[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/07/21/RUGBYL_Licences.html[/url

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).

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.

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

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

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...

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

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"?

See [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/7138760.stmhere[/url 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.

Cheers for that, the following is an example of the smoke and mirrors bit I was talking about refering to stadia;

[i"And its quality (meeting the standard of a premier sporting competition according to a strictly defined criteria)."[/i

So of the 4 stadia criteria we met 3 out of 4 last time. With a turnaround in on field performance next year (I know thats hardly a given at this point!) we [icould [/imaintain 10,000 ave by the next deadline and so still meet 3 out 4.

Losing the point for not maintaining a top 8 is a blow we didn't need, but a minor one (in licence terms only) IMO given that our application will not really be up for issue this time round barring some sort of meltdown, with us having a B licence. So presumaeably we can rectify this point in between the next two application windows (so we have another couple of seasons to get back to winning ways yet

)

Thats all assuming the RFL don't make up new or change the meaning of existing rules for the next application.

Incidentally, given the amount of w@nkerage and general ignorance posted on this subject, maybe [url=http://www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/0,20144,12387_3459904,00.htmlthis[/url should be a sticky someplace! Note the specific gradings against each criterion.

If this is true the clubs inactivity on both points deserves to come back ad bite them on the ar$e.

No really. If it "bit them on the ar$e." that would mean we did not get a franchise. For a Bulls fan, you seem a bit keen to see the "club" get its "just desserts". Would you be glad to prove some sort of point in this way so you could tell them you told them so?