hour ago, Yorkshire viking said:

How many years has these two clubs been in super league ? How many millions of pounds have they received by being there yet they havent improved any of there grounds in that time .

Wakefield didn't own the ground until 3 years ago - why would they spend the millions you speak of doing up a property they don't own?

[spanishknight]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Bradford. 

He said homeless not hopeless.

[Tommygilf]

On quite a simple level, there are just more clubs in Yorkshire to make it look better/worse.

11 in West Yorkshire, 2 in South Yorks, 1 in York and 2 in East Riding compared with 6 in Greater Manchester, 2 in Cheshire, and 1 in Merseyside; 16 vs 9. Yorkshire isn't nearly twice as financially prosperous to compensate for that.

Of the "Western" clubs, only St Helens and Warrington have modern purpose built RL grounds they own. The rest are either in relatively modern municipal owned community developments and/or are shared with other (football or RU) clubs. Even then 2 of those are effectively homeless playing well outside their home towns or in park fields.

By contrast, in Yorkshire no fewer than 8 teams own their own grounds, with the RFL owning the Leasehold of 1 more. 7 clubs, Halifax, Huddersfield, York, Hull FC, Hunslet, Doncaster and Sheffield, are in (or at least will be in Sheffield's case), for want of a better word, "Western" style ground shares/community facilities. 

Comparatively then, the Yorkshire Clubs have gotten more municipally funded facilities than our cousins across the Pennines across all levels from League 1 to Super League. There's just more here to potentially get them (and therefore not get them). Quite literally, for every Cas, Keighley or Wakefield there is a Huddersfield, York or Doncaster. Leeds and Hull KR have led the way in redevelopment of their own existing facilities (as have Fev), in a way that no club on't other side of't hills have.

I think the reality is that because there are nearly double the number clubs in Yorkshire, there are going to be a broader range of results. Some folk will naturally focus on the strugglers, as is their prerogative. But to do that in reverse would be to ignore Warrington, Saints and Wigan and instead focus on Oldham and Swinton. 

I suppose the major contrast is that no Lancashire club owns an old facility now - because very few actually do own their facility full stop. There is no equivalent to Castleford or Keighley. The Cumbrian clubs are far more like the Tykes in that respect.

Which is better isn't an East-West divided question.

Edit: there is definitely more analysis which can be done here. I have a few days off next week and might look into it more then

[Yorkshire viking]

19 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

On quite a simple level, there are just more clubs in Yorkshire to make it look better/worse.

11 in West Yorkshire, 2 in South Yorks, 1 in York and 2 in East Riding compared with 6 in Greater Manchester, 2 in Cheshire, and 1 in Merseyside; 16 vs 9. Yorkshire isn't nearly twice as financially prosperous to compensate for that.

Of the "Western" clubs, only St Helens and Warrington have modern purpose built RL grounds they own. The rest are either in relatively modern municipal owned community developments and/or are shared with other (football or RU) clubs. Even then 2 of those are effectively homeless playing well outside their home towns or in park fields.

By contrast, in Yorkshire no fewer than 8 teams own their own grounds, with the RFL owning the Leasehold of 1 more. 7 clubs, Halifax, Huddersfield, York, Hull FC, Hunslet, Doncaster and Sheffield, are in (or at least will be in Sheffield's case), for want of a better word, "Western" style ground shares/community facilities. 

Comparatively then, the Yorkshire Clubs have gotten more municipally funded facilities than our cousins across the Pennines across all levels from League 1 to Super League. There's just more here to potentially get them (and therefore not get them). Quite literally, for every Cas, Keighley or Wakefield there is a Huddersfield, York or Doncaster. Leeds and Hull KR have led the way in redevelopment of their own existing facilities (as have Fev), in a way that no club on't other side of't hills have.

I think the reality is that because there are nearly double the number clubs in Yorkshire, there are going to be a broader range of results. Some folk will naturally focus on the strugglers, as is their prerogative. But to do that in reverse would be to ignore Warrington, Saints and Wigan and instead focus on Oldham and Swinton. 

I suppose the major contrast is that no Lancashire club owns an old facility now - because very few actually do own their facility full stop. There is no equivalent to Castleford or Keighley. The Cumbrian clubs are far more like the Tykes in that respect.

Which is better isn't an East-West divided question.

Edit: there is definitely more analysis which can be done here. I have a few days off next week and might look into it more then

But theres more pro football clubs in Lancashire than Yorkshire but still Lancashire grounds are better than the Yorkshire one 

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, Yorkshire viking said:

But theres more pro football clubs in Lancashire than Yorkshire but still Lancashire grounds are better than the Yorkshire one 

A much more popular and wealthy sport with a proven track record of owning and/or redeveloping its own grounds?

Perhaps that is why there has been more clubs be able to continue in the lower divisions in Yorkshire. West of the pennines seems to only invest in clubs at the top level (or with ambitions for it), whereas clubs like Swinton, Rochdale and Oldham (and the list of defunct clubs too) have been left to fend for themselves with varying results.

And, as I made quite clear, they aren't better in Lancashire. There are 6 modern grounds in Lancashire vs 5 in Yorkshire (and that is being harsh on Hull KR, Hunslet and Sheffield). That's not a large enough difference to justify "better".

[Pie tries]

4 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Headingley is the best Stadium in Super League. Huddersfield and Hull FC both play from is decent Football stadiums as is the case with Wigan. The Wakefield based teams just don’t have any serious money behind them similar to that with Salford who were built a stadium but now leaving it as they can’t afford to pay the rent.

The Salford stadium is not a good example….

[Wholly Trinity]

This is clearly true. There are 3 teams in Wakefield District. I can't believe none of them can be bothered to share a modern stadium with one of the local soccer clubs. Must be deliberately lowering standards. 

[Morris Wanchuk]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

On quite a simple level, there are just more clubs in Yorkshire to make it look better/worse.

11 in West Yorkshire, 2 in South Yorks, 1 in York and 2 in East Riding compared with 6 in Greater Manchester, 2 in Cheshire, and 1 in Merseyside; 16 vs 9. Yorkshire isn't nearly twice as financially prosperous to compensate for that.

Of the "Western" clubs, only St Helens and Warrington have modern purpose built RL grounds they own. The rest are either in relatively modern municipal owned community developments and/or are shared with other (football or RU) clubs. Even then 2 of those are effectively homeless playing well outside their home towns or in park fields.

By contrast, in Yorkshire no fewer than 8 teams own their own grounds, with the RFL owning the Leasehold of 1 more. 7 clubs, Halifax, Huddersfield, York, Hull FC, Hunslet, Doncaster and Sheffield, are in (or at least will be in Sheffield's case), for want of a better word, "Western" style ground shares/community facilities. 

Comparatively then, the Yorkshire Clubs have gotten more municipally funded facilities than our cousins across the Pennines across all levels from League 1 to Super League. There's just more here to potentially get them (and therefore not get them). Quite literally, for every Cas, Keighley or Wakefield there is a Huddersfield, York or Doncaster. Leeds and Hull KR have led the way in redevelopment of their own existing facilities (as have Fev), in a way that no club on't other side of't hills have.

I think the reality is that because there are nearly double the number clubs in Yorkshire, there are going to be a broader range of results. Some folk will naturally focus on the strugglers, as is their prerogative. But to do that in reverse would be to ignore Warrington, Saints and Wigan and instead focus on Oldham and Swinton. 

I suppose the major contrast is that no Lancashire club owns an old facility now - because very few actually do own their facility full stop. There is no equivalent to Castleford or Keighley. The Cumbrian clubs are far more like the Tykes in that respect.

Which is better isn't an East-West divided question.

Edit: there is definitely more analysis which can be done here. I have a few days off next week and might look into it more then

Don’t forget Batley who have also done great things with their ground.

[Tommygilf]

51 minutes ago, Morris Wanchuk said:

Don’t forget Batley who have also done great things with their ground.

Well quite. The truth is there are no clubs like Batley West of the Pennines anymore; at least in relation to their grounds.

[Chris22]

To turn the subject slightly, but on a similar theme, there has been no team from Yorkshire in the Grand Final in 2017.

Leeds have made some good signings but probably wouldn't be expected to reach the Grand Final this year either. I can't see any other Yorkshire team getting close.

Quite the turnaround from how it used to be, especially due to Bradford's decline and Leeds hitting a relatively dry patch.

[Ovenden Grunt]

6 hours ago, Yorkshire viking said:

You forgot Doncaster who have a decent stadium which is shared with the football club .but to me poor stadiums are holding the sport back . Super league should bring in minimum standards for stadium 

They did. Wakefield and Castleford take no notice and are allowed to flaunt the rules without any comeback.

[Wholly Trinity]

4 hours ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

They did. Wakefield and Castleford take no notice and are allowed to flaunt the rules without any comeback.

Flaunt the rules? Really?

Wakefield receive reduced central funding because of their ground. 

Minimum standards have been lowered recently. From 12k with 5k seated to 5k with 2.5k seated. (Unless you're London) 

Minimum pitch size has also been lowered to accommodate soccer tenants.

It's not Wakefield's fault that there have never been 12 (or 14) clubs more closely matching the criteria applied at various times.

[Ovenden Grunt]

3 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

Flaunt the rules? Really?

Wakefield receive reduced central funding because of their ground. 

Minimum standards have been lowered recently. From 12k with 5k seated to 5k with 2.5k seated. (Unless you're London) 

Minimum pitch size has also been lowered to accommodate soccer tenants.

It's not Wakefield's fault that there have never been 12 (or 14) clubs more closely matching the criteria applied at various times.

Balderdash. Wakefield and Castleford have been taking the SL funding for years on false promises of new/improved grounds which never materialised. Spending the brass on players instead of improving facilities which has always been part of the official SL criteria has kept both clubs where they are and kept other clubs who have improved their facilities out of the so called promised land. 

[Wholly Trinity]

Just now, Ovenden Grunt said:

Balderdash. Wakefield and Castleford have been taking the SL funding for years on false promises of new/improved grounds which never materialised. Spending the brass on players instead of improving facilities which has always been part of the official SL criteria has kept both clubs where they are and kept other clubs who have improved their facilities out of the so called promised land. 

Getting bored of repeating myself, but...

Wakefield have never promised a new/improved ground. This has been claimed many times but as yet no-one has provided any evidence. Feel free to supply some.

They have tried everything that other clubs have to achieve a new ground (except lodging with a soccer club, for obvious reasons). It is only with modern facilities that a club is sustainable at SL level, even with central funding. 

Minimum stadium standards has always been PART of the SL criteria but not the only criterion. When licensing was the method of selection, Wakefield did not score well for the stadium.

In other years P&R was used.

The sky funding is not enough to build a new stadium. Which clubs have spent central funds on stadiums? The first team to do this would have been uncompetitive and immediately relegated. Wakefield received no central funding when they first won promotion to SL.

When the ground criteria were 12k capacity and 5k seating, BV (& WR) were unfeasible as renovations and a new stadium was the only option. Especially as Trinity didn't own their stadium following the 2008 crash until 2019. All schemes for new stadia were led by the developers, not by the club(s).

[M j M]

Which other clubs were using their "Super League funding" for stadium improvements?

None at all.

There's an amazing amount of high and mighty people whose clubs lucked into rich owners, benevolent councils or whose enabling developments weren't scuppered by red tape or caught in the tentacles of circumstance. There's only one or two clubs who have had the means or administrative genius to develop their stadia without a few planets aligning.

I tip my hat to those who have. But the rest of the people who have come here just to kick other less fortunate clubs are really tedious.

[Morris Wanchuk]

2 hours ago, M j M said:

Which other clubs were using their "Super League funding" for stadium improvements?

None at all.

There's an amazing amount of high and mighty people whose clubs lucked into rich owners, benevolent councils or whose enabling developments weren't scuppered by red tape or caught in the tentacles of circumstance. There's only one or two clubs who have had the means or administrative genius to develop their stadia without a few planets aligning.

I tip my hat to those who have. But the rest of the people who have come here just to kick other less fortunate clubs are really tedious.

Nail on head mate! 

[Marauder]

15 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

This is clearly true. There are 3 teams in Wakefield District. I can't believe none of them can be bothered to share a modern stadium with one of the local soccer clubs. Must be deliberately lowering standards. 

Not one of them have a local soccer club who play at a decent standard to share a ground with, unless They all move in with Hark to Mopsey AFC.

[Wholly Trinity]

13 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Not one of them have a local soccer club who play at a decent standard to share a ground with, unless They all move in with Hark to Mopsey AFC.

Indeed 

[idrewthehaggis]

Erm.

It might suit the agenda of a few misguided souls on here to continue this false argument, but there is no west v east binary here. 

There is a gaggle of clubs who some have been lucky, others not so and then there is Castleford and Wakey who have been arguably both. 

Said this before that when Cas outbid SRD for Danny Richardson and Niall Evalds, it occured to me that perhaps the Yorkshiremen accidentally or not placed themselves in a better position that being based at the glistering modernity of the AJ Bell of Doom. 

But the gist of this thread is false. It is almost trollesque. 

The real question is how does RL collectively and individually improve its facilities for players and fans alike?

 

[CornwallRL]

21 hours ago, super major said:

spent much time on the western terrace?

Planning has been declined due to rights of access to a footpath behind, one stand shouldn't ruin a fine ground.

I remember going to Whitehaven and when a penalty kicked ball hit the roof of the stand, it was so rusty people were shaking it from their hair.

Workington new ground never happened, neither did proposals for new stands at Barrow.

Hull, York, Wigan, Leigh, Doncaster, Sheffield, 2x Welsh, Swinton, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, London x2, etcetera, how many clubs are tenants? How many own the rights to the grounds, not many?

[M j M]

43 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

But the gist of this thread is false. It is almost trollesque. 

 Shocking isn't it.

Best thing to do is pop the OP on ignore. 

[bobbruce]

11 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

Flaunt the rules? Really?

Wakefield receive reduced central funding because of their ground. 

Minimum standards have been lowered recently. From 12k with 5k seated to 5k with 2.5k seated. (Unless you're London) 

Minimum pitch size has also been lowered to accommodate soccer tenants.

It's not Wakefield's fault that there have never been 12 (or 14) clubs more closely matching the criteria applied at various times.

Was there ever a minimum pitch size I thought there was an ideal size and clubs were expected to get as close to it as there grounds allowed. 

[dboy]

7 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Was there ever a minimum pitch size I thought there was an ideal size and clubs were expected to get as close to it as there grounds allowed. 

Yes, there are minimum size rules, but it's coupled with a rule allowing clubs to apply for a dispensation.

Bulls, Cas, Fev, HKR (think they have now lengthened it), were/are all short.

For clarity, context and comparison, Trinity's pitch is the MAXIMUM size allowed.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

Yes, there are minimum size rules, but it's coupled with a rule allowing clubs to apply for a dispensation.

Bulls, Cas, Fev, HKR (think they have now lengthened it), were/are all short.

For clarity, context and comparison, Trinity's pitch is the MAXIMUM size allowed.

Minimum length certainly was 88m goal to goal at one time and I think that's still the same.   Ingoals min 6m, max 12m.

Can't remember what minimum width is (might be 55m, might not) but the maximum has been rounded up, relatively recently, to 70m from 68m (converted from 75 yards).

[dboy]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Minimum length certainly was 88m goal to goal at one time and I think that's still the same.   Ingoals min 6m, max 12m.

Can't remember what minimum width is (might be 55m, might not) but the maximum has been rounded up, relatively recently, to 70m from 68m (converted from 75 yards).

100m long and 68 wide for SL.

8m in goal for SL

https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_docs/Pitch Size Guidance Brochure.pdf

Cas & Bulls don't even meet under 12's minimum standards of 92x55m.