To play devils advocate on this...

The reasons for the non appearance of the proposed new stadia is not due to failures by the clubs as such, it is due to the government/public funding being with withdrawn either centrally or by local goverment as a result of the recession.

There isn't a club in the land that could finance the building of a new SL compliant ground. Any new stadia requires public funding as a community asset or the kind of private funding the sport just can't attract. To my knowledge Wakey, Cas, Salford and Saints all had committment from their respective branches of local government to support their schemes.

If that situation has changed due to government policy, is it fair to punish the clubs in the manner you appear to be calling for?

Should they all have their franchises withdrawn in favour of clubs with the geographical good fortune to have access to a compliant 3rd party facility?

What is the benefit to the sport of pursuing such a policy?

I am not standing in judgement here, I am just trying to make some sense of both the RFL & SLE's policy and some of the reactions on these discussions across the forums.

But letting Wakefield drop and go out of business will make them look even bigger numpties. What ever happens the result will not suit everyone and I think the RFL will be looking at damage limitation for the next 4 years rather than bold strides.

Sorry Demon but you are going to have to enlighten us on why these clubs are not building new grounds then. If its not for financial reasons, what is it?

I know that when the clubs in question presented the RFL with their proposals they have had local government representation or confirmation of their financial backing, all conditional of course. If local government funding is no longer avaiable, who's fault is it?

As for the statement that you only see and hear of activity at franchise time. It seems rather obvious that the reason you only hear about it in the run up to franchises is because it just isn't news at any other time.

As for increasing the size of SL to retain all current SL clubs and accomodate Widnes? There just isn't enough quality out there to support the current clubs never mind another. Is it in the sports interest to dilute the competition further? I won't even go near the effect on what is left of the international game.

Salford only had local government funding this time around, and they are still funding it. Leigh moved into a new stadium in 2008 and had only had one disatrous season in SL prior to that. The 'protected SL clubs' have had millions of quid since 1995, yet they chose to put it into players pockets instead of putting money aside to improve their facilities.

If Leigh managed to get one, who lets face it are the poor relations to a SL team not far away, then why have Cas/Wakey and Salford been dragging their heels. Salford have been promnising a new stadium since 2002 I think. Because Salfords promises have been accepted in the past the aforementioned clubs seem to think if they can offer a nice drawing on paper the SL will believe them. We had a new Stadium for 2008 and the RFL ignored that one and based our application for a 2008 licence on Hilton Park.

As for you mentioning whats left of the international game, we will shortly be wondering whats left of the domestic game.

How can anyone say that there aren't enough players to go around if the number full time teams increass. No one knows how a young player in the lower leagues will compete if he is given the chance to go full time. I would give young Grixy as an example he was a good player at leigh but is a very good player now he has been full time pro. There is tallent out there and I would say that increasing the full time league will bring more of it to the fore.

I agree ,some people say "he's not good enough for SL" but unless a player is given the chance to try full time rugby how do you know