It gets embarrassing at times the most petty arguments! St Helens got a Grade B and that was under the clearly defined rules, everyone was well aware of them and signed up to them.

Finances, can anyone tell me one club in Super League that could survive without the SKY TV money? no one could live on gate receipts alone. It is easy to knock Ian Lenagan at Wigan but did not Eamonn Macmanus when he bought the club really save it with his personal investment? I know David Hughes in London needs a very deep pocket to keep the club afloat, gone of the days of a butcher owning a rugby league club! I am sure Hull's new owner will put in much personal investment.

we made a profit last year didnt we?

We haven't got a fully functioning home ground, "B" grade is what I would have expected.

We'll walk an "A" next time round.

But will 2011, 2012 and 2013 be the seasons we will be judged on or 2012, 2013 and 2014? If as people are suggesting it is the former then we may not; if it is the latter then I'm dead sure we will.

That's not the point. The point is it is average attendances over the last three years that are taken, if you take an average attendance when not everyone has played everyone else you are not treating everyone equally.

One of the criteria is being in the top 8 the last three years - do you think they look at who was in the top 8 when the bids were submitted as take that for this year, as that is essentially what you were saying.

Agreed.

Who cares? A or B we're still in so what are you bothered about?

If it was B and there were 14 clubs with an A I'd be worried.

Yes you are. All you need to do is make sure everyone has played the same number of games.

That's a bit daft.

Say we fell just under a threshold but hadn't played Wigan at home, but Wigan were just above it having played us at the DW.

Would it be fair for them to be graded higher on attendances?

Would it matter? If we were worthy of a Grade A then we would be getting at least 10,000 per season average anyway, like Wigan and Leeds do regardless of who they play. The idea isn't to be 'fair'. It is to be accurate. If a club has to rely on certain matches to increase their attendance then they aren't a Grade A club are they? They're a Grade B club. Like us!

PS: I don't care whether we are Grade A or Grade B, just so long as we aren't Grade C. That's a bit of a wobbly place to be imo.

Not everyone had when the bids were submitted. Did they take the top 8 when the bids were submitted as well using your "logic"?

Teams aren't required to get into the top 8 in every season though are they?

Besides, you haven't answered the question. For the 2014 round of licences, will 2011 be taken into consideration do you think, even though it is outside the next licence period? Or will 2012, 2013 and 2014 be the three seasons taken into consideration?

What's that got to do with it? It's still a criteria. So are you using the same logic and saying the top 8 criteria was at some arbitrary point this season when not everyone had played everyone else home and away?



You've haven't asked me a question before so it was difficult to answer - For some things if they follow the same practice as the last two license rounds yes, because of the simple fact the bids will be submitted early in the third year of the next license period.

This would make things tricky for grading Widnes if they are being judged this year they are on a bad start, or if they are not being judged this year it isn't consistent with the other 13.

That said I do agree with you cannot fairly/evenly judge criteria for attendances for 2011 when the bids had to be in about 6 weeks into the season

Agree with the Widnes situation, it's one of the problems of the way they do things as anyone outside the SL will be at a disadvantage in some respect. However this is the RFL we are talking about.

We won't get a grade A next time because this seasons attendances will be less than 10,000 which will affect it.

But unless something drastic happens we won't get a C, so who cares?

I can see what the RL are trying to do but they will not get 14 grade A clubs for the next umpteen years. We will have grade C clubs for the next 30 years and I bet the top 6 - 8 won't change much in that time.Saints Wigan and Leeds will be their or their abouts most years.and the likes of the two Hull teams Bradford Warrington will have purple patches in that period.I really do hope I am wrong and we get a league like they have in Oz but i don't think we ever will, but that has got to be our goal.

Are you drunk or something?

You originally responded to my post not the other way round.

Just to remind you as you seem to be the one on the sauce, I responded to one bit of one of your posts where you actually speculate that Wigan haven't posted their accounts because of a loan?????????????

I suggested you find out the rules for posting accounts to Companies House and you responded with this unconnected stuff:



Try again.

just a point, who cares what grade we get? For me League 1st, cup 2nd, stadium a distant third and licence grade never features!

The club is IL's self indulgence. It's similar to you or me going fishing or something. Any money he puts in, he puts in because he loves the club, the game and because a few million for him is well worth spending. As for Saints not getting grade A status, your crowds this year have been very disappointing and to be fair were poor even when you clearly had the best and most entertaining (annoying) side in the comp. You'll get grade A status when you have a proper ground. In the meantime as far as dick measuring goes, it's a definite 1-0 to Wigan.

REALLY, Really, really.

As for our attendances this year, hardly disappointing, down 20%, still doing better than the average SL team. 8k not bad for a team permanently away from home. Shall we compare with say Huddersfield who have had a couple of games away. Both have long traditions, both doing pretty decent in the league and both have had home fixtures away from home.

Moron.
I never said they were late, I am well aware of the rules - they have until the end of August to submit them; I said there may be a reason that they were not yet published.
I based my "specualtion" on:

In the 2009 accounts there is a loan for £2M which had a payment date of 30/11/10 - fact.
This loan is secured by a debenture - fact
The 89% parent company on which it relies support from was worth the grand sum of £1 - fact
There is a "going concern" statement - fact
The company was insolvent to the tune of £3M+ and had a net debt of £1.6M - fact
Net cashflow was negative - also fact

There has as far as published material I can find to say how the loan has been repaid or been re-scheduled.
If there is, please accept my apologies and please enlighten me as to the real fact.

In view of the above, there is wrong with the speculation that accounts might be delayed is there? After all, its a bit difficult to repay an external loan of £2M on the nail when you have just lost £540K and have negative cash outflows.
Why are you so worked up against a bit of speculation?

Yes you are as you obviously can't read.