I really can't believe the RFL has gone public with this, why on earth would they?
Surely they could have sent each club a letter reinforcing the issue of having suitable stadia, for the next set of licence applications, rather than hang our dirty washing in public once again and telling the world that almost half of Superleague is played in shabby run down stadiums.

I can't believe that HKR, Bradford aren't amongst the names included in the report, surely neither are up to scratch? After attending games at both venues this season, I find it hard to believe they are considered better than Wheldon Road.

You got it wrong my friend, Rovers are not doing what they are with the sole purpose of getting in super league, they are doing the best for the future well being of the club, and if super league comes along fair enough. I will give you an eg: super league require 12k stadium, Rovers are building 6k with plans to increase as and when, there thinking what is the point of having 12k with 2k rattling around in it, just to tick a super league box. Your point about been an average NL side is spot on, but remember the big difference with the new set up Rovers are getting and many others it is solely OURS we pay nothing to no one and will earn a substantial amount from the 5 a side pitches and rental we get from the outlets / supermarket. So in time we will be up there with the top NL sides, the Rovers board now are very astute and are looking very long term, and im with them all the way

Dammed if they keep things secret. Damned if they conduct business in an open and transparent manner. This is no different to the 2005 promotion criteria inspections and demands for improvements, which were fully public.

As I said earlier: "No surprises there". Generally, it's a nothing story.

Cas respond: www.castigers.com/cgi-bin/news.cgi?773_9195

Cas respond: www.castigers.com/cgi-bin/news.cgi?773_9195

we remain committed and confident that we will meet our objectives and in turn those of the RFL.
same old same old

I think I recall reading somewhere that if a team averages 8th place or above in the 3 years then they will automatically stay in SL ...... I could be wrong but if it is correct then how are they going to get us or even wakey out on not having a new stadia if their own rules state we can stay in????

provided we average 8th our better in those 3 years....

You should know by now that 'the rules' can and do change as and when they feel like it.

What do you want them to say?
"F*ck it, we're not going to bother any more."

i think that is just one of the areas that a point is available for, I don't think it guarantees survival if you fall down on the other areas.

They may have to count last year for the 3 years as the applications will be judge before the end of the 3rd year of the francishe.

I doubt they'd do that and let a club with a not very good stadium stay in that way.

Its not automatic but to get the A grade licence you have to do this. Those clubs currently on an A grade licence I believe cant be kicked out when they are renewed this time. We aren't gonna get an A grade licence anyway. We will be lucky to get a B next time round but finishing in the top 8 and getting a new stadium should put us closer than we were this time around.

it would be an idea !!
its not going to happen !!
wake up !!

[size=200=greenOh don't[/size

From an away fan's point of view I agree with you.

Ssssh, you can't say anything wrong about Hull KR, phill webbo will pwn you.

Being 50 yards from the edge of the pitch is never a good thing, although Hull KR do have the best burgers in the league so maybe that gives them extra points.

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 163521.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 163521.stm

Good

Sounds good in principle, but firm evidence is needed.

Better burgers than at Salford ?

Would rather share a stadium with Wakefield than be kicked out of Super League and i'm sure 90% of Wakefield & Cas fans would too.

Your most used button no doubt!!

Internet talk for, "kick your ass".