Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:04 pm  

MjM wrote:

Fairly straightforward as defined by the RFL. Since the average Leeds attendance could all be accommodated under cover it is not the most pressing of priorities to erect further cover.

It may satisfy the technical requirements as to being a grade A stadium....but does the general fan think it's worthy of grade A status? Doubtful.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:06 pm  

MjM wrote:

Fairly straightforward as defined by the RFL. Since the average Leeds attendance could all be accommodated under cover it is not the most pressing of priorities to erect further cover.

That assumes that the 'posts' will not be moved and therefore Khlav makes a valid point about Headingley in the longer term. Leeds might still get a grade A licence overall but in the future the stadium could be re-judged as a grade B against the newer stadiums at Warrington, Saints, City of Salford and when Newmarket and Glasshoughton hopefully both get built then, you have to think that the RFL will have to move the stadium compatibility element of the license to take account of this!

This is also why the whole issue of the RFL buying out Bradford's long term lease caused so much of an issue, because while Headingley might be re-judged as a grade B stadium at worst in the future, what would Odsal be graded as with no improvements?

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:31 pm  

What criteria do people want to judge an older stadium by? How will or can "new" and "shiny" be written into the licence criteria? It's impossible to define - particularly in Headingley's case because, unlike most other classic grounds, it has had millions thrown at and is mostly shiny anyway! (especially the bits that really matter to Leeds, the prawn sandwich zones...)

Leeds don't have a sugar daddy willing to throw cash at the club; nor do they have the option to sell the ground and start elsewhere so replacing any of the stands has inevitably to be done piecemeal. For the time being, especially since another wedge of cash has just been thrown at the S Stand, it remains somewhat antiquated in places but perfectly serviceable.

[Wheels]

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:48 pm  

Albion wrote:

It may satisfy the technical requirements as to being a grade A stadium....but does the general fan think it's worthy of grade A status? Doubtful.

What does that matter? If it meets the standards set, then its a grade A stadium.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:41 pm  

Stadiums don't need to be new to offer great facilities, great viewing, covered seating etc. I've visted Wigans stadium and whilst the seats and view were great the food outlets were terrible, the ques at the toilets were no shorter and the place was a bit souless I felt. You can only judge a ground on its capacity, facilities etc and they should also include corporate facilities in the criteria as that is a major financial sustainability factor these days.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:46 pm  

Most of us just want to watch a decent game of RL, yes its nice to have shiny new facilities, but as long as its safe and theres a decent view, what else do we actually need ?

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:15 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

That assumes that the 'posts' will not be moved and therefore Khlav makes a valid point about Headingley in the longer term. Leeds might still get a grade A licence overall but in the future the stadium could be re-judged as a grade B against the newer stadiums at Warrington, Saints, City of Salford and when Newmarket and Glasshoughton hopefully both get built then, you have to think that the RFL will have to move the stadium compatibility element of the license to take account of this!

This is also why the whole issue of the RFL buying out Bradford's long term lease caused so much of an issue, because while Headingley might be re-judged as a grade B stadium at worst in the future, what would Odsal be graded as with no improvements?

I think this is the important point. The logic for having minimum criteria is to drive improvement - when everyone meets or exceeds the baseline, the goalposts should be moved; it's called continuous improvement.

If Wakefield and Cas get their new stadia, or are both playing out of one of them, it will make things interesting come the next round of franchise decisions.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:25 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Most of us just want to watch a decent game of RL, yes its nice to have shiny new facilities, but as long as its safe and theres a decent view, what else do we actually need ?

Agreed, went to Fev last thursday and Post Office Road was brilliant, changing ends at HT and mixing with the Fev fans in the bars and having Pie & Peas.

Really enjoyed it.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:30 pm  

jonny the leyther wrote:

Agreed, went to Fev last thursday and Post Office Road was brilliant, changing ends at HT and mixing with the Fev fans in the bars and having Pie & Peas.

Really enjoyed it.

Thats how rugby league should be.
Although most people stay dry in modern grounds, the "old" stadia offer a much better match day experience, as does mixing with opposition fans.
Its a bit like having fish n chips. They taste better out of the paper they come in and aren't improved by having a china plate and cutlery.

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:21 pm  

jonny the leyther wrote:

Agreed, went to Fev last thursday and Post Office Road was brilliant, changing ends at HT and mixing with the Fev fans in the bars and having Pie & Peas.

Really enjoyed it.

Thanks for the comments jtl, much appreciated.

Hopefully the experience will be enhanced further once the new stands are erected.