Presumably, Widnes would be in the mix as well, assuming they don't go bust.

Give the insults a rest for gods sake.

Mods, why is this guy constantly being allowed to type this tripe all the time?

=#FF0000<Original post edited>

Just been playing the prediction game a little and will probably regret it but here goes....

Salford
Hull KR
Leeds
Toronto
London
Toulouse
Widnes
Halifax

Wait until next weekend's results before you predict which of Toulouse and London are in the MPG.

It's a rugby league competition not an attendance league.

Also, IF London or Toulouse gain promotion, how many fans do you expect them to have or, doesn't it matter if theyre from outside Yorkshire / "Lancashire" etc.

1. Away fans and the amount that a club bring to games is an irrelevance!
2. Home fans and the number a club can attract is not and irrelevance but if a club shows signs of year on year growth of a supporter base and a benefactor is helping them, then fine.
3. Clubs that take £1.8 million from the kitty with the aim of seeing success as finishing mid table whilst their fans drift away and some of which who play out of unsuitable and unsafe grounds should have their funding cut or be cut aside for the benefit of the game.

So, o wise one, please tell everyone where the aspirations of Toulouse or London would be, should either or both gain promotion to SL.
Also, if your post is yet another jibe at Trinity, currently in 6th spot and who do have their funding cut (due to the state of Belle Vue), how much more do you think their funding should be cut



Your analogy regarding clubs that, in your words "seeing success as finishing mid table" are just utter piffle.
If the premier league was to apply the same criteria, there would only be 6 or 7 clubs instead of the current 20 clubs and SL would need to be cut to 5, plus of course the mighty Toronto, assuming that they actually gain promotion.

What do you propose with Hull FC and Leeds, both big spending yet, currently under performing clubs or, do you wish to eliminate Huddersfield and Wakefield to ensure they can both finish in the top half of the table or, are you desperate for London to return, with their nomadic existence and 2 bus loads of fans.

Can't speak for Toulouse, but without a new owner, London are fine just where they are thanks.


Whatever the level, it should be directly linked to finishing position, number of locals in the side and the state of the stadium (sic) with backdated deductions for every year since the initial lie told to gain a licence.



Opinions are like decent grounds....most people have got one




Nothing. Both will bounce back and both have attendances, incomes and public appeal that other clubs can only dream of.....


I don't wish to eliminate anyone, I believe each club should have individual targets to be set by the SL board and met or receive reduced funding and I certainly do not believe that we ever took 2 coaches anywhere other than St Helens in 20003 and Bradford in 2005, both for the play offs or Wales in 2008 (IIRC) when I organised them......but I like the fan jibe coming from a fan of a club with fewer than London used to be berated for...such Irony from such a small village with a big church

That’s what we’ve put up with for the last 2 and half seasons. Cant believe we let Betts go without having a proper plan in place instead of that ‘Professional Rugby League’ coach Cummins who is so far out of his depth it’s embarrassing it’s not his fault your not going to say no when only 1 of 12 top jobs become available. Most if not all Vikings fans including myself was calling for Betts to leave but I know now given a few extra players we’ve got in for these qualifiers he would of got us out this situation no problem. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Maybe relegation will do is good, clear the decks, players and boardroom and start again. If only it was that easy!

If we're cherry picking attendances, there were 28,000 at Belle Vue in the 60's, irrelevant, bloody and totally spring to mind.

I do love how you change your own criteria for funding, just to suit your anti Wakefield agenda.

Regarding the many "broken promises" regarding the ground and your wish to penalise Wakefield, suerly, you should give our neighbours and friends at Castleford a mention or, doesn't that fit your agenda and for god's sake dont mention mergers.