TS IMO - it's hardly fair they're all stealing the places of clubs like Widnes and Barrow who'd contribute a lot more to SL.

It would bring balance to the already unfair point for not being near another SL club.

I personally believe FC and Rovers should be given a point because they have the following

A) In a catchment area large enough to support the growth of the clubs inside it
B) In An Area which is at least 60 Miles From 85% of Clubs in The Competition.
C) Have a large amount of fans that are prepared to travel those distances

To penalise Hull clubs because they do not add to the geographical spread of SL to me seems wrong. In fact the only rational reason for awarding Clubs outside the heartlands an extra point is so they get more than clubs that the RFL don't want in SL.

What advantage does not being close to another SL club bring to SL?????

Well they're debatable points I know, but iirc we weren't too far off the turnover point last time round. As far as solvency is concerned, I suppose thats down to how the RFL gauge it. Our debt is underwritten and apparently we can provide strong evidence that it can be sustainable in the very near future.

I guess if the likes of cas, salford and wakefield are in on (yet) another promise of a new ground, we should get the same benefit of the doubt with our finances.

It all comes down to what camp your foot's in.

Are you an expansionist or not? I am, that's why I think it would be unfair on them.

However I also don't agree that clubs shouldn't be penalised solely on their geographical position. The old chestnut arguement of our two clubs being in the same city always rears it's head, yet strangely you hardly ever here mention that Wigan, St. Helen's, Warrington and Leigh are all more or less a stones throw away from each other.

Roofs, I agree Widnes should be in but Barrow? Come on, what would they bring? A season of paying over the odds for rubbish players, getting tonked every week and then going bust at the end of the year just like Workington in 1996. The only way I can ever see the RFL allowing a Cumbrian based team would be through a merger of all three, but the fans (quite rightly imo) would never have that.

The RFL argument regarding the location point is so that clubs outside the heartlands that don't have that 'default' rugby league interest aren't at a disadvantage as they're more likely to miss out on the attendance point and the 40% capacity point.

But considering that very criteria is set out to improve the game and the image of the sport - why should they benefit because of things they can't achieve? You could argue both Hull clubs are also at a disadvantage in those points because they're drawing support from the same area.

I'd award those clubs the location point if they achieved (say) average crowds of 4k and reached certain levels of youth development, not because they don't.

I spend a few days a month over in lancs and Mersyside area and geographically there are a lot of teams withing a small area not that much bigger than Hull and surrounding villages.

Leeds - Bradford
Saints - Wigan -Warrington-Salford
All within peeing distance of each other,so don`t see why location should be an issue.
As both Hull and Rovers get good support I can`t see the problem of two teams in one city.It works in football.

The whole concept of awarding points is to disadvantage teams who don't get them.

You shouldn't create new ways of adding points for teams you know don't fit the standard criteria.

I am all for expansion but we shouldn't do it just for the sake of it and at the expense of potentially more viable traditional teams.

Guess it depends what strategic direction the RFL are heading towards. Their strategy over the last few years appears to be around expansion geographically. Personally i would review my strategy if i were the RFL and look at expanding into the RL heartlands and the viable traditional teams rather than throwing more money at an idea that i dont think works. It's about time the RFL got it into their heads that rugby league is a game played mainly by teams in the north of england across the M62 coridoor.

Unusual for a Rovers supporter.

is HULL KINGSTON ROVERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED the official name for the club?

they are showing as still being within a Voluntary Arrangement dating back 5 years this can't be true can it?

7100 as a core support nowadays?

7103 wasnt it?

Not like we can say the extra 3 were Les Cats fans either!

not bad at all compared to about 2k afew years back!

Bill it wasnt, isnt and never will be.

In fact it would be ridiculous to have a tick box system, especially considering there has been no weighting.

that was just for stadia

Tell that to the RFL:

"Clubs will submit to the RFL, at its registered office by such specified date, a
signed application form and a business plan prepared against the RFL’s published
checklist." [urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/Operational%20Rules%20Part%201.pdf[/url

Or how about this?

"The licence application process was handled by the RFL's staff and took place in three stages: firstly, the clubs were assessed to ensure they meet minimum standards; the clubs were then divided into three categories, A, B and C based on a simple points system; and finally each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.

"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document for Super League which basically said '[uThis is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like[/u,'" explained Findlay." available here: [urlhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-league/RFL-boss-praises-clubs-for.4302787.jp[/url

This is what we want the clubs to look like? Sounds to me like there's a checklist of criteria that the RFL want clubs to meet a "tick box system" if you will.

you might want to read the little bit after where you have put a little bit in bold big guy.

you know that bit which says [ieach club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.[/i

now i dont know about you, i havent spent as much time in that sea air, but to me, i would find it strange that they would go to all the effort of producing a report on which a qualitative judgement was to be made, making that qualitative judgement and everyone abiding by that qualitative judgement if it was simply a tick box system.

Do you find it strange at all Bill? Do you think there may be a reason for them doing that? Maybe the criteria being used to group the clubs only? and outside of that grouping being irrelevant?

let us in on it big fella--Why oh why oh why did the RFL come up with this criteria, tick the boxes, find out who ticked what boxes, then go on to commission a qualitative report, consider that report and include qualitative judgements in their justification for their decision, but NOT use it for their decision, which was of course made for them by the ticked boxes?

Leeds must have found winning form, their forum fool is back

i thought being a rugby league fan you would have been aware we found our form at least 2 months ago.

then this is the Hull KR forum so the lack of knowledge doesnt surprise!

There was a published list of criteria for the last round, which it sounds to me formed the basis of the license grade. I also expect there was some latitude on certain points, as I don't think we got visibility on how many and which points each club scored.

I'm not sure how you can be sure that the same criteria will be used next time round, though, this is the RFL after all. I'm sure they said last time round that A and B clubs would not undergo as much rigorous scrutiny next time as you can only move one ranking category from last time. C clubs on the other hand would be under pressure to deliver on improvement promises, which Rovers have done on a lot of fronts anyway. No way Rovers won't get a franchise.

Talking about forums...your board is empty, wonder why

I'm certain that the 10 point criteria was to be applied to bids this time around (2012) and was not in fact used as such in 2009 although clubs were assessed in four broad areas of their respective businesses and covering similar areas in general.

What bothers me is that there have been recent references to revised/different criteria for 2012 which seems a bit late in the day now since presumably clubs will have been aiming to rack up as many points as possible under the previously published requirements and yes, this is the RFL so nothing can be taken for granted.

Maybe, just maybe, even the RFL couldn't just take the clubs at their word and required some sort of evidence to substantiate the boxes ticked...maybe?

no no no young billy boy, that was audited by KPMG independently. Regardless, not being able to trust the word of the clubs would be irrelevant, they can always fact check and considering the tick box system is simply and only a quantitative study the question was why did they then go on to commission a qualitative report if not to make a subjective decision?

Quote ="Barnacle Bill"I'm certain that the 10 point criteria was to be applied to bids this time around (2012) and was not in fact used as such in 2009 although clubs were assessed in four broad areas of their respective businesses and covering similar areas in general. What bothers me is that there have been recent references to revised/different criteria for 2012 which seems a bit late in the day now since presumably clubs will have been aiming to rack up as many points as possible under the previously published requirements and yes, this is the RFL so nothing can be taken for granted. '" www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... 44046.html The 19 applicants will be expected to meet minimum standards in four basic areas - facilities, finance and business, commercial/marketing/community and playing strength - and awarded marks out of 10. Clubs with at least five points out of 10 will be awarded category A or B status and guaranteed a place in Super League, with category C clubs at risk of losing out in 2009. "The RFL will now carry out an exhaustive assessment of each application using the criteria and methods agreed by the clubs during an extensive consultation period," said Findlay. "This process will include visits to each club to review their stadium and other facilities. "There is a finite number of places available. It's likely that those clubs which have A or B licences will be given a position and the remaining positions will be allocated to category C clubs. Certainly in future years, clubs will be seeking to move themselves out of category C to make their position more secure."

Quote ="Barnacle Bill"I'm certain that the 10 point criteria was to be applied to bids this time around (2012) and was not in fact used as such in 2009 although clubs were assessed in four broad areas of their respective businesses and covering similar areas in general. What bothers me is that there have been recent references to revised/different criteria for 2012 which seems a bit late in the day now since presumably clubs will have been aiming to rack up as many points as possible under the previously published requirements and yes, this is the RFL so nothing can be taken for granted. '" www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... 44046.html The 19 applicants will be expected to meet minimum standards in four basic areas - facilities, finance and business, commercial/marketing/community and playing strength - and awarded marks out of 10. Clubs with at least five points out of 10 will be awarded category A or B status and guaranteed a place in Super League, with category C clubs at risk of losing out in 2009. "The RFL will now carry out an exhaustive assessment of each application using the criteria and methods agreed by the clubs during an extensive consultation period," said Findlay. "This process will include visits to each club to review their stadium and other facilities. "There is a finite number of places available. It's likely that those clubs which have A or B licences will be given a position and the remaining positions will be allocated to category C clubs. Certainly in future years, clubs will be seeking to move themselves out of category C to make their position more secure."