I think the London experiment has failed and unless they improve vastly for next season they will be bottom 2 so certain to go 'down' assuming we just introduce relegation. The other place will be interesting as Salford will take major steps next year and I expect them to be a much better side.

If they cherry picked the first 12 clubs it would be very interesting to see if they decided to give London one last go, in all honesty I think if they did it would be at the expense of Cas or Wakey

The talk of Toulouse balances the equation. Admittedly I haven't actually read all the quotes/statements, so not sure if the Toulouse talk is all from the expansionists.

Anyway, so working on the theory that the two lowest ranked sides are relegated - I assume most (if not all) of the threatened clubs will be spending as close to the cap as possible next year to maximise their chances of finishing 12th of above. More than likely stretching (or directing all) their budgets in order to do so. Making a complete shambles of the last few years and the net outcome that franchising was supposed to bring.

The two sides who unfortunately are relegated what future will one or both of them have? Half of the sides in the top division are hardly financially sound now with their share of the Sky pot. The game is frepped. There's just not enough cash/interest in the game to continually subsidise the lesser sides. No radical or old league style will change this. The RFL couldn't even find a title sponsor for it's marquee product after giving it away the previous year.

I think 'Meh' sums it all up.

It does and I've been saying it for a while now.

Salford, poor crowds and poor performances, London poor crowds, poor team no home in all likelihood so both those are in the wrong section Yes Salfords new owner is minted but wont solve poor crowds and short term wont solve poor performances (my opinion) and long term wont solve their money worries (again my belief)

Money talks - Salford will buy a new team and will spend to the cap next year . Noble is a proven coach and I suspect they will alot further up the table. The RFL are dumb but not dumb enough to kick Dr Kashcow's money out of SL. London is a failure but has been for years , maybe like has been suggeted the RFL have had enough, maybe not.

Proven some years ago, again just an opinion but im just not convinced at all, and who is going to roll up to watch them, Nobles brand of rugby is not wonderful viewing and at best they will be mid table. So how long will the new money stay around? as i say maybe he will ignite super league i just cant see it

So, now that stadia criteria is completely ditched, we can plough 50K+ per year into a mortgage for a stand we really didn't have to build. Meanwhile our competitors down the M62 at Wakey & Cas can live in their Victorian facilities and plough the same 50K+ into their teams.

That seems fair...

The thought had crossed my mind, particularly with next season in mind when we're fairly certain to be operating under the cap. That fifty large might have been enough to secure a half back that may well end up going to another club.

Best to be pragmatic and just be glad for the improved facilities we'll have, hasn't done Leigh and 'Fax a whole lot of good lately though.

promotion and relegation doesn't necessarily mean any old team can be promoted. Look at the Premier League rules in football and Union were clubs have to have a facility of sufficient standard. I think HKR's investment will prove to be money well spent.

Doesn't seem to have done either club a great deal of good, although they are 'selling' to their fans & corporate clients Championship rugby. You'll be showcasing top flight RL, which will make a massive difference. The increase in the corporate capacity with the new stand should see that £50k recouped comfortably I'd have thought.

Away support is surely going to increase too vs having the Southstand to offer.

Away support might increase a bit (other than for The Derby) but fans don't travel in huge nimbers to The KC despite it being arguably the best ground in the league.

I do think that the north stand development can be nothing but good in the long term though.

I do think the new stand is great & improves our ground no end, BUT I realy struggle to see how it helps the club or the game? our team played well when the ground was poor our crowds have not improved much (we do have the capacity to I supose) the real nagging thought I had on sunday as I walked round to the East stand was all this development & money for (even if we finish top of the weekly rounds & have a good cup run with home draws) 20 matches at the best, How dose that pay the bills? I like a lot of others love the game & would happily watch any place it was played. In fact my two most favorite grounds to watch are Whitehaven & Keighley. I just think that our game is struggling to cope with full time professionalism which is as new to League as it is to Union & we dont have a marketable international game as they have.

You'll be amazed on how many fans want somewhere to sit, good view, under cover.

Is that then counteracted by the amount of fans who won't pay the money to attend an all-seater stadium?

Why, are you building one?

i believe edith means your super stadium that other than rovers is regularly overlooked by away supporters

So? I'm talking about hkr fans who can't/don't want to stand and can't get a season ticket for the RM stand without a slightly blocked view.

Aye, there are always people you'll upset. Excuse makers. It could be a shiny new stadium with half seats/half stands and people would say they don't like to stand facing west, and would never sit down to watch rugby. Do you build a new stadium to accommodate these for them to then say they don't want to watch rugby in summer?

I don't know what your argument is.

BR was saying he can't help but think the new stand might be a waste of cash, I was pointing out that's there's plenty of fans who don't currently go to hkr who will with the new facilities.

And of course you'll get a few extra away fans.

I wasn't arguing, I was asking a question. A rather broad, general RL fans question admittedly. Wasn't arguing.

Just had £10 on London being top 6 next year. They'll have a bloated average of 8500 attendance (including 6500 inmates from local jails given 2 hours of fresh air free of charge), spend the full cap and have unbelievably attractive tea ladies who happen to know top nrl players who just want to visit for a year.

I think the new stand is great but will it bring in that much more money? I am just watching an NRL game & their fans seem happy to sit on a grass slope in the open air. In the recent past Bradford got big crowds in what is ramshackle hole in the ground(which I actualy like to visit when the weather is OK) I think ground criteria are side issue in our game, the product on the field with financial resposibility should be the only concern. It is nice for some teams to play in state of the art stadiums but in reality only Saints Wolves & Salford are in new purpose built league stadiums & it is interesting to note that the top two teams to date are not in their own grounds but tenants of soccer clubs. My preferance is for the goverment & local authoritys to provide public stadiums for the use of all sports as a public duty as is the case in lots of other countrys. Hull actualy does well in that respect.

The new stand will pay for itself any improvement is always a plus I think blakeysrobin wants us to put the speedway and dog tracks back in and add grass corners to the pitch for every game like the old days

Do you mean Beverley Red?

Thought it was blakeysrobin