JUST TAKEN THIS OFF WIPEDIA



Licence criteria
Stage two of the licence decision process saw the clubs allocated the points used to decide licence grades according to their strength in several areas.[5


Facilities
Teams will get one point for having a stadium with a capacity of 12,000 or more. Another point will be awarded if the ground meets the standards of a premier competition in the 21st century.[9


Attendances
A point will be awarded to clubs with an average attendance of around 10,000 spectators. Another point will be awarded if stadiums are operating at 40 per cent capacity.[9

Finances
Teams will receive a point if they are solvent. Another point will be awarded if their turnover is more than £4 million.[9


Player strength
Teams earn one point if they are considered to have made a contribution to the competition - that means averaging a place in the top eight over each of the last three seasons. Another point is available to clubs who make a contribution to home-grown player development. That means at least eight members of a first-team squad of 25 should be discovered, trained and developed in the team's home country (United Kingdom or France).[9


Salary cap
One point is on offer to teams who have not committed a major breach of the salary cap in the last three seasons.[9


Geographical expansion
The final point goes to clubs who do not have another rugby league club within a 20-mile radius.[9


Total score
The scores attained by each club (out of ten) are translated into a Licence grading.

8 or more points - A licence
5-7 points - B licence
4 points or less - C licence
Sky Sports report that it is believed teams who achieve an A or B Licence will be awarded a place in Super League, while those who achieve a C Licence will undergo further scrutiny before the RFL decide who makes the final cut.[9

There's so much up for interpretation that they should because it's the only fair way to do it.

They will want to recognise the contribution that clubs like Wigan and Leeds make to the future of the sport by developing future internationals through their academies. Just including academy players notionally in a first team squad doesn't do this.

Guess the Crusaders are stuffed! (or will there be a miraculous change of heart?)

They'll never kick the Crusaders out mate

(same reason they won't boot out Quins - it'd mean accepting defeat, which the RFL can't do!

).

Does anyone know if the criteria will be improved?

I.e. In the name of progress should the average capacity be moved to 50% this time, 60% in 3 years etc.

Give your head a bang - this is simply not gonna happen because a player's quality is merely an individual's intepretation which cannot be applied as valid legislation.

Besides, as the hkrdavidhkr's quote shows:



I know it's hard for you to come to terms with, but that's just the way it goes I'm afraid.

We don't know that. For starters these are last time's criteria. The "8 out of 25" measure was what the RFL deemed as worthy of a point last time but in excess of the minimum requirements. How do you know they won't give a point for, say, 10 homegrown players but none for just having the minimum of 8 next time? Also you are assuming that they will not take into account any qualitative inputs in deciding whether to award the point.

Whilst the aim is to raise standards across the board, there will still be some differentiation required, hence the RFL's statement, that on things like stadia quality, the bar will be raised and clubs have to deliver on what they promised in last time's applications in order to just stand still from a ratings perspective. The definition of what constitutes a "21st century stadium" will have some element of quantitative scoring but will also take account of judgements and opinions of the panel and external assessors and there will be ranking of each club on each criteria.

If the licence application was just a page long and a ticklist of numbers, e.g. attendances over 10k yes/no I would agree with you. The fact is that the process is more of an in-depth audit of every aspect of each club, from finances to stadium quality to marketing and player development, which involves the RFL and external experts. This provides the qualitative context to inform the overall decision and grading, which I understand is as important as the crude top-line measures. I know it's hard for you to come to terms with, but that's just the way it goes I'm afraid.

Correct.

But the bottom line is that a player's ability is merely down to an individual's interpretation and cannot be quantified in the same way that "Stadium X has 1887 seats" or "Stadium X only has X number of toilets"..

I know it's hard for you to understand, but that's just the way it goes I'm afraid.

Perhaps they'll go for something quantifiable like number of first team appearances of the 8 homegrown players. The fact is that the RFL didn't publish which criteria each club fulfilled and how many points out of 10 they got. Why do you think that is?

No they won't because there's no way you can reward a club for picking certain players over others - it's a ridiculous suggestion.

I know it's tough for you to take, but that's just the way it goes I'm afraid...

Choosing not to answer the question on why the RFL didn't publish specific scores on each criteria, just the overall grade, then. You'll be claiming this is a transparent process and the rating is informed only by a multiple choice answer sheet next

Err, no. I just know that [iif[/i homegrown criteria is applied next time round, then it will be quantifiable in terms of numbers and not to individual interpretation and rightly so because I don't believe mediocre teams like yours should be rewarded ahead of quality teams like ours just because you choose the cheap option of promoting more local players than necessary instead of shelling out for quality players who will improve your team and improve the competition as a whole.

I know it's tough for you to take, but that's just the way it goes I'm afraid...

The exact criteria must be known to the Clubs by next season at the latest to allow the bids to be submitted

1) So you're now saying Rovers spend more on players than FC.
2) You'll already get the point for contribution to the competition. This is a separate point on how you are bringing homegrown youth through to the competition and then potentially to the international arena.

To be honest, both Hull clubs should be awarded this point solely on away support and the contribution us fans make to the coffers of every other superleague club.

This is the RFL. No one really understands the overseas quota rules for next season, never mind the franchising arrangements for 2012.

Good point. There is a rather 'making up as they go along' by the RFL regarding policy.

The homegrown player debate is an odd one. For instance, Wigan are quoted as being one of the best at bringing through Homegrown players and if you look at the numbers of ex Wigan academy players playing in SL first teams this cannot be denied.

Where this falls down is when you look at the fact that a lot of these players had to leave Wigan to get a first team chance, so is it Wigan who developed these players or is it the follow on club who did it.

Personally I think it should based on number of English (home national) players in a squad, whether developed or brought into the squad. Surely the development of Enlish players is the main criteria along with maybe a youth / community point for helping develop schoolboy type initialtives to allow the game to develop at grass roots.

Good post. The problem is that all clubs will (if the RFL ever ends it's allowance of quota dispensations etc) have 20 British players in their 25 and 8 homegrown through their own academy. Some clubs like Wigan due to their size and level of investment will be churning out more players than they can realistically accomodate in their first team squad and will be a source of non-homegrown talent that other clubs (and the British sport overall) will benefit from. Others will bring through far fewer, include only a couple of ho egrown players in their 17 and just comply with the basic requirements. Question is whether the RFL think that what Wigan do, in terms of investing in the development of British players that ultimately benefits other clubs is something that should be recognised as part of the licensing system.

The other way it could be done is that teams who have a number of their own youth players even if they are no longer at that club playing in SL or SL and the Championship (Not all players make the grade through no fault of the clubs making) get the point.
If a player is top notch and is poached or turns out not to be the unbeliable talent the club expected its life and it happens but the club have still put in the time and effort bringing the player through.
The only problem I can see with this idea is that some players will have more than 1 club claiming them as there's.

Excellent idea.

I was looking at it slightly differently in that although Wigan academy seem to do some stirling work with the young players, the 1st team (especially lately) seems to overlook them and instead has opted for imports. Ainscough was SL top try scorer in a poor Wigan side early in the season and got dropped for Roberts and can't get a look in now. Tompkins has been 'lucky' that Smith is injured and has stepped up to the mark.

If a team took a punt on Ainscough and turned him into an International then surely they should get the benefit of being recognised as the team who developed him not Wigan who cast him aside.

In effect if wigan get the plaudits for bringing these players through then surely they're just benefitting from being lucky in having a few good players born in their catchment areas.

No offence to Wigan, this is only an example and I'm sure others fall in to this bracket.

But the counter arguement is a player like Jon Wilkin.
Rovers did the ground work until he went to college.
He left as he wasn't going to a hull college/uni and signed for Saints.
Would he have still been in the KR first team?
You bet your he would now should KR get some plaudits as you put it for helping develop a GB/English international?

It's a difficult point to measure for sure. Saints seem to have it spot on in that from the outside it looks like they focus on fewer young players but the ones they bring through are close to SL standard from a very early age. It works very well for them, but arguably they provide more quality but less quantity to the British game than Wigan. Will be interesting to see what the RFL do, but needless to say it will be a while until they publish the criteria which will no doubt be ambiguous.