why wouldnt they??
it gives an incentive for champ. clubs to improve and a stick to the dud SL clubs theyll get kicked out.

its P&R based on a clubs all round performance rather than just on field.

From weekly glimpses of work at Barton, the Saford ground is moving on: diggers have long been in action. When you realise that the move to this stadium began in the last millenium and has been dogged by extra planning issues, collapse of building company etc., you may realise that we are getting hacked off at the jibes. However it is well under way.

As for the jibe at youth: as we have bought several older players this year, we have again been "analysed" by those who cannot be bothered or are unable to look up the average age of our squad and where they came from. A letter in last Monday's RL press praised us for bring Myler up from our youth (I hope there are responses from Widnes), it shows the depth of ignorance (esp from Mrs Robinson) ... check our squad. Hunte has worked miracles.

The RL is a closed club who decide who to admit to or sack from S L. They will make their decisions then justify them afterwards.

Losing Salford as we have started to make some inroads into Manchester (a bastion of soccer), Wakefield (remarkably good fans) and Cas (a hotbed of young talent in the area) would weaken Rugby League.

Dally

3 years out of SL can kill off a club.

Young fans drift away never to return, businesses find other outlets and there are several other issues.

It would appear none of you have read TRB's post and therefore that the RFL are already acknowledging that they know that it is highly unlikely that any of the three clubs that are working extremely hard to develop new ground will do so by the start of 2012 season. That is why they have already appointed Savill's to start and look at Cas, Wakefield and Salford's cases in relation to the likelihood of one, two or all of them getting work substantial under way early in 2011 and then actually fully completed, on their new Stadium projects during 2012. As he also said, in the current circumstances with three clubs all working as hard as possible, to simply dismiss their applications for the sake of a few months would be ultra-churlish and also if they make some huge financial commitments with outside investors, whether they be with council's or private investors prior to the final D-day in March and then the RFL pull the rug, then I would expect the threat of some sort of legal action would indeed by high.

The long and short of it is this, as water-tight as possible deals needs to be done before March 2011 and if you are on site building something, even better! I don't think the RFL want or wish for any of them to fail but I think they have always thought that at least one of them probably will.

As for Wakefield (and I know I am involved somewhat), I think that last Friday did put them in pole-position in terms of a stadium development, for the moment, and they will of course reasonably definitively know where they stand in just over 20 days time.

Maybe they should have done that last time , the LSV was 80 % complete when the decisipons were made in May/June 2008 , games were played in the stadium in 2008 , 2 months before the start of the 2009 season , but it didn't stop the RFL disregarding it



So I expect a huge slice of ' Churlishness ' once again

If not then it will once again show how corrupt the RFL and the people who run it actually are

Don't read too much into enabling and much-shift works being undertaken on any of the sites. Developers have to clear and work the site irrespective of any future development, so this is money they have to spend anyway and is not specific to a development. Also stadiums are not really long-programme builds on this size of project because other than the 'main stand' they are nothing more than steel and pre-cast concrete terrace units, if you start on the main stand first you will have the rest of the ground finished before the main stand fit out is completed.

Signed contracts for building a stadium is what is needed and I don't think any of them, other than Saints, have one of those at the moment!

No they shouldn't , how much ' grace ' do they want

10 years / , twenty ?

Tough titty , I like Wakey and will be sorry for whichever club gets the shove , but that is life in a franchised sport

There is only a 20 % chance that any club will have a stadium ready by then , even Saints and Salford , and the decision is made in June / July , not december

Not a chance in hell , they will only decide that if a SL club implodes financially or they can increase the number in SL because of more SKY revenue , until that happens they wont ' promise ' anything next time

Try ten years or twenty , but who gives a stuff about those clubs

We promise to have a better youth structure by the start of the 2012 season, cross my heart...can we come in please?

I'd have thought, judging by your previous posts, that you think the decision will have been made much earlier than that, then justified in June/July. I hope I'm not misrepresenting you.

No , but they already know which club is going down if nobody gets a stadium started , the only way that can change is for the relevant club to start actual building before the other two and hope they dont start building before decision time

The main point is one side (at least) is going down full stop (as at least Widnes meet all criteria). So as they did to justify putting Cru in they will twist any part of your club to suit their agenda for keeping you in or out! If Widnes get in I can't wait to see how much they change are 'adequate' stadium for the 'pro' list. As Leigh saw they just ignored ground as 'not played 'in'' because it suited. They also did their write ups weeks after so they could manipulate them further.

At Widnes SO'C has made sure from day one we have covered ALL areas knowing full well if one was weak they could exploit it. Wakey side to win academy last year could be seen similar? Built to win, not neccesairily to make SL level.

As for during, all SL clubs agreed to it so have less grounds than any for anysirt of action!

It is silly to assume that people did not read what TRB wrote. Perhaps we understand the process and can read what the RFL actually wrote!

The RFL will ask Savills to indicate whether the stadium new builds or developments will be complete by early Feb 2012. If the answer is no then the 'scoring' wil be done on the current facilities and the 'score' will probably be a poor one. If savilles say yes the scoring will be done on the new facilities. Where has there been any suggestion that the applications will be dismissed?

Can you please expand on this?
How are Wakefield any further forward than Salford?

Yes and that is why Savills are going to assess whether a stadium will be fit to use early Feb 2012 for the start of SL. If they have to be ready for SL games in Feb I assumed they would need to be playing some friendlies there by December 2011.

if none of these clubs are ready to go for Feb 2012 they will all score poorly re facilities. This rules out all the 'the stadium is on the way' ' we will have one soon' cr*p that we heard during the last round.

Say Trinity submit in their application that they intend to play their home games for the 2012 season at Oakwell until their new stadium is ready. They will have satisfied the RFL criteria on the stadium front.

Listen, I am more than happy to have a sensible debate with you about this but your 'trolling' record goes before you, especially when the words Wakefield are in anyone's posts!!!

Ok, I might once again live to regret this but I will give you a chance.

You say the the RFL 'will ask Savill's' to indicate whether the stadium new builds will be complete for Feb 2012, well that is not what I understand they have already been asked to look at because I and the RFL can pretty much tell you the answer to that with a fairly high degree of certainty and that would be... none of them!

The RFL are doing there home work and as I have already said I think it highly likely that not all three of them will pull this off and at least one will fall, unfortunately, if they all do pull it off (which is highly unlikley) then it becomes interesting and I can still this going out to a 15 team comp.

But that would be wrong IMO , a few years ago Leigh suggested they would play at the Reebok until improvements were made if we got promotion , we were refused , I understand where you are coming from , just that it isn't what has been promised , playing at Oakwell would seriously reduce Trinity's already somewhat fragile finances

Not nice I know , but that is the way it is

Not really as Wakefiekd at last bids promised a move to a new rugby stadium. So to last min say oh were going to Barnsley wouldn't fit for me. At least Saints were clear about Widnes move if Wajey throw Barnsley cover inbit would just be more desperation again and another unfilled promise on stadium after years of plenty gone by.

Well that's the key from what we were told by the RFL in 2007 doesn't matter about squad age or how good youth side is all that matters is how many if YOUR developed products are regually on the pitch. How many Reds trained players played say 1/3 (10?) games last year? As that's what they look at (according to them last time).

FFs , how much money are they paying for that ?

I can do that by looking at the site , if there is a big stadium there , then it will be ready , if there is a pile of dirt , it wont

Once again a quite pathetic side step by the RFL to not get blamed , " It was Saville's decision , not ours "

Unbelievable , they are willing to spend probably tens of thousands of pounds to have somebody to cover their 4rses , then they pay Ralph Rimmer probably another 100 K to be the one making the phone call

They disgust me

Less backbone than a jellyfish , the pair of them