Stand-Offish wrote:
What if clubs didn't want to fit in with Totonto?
Anything is possible ..
If the situation is explained well in advance.
If we are at the whim of other clubs playing ball ... then we truly are doomed.
The answer is NOT to play elsewhere, the problem is a Rovers cum scheduling problem that should be solveable.
If they insist on a grass pitch, they should be more flexible.
The bloody Chinese can grow cannabis at any time of the year.
It'll be interesting to see how Super League clubs react to Toronto's demands for the scheduling of fixtures to fit in with Toronto's needs.
Imagine our first three league fixtures were: Whitehaven (A), Workington (H), and London (A). If Workington approached us to reverse the match as their pitch wasn't free in June, when we were due to play at their place, we'd start our season with three long distance away games if we agreed to swap. That clearly wouldn't be fair on the Dons' fans.
I'm sure all clubs approach the RFL prior to each season's fixtures being released so that 'periods of ground unavailability' can be factored into the original fixtures' schedule, causing minimum inconvenience. But 'innocent teams'' shouldn't end up with a ball-ache of a fixture list just to meet the needs of the teams who need to do pitch work.
Had the Athletics Stadium been built to slightly high spec in the first place, with a 1,000 seater stand, and the Dons having access to it when required, this problem could have been avoided.
As a car driver, trips to Featherstone are not a huge inconvenience for me, although the petrol and parking costs do add up. I have huge sympathy for fans who rely on public transport. Were I running the club, to minimise inconvenience for fans, I would make sure buses were laid on to Featherstone regardless of whether one person or fifty needed them.