: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:35 am  

Helps the RFL take the heat off the Cunningham and Ferres fiasco. Cas and Wakey fans argue over the stadiums instead of questioning how one gets a suspension and the other gets naff all!

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:36 am  

I think as long as something physical (and I mean something more then moving muck around a site) is happening prior to the next batch of licenses are due to be submitted then the endangered clubs, as long as they score enough points on the other criteria, should be OK with retaining their license.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:37 am  

Birstalltiger wrote:

No it gives Cas,Wake Salford a kick up the backside but acording to ITV text Celtic and Saint are fine to plod along Celtic thing is just becoming one big joke.

Celtic and Saints have both received letters too according to the article, but the article acknowledges that they have plans which are further advanced than the other 3 grounds.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:37 am  

Birstalltiger wrote:

No it gives Cas,Wake Salford a kick up the backside but acording to ITV text Celtic and Saint are fine to plod along Celtic thing is just becoming one big joke.

So I assume the RFL class CP to be up to SL standard then! Surely even ground like Belle Vue wont take that long or cost that much to get to the same standard as CP.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:01 am  

Birstalltiger wrote:

No it gives Cas,Wake Salford a kick up the backside but acording to ITV text Celtic and Saint are fine to plod along Celtic thing is just becoming one big joke.

Celtic arel ikely moving to Newports ground which is due to be redeveloped into a 15,000 capacity stadium in 2010. Saints got a B license the last time around. Cas, Wakey and Salford are the only C License clubs in danger of not playing in an upgraded facility.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:38 am  

deeHell wrote:

So I assume the RFL class CP to be up to SL standard then! Surely even ground like Belle Vue wont take that long or cost that much to get to the same standard as CP.

Never mind Craven Park, where’s Odslum’s letter!

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:48 am  

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

Never mind Craven Park, where’s Odslum’s letter!

Its not needed. As Odsal meets 3 out of the 4 criteria for stadia within the licence application and Bradford were awarded a B licence which was not conditional on the stadia being improved.

FWIW I dont think this letter is a surprise, and I dont think this issue will prevent Wakey from getting a licence next time.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:06 am  

I dont see the need for this letter to be out in the public domain, however ALL the stadium proposals have potential hiccups awaiting, and we are behind cas but not by much, although they seem to have a marketing/pr team releasing announcements like a hot potato, whereas where waiting for the hamster to run round the wheel before our announcements have printed.

Although one point is, whereas when we announce any news on the stadium its significant and moves the plans in the eyes of the fans forward significantly, compared to the monthly clap-trap spouted every month darn the lane.

So when somethings announced and TRB suggests soon, the this will hopefully put our minds at rest, and enjoy what is hopefully to come.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:35 am  

Birstalltiger wrote:

I Agree but i had gut feeling for the last couple of weeks the RLF are up to know good it makes no sense for them to go public and only yesterday the clown from Widnes was saying how there next bid wont fail.

How is he a clown??
He's only been a part of the game for the last two and a bit years but already Steve O'Connor has become widely respected within the RL press, by Officals of other clubs and by the Officials of the game.
He didn't resort to slinging mud around in the last application process and he won't be dragged in to badmouth other clubs despite their predicaments over failing promises made last time around.
Moreover he is prepared to back his words up with actions.. considering we only missed out last time due to our finances he was prepared to put up a significant cash sum as an indemnity against any possible financial problems.
His comment was that we aim to put a tick in every box and if we do that then we shouldn't fail.
Don't see that as a problem and you won't find many people that know the guy calling him a clown

You must be feeling nervous??

On the actual topic... I noticed with some interest that on the Salford board some weeks ago John Wilkinson was quoted as saying (at a residents meeting for the area near the stadium works) he had received a number of calls from the RFL and that if there was no actual building work carried out by the end of the year then the RFL will not welcome Salford bidding in the next round of applications.
I find it very interesting that he said that when he did and that this letter has followed so quickly.

I wonder if this gives you an actual timescale to work against.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:50 am  

In EnemyTerritory wrote:

On the actual topic... I noticed with some interest that on the Salford board some weeks ago John Wilkinson was quoted as saying (at a residents meeting for the area near the stadium works) he had received a number of calls from the RFL and that if there was no actual building work carried out by the end of the year then the RFL will not welcome Salford bidding in the next round of applications.
I find it very interesting that he said that when he did and that this letter has followed so quickly.

I wonder if this gives you an actual timescale to work against.

Perhaps for something that has been as long in the pipeline as Salford stadium perhaps. They’ve been at this for 8 years.

Building work to be started for Trinity by then end of the year may be pushing it, but as long as construction is well under way by mid 2011 then I don’t see why that stadium should not be taken into as consideration when licenses are being awarded.