probs for wakey,cas and salford : Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:56 pm  

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/07/21/RUGBYL_Licences.html interesting that, despite everyone telling us odsal will stop us getting a new license, we havent been included in the clubs being warned.

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/07/21/RUGBYL_Licences.html interesting that, despite everyone telling us odsal will stop us getting a new license, we havent been included in the clubs being warned.

Re: probs for wakey,cas and salford : Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:04 pm  

mat wrote: http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/07/21/RUGBYL_Licences.html interesting that, despite everyone telling us odsal will stop us getting a new license, we havent been included in the clubs being warned. Don't think its "everyone telling..." even though it may seem that way sometimes with visiting apprentice trolls from places with new stadia. In fact, and despite the utter bilge and w@nkerage said trolls invariably utter, it is assumed Bulls only dropped one stadium point last time - for stadium not really of standard expected for top flight competition. And, unlike the others, our SL licence was not granted on the basis that we had undertaken to make major improvements cos we did not need to. The real issue is the crowds - if the crowds average below 10k, cos we'd then drop two more points (in fact need to be a little above 10k to save both).

mat wrote: http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/07/21/RUGBYL_Licences.html interesting that, despite everyone telling us odsal will stop us getting a new license, we havent been included in the clubs being warned. Don't think its "everyone telling..." even though it may seem that way sometimes with visiting apprentice trolls from places with new stadia. In fact, and despite the utter bilge and w@nkerage said trolls invariably utter, it is assumed Bulls only dropped one stadium point last time - for stadium not really of standard expected for top flight competition. And, unlike the others, our SL licence was not granted on the basis that we had undertaken to make major improvements cos we did not need to. The real issue is the crowds - if the crowds average below 10k, cos we'd then drop two more points (in fact need to be a little above 10k to save both).

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:17 pm  

They're bound to be sensitive to criticism that licenses were made on the basis of empty promises. The Bulls gates may fall below 10,000 but nobody could say that we gave assurances to the contrary. Those clubs that fail to deliver on commitments they gave last time are bound to be looked at unfavourably next time round.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:29 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

They're bound to be sensitive to criticism that licenses were made on the basis of empty promises. The Bulls gates may fall below 10,000 but nobody could say that we gave assurances to the contrary. Those clubs that fail to deliver on commitments they gave last time are bound to be looked at unfavourably next time round.

That is not the point. There is a points scale that you earn or do not.

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:40 pm  

bobsmyuncle wrote:

That is not the point. There is a points scale that you earn or do not.

But werent those clubs awarded points last time round on the basis of promises rather than achievements?

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:52 pm  

Yes when considering ground issues in the browie points allocation - the acheivements brownie points section is quite seperate.
My response was to yours regarding crowd numbers which is yet another section

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:04 pm  

There must be a problem posting on this forum. That's the only reason I can think of for why folk who have assured us our stadium will see us drummed out of SL have not been queuing up to post their retractions...

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:25 pm  

Despite being unpopular, isn't Odsal one of the most compliant grounds in SL anyway?

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:21 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

There must be a problem posting on this forum. That's the only reason I can think of for why folk who have assured us our stadium will see us drummed out of SL have not been queuing up to post their retractions...

As an aside what were the points awarded for exactly in the application process when it came to stadia? I was under the impression at first that the criteria was based on the "framing the future" document, but then some smoke and mirrors appeared, the goalposts seemed to shift and I lost track of what we needed exactly.

Is it something like, above 12,000 capacity, certain percentage of seats, certain percentage of covered seating, corporate hospitality facilities, and some abstract judgement of an overall facility "worthy enough for elite competition"?

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:42 pm  

See here for my understanding of the overall criteria. I've struggled to find the detailed stadium criteria referred to in that specific criterion. Looking again at that list, it looks like we will definitely drop a point for not finishing in the top eight THIS year - its not an average finish as I have suggested previously. And we may well lose two more (as I keep saying) if the average crowd drops below around 10k. We get one back (hopefully) for no breach of salary cap, so that means on existing criteria we may go backwards two points. Still in B grade, but much less securely-so.

See here for my understanding of the overall criteria. I've struggled to find the detailed stadium criteria referred to in that specific criterion. Looking again at that list, it looks like we will definitely drop a point for not finishing in the top eight THIS year - its not an average finish as I have suggested previously. And we may well lose two more (as I keep saying) if the average crowd drops below around 10k. We get one back (hopefully) for no breach of salary cap, so that means on existing criteria we may go backwards two points. Still in B grade, but much less securely-so.