Hark at you Einstein!

the upkeep at BV is surely not that much

And of course there will be all the staff offices / shop / additional training facilities + additional payments to the host stadium if the team want to train on the main pitch. then there are new stationary costs and the host stadium will take the bulk of pitchside and ground advertising.

You make a good point Turfedout..the additional costs will be far higher...well done!

Like i said,way too simplistic.

You have absolutely no idea of the running costs of Belle Vue.
You have absolutely no idea of the costs of playing out of Oakwell.

I would agree it is likely to cost more to operate from Oakwell,but your figure is just a wild simplistic guess.

That article says promises to upgrade facilities or move to a new facility!

TB - you obviously know what you're talking about but you do have a habit of reading one word and making a clever comment about it whilst not looking at the point in its full context.

Our sport has gone mad, I'm not far behind.

It doesnt say promised to move to Newmarket,in fact Newmarket wasnt even on the horizon when the last round of licensing was done.
Oakwell would be an upgrade of facilties.

The same as Celtic promised to enhance their current facilities -- they have done this by moving to Wrexham.

I have just put these two RFL points together...





Off that Wakefield had put 100% into a new stadium... Oakwell would not be that nor is it mentioned as a possibility!

Newmarket isnt mentioned either.

Are you suggesting you have to stick to exactly what was in the original report?

Get real.

The new stadium that was alluded to in the report was Thornes Park and it was knocked back weeks after the licenses were awarded

The whole idea was that the clubs promised enhanced facilities,if the clubs deliver enhanced facilities how can the RFL complain?

Celtic made commitments as below,they now have enhanced facilities,but not via the route originally indicated.

CELTIC CRUSADERS
Whilst well maintained, the ground is limited and old fashioned but there is a commitment to immediately enhance the current facilities. In the medium term the club recognises the need to develop a new facility and appears to be working with the local public agencies to deliver this.

I think you and I both know the RFL will ignore Crusaders move in terms of their original franchise.

All I am saying is cluns said either we will build a new ground or we will upgrade current if you move to another stadium it is different and will be hold against Wakefiled as what they 'promised' you have to remember the RFL will be looking for any excuses they can bring out to reject any club!

Quite the opposite: that is exactly the context - people constantly cite cricket as an example of promotion and relegation between professional and semi-professional leagues and they're wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. And arguments based on falsehoods annoy me.

If anybody can come up with an actual argument for the reintroduction of p&r between professional and semi-professional competitions, one that addresses the actual problems that existed with it (and as a Cas fan I'm more than familiar with), I'd be happy to look at it seriously.


But the argument that "other sports like cricket do it" when they absolutely don't gets on my goat tbh.

I agree -- The RFL will ignore anything negative surrounding Celtic or Quins.

But my original point was:

If(and thats an almighty big if),it was a short term measure because construction of new stadium was well advanced,but wouldnt be completed for start of new season,then i wouldnt see an issue.

The RFL will do whatever it pleases and the "independent" body that does the assessments of the bids,will sing to the exact tune the RFL requires.

FWIW i think Wakey are almost dead certs to be out,i also thought it was ridiculous to let Crusaders in over Widnes originally.
I think the only thing could possibly save Wakey is to be considerably further advanced with construction of a new stadium than Castleford.

I also believe that Wakey have no one but themselves to blame for the position they are now in.
I think the new stadium will happen,but i think it will come too late this time around.The big question then is could we survive outside the top flight and rebuild having our base from a new stadium and re apply in 3 years -- im not convinced we could and im also not convinced any future application would be successful.

Point 1 - Cricket was mentioned along with other sports. I was referring to promotion and relegation within the professional ranks. I have to admit that no direct comparison can be made due to the pro/semi pro argument. You can release the goat.

Point 2 - If we looked at the set of problems which existed prior to Super League and compared them to the set of problems now I wonder how many of the problems which existed back then are still here and how many new problems have been created.

You want promotion and relegation [iwithin[/i Super League? Bizarre.

Actually, if there were enough clubs up to the mark of being full-time professional to make a two-division professional league, I'd agree and absolutely argue for P&R.

tb, since you are such an arch-pedant I feel duty-bound to point out that, while something which annoys you may "get on" your nerves, wick, t[ii[/its and sundry other parts, it "gets" your goat.

meh.


Fair point

He’s right, because he’s from Yorkshire, where they do get on their goats.



[urlhttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article145635.ece[/url

You have absolutely no idea what I know.

If you think the costs of renting a 'modern' stadium + offices etc etc are not hugely more than staying put in that dump you are the one being simplistic.

So a club with debts, winding up orders and a chairman in an IVA may tell the SL licencing panel that they are taking an option that will significantly push up costs and cut revenues...smart move

Tbf didn't Saints say it was costing them a fortune to stay at Knowsley Road and keep it up to scratch? One of reasons their more than happy to play at Widnes!

Yeah, but they did things like put lightbulbs in the toilets at Knowsley Road

And its a fair point,the cost of just keeping an old stadium in a condition that it can gain a safety certificate is more than alot of people would imagine.

We did at Wakefield,we just never replaced them when they blew.

I have come into at the back end I know but firstly I don't think operating out of Oakwell will be that costly at all and possibly think it will be cheaper than operating out of Belle Vue.

What some seem not to realise is the actual cost of running any ground, and that is a cost Barnsley FC, and in Saints case Widnes, have to pay irrespective. So cost such as buildings insurance, contents insurance PL insurance, rates, rubbish costs, electricity, gas, kitchen staff, ground staff etc etc. These are roughly fixed costs and have to be paid by the owners. So if Wakefield come along and want to play at your ground it is a bonus and this is not Wembley or Old Trafford, where they can command big money because of the venue, it is Barnsley. The cost of renting Oakwell will be the cost directly associated with opening the ground for the extra fixture (stewards, bar & food staff etc) and then some profit to offset the overhead that the club has running the ground anyway. Wakefield don't have to stump up for all these and things like PL insurance costs for example for a ground are huge and they won't have that bill to pay and Barnsley might not even have to pay any increase in premium to cover the extra fixtures.

Wakefield and therefore the RFL will know exactly what the situation with Wakefield will be 28 days after the planning meeting on the 22nd. If everything is go, the contracts get signed and Yorkcourt are on site early 2011 with the RFL knowing (as Savills have already been appointed by the RFL to start the investigation work now) that Wakefield probably become the strongest bet out of the three of Wakefield, Castleford and Salford. Salford could now be the ones that are in real trouble with the majority of their money coming from the Local Authority.

You clearly have no idea what a ground charges to hire the facility for an event.(and that is before you get into how desperate the client needs a stadium) To suggest 'not that costly' is a laugh. Plus Wakey would still have to provide offices for all the business staff and coaches ( I assume they would insure these premises and contents and still use gas and electricity or is that conveniently forgotten). The range for stadium hire is £12k - £24K. Usually corporate hospitality is hit because the host ground will charge a profitable rate for themselvs and THEN the hirer must add some for themselves so either volumes are hammered or margins absolutely slashed. All the ground advertising wakey get now (and for most clubs this is an important income stream) will be more or less lost.

The RFL hire the Galpharm / Haliwell Jones / Keepmoat/KC stadiums etc so they know know the costs involved.

If the wakey board think a move to Oakwell does not have significant financial implications then further winding up orders await!

We can deduce all kinds of things, few of which will be provable. No-one knows what kind of deal Wakey could get at Barnsley. That’s not the issue anyway. The issue is, whether or not that would save them. Personally, I doubt it very much (if they are the club on the RFL’s hit list). Only a close to completion new stadium could possibly do that, and that isn’t certain either - it didn't help Leigh last time around.

I don’t know why you are having a go at this lad, he’s just looking positively at the situation his club face as it stands today; and I can perfectly understand that.

It looks certain that one club will drop out of Super league in order to make way for a Championship club. Who that club is is not certain. Only the RFL will know for sure. The same goes for the club who is to go up from the Championship.

I really can’t see what is gained by arguing about this.

C'mon you Vikings.

Am I the only one backing fax for the derby.