Fri 15th Sept: SL: Leigh Leopards v Wakefield Trinity KO 20:00

[Cheadle Leyther]

38 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Leigh helped save that season

Leigh knew the score regarding players and funding and applied to do it, you make it sound like SL begged Leigh.

 

Anyway It was still classless, they’ve deleted the tweets now.

So you have totally ignored my main explanation about why they used the tweet i.e. the fact that the clubs near the bottom all reneged on Derek’s plan  for a 14 team Superleague, (which nearly all posters on this forum agree with), once they realised they were safe for the 2021 season.

So as what Derek has said ‘What goes around, comes around’. And it just happens to be Trinity.

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

So you have totally ignored my main explanation about why they used the tweet i.e. the fact that the clubs near the bottom all reneged on Derek’s plan  for a 14 team Superleague, (which nearly all posters on this forum agree with), once they realised they were safe for the 2021 season.

So as what Derek has said ‘What goes around, comes around’. And it just happens to be Trinity.

Ive not ignored it, whatever the reason for the tweets they were still classless.

[binosh]

11 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Ive not ignored it, whatever the reason for the tweets they were still classless.

But justified.

[PREPOSTEROUS]

Does anyone really think we would have gone to a 14 team comp in 2022 just because Salford, Trintiy and Leigh presented that as a plan?

I've read DB's side of it but not others, whether it's as cut and dried as that who's to say. Regardless if you had stayed in SL you may not have had the season you've just had. You'd have been feeding off the scraps in 2022, possibly fighting relegation.  Instead, Leigh were able to blow the opposition away in the championship, and as sure as they can be of promotion were able to prepare way before the likes of Trinity could.

Anyhow all's well that ends well.

[NickD]

Do any of you Super League fans like the golden point?   Only usually visit the Championship sites and we are lucky enough to not have it.  I can't understand why anyone voted for it.   You play 80 minutes, manage a draw and 5 minutes later can leave with nothing.  Barmy.   When we had golden point in the Championship it was different in that both teams got a point and the winner in overtime got two.  Surely thats fairer?

[Agbrigg]

3 minutes ago, NickD said:

Do any of you Super League fans like the golden point?   Only usually visit the Championship sites and we are lucky enough to not have it.  I can't understand why anyone voted for it.   You play 80 minutes, manage a draw and 5 minutes later can leave with nothing.  Barmy.   When we had golden point in the Championship it was different in that both teams got a point and the winner in overtime got two.  Surely thats fairer?

Totally agree, wakey have had three this season won one lost other two. It has a place and thst dhould be knock out competitions only. 

These modern rugby league players really put their bodies through great physical demands (kevin procter appart)and 80 minutes is enough. On a purely welfare basis alone i would scrap the farce

 

[daz39]

16 hours ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

You haven’t had to put up with anything, nobody’s bothered about you.

Up the Trin 

Oh i have had personal stuff as well as vitriol towards my club.

[RigbyLuger]

Can't understand why Derek Beaumont. and his history on social media, the head of Leigh Leopards, would be surprised that the social media account of Derek Beaumont's Leigh Leopards would send such a tweet, which wasn't even funny!

[Gates1]

2 hours ago, NickD said:

Do any of you Super League fans like the golden point?   Only usually visit the Championship sites and we are lucky enough to not have it.  I can't understand why anyone voted for it.   You play 80 minutes, manage a draw and 5 minutes later can leave with nothing.  Barmy.   When we had golden point in the Championship it was different in that both teams got a point and the winner in overtime got two.  Surely thats fairer?

It's needless. I don't understand whats up with a draw to be honest.

[dboy]

15 hours ago, yipyee said:

Underfunded ay.. didn't stop saints, Warrington, Wigan, both Hull teams, Widnes, Huddersfield, Bradford, catalan, fetherstone (not even in SL!) Halifax, Leeds (apart from the away end) 

Had a soft spot for wakey and the be fair got screwed over a bit with a new stadium but RL needs to move on and wakey just made up the numbers for 24 years. At least Cas made finals. 

A merger back in 96 and who knows what the area could have acheived

Garbage.

Saints and Wire funded by external sources - but that's fine. Same with Leeds - completely underwritten by Leeds City Council and the cricket club.

Wigan, Hudds, HFC - DO NOT own their own grounds - they are cuckoos in a soccer ground and play when they're told they can play.

Are you taking the ###### mentioning Bradford???

[phiggins]

4 hours ago, NickD said:

Do any of you Super League fans like the golden point?   Only usually visit the Championship sites and we are lucky enough to not have it.  I can't understand why anyone voted for it.   You play 80 minutes, manage a draw and 5 minutes later can leave with nothing.  Barmy.   When we had golden point in the Championship it was different in that both teams got a point and the winner in overtime got two.  Surely thats fairer?

As the hooter went last night, the last thing I wanted was to have to watch more of that game

[dboy]

5 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

So you have totally ignored my main explanation about why they used the tweet i.e. the fact that the clubs near the bottom all reneged on Derek’s plan  for a 14 team Superleague, (which nearly all posters on this forum agree with), once they realised they were safe for the 2021 season.

So as what Derek has said ‘What goes around, comes around’. And it just happens to be Trinity.

Nonsense.

The 14 team plan was overwhelmingly dismissed.

The main barriers were Hetherington, McManus and Pearson. 

None of the 12 were prepared to a 14th share, when their whole business relies on maintaining a 12th, though the main argument trotted out was "the player pool is too small".

I personally wanted 14 BTW - a much better-balanced league and no silly loop fixtures. Hey ho.

[yipyee]

23 hours ago, Gates1 said:

The fact the you are including staduims owned by football clubs, redeveloped staduims funded by enabling developments and those owned by local councils just re-inforces my point that it isnt that simple.

To my knowledge only Saints, Leeds and possibly Catalan are self funded SL quality staduims.  Wire was part funded by Tesco if I remember rightly.

Wigan isn't owned by the footy club, Huddersfield had a share in the stadium, not sure if they still do.

Saints and wire both had funds/work done by tesco as did footy clubs like Morecombe,  tesco even built a police station as part of a deal to get superstores built in the face of local objection. The saints stadium had to go to appeal because of tesco and the gas works and was referred to parliament and took an extra 10 years before a spade was in the ground so no building new stadiums are not easy but if you do the right deals with the right people it can be achieved and yes that includes the football clubs (again saints made a deal with the footy club )

[yipyee]

7 hours ago, dboy said:

Garbage.

Saints and Wire funded by external sources - but that's fine. Same with Leeds - completely underwritten by Leeds City Council and the cricket club.

Wigan, Hudds, HFC - DO NOT own their own grounds - they are cuckoos in a soccer ground and play when they're told they can play.

Are you taking the ###### mentioning Bradford???

Saints was predominately self funded through the sale of Knowsley Road, hence why they had to sell that and rent Widnes for a year. Other funds came from tesco and the council but that only covered groundwork (tesco) and access roads (council).

Wire was similar.

Huddersfield did own was it 40% not sure of the current shareholding of the ground.

Whealan family own the Wigan ground not the footy club. Footy don't make up fixtures at the drop of a hat like RL does so guess what the venue doesn't always have space as more than one team plays there.

Not sure of Leeds stadium but thought it was self funded as they make millions profit each year ?

Bradford built a whole hospitality suite before going belly up. That's more than wakey / Cas did. Even fev relocated a whole stand which is better than the SL stands of wakey and cas

[Trojan Horse]

1 hour ago, yipyee said:

Saints was predominately self funded through the sale of Knowsley Road, hence why they had to sell that and rent Widnes for a year. Other funds came from tesco and the council but that only covered groundwork (tesco) and access roads (council).

Wire was similar.

Huddersfield did own was it 40% not sure of the current shareholding of the ground.

Whealan family own the Wigan ground not the footy club. Footy don't make up fixtures at the drop of a hat like RL does so guess what the venue doesn't always have space as more than one team plays there.

Not sure of Leeds stadium but thought it was self funded as they make millions profit each year ?

Bradford built a whole hospitality suite before going belly up. That's more than wakey / Cas did. Even fev relocated a whole stand which is better than the SL stands of wakey and cas

Not true at all. But then I suppose it wouldn’t fit the agenda. Let me provide what I believe to be facts. 
 

Since entering SL trinity have.

Built the hospitality 4 tier south stand. 

 Roof placed on North stand. 
 

Roof placed on West stand (part of).

An area for wheelchair users to watch the game was built. A few additional refreshment stands added. 
 

Believe some foundation works on north were done at a cost to club. 
 

At one point a club shop was introduced.

I’m sure there has been ongoing maintenance (I recall paint works at parts of stadium etc). 

That’s prior to this new east stand, new roof on south east stand and refurbishment if north stand terrace and barriers. Also the new car park, floodlights, new pitch, big screen and I think there’ll be south east getting refurbished inside after east stand is built.

All of this and so I read previously that Trinity actually had money deducted for the stadium all while being asked to improve it. 
 

It’s not been good enough but there has been a fair efforts made through the years and the club have tried. 

[dboy]

10 hours ago, yipyee said:

Saints was predominately self funded through the sale of Knowsley Road, hence why they had to sell that and rent Widnes for a year. Other funds came from tesco and the council but that only covered groundwork (tesco) and access roads (council).

Wire was similar.

Huddersfield did own was it 40% not sure of the current shareholding of the ground.

Whealan family own the Wigan ground not the footy club. Footy don't make up fixtures at the drop of a hat like RL does so guess what the venue doesn't always have space as more than one team plays there.

Not sure of Leeds stadium but thought it was self funded as they make millions profit each year ?

Bradford built a whole hospitality suite before going belly up. That's more than wakey / Cas did. Even fev relocated a whole stand which is better than the SL stands of wakey and cas

There's quite a lot you are "not sure" about, isn't there?

Saints was done "right" - they used the assets they had and supplemented them with an external corporate support. Same with Wire.

Wigan similar-ish, but they squandered the Central Park money and do not own so much as a napkin at the new ground. They even had to re-arrange a match a number of years ago because some one booked a wedding in the hospitality suite. Cuckoos.

Hudds did have a 20% stakeholding, but that is gone and a private company is taking over the whole stadium - essentially the soccer club. Cuckoos.

Leeds City Council have underwritten the Headingley build. Beholden to cricket fixtures, so technically do not have Primacy of Tenure. Leeds don't make profits. They had the biggest losses of all clubs the other year, haven't seen this year's figures.

Bradford is a crater in the ground and should never be mentioned in comparison discussions. It's a ###### hole!

Fev have made great efforts, but need to get some floodlights as a priority.

Wakey have not got their ducks in a row and predictably all you hear is "yeah but...20 years but...blah, blah, blah".

Castleford are screwed BTW. Their ground development will not happen. 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by dboy

[Chrispmartha]

3 hours ago, dboy said:

There's quite a lot you are "not sure" about, isn't there?

Saints was done "right" - they used the assets they had and supplemented them with an external corporate support. Same with Wire.

Wigan similar-ish, but they squandered the Central Park money and do not own so much as a napkin at the new ground. They even had to re-arrange a match a number of years ago because some one booked a wedding in the hospitality suite. Cuckoos.

Hudds did have a 20% stakeholding, but that is gone and a private company is taking over the whole stadium - essentially the soccer club. Cuckoos.

Leeds City Council have underwritten the Headingley build. Beholden to cricket fixtures, so technically do not have Primacy of Tenure. Leeds don't make profits. They had the biggest losses of all clubs the other year, haven't seen this year's figures.

Bradford is a crater in the ground and should never be mentioned in comparison discussions. It's a ###### hole!

Fev have made great efforts, but need to get some floodlights as a priority.

Wakey have not got their ducks in a row and predictably all you hear is "yeah but...20 years but...blah, blah, blah".

Castleford are screwed BTW. Their ground development will not happen. 

 

 

Just on Leeds, I’m not sure on the ins and outs on the funding of the stadium tbh. But on the loss/profit thing yes they made record losses but that was due to Covid and the fact the stadium complex obviously couldn’t be used, they have sinced halved that loss and I would suspect be back in profit soon.

[daz39]

Huddersfield STILL own 20% of their stadium, no party can sell their shares or any of the others buy them without the agreement of all parties involved.

HTFC cannot own the stadium, they can own the operating rights.

[SUPERSTUD]

Daryl Powell and John Kear at Wakefield next year apparently.

[dboy]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Just on Leeds, I’m not sure on the ins and outs on the funding of the stadium tbh. But on the loss/profit thing yes they made record losses but that was due to Covid and the fact the stadium complex obviously couldn’t be used, they have sinced halved that loss and I would suspect be back in profit soon.

That's right. It's weird in a way, but BECAUSE Leeds have a really non-centralised funding model, when it gets shut down e.g. covid lockdown, it really hits.

Hopefully not something we will see repeated.

[dboy]

3 hours ago, daz39 said:

Huddersfield STILL own 20% of their stadium, no party can sell their shares or any of the others buy them without the agreement of all parties involved.

HTFC cannot own the stadium, they can own the operating rights.

Not for long...

Huddersfield Town's new owner Kevin Nagle on club debts, the future of the John Smith's Stadium, Canalside and his support for women's football - Huddersfield Hub

 

[daz39]

9 minutes ago, dboy said:

Not for long...

Huddersfield Town's new owner Kevin Nagle on club debts, the future of the John Smith's Stadium, Canalside and his support for women's football - Huddersfield Hub

 

It states his long term aim is to own 100% of it, he needs to convince the Giants to sell their 20% and the council their 40%, neither of those parties would be anywhere near interested in selling them.

[dboy]

4 minutes ago, daz39 said:

It states his long term aim is to own 100% of it, he needs to convince the Giants to sell their 20% and the council their 40%, neither of those parties would be anywhere near interested in selling them.

The stadium management are running the stadium down because they know that neither Kirklees Council nor Giants can contribute the necessary funds.

Huddersfield Giants’ stadium issue latest as Super League club and Huddersfield Town set to be given shares by Kirklees Council – Total Rugby League (totalrl.com)

"The stadium needs £8 million to £10 million of investment within a decade to deal with maintenance issues and extend its life beyond 2050."

Kirklees Council have already dumped their share - Giants have no choice but to follow, or stump up 40% of £10m refurbishment funding.

The soccer club will have you out  completely in 3 years time.

And let's be honest, a little club like Giants (hilarious moniker), should not be rattling around in a stadium of that size.

[daz39]

23 minutes ago, dboy said:

The stadium management are running the stadium down because they know that neither Kirklees Council nor Giants can contribute the necessary funds.

Huddersfield Giants’ stadium issue latest as Super League club and Huddersfield Town set to be given shares by Kirklees Council – Total Rugby League (totalrl.com)

"The stadium needs £8 million to £10 million of investment within a decade to deal with maintenance issues and extend its life beyond 2050."

Kirklees Council have already dumped their share - Giants have no choice but to follow, or stump up 40% of £10m refurbishment funding.

The soccer club will have you out  completely in 3 years time.

And let's be honest, a little club like Giants (hilarious moniker), should not be rattling around in a stadium of that size.

I've a meeting with Mr Davy in a couple of weeks, i'll tell him what you said, best inform him then, cheers.

[dboy]

Ask him about it.

The soccer club is pricing you out.

It's all in public record.

Kirklees jumped ship early to stave off their liabilities, "gifting" their 40% share to the soccer club and the Gnats.