1- % of stadium capacity
2- Solvency
3- No salary cap breaches
4- Average 8th (If we end up 4th this year then we can finish 13th next year to get this point)
Can anyone think of any more which would give us 5 and a 'B'?

If we finish 3rd this season then our average 8th will be done and dusted.

I expect the homegrown point to be done away with due to the academy quota.

I also understand that the 1200 added onto our East Stand will give us a tick for a 12,000 capacity so we are in a good position to get a "Grade B" licence.

I feel sure that a point is gained for being 8th or better in all 3 seasons and not by averaging them out.

But I will be happy to be proved wrong if anyone has any evidence.

keep clutching at them straws

Oh hello won this week did you?

The point is definately an average of the 3 preceding seasons. When Angela Powers was grading on Boots n All, Salford had an average of 8.6667 (or something similar) but she decided that was worth a point.

Also Mr Zod, I believe the capacity point was given at 14,000 - I'd be happy to be proved wrong - so we'd need the new North stand building to achieve this.

Probably worth mentioning that these were the points for the 2009 round of franchises and these may change or at least be made more testing ie 16,000 capacity, £4.4m turnover (£4m turnover was worth a point if I remember correctly)

I thought it was 14000 as well

I'm sure Angela Powers thing was 12,000...

The points system as you describe [uwas not[/u used by the RFL last time around, it is for the next round of franchising, although Ms Powers decided to use it for her own reasons.

I'm pretty sure that the stadium requirement is 12,000 hence the rash of 12,000 capacity grounds (and plans).

Its a "B" then

It is, thats all Wakey are building

next one will see us as the same as hull then

It is deffo an average mate.

Sat 3rd with 2 games to go?
Can't see any straws here soft lad

I think it is 12k, but also not sure you lot should be extending the east stand above sorting out the away support. IMO of course.

I agree but the RFL get what they want I suppose.

Fair point but we would add another another 1,000+ season ticket holders because many folk don't want to get a season ticket for the golf stand and the well is sold out as well.

Get the East Stand extention done and the East Stand finished and then the club can focus their energies on providing better facilities for the away support.

Powers' original assessment is here: www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/ ... 74,00.html On that basis you'd easily get a B with ground extension. The solvency one is interesting. Since (nearly) all clubs are loss-making, I'd guess this will be a relative financial measure. Can't remember whether Saints, for example, got the solvency point or not, as they continually make losses of c£400k each year, but their hand is strengthened by the fact they own their own ground and therefore have an asset valued at £8m. This is the RFL though, and I don't know whether they've declared the criteria for the next round of assessments. I think there will be something on youth development as this was one of the clearly stated objectives of introducing licensing, so there should be some measure included.

Powers' original assessment is here: www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/ ... 74,00.html On that basis you'd easily get a B with ground extension. The solvency one is interesting. Since (nearly) all clubs are loss-making, I'd guess this will be a relative financial measure. Can't remember whether Saints, for example, got the solvency point or not, as they continually make losses of c£400k each year, but their hand is strengthened by the fact they own their own ground and therefore have an asset valued at £8m. This is the RFL though, and I don't know whether they've declared the criteria for the next round of assessments. I think there will be something on youth development as this was one of the clearly stated objectives of introducing licensing, so there should be some measure included.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Powers' original assessment is here: www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/ ... 74,00.html On that basis you'd easily get a B with ground extension. The solvency one is interesting. Since (nearly) all clubs are loss-making, I'd guess this will be a relative financial measure. Can't remember whether Saints, for example, got the solvency point or not, as they continually make losses of c£400k each year, but their hand is strengthened by the fact they own their own ground and therefore have an asset valued at £8m. This is the RFL though, and I don't know whether they've declared the criteria for the next round of assessments. I think there will be something on youth development as this was one of the clearly stated objectives of introducing licensing, so there should be some measure included.'" Why? there are academy quotas in place now where as there weren't before so I expect it to either be done away with or every team will get a point for it.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Powers' original assessment is here: www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/ ... 74,00.html On that basis you'd easily get a B with ground extension. The solvency one is interesting. Since (nearly) all clubs are loss-making, I'd guess this will be a relative financial measure. Can't remember whether Saints, for example, got the solvency point or not, as they continually make losses of c£400k each year, but their hand is strengthened by the fact they own their own ground and therefore have an asset valued at £8m. This is the RFL though, and I don't know whether they've declared the criteria for the next round of assessments. I think there will be something on youth development as this was one of the clearly stated objectives of introducing licensing, so there should be some measure included.'" Why? there are academy quotas in place now where as there weren't before so I expect it to either be done away with or every team will get a point for it.

Widnes chairman said only last month "We now understand what we need to do to get a licence. We are determined to have all the boxes ticked next time." He added: "We recognise there were financial shortfalls in the previous administration, so we needed to satisfy the financial security of the club. We also recognised that our policies around youth development needed to be improve and we needed to be bringing more young players through our system." So from his discussions with the RFL on Widnes' chances next time, it sounds like youth development is still on the criteria list.

The point on youth development was assessed on the basis not only of the number of homegrown players in the squad but the club's policy and practices. The license reviews were very detailed last time, using qualitative inputs rather than a simple numbers checklist. I'd be surprised if they abandon a review of homegrown player development practices and simply count the number of academy players "promoted" to the first team squad instead. But you never know with the RFL.

The 1 point that has me scratching my head is what does 'Contribution to the competition' mean?
It cant be for Final League positions as that is already covered, Ditto to youth development and Stadia as well.
Would both Hull teams get a point as they add a true same city derby even though that flies in the face of them both dropping of a point for being to close to each other?

Contribution to the competition is average league placing.

I thought they were 2 seperate points?
If not what are the full 10 as I was trying to work it out at work and if you are right I could think of only 9.

I have
1. Contribution To the Comp (Average placings?)
2. Solvency
3. $4M+ Turnover
4. No Cap breaches
5. +12K(?) Stadium
6. World Class Stadium
7. % Of stadium capacity
8. Youth Players
9. No other SL club in 60 miles
10. Average placings?

Quote ="Roverswall"I have 1. Contribution To the Comp (Average placings?) 2. Solvency 3. $4M+ Turnover 4. No Cap breaches 5. +12K(?) Stadium 6. World Class Stadium 7. % Of stadium capacity 8. Youth Players 9. No other SL club in 60 miles 10. Average placings?'" You're missing average attendance over 10k. Also, I doubt the salary cap breaches point will be in the next round of criteria due to the live nature of the cap now - it's not a differentiator. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80 ... e_licences

Quote ="Roverswall"I have 1. Contribution To the Comp (Average placings?) 2. Solvency 3. $4M+ Turnover 4. No Cap breaches 5. +12K(?) Stadium 6. World Class Stadium 7. % Of stadium capacity 8. Youth Players 9. No other SL club in 60 miles 10. Average placings?'" You're missing average attendance over 10k. Also, I doubt the salary cap breaches point will be in the next round of criteria due to the live nature of the cap now - it's not a differentiator. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80 ... e_licences