Edited for accuracy

ever stood in the south stand at caravan park??

joint 1st
Wigan, Hull FC, Huddesfield 20 points
joint 4th
Warrington, Widnes, Leigh 19 points
joint 7th
Doncaster, Sheffield 17 points
joint 9th
Halifax, Quins, Crusaders 11 points
12th
Rochdale 8 points
joint 13th
Saints, Leeds, Toulouse 7 points
joint 16th
Castleford, Salford 6 points
18th
Hull KR 3 points
19th
Catalan Dragons 1 point
20th
Keighley -3 points

so as you can see a deeply flawed system



Bradford had -8
Wakefield -4 same as Dewsbury

can you lose points if your ground cant be used when you want it?

im thinking back to the time wigan had to play a home play off game at widnes and when the good friday fixture had to be played on a thursday night.both because their landlords (wigan athletic) needed the ground for football.

By the same token you should get extra points if you actually own your own ground rather than being lucky enough to play in new stadium purely because you either rent one from a Football club or are lucky enough to have a council that has funded one for you to rent back.

cant argue with that

why penalise clubs that have a ground funded from their local council?

so in your theory, you get points for playing in inadequate dumps like belle vue and knowsley road?

Because clubs that rent a ground, whether that be from a council or Football team, have been very lucky. Why should a club, such as St Helens or Wakefield, be penalised because they arent lucky enough to have a professional Football team to rent from or a council willing to fund a stadium.



They are still assets which are worth millions and the fact that a club owns such an asset should be taken into account. If clubs, such as Wigan, have suffered from financial mismanagement and have been forced to sell their grounds why should they be treated better purely because they have got lucky and have a Football club owner in the town which has built a stadium which they can now rent.

both teams are relying on their councils for land and funding, why do they want new grounds i wonder?


not worth much if it costs them a franchise is it?

councils realise the importance of having a stadium for the sake of the local community, i have no issue with council owned grounds with an option of buying it off them in the future.

Neither have I. I am just pointing out that clubs that actually own their own stadium rather than getting lucky and having a new stadium built for them to rent, whether that is council or Football owned, deserve some credit for doing so.

but do they deserve credit for letting them get rundown!

you seem to have a grudge against teams that play or share stadiums that are owned by a football team or a council

I think there is a difference between not improving a ground and a ground being rundown. Central Park was as rundown as any ground but I know many Wigan fans who wish they were back there and weren't forced to sell it to stay in business. Whether a ground is rundown or not at least it is an asset which they own. I dont see why a club shouldnt get credit for this.

Do clubs that were forced to sell their grounds because they were going to go bankrupt deserve credit. Do clubs that own no assets deserve credit? Do clubs that have to move fixtures due to sharing a ground deserve credit?



No grudge at all. I just find it funny how fans of some clubs lecture others about their grounds purely because they have got lucky. Bar Warrington I cant think of another SL club that has actually got a new stadium due to their own actions. Wigan are a prime example of this. They had to sell Central Park to stay in business and if it wasnt for Whelan building the JJB they would now be playing at Bolton in front of a handful of people. Why should they get credit for that compared to a club that has managed itself well, lived within its means and actually owns it ground

Clubs that manage themselves well. Exactly how many of them are there. If Wire didn't have a sugar daddy they would also be in a hole street. My club HFC were also in a hole street but the council saw the value of the club to the community, they also saw the value of a community stadium. The club saw the value of the community stadium and have built their crowds accordingly despite some p poor seasons. The business is now prospering and they are a viable business. You make the most of what comes your way. If they screw it up then you can have a go.

the only club that has managed to do well in superleague and stay within its own means with its own ground is leeds, all the rest have had money worries at some stage

the kc was built for the intention of rugby and football, the same as jjb and the galpharm,(of which the giants own a percentage of i believe). hull fc have managed profits now for the last few years, something we wouldn't have achieved at the boulevard, yes we was lucky, but it was our money that funded the stadium through the local kingston communication share offer


as for you last statement, clubs have poured money into their playing staff far too long rather than looking after the spectators

[url=http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Castleford-Tigers--Fans-to.5836697.jplatest on Cas's gound[/url

Submit detailed plans, swampy and pals object 2-3 years through the courts, lose SL franchise, dont build ground .............. hope that doesnt happen, but after helping fight Swampy and the nimby's at Leigh it will be a long fight.

We're keeping a close eye out for you and Starbug nipping over the Pennines with your great crested newts to plant on the site.

The whole ground criteria should be binned. What's most important is how many people you get in a ground not how many empty plastic seats you have!

While the numbers going through the turnstiles is important, so is the ground itself in being able to GROW your market.

Why would a casual fan want to go and stand on the terraces of Knowsley Rd? I am an ardant league fan, but knowsley rd is the biggest dump of ground I have ever been to. Even I will not return in the future, when I head up north I would rather head to the DW or KC in future.

What hope do we have gathering new fans in stadia that belong in the 50's?

If your going to set a criteria I'd set a min criteria of:

min 12,000 capacity
50-50 seating and standing min
all stands covered
good disabled access
decent toilets, bars and food
easy access/parking

that's all you need in a SL ground generally!

Us flatcappers look after our own, so if I can be of help ask.


One word of advice is that when they first leaflet and call a meeting turn up en masse, showing support for the plan. Their next meeting is behind closed doors with Swampy not taking up the invitation for your meeting, at which point you will be asked a question about migrating Canadian Geese flying into the floodlights

Well the site is just a barren landscape at the moment pretty much. AFAIK there aren't any trees for swampy and his cronies to cry about.

That was one of the funniest things I heard that night, although I thought the old dear put it like 'they won't be able to find the water with the stadium in the way'

That was a different concern