Feck me! That didn't take long! Normal service is resumed at Wakey!



People, what Clarkey and Wiggy were articulating last night, is simply the considered view within the game, that the years of under achievment, both on the pitch and the boardroom have finally caught up with Trinity.

These are simple demonstrable facts, and no amount of petulant posturing, or chanting your mantra, "Together we are strong" is going to change that FFS! RedHall stated years ago that at least one Club would be kicked out of SL in 2015.

Salford appear to have got their act together, which obviously leaves you and Cas, possibly both, if Redhall decides that it could get away with dropping 2 from SL

Realism has never been a Wakey strongpoint, but the ball is firmly in your court, and you have a year left in SL in which to impress. More results like last weekends, together with a decent turnout at games could still swing it. Approval for Newmarket may further strengthen your bid, but as long as you have a ground share agreement that ticks the SL box, then if and when that happens is simply a bonus.

What will be coming under very close scrutiny, from both Redhall and HMCE, is how Glover actually runs Trinity this season, and that is what may ultimately decide your fate in SL.

The point annoying Wakey fans is that Mr Clark advocates sharing the Cas stadium, in order to have a chance of retaining our licence this time round.

There isn't a stadium, and won't be one in time for licencing - if ever!

Sharing at Cas's invisible stadium would not be a solution.

Again not wanting to put a gloomy outlook on things but SO'C took over Widnes in Nov '07 yet was told though great improvements and offer of 500k security on club wasn't enough evidence of the company being solid in such a short time. Glover has taken over 4 months later than that with announcements at a similar time. As long as Cas & Salford keep a low profile they'll get through at least this time. Too many lies on stadium & finance will unfortunately take there toll along with crowds and on field performance.

Salford IMO should be at big risk but it seems they have one more round of playing the 'Manchester' card to the RFL!

The same is definitely true of, I personally feel, the majority of objectors to Newmarket. It is amazing how much totally incorrect and apocryphal information about the scheme seems to become the general perception of truth among people objecting. Most of this information has been deliberately disseminated and even actively promoted and because human nature is to generally believe and trust this information then it actual does become 'their' truth, they believe it 100% even though it is wrong and can be proved to be such.

There are some classic doing the round about Newmarket. One common one appeared on Cas Forum a couple of days after they spotted my letter of support for GH. I'd put about GH being and excellent location for a stadium it being so close to the M62. Someone then wrote, well it is a shame the same thing can't be said about Newmarket and other people joined in agreeing!!! The thing is they believe this because they have not seen a plan!

Another common one is about HGV traffic using the narrow and unsuitable Newmarket Lane... they don't even understand or appreciate that a new section of brand new road is being built right through the site. Someone even wrote to the Wakefield Express banging on about this... just look at the plans!

The destroying of footpaths and the Trans-Pennine trail is also one that is popular! We had a local cyclist activist turn up at the public meeting who is a volunteer cycling warden for the area and patrols these footpaths. He had been told that the footpaths were all getting ripped up and the Tran-Pennine trail was going to be destroyed and he came to object. When we showed him the actual plans and that all the paths were staying and only being diverted, the upgrading of all the paths, the health trail and also the proposed cycle access routes and provision for road cyclist (cycle lanes) on the new section of road he said... well this is not what I was told!!! That is because what you have been told is apocryphal! He took statements of Support to get fellow cyclists to sign when he understood how much better the access would be for them and the public.

Unfortunately it is always the negative stuff that people want to and end up believing!!!

But this is not true is it mate, this is the thing. You can't argue with the boardroom quote and I suspect that nearly every Wakey fan would agree with you but then the rest???

So they never been out of Super League, never finished bottom and have better playing records than Castleford, Quins, Salford & Catalan and Crusaders throughout the SL era. They get better crowd averages than all those bar two and then it is only slightly less. They have a good youth set up and in 2009 won the Academy Grand Final. Their community set-up is arguably best in the whole of Super League.

They do have a crap ground and it the worst in SL.

Now, when you take away the fact that Quins, Crusaders and Catalan are untouchable, it just leaves you with Cas, Salford and Wakefield. Now that Salford have the council and Peel throwing £20m at a new stadium that is being built and will in all probability be ready for 2012 and if the RFL tried to kick them out, would find themselves in front of a high court judge in heartbeat, they too can be added to the list! So it leaves Cas and Wakefield, who are both working as hard as they can in the worst post war world economic downturn to deliver new stadiums and both clubs are better in every department than at least three of the teams who will not be touched.

So explain to me how this is fair again. Also, please don't bang on about Widnes, if you support Widnes coming up and Crusaders now staying then you have no argument IMO.

The thing is the RFL needs to bring up Widnes and leave Wakefield and Castleford alone until half-way through the 2013 season. If new grounds are not being built and not going to be ready for the 2014 season, then you take-away there and then their right to even apply next time. Then from 2018, we go back to P&R (when hopefully the RFL will have it's £700k back from Crusaders).

Though havent the RFL just given Wakey & Cas the last 3 years based on promises of new grounds? Wakey 10 more before that? What message does that send to the likes of Fev & Barrow looking to invest in grounds when we keep letting current SL sides away with it year on year? Defeats the whole point of franchising if so!

I agree with all your points above IA, apart from the last bit. I do think it is unfair how they are choosing the franchise members, and I think Wakefield in particular have not been looked after in the years leading up to this point, when other teams evidentially have been.

However, I do think franchise is a good step forward for rugby league and I do think the push for new stadiums by the RFL is a good thing too. Although it is hurting Wakefield and others by pushing so hard in a tough economic period, I don't think stepping back from the principle is better.
They can decide whether we are due a franchise whether the stadium is built or not. Oakwell and other options fulfill that criteria. It shouldn't be as big a deal as it is being made out to be.
I don't agree they should give us more time, which would just put us in the "untouchables" category like Crusaders which is unfair on other teams. I do think they should assess the franchise bid purely on it's merits, whether another team wants to come in or not.
When we get NM up and running it will be a great stadium. It shouldn't be rushed just to meet a RFL criteria. They should allow us to just play at a "worthy" SL level ground and let us build our new home at what ever speed is most profitable (both financially and politically) to Wakefield.

Don't bring back P&R. Just assess the best bids and form a league from that. Whether it is 14 teams or more (or less!)

Had this last three years not being during the worst recession in living memory then I think I would have no sympathy. This is the whole point of franchising, it does not defeat it at all, otherwise Featherstone, Barrow or Halifax would be the choices in front of Widnes would they not, given they have all done better on the pitch than you in recent years?

Castleford's and Wakefield's problem is both money and investment to build new stadium and I do think that both of them would be further on if it was not for the economy yes.

BTW, I think Widnes should come up but Cas and Wakey stay this time, this Welsh experiment has failed and if they were not a sacred cow, they should be making way for you.

What they should do is have a clearly visible scoring system that is used (for everyone)

If going into administration costs us a point so be it, but it has to cost Crusaders a point too.
If playing out of the district loses us a point then fine, but deduct a point from Saints as well.

The RFL should publish a definitive list of what aspects the clubs are being judged on and what points are allocated to each of those categories. They should then publish what points everyone scored on each category.
Even if that list says you get a point for being an expansion club then fine, let's just be sure that the decision is being made by judging bids honestly against the criteria.

If at the end of that we are bottom of the pile, then don't give us a licence.
If we're not bottom then don't give a licence to whoever is.

It's not rocket science is it?

and while we are on the subject of untouchables......I don't get it.

I see the benefit to the game of expansion.

I think the point has been proved in France that we have a bunch of new players, from a geographical location adding to the quality player pool in Super League. It has improved French rugby, though time will tell at international level, and they get good crowds at home.
Of course rugby has been played in France for a long time and the groundwork has been in place for a very long time, just not utilised in the right way.

London has been going a long time and is really only starting to see green shoot in the player development department now which is great, but the crowd side is not improving. I know it is tough, and I support the principle, but we are not managing it in the correct way to expand. We are simply moving players around and filling the gaps with second rate overseas players which is of no benefit to the expansion theory.

Crusaders are proving the point by going down exactly the same route as London. Poor crowds, little development and actually increasing not decreasing the reliance on overseas players.
If we are to truly expand we should learn from London’s experience and jump straight to the developing local players phase.
Either we don’t protect them and they work their way up, following the same rules on overseas players as everyone else, or we do protect them, for the specific reason of developing local talent and crowds.
If we said Crusaders are immune from relegation for 3-5 years, I’d be ok, and even support it, providing we also said they must play Welsh players in their team. Not one odd aussie player with a passport but newly developed locals, even brought in from Welsh RU. This way the locals have something to bond with and the team will develop players outside the normal RL area, which is the point of expansion surely. Of course they would be beaten by the big teams, but that is the point of the protection.
I’d even say for both London and Wales, they can count locals as anyone south of Sheffield! (and Scotland as well if needed)

Due to circumstances beyond our control we cannot do a Wigan, Quinns, Hull, Huddersfield, Sheffield, Halifax, Crusaders etc because we havn't a football club / ground in the city. We also do not have a council willing to invest in sports facilities as elsewhere so, we are having to do it the hard way, and, through a reccesion, a reccesion not even imagined in the RFLs eye when all this talk of franchising came about.

Agree completely

They did that for the last round and yet completely ignored it anyway

Wakefields problems can be traced back to two things:
1, The Stadium
2, The old BoD

In terms of franchising the stadium issue is easily dealt with, we will be playing at Oakwell and therefore we will have delivered a stadium which massively exceeds the SL criteria. The fact that we also have Newmarket in the background only enhances our stadium situation but even without Newmarket we have addressed the stadium issue.

So problem No1 gets a big tick!

As for the old BoD, they are gone from this club!
We now have a new owner who has taken every opportunity afforded him to state that finances at Wakefield Trinity are no longer an issue!
We have no debt but Mr Glover has said that he will satisfy some of the old BoD debts on a totally voluntary basis.
James Elston has stated that this club can now spend the full limit on the salary cap and only player availability is preventing Wakefield Trinity from doing so.
Whats the message here?
Clearly it's that our finances have never been stronger!

We have been punished for the financial mismanagement of the past!
Administration and the 4pt deduction are an end to that punishment and the issue, we and everybody else must now move on from this!

So, issue No2 also gets a tick!

Where does that leave us in terms of the Franchise Application
Clearly if we are assessed as we are now,

Our financial strength is as secure as any club in the game (remember we've been punished already for the past)
We can spend the full cap
The stadium issue is no longer an issue.
Attendances have exceeded 40% of the Belle Vue's capacity (can't be measured against Oakwell)
On field contribution, our average finishing position is 8th
Youth and junior development is up there with the best
Community Dept is THE best in the game
Commercial, we measure up extremely well, average at worst
Media & Marketing, less than average in the past but I'm sure the application will contain elements that address this.

It may not be popular opinion that Wakefield Trinity have a good chance of securing a new franchise but that's because of ignorance of the facts as they stand today. Wakefield Trinity need to work overtime to publicise the the strength of the club, our viability as a SL franchise and our intentions for the near and distant future for Rugby League in the City of Wakefield.

I think the new owner has started that process but we need to crank it up and back it up over the coming months!

Is Oakwell that clear cut as a solution?
1) Its not confirmed.
2) Compared with Saints but they moved whilst work on there new stadium is being done, if NM gets rejected what then? Be different if had all clear & 2 year deal agreed at Oakwell to fill gap.

On new owners, yea... We think the same, didn't help anything. Rightly or wrongly you will be judged on what Ted & Co did!

I agree with a lot of what you say apart from this bit. Yes the old BOD got things wrong but they were part of an administration crisis at the club that goes back to the 1970's.

The failure to invest in BV or the team goes back way beyond 1992 when Ted joined the board. Trinity was effectively a lost cause by the early 1980's as a club able to build and challenge, due to years of poor leadership and of course a large dose of Trinity bad luck. Walker then Richardson have had to fight that legacy ever since. Never easy even if you are seriously minted like Ken Davey, even harder when you're not like Walker was at the time or Ted is now. Also let's not forget Duncan Developments and Pearman who both promised the earth and both nearly destroyed us.

Truth is Andrew Glover will fail and become a much poorer rich man if NM fails. BV is, has and always will be our achillies heal, as it hasn't been a ground capable of sustaining a top flight team in 30 years. And that wasn't Ted or Rodders fault or will it be Glovers fault. The blame lays with those who enjoyed the glory years without making sound plans for the future and we have paid for it ever since. It's made even sadder if you watch Sporting life where you can clearly see the ground had the potential at the time.

We as a club are not alone in this but we are one of The few STILL in SL.

Oakwell, not signed but near as dammit a done deal!
Will be for a minimum 3 years or less if NM is opened before three years is up.
If NM is rejected AG stated that we would find a new stadium elsewhere in the City of Wakefield even if it meant temporary stands etc...
The financial performance of the old BoD is absolutely irrelevant now when you are assessing the financial viability of the club going forward. I agree that it may be beyond the mental capabilities of those at Red Hall to see this.

Here's an analogy that demonstrates how futile it is to judge us by the old regimes performance.

If my local corner shop is run poorly and eventually closes down only to be purchased by TESCO and reopened, what financial relevance is their or what validity is their in judging the potential of that business using the old corner shop owners financial & business acumen?

Exactly !! But all the publicity we can get the better - good and bad ... As been said, we have a new owner that can finance the club but hopefully through a succesful business plan ... In a way we are under no pressure and possibly a little bit more on the RFL with such announcements being braodcast on SKY ...

The thing is mate, you were done over in the name of expansion and an expansion club in Crusaders. Do I now think this was a huge mistake, then yes, do I think the RFL are about to make a similar huge mistake if they do kick out Cas or Wakey, then yes! It does not make it right and two wrongs certainly don't make a right. You were indeed stitched up on reflection, but you are coming up anyway, so that seems to be that!

As for Oakwell Clan is spot on. As long as they secure Oakwell on a full three year deal (one assume they will insert a Newmarket or similar get-out option in the contract) then you have to drop the ground issue. The RFL can't make an issue out of the side moving out of the City because they have allowed both Crusaders and Saints to do the same, although Saints is slightly different yes.

Then look at the application... you have to score them highly on youth and the community side of things. Next Andrew Glover shows them the strength of his financial position and you can't hold the previous issues against them. As Clan says, you can't be punished twice! As Clan also stated there average league finishing position is eighth... better than all the other clubs I mentioned other than maybe Catalan.

Suddenly, it looks a little different does it not!

Is it not therefore imperative we get a contract signed with the owners of Oakwell for 3 years dependant on the outcome of the franchise decision and whether newmarket is built before the 3 years are up.

Then we will have a ground upto standard... wont reach % attendance figures but that bares little significance compared to quality of the stadium.

We will then be looked on our financial posistion if Mr Glover pays some top wages the RFL might sit up and take note that ""oh look now wakefield are spending the most they ever have (cap wise) whilst we've been in superleague"" that may mean that we need another £500k worth of players; but surely these are the types of arguments we need to be coming back with when the subject of our financial diffficulties arise "" as we have non no more""

Then we've got a suitable stadium (admittedly not our own)
Where spending more on the cap than we ever have
We will more than likely be contributing to the competition to a greater extent through better quality players, which could increase our attendance.

We Are Wakefield Together We Are Stronger

But not when judging a licence application on the financial [irecord[/i of the applicant, as Widnes found out.

This might make depressing reading, but it's the RFL report on Widnes's 2008 application



Result: no licence for 2009-11.


You're kidding yourself if you don't think Newmarket not (yet) having outline planning permission and the club's financial record (irrespective of who was to blame) won't be major weaknesses in the licence applications.

Similarly,

• if Cas can't demonstrate that Glasshoughton is on course to be built by the 2011 season, that will be a major weakness in our application;

• Crusaders' financial history will be a major weakness in their application;

• Harlequins' attendance will be a major weakness in their application.


Whether those weaknesses will turn out to be fatal, we'll find out in June.




Exactly the same as Castleford's over the first two years of the licence (7th 2009, 9th 2010). As it happens



But yes, it's a strength in both clubs' (presumed) applications.

I won't hold my breath about those weaknesses!

Quote ="Miro"What is it with Phill Clarke (Boots n All tonight) and his insistence on banging on about merger / groundshare at Cas's GH stadium? Phil, Cas HAVE NOT GOT a new stadium and the best thing that could happen to us? (according to him) We get chucked out of Super League because we have done nothing but limp along for the past few years. Phil, we have new owners, the fresh start starts HERE .'" He might have a point. www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... share.html

Quote ="Miro"What is it with Phill Clarke (Boots n All tonight) and his insistence on banging on about merger / groundshare at Cas's GH stadium? Phil, Cas HAVE NOT GOT a new stadium and the best thing that could happen to us? (according to him) We get chucked out of Super League because we have done nothing but limp along for the past few years. Phil, we have new owners, the fresh start starts HERE .'" He might have a point. www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... share.html

You know full well that the rule that kept Widnes out last time, is no longer in operation.

It was amended after Crusaders went into administration - if they hadn't done so the Welsh "expansion" club would be SL history too this time around.

Quote ="poppys mum"He might have a point. www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... share.html'" James Elston does not say Wakey are looking to share - he points out that, very sensibly, all options are being looked at and adds... “The difficult part of that question is if there's no stadium to share, where are we going to play?" E.G. How can we share the new Cas stadium...when there isn't a new Cas stadium? Playing in your imaginary stadium to keep us in SL for this round of licences, is not an option.

Quote ="poppys mum"He might have a point. www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... share.html'" James Elston does not say Wakey are looking to share - he points out that, very sensibly, all options are being looked at and adds... “The difficult part of that question is if there's no stadium to share, where are we going to play?" E.G. How can we share the new Cas stadium...when there isn't a new Cas stadium? Playing in your imaginary stadium to keep us in SL for this round of licences, is not an option.