Lots of talk about stadiums etc and how they will count in the decision to be announced in July.

Got me thinking about on-field performances.....so I researched the average points won per game for the least succesfull teams over the last 2.5 seasons. (Regular Season games only)

HKA 1.156
Catleford .9852
Wakey .8750
Catalan .8281
Bradford .7794
London .6617
Salford .6250
Crusaders .5000


I don't see it as being as cut and dried as some think that Wakey will be the ones to go, if anyone goes.

On-field is only really worth 1 point, 2 max. The rest is all things regs your academy, crowds, ground, finances, location etc etc

I know, but crowds, finances, ground etc have been done to death....I would rate Hell View no better or worse than say, Odslum.....there are loads of Wakey academy products in ESL....there kids did well last year I believe. Their neigbours have yet to get a new stadium so are only better off because they didn't get shafted by their previous owners. By all accounts, HKA were teetering before they got a 1 million donation/bribe to the council......we all now my club relies on 1 man to stay alive....crusaders are failing on the field......there are so many reasons to get rid of all of these teams.....it will be a hard choice to select just one.

Leaving aside the silly name-calling, last time I looked Odsal had a 5,300-seat main stand, a 700-seat Coral stand (with all the expected corporate facilities) and can hold 26,000 people. As well as substantial on-site and adjacent car parks and being just off the motorway. And the terraces are steep enough so you can see over the guy in front of you, and you do not take your life in your hands dodging the potholes when you walk on them. Last time the RFL described it as having good corporate facilities but in need of some improvement. It was not one of the five stadia they described as not being suitable for the modern game. How does the other place compare?

I suggest some folk are far too obsessed with the state of the stadia when opining on who should and should not be in SL - I suspect you are sort of making the same point? But even so, when I read inexplicable opinions such as the above, I feel some refuting is in order?

Refute away.....although I didn't sart this thread about stadiums.....it was club records in the 68 SL games so far under the Licence system.....only 3 teams below you and 2 of those are "expansion" teams....and Salford will have a nice new ground soon........with more than 6,000 covered seats....but stadiums are not why we are here......playing record over 2.5 seasons is...feel free to refute again

How Salford are sneaking under the radar still I don't know! Perform worst out of 'non-expansion' clubs in all areas by far. (though I feel RFL see's them as an expansion). If it wasn't for council coming to stadium rescue they'd be pretty stuffed as clear without them they had NO CHANCE of paying for it!

You chose to post an opinion that flies in the face of the facts; I pointed that fact out, that was all. Nothing more or less. Not my fault your comment made you look silly and detracted from your original argment.

Crusaders, Quins RL and Catalans are irrelevant to any decision making process, irrespective of what criteria are used to judge suitability. The licensing process is entirely subjective and the sport cannot afford to 'remove' any club by such a process.

14 current SL stadiums......where would you rate Odslum? In the bottom 6 IMO........hardly state of the art with a load of uncovered areas.......traditional, maybe but 21st century, not a chance.


No. You expressed your opinion which you are trying to pass off as fact....there is a difference.

or just nothing




No it didn't.........well, maybe in your opinion....but you have trouble with facts/opinions......

My post was initially about performance....nice how you have tried to distract attention away from the pi55 poor performance of you once great club

The rest of this thread is irrelevant to the issue. My post was in reponse to one very specific comment you made. You opined that Belle Vue was no worse or better than Odsal. I posted a short list of facts - for facts they were - which indicated why the facts appeared not to support your opinion. It seems you did not like that, but disappointingly instead of saying why, you instead started going on about issues which were never part of the original, very narrow point I was disputing. It is not ME trying to distract attention away from anything - it is you.

Some folk just cannot admit that they posted something that does not stand up to closer examination or challenge, so they resort to trying to find any number of ways of shifting the argument to something different, to detract from their original challenged statement. And throw in a heavy dose of derision. It is not clever. It is dishonest and disingenuous. And very transparent. Big men admit the other guy makes a fair point, and if necessary engage in adult debate. Little men try and avoid admitting that at all costs, and resort to the antics of the playground.

Do you really intend to come across as a little man?

Who gives a toss , does anybody seriously think the RFL will trawl through 1,000 s of pages of bollox to decide who they are going to throw out ?

Wakey are out

Fax are having the p155 taken

And as we know the Mutants are in

All this decided after a 5 minute chat over tea and biscuits , how bloody hard can it be

They will be going through it all. And unless you have seen one of the submissions - or one of the specifications for submissions that the clubs were given - you cannot know whether or not any or all of it is bollox or otherwise. None of us can.

Whether in the end it will make any difference, or whether the outcome has already been pre-determined as you and numerous others appear to believe (and I am not unsympathetic to that view) and the paperwork is merely to help them justify the decision, well that is another matter.

I think some people can't look past the fact Odsal isn't a modern, pretty stadium, when in fact it serves purpose very well and suits summer RL perfectly. It's a halfway house between modern all-seaters and traditional terraces, the views are good from all over and as the RFL have acknowledged, corporate facilities are good. You're perhaps a little further from the pitch (certainly away fans) than is ideal but not so far as to spoil the experience, and still better than some other grounds.

It could be pretty miserable in the darkest depths of winter fog, but those days are (mostly) gone. Any redevelopment, done correctly, could see Odsal become a superb and unique stadium.

Anyone that would rate Belle Vue and Odsal the same either has never been to both, is using warped criteria to make this rating, or just has something against Bradford/is looking through red white and blue tinted glasses.

Belle Vue holds less than 12,000 (apparently it's capacity has increased to 12,600 but I have no idea where they expect to put them!). Odsal holds more than double.
Belle Vue has around 2,500 seats in one old rickety stand with largely restricted viewing from a low roof and a number of stanchions (can't find the official figure, could be less). Odsal has more than double, with only slight restricted viewing from 3 stanchions.
Although both only have one stand with cover, Odsal offers over twice as much cover as BV does.
The depth of the terracing at Wakefield is shallow and crumbling, unlike Odsal.
The catering choices are far greater in number and have more choice at Odsal than at BV.
More parking.

I think the only thing that BV has on Odsal is that it's closer to the pitch. But what good is it being close to the pitch if you can't see over the person in front of you?

What's with the daft names, what are you 10?

As for Hull KR teetering, I'm not sure where you get that information from. The majority of SL clubs are losing money and rely on backers, and whilst the club would like to be and are working towards being in a position to break even, the advantage they have is that the money has been invested by directors who all happen to be die-hard fans of the club and were well aware when they invested the likely time-scale it would take for the club to become self-sufficient. The likelihood of director 'loans' being recalled is a hell of a lot less likely at Hull KR than at most other clubs.

The one criticism I do have is that maybe they've been a little too honest in the media regarding finances which has lead to certain uninformed excitable types to grasp the wrong end of the stick.

KC Stadium
DW Stadium
Galpharm

Halliwell Jones - great little stadium.
The Stoop - shame it's all seater.
Stobart - shame it's all seater.
Racecourse

Headingley - because of the Western Terrace, or would be higher.

Odsal - in need of a bit of TLC but still does it's job, decent mix standing & seating & decent corporate
Wheldon Road (I refuse to call it anything else)
Craven Park
The Willows

Belle Vue - old, decrepit, needs putting out of it's misery.

Odsall and Belle View are both dumps , its just one is bigger than the other , is that a good thing ?

The one actual stand (not terrace) that both grounds have are uncomparable. Odsal has a fairly new stand, BV has a shed.
The terraces at Odsal are in far better condition than BV's crumbling ones.
The corporate end at Odsal new, and doesn't look like a block of flats.

Odsal isn't a dump. There's just not a lot going on there for such a vast area. If there was a cover over the other stand, it would be a good ground. If there was a cover over BV, it would still be a dump.

You dont need binoculars at Belle View

You dont need to exaggerate at Odsal

No. You need a bloody periscope.

Are you vertically challenged?

.

Not at all mate. 6ft and some. The missus was though, and with about only a 3 inch drop per terrace you can't see UNLESS you have someone vertically challenged in front of you. And its worse when, as on one occasion, we were there and it was pìssing it down (as usual) and a couple of stray tall rah rah ruperts were stood in front of us with bloody umbrellas to keep the rain off their cucumber sandwiches...

Both grounds are dumps , and both offer ' unique ' RL experiences , I enjoy visiting both , but they are still dumps

Given the choice of looking into the distance at an elevated point, or trying to looks through the backs of people's heads at near pitch-level, I'll take the former.

Unfortunately, at Craven Park you don't get a choice of one or the other, and they charge Hull fans double the normal price for this privilege!