Can I ask what the hell you're talking about?

You got a grade B last time, you got a grade B this time?

Attendance criteria is based on 2008-2010. Your bid was done in March, how can this year's attendances be known then?

Jebus.

- Average weekly home crowds of at least 10,000 in either the [u[size=2002008, 2009 or 2010[/size[/u seasons, and an average home crowd of at least 9,000 in the other 2 seasons.

So they're going to base attendance figures on a season that isn't finished yet?

HTH.

I quote (League Express citing the RFL criteria):


Now, tell me, where in there does it say 2008, 2009 and 2010? The next licence is awarded from 2012 to 2014. 2011 is part of the first licence round, which began in 2009. Why would any season outside of this licence round be used to calculate whether a club is viable for the next licence round? We could go back decades if that were the case surely.

You were saying?

So you think they would use AVERAGE attendances from a season that isn't even finished. I suppose they didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to need it explaining to them and why it could cause potential problems. I'll give it a go and see if it finally hits home...................

Lets says a club still has to play their local derby at home this season and are just under the 10,000 threshold. What do you think might happen if they weren't allowed to count their highest gate of the season when other clubs have? Lets say that determined whether they got a franchise or not - you getting it yet?

[url=http://www.code13rugbyleague.com/2011/07/26/super-league-licensing-grading-criteria-and-assessments/Here's a link to help you understand the criteria[/url

You'll even notice that is uses 2008 for more than one thing because believe it or not this season isn't finished yet!

I hope to God you're not trying to teach maths or logic.

I think where you are falling down is that you quoting league express! Surely a teacher would be aware that many publications spout drivel, let alone LE!

You have obviously forgotten that I was responding to Rougues taking the p*ss out of Saints finances on OUR forum when clearly wigans finances are no better and are equally dependant on the support of its owner.

I think I know how to read a set of accounts and company returns.
Why not speculate? Its a free world.

Then why respond to my post with a load of stuff that had nothing to do with what I said? Maybe you should have said all that to Rouges?

If you know how to read a set of account you'll know to speculate based on incomplete info can mean you can get it completely wrong. As you have done.

League Express were quoting the RFL.

But that's the point, isn't it? What defines a Grade A club from the rest is that they don't have to rely upon occasional boosts from derby matches. They have the crowds in the bag automatically. Wigan and Leeds would get a minimum 10,000 every season without even trying. Saints most definitely would not. If we need to wait for our derby matches to get past the magical number then we aint a Grade A club, are we?

Saints Fan - sorry, but have to agree with Wigan / Leeds Andy here. The bids were submitted much earlier in the season, March time I think, when clubs would have had about 4 home games max. To base the season's average attendance on 4 out of 13 home games is ridiculous.

The stuff you quote from League Express states "the last 3 seasons". My reading of that (of course, it's open to interpretation) are the seasons 2008 - 2010. Those are the last 3 seasons - 2011 is the current, ongoing season.

A bit like the Championship clubs - they could only apply for a License based on a Grand Final appearance / Northern Rail cup win from the seasons 2008 - 2010 (the last 3 seasons). Leigh won the NRC this year, but couldn't apply for a license for 2012 - 2014.

What I think we all agree on is that when we move into the new stadium, as long as we return to at least KR crowd figures (and realistically, we should expect to exceed them), then we will be getting a A grade License next time.

It gets embarrassing at times the most petty arguments! St Helens got a Grade B and that was under the clearly defined rules, everyone was well aware of them and signed up to them.

Finances, can anyone tell me one club in Super League that could survive without the SKY TV money? no one could live on gate receipts alone. It is easy to knock Ian Lenagan at Wigan but did not Eamonn Macmanus when he bought the club really save it with his personal investment? I know David Hughes in London needs a very deep pocket to keep the club afloat, gone of the days of a butcher owning a rugby league club! I am sure Hull's new owner will put in much personal investment.

we made a profit last year didnt we?

We haven't got a fully functioning home ground, "B" grade is what I would have expected.

We'll walk an "A" next time round.

But will 2011, 2012 and 2013 be the seasons we will be judged on or 2012, 2013 and 2014? If as people are suggesting it is the former then we may not; if it is the latter then I'm dead sure we will.

That's not the point. The point is it is average attendances over the last three years that are taken, if you take an average attendance when not everyone has played everyone else you are not treating everyone equally.

One of the criteria is being in the top 8 the last three years - do you think they look at who was in the top 8 when the bids were submitted as take that for this year, as that is essentially what you were saying.

Agreed.

Who cares? A or B we're still in so what are you bothered about?

If it was B and there were 14 clubs with an A I'd be worried.

Yes you are. All you need to do is make sure everyone has played the same number of games.

That's a bit daft.

Say we fell just under a threshold but hadn't played Wigan at home, but Wigan were just above it having played us at the DW.

Would it be fair for them to be graded higher on attendances?

Would it matter? If we were worthy of a Grade A then we would be getting at least 10,000 per season average anyway, like Wigan and Leeds do regardless of who they play. The idea isn't to be 'fair'. It is to be accurate. If a club has to rely on certain matches to increase their attendance then they aren't a Grade A club are they? They're a Grade B club. Like us!

PS: I don't care whether we are Grade A or Grade B, just so long as we aren't Grade C. That's a bit of a wobbly place to be imo.

Not everyone had when the bids were submitted. Did they take the top 8 when the bids were submitted as well using your "logic"?

Teams aren't required to get into the top 8 in every season though are they?

Besides, you haven't answered the question. For the 2014 round of licences, will 2011 be taken into consideration do you think, even though it is outside the next licence period? Or will 2012, 2013 and 2014 be the three seasons taken into consideration?

What's that got to do with it? It's still a criteria. So are you using the same logic and saying the top 8 criteria was at some arbitrary point this season when not everyone had played everyone else home and away?



You've haven't asked me a question before so it was difficult to answer - For some things if they follow the same practice as the last two license rounds yes, because of the simple fact the bids will be submitted early in the third year of the next license period.

This would make things tricky for grading Widnes if they are being judged this year they are on a bad start, or if they are not being judged this year it isn't consistent with the other 13.

That said I do agree with you cannot fairly/evenly judge criteria for attendances for 2011 when the bids had to be in about 6 weeks into the season

Agree with the Widnes situation, it's one of the problems of the way they do things as anyone outside the SL will be at a disadvantage in some respect. However this is the RFL we are talking about.