They are waiting for the outcome of NM first.

They've said all along that they'd allow time for consultation with fans and other stake holders. Obviously the designs are only part of the planning application so you have to assume they're working to a timetable, part of which was the release of the designs last week.

I don't think we can wait that long!

Fair enough, makes sense.

Just would have thought with the impending deadlines you would have wanted to get going asap. Pretty sure we have said if we get our outline PP approved the full PP will go in immediately.

The difference is you've been doing all the designs and stuff whilst your outline PP has been submitted. However, there are a number of different parties involved in our stadium that needed consulting and still do. Either way, if Wakey do submit immediately, it is likely we'll be submitting around the same time anyway.

u do need to get the planning permission sorted as your stadium is a dump but with a 13,300 stadium if you could fill it it would be good but you want the away end to be standing plus have the home side behind sticks seated then big sstanding stand at the side for the fans who make noise

And in English?

The away fans can sit down because that's what the plans say, and it subdues them a bit too meaning the standing lot down the side for Cas can be heard even more.

I know there are a few hurdles still to overcome before we get the new stadium but assuming buildings underway as proposed in the latest timetable and ditto at Wakey and Salford, who will the RFL refuse a franchise to this time next year?

These 3 clubs seem to be the ones thought most likely to face the axe purely because of the ground situation. Would seem ludicrous to evict one of these clubs on the basis of ground alone only to find that when the new franchises start in 2012 the evicted club has moved into a brand spanking new stadium!

Thats exactly what I have been saying. Imagine the overheads of a new stadium in the C1. The RFL could destoy a club. The Aussies seem to be happy adding new clubs without getting rid of one, licencing was meant to improve the league, it has done in the top half. But the lower clubs face the same prob, but only every three years. And they don't have to be relegated on the pitch either. Franchising does work if used properley.
Its just that the new system isn't really that different from the old, except people get to choose who goes down - which is worrying.

And apparently the current 14 SL clubs voted earlier this year to keep the number of clubs at 14 for 2012-14, even knowing that the RFL had already stated that one championship club would be given a licence. Apparently they'd rather take a 1 in 14 chance (well not really for Saints, Wigan, Leeds etc) of losing all SL TV money than have the pot split 15 ways.

The reason for that is the top 8 plus bradford, London and Catalans know they are safe. 11 of 14, are always going to say balls to the other clubs!!

Not very likely, given the Disabilities Discrimination Act.

It'll be the same situation as a few years ago when the SL clubs decided that in order to admit Catalans to the SL they would evict the bottom 2 clubs the following season thus allowing the NL1 champions to be promoted along with Catalans. Widnes proposed that rather than relegating 2 sides SL relegated no-one and added 2 teams thus increasing SL to 14 teams. Surprise, surprise the big clubs in SL who know they wouldn't be in danger of filling the bottom 2 places the following season voted against increasing the league and so having to further 'spread the wealth'.

You can bet that Wakey, Cas, Salford & possibly one or two others would have been in favour of increasing the league to 15 if a championside was added this time.

rlRW talks about the stadium feedbackrl

rlVideorl

If I recall correctly, from a meet the directors supporters club evening back when that decision was made, we were told that Cas had voted to keep the league at 12 teams, rather than take a cut in TV revenue. I was surprised at that at the time.