any club kicked out of SL can still pursue their stadium plans for the next round of franchising.

looking at it now

salford - construction to start soon
cas - funding issues? final planning approval.
wakey - nothing.

wakey are behind the other two. indeed cas were a year ahead of where wakey are now

I would imagine if the clubs most at risk arranged a plan B which would cover an interim period should their own stadium project stall, which the RFL confirms as a satisfactory option, then the club would be given a little grace when it comes to stadium construction time scales.

You'd have to think it is a problem they'd want. Having too many 'strong' candidates is politically tricky, but good for the sport surely and would be a sign that licensing had worked - in this context at least.

For 2015 I'd like to see 16 teams if it is affordable. Onwards and upwards together, rather than devil take the hindmost.

That's right Dally. Wakefield's new stadium will make the club one of the favourites to win a 2015/2017 licence from the championship.Providing of course the RL are still applying the same policy by then,of assuring a SL place to a championship club that meets criteria.

Realistically there's 1 maybe 2.

Quote ="vikings 4 ever"I don't know when this was written, but according to the RFL's licencing page www.therfl.co.uk/licensing/licensing_faqs How are clubs planning new or redeveloped stadia going to be assessed? New stadiums or redevelopments of existing stadiums will only be taken into account if the RFL is satisfied that the stadium will be open or the redevelopment finished by the start of the 2012 season Now if I remember correctly certain clubs were only awarded a licence on the back of getting a new stadium. As the licence application process swings into action again, the same clubs appear to be repeating the lines they said last time and clambering around at the last minute trying to convince everyone that their stadium is just around the corner. According to the RFL, however, even if one club was laying their last bricks and another was still a million miles away they will both fail if they were not ready to host competitive games for the 2012 season. Are Wakey, Cas and Salford all now doomed to fail in their licence applications? Personally I think that the RFL will pretty much ignore this rule and they will grant licences to 2 out of 3 clubs, even if their stadiums will not be ready for 2012. Can anyone see the RFL kicking out 2 or even all 3 due to stadia that doesn't meet their criteria?'" In 2012 the 4 nations is down under. This means the 2012 season will begin the 1st week in Feb so stadia will need to be finished Dec 2011 to allow a few friendlies etc before SL begins. Which clubs will have the stadiums built by Dec 2011? Saints and Salford? That teams have 'contingency plans' to play in other stadiums will count for little. If they do not have new facilities then the judging will be done on their actual facilities. If the ground is a dump then the club will not get the 'relevant points'. Pleading that they will be in a ground in a few more weeks / months in to 2012 season is unlikely to carry much weight. The SL clubs had years to prepare their first licence application and now have had 3 more years to get their act together.

Quote ="vikings 4 ever"I don't know when this was written, but according to the RFL's licencing page www.therfl.co.uk/licensing/licensing_faqs How are clubs planning new or redeveloped stadia going to be assessed? New stadiums or redevelopments of existing stadiums will only be taken into account if the RFL is satisfied that the stadium will be open or the redevelopment finished by the start of the 2012 season Now if I remember correctly certain clubs were only awarded a licence on the back of getting a new stadium. As the licence application process swings into action again, the same clubs appear to be repeating the lines they said last time and clambering around at the last minute trying to convince everyone that their stadium is just around the corner. According to the RFL, however, even if one club was laying their last bricks and another was still a million miles away they will both fail if they were not ready to host competitive games for the 2012 season. Are Wakey, Cas and Salford all now doomed to fail in their licence applications? Personally I think that the RFL will pretty much ignore this rule and they will grant licences to 2 out of 3 clubs, even if their stadiums will not be ready for 2012. Can anyone see the RFL kicking out 2 or even all 3 due to stadia that doesn't meet their criteria?'" In 2012 the 4 nations is down under. This means the 2012 season will begin the 1st week in Feb so stadia will need to be finished Dec 2011 to allow a few friendlies etc before SL begins. Which clubs will have the stadiums built by Dec 2011? Saints and Salford? That teams have 'contingency plans' to play in other stadiums will count for little. If they do not have new facilities then the judging will be done on their actual facilities. If the ground is a dump then the club will not get the 'relevant points'. Pleading that they will be in a ground in a few more weeks / months in to 2012 season is unlikely to carry much weight. The SL clubs had years to prepare their first licence application and now have had 3 more years to get their act together.

good news for the Polish.

I will believe it when I see it with Cas ground. For years they have been going on about moving to glasshoughton they should have been in there years ago. Yet still nothing expect a knackered sign.

I think I have to agree with Starbug and it should be the all or nothing view point. If your stadium isn't complete by July 2011 then sorry but you will be judged on your current ground full stop. Before people moan all the 'at risk' clubs promised to be in new grounds by 2010 at the latest last time so why should a further extension be granted? Do you really think if all 3 Salford, Wakey & Cas got the nod that this time in what 2013 they'd all be happily playing in their fully functioning new grounds?

On timescale I take Saints as the most face value, why? Because they are not 'at risk' so don't need to exagerate things. St Helens have moved in at Widnes for 2011 and have also made no 100% gurantees that their stadium will be readt for the start of 2012. Right they have built the access roundabout and also done most of not all the ground work and a clear building site is their for all to see.

So how on earth do say Wakey thing that if they start building in Jan / Feb that they will be done within 12 months from scratch? It's just not possible or feesable. I hear Cas have done some road / ground works? Salford I don't know as get mixed messages. Elsewhere on one thread a fan said 'diggers are on it's well underway' then a few hours later started a thread saying 'where are we upto as just been passed and nothing going on'. We can't judge until done as we've heard this all before without any action and there is always a 'ooops well we never expected that to happen'.

As said though it's not all about the stadium so if none are done and we judge Salford / Cas / Wakey as they are now then unfortuantely the Reds fall behing on Youth, On field performance and also Crowds. But the Manchester card will be played once more and we will see Cas & Wakey fight it out yet again. On the pitch over recent years they are pretty similar overall, Cas youth policy - 1st team players is better and last year they made a profit whereas Wakey had to get outside help to pay off a tax bill (won't go unnoticed) both have sold players but Cas have invested in either good new ones like Mathers or put into a stadium fund. We are told Wakey don't have that worry (who?) so then were has the money gone?

At the end of the day rightly or wrongly this system is what we have and someone HAS TO GO for it to work, otherwise their will be no incentives to clubs higher up the ladder to improve if they believe they will not face the potential threat of dropping out.

we have a decent youth team look at the youth players we have brought through to the first team

why wouldnt they??
it gives an incentive for champ. clubs to improve and a stick to the dud SL clubs theyll get kicked out.

its P&R based on a clubs all round performance rather than just on field.

From weekly glimpses of work at Barton, the Saford ground is moving on: diggers have long been in action. When you realise that the move to this stadium began in the last millenium and has been dogged by extra planning issues, collapse of building company etc., you may realise that we are getting hacked off at the jibes. However it is well under way.

As for the jibe at youth: as we have bought several older players this year, we have again been "analysed" by those who cannot be bothered or are unable to look up the average age of our squad and where they came from. A letter in last Monday's RL press praised us for bring Myler up from our youth (I hope there are responses from Widnes), it shows the depth of ignorance (esp from Mrs Robinson) ... check our squad. Hunte has worked miracles.

The RL is a closed club who decide who to admit to or sack from S L. They will make their decisions then justify them afterwards.

Losing Salford as we have started to make some inroads into Manchester (a bastion of soccer), Wakefield (remarkably good fans) and Cas (a hotbed of young talent in the area) would weaken Rugby League.

Dally

3 years out of SL can kill off a club.

Young fans drift away never to return, businesses find other outlets and there are several other issues.

It would appear none of you have read TRB's post and therefore that the RFL are already acknowledging that they know that it is highly unlikely that any of the three clubs that are working extremely hard to develop new ground will do so by the start of 2012 season. That is why they have already appointed Savill's to start and look at Cas, Wakefield and Salford's cases in relation to the likelihood of one, two or all of them getting work substantial under way early in 2011 and then actually fully completed, on their new Stadium projects during 2012. As he also said, in the current circumstances with three clubs all working as hard as possible, to simply dismiss their applications for the sake of a few months would be ultra-churlish and also if they make some huge financial commitments with outside investors, whether they be with council's or private investors prior to the final D-day in March and then the RFL pull the rug, then I would expect the threat of some sort of legal action would indeed by high.

The long and short of it is this, as water-tight as possible deals needs to be done before March 2011 and if you are on site building something, even better! I don't think the RFL want or wish for any of them to fail but I think they have always thought that at least one of them probably will.

As for Wakefield (and I know I am involved somewhat), I think that last Friday did put them in pole-position in terms of a stadium development, for the moment, and they will of course reasonably definitively know where they stand in just over 20 days time.

Maybe they should have done that last time , the LSV was 80 % complete when the decisipons were made in May/June 2008 , games were played in the stadium in 2008 , 2 months before the start of the 2009 season , but it didn't stop the RFL disregarding it



So I expect a huge slice of ' Churlishness ' once again

If not then it will once again show how corrupt the RFL and the people who run it actually are

Don't read too much into enabling and much-shift works being undertaken on any of the sites. Developers have to clear and work the site irrespective of any future development, so this is money they have to spend anyway and is not specific to a development. Also stadiums are not really long-programme builds on this size of project because other than the 'main stand' they are nothing more than steel and pre-cast concrete terrace units, if you start on the main stand first you will have the rest of the ground finished before the main stand fit out is completed.

Signed contracts for building a stadium is what is needed and I don't think any of them, other than Saints, have one of those at the moment!

No they shouldn't , how much ' grace ' do they want

10 years / , twenty ?

Tough titty , I like Wakey and will be sorry for whichever club gets the shove , but that is life in a franchised sport

There is only a 20 % chance that any club will have a stadium ready by then , even Saints and Salford , and the decision is made in June / July , not december

Not a chance in hell , they will only decide that if a SL club implodes financially or they can increase the number in SL because of more SKY revenue , until that happens they wont ' promise ' anything next time

Try ten years or twenty , but who gives a stuff about those clubs

We promise to have a better youth structure by the start of the 2012 season, cross my heart...can we come in please?

I'd have thought, judging by your previous posts, that you think the decision will have been made much earlier than that, then justified in June/July. I hope I'm not misrepresenting you.

No , but they already know which club is going down if nobody gets a stadium started , the only way that can change is for the relevant club to start actual building before the other two and hope they dont start building before decision time

The main point is one side (at least) is going down full stop (as at least Widnes meet all criteria). So as they did to justify putting Cru in they will twist any part of your club to suit their agenda for keeping you in or out! If Widnes get in I can't wait to see how much they change are 'adequate' stadium for the 'pro' list. As Leigh saw they just ignored ground as 'not played 'in'' because it suited. They also did their write ups weeks after so they could manipulate them further.

At Widnes SO'C has made sure from day one we have covered ALL areas knowing full well if one was weak they could exploit it. Wakey side to win academy last year could be seen similar? Built to win, not neccesairily to make SL level.

As for during, all SL clubs agreed to it so have less grounds than any for anysirt of action!