But that is what the licensing has come to, RFL to kick a team out.
On the field in the past 2 yrs we aren't the worst, grounds we are in a pot with a few others, financially we are o.k., and youth&english we do well but are still one of the favourites for the drop.
A more transparent and on-field results orientated selection of candidates has to be the way to go.
If you finished in the bottom 2 or financially mis managed your club then you deserve to be considered for the drop.

Blame the clubs. They're the ones who voted to keep SL at 14, even knowing that one championship club was guaranteed a licence if it met application criteria.

I'd like to think Cas voted for potential expansion, but I wouldn't guarantee it.

I still feel that the 'Bottom 2 or Financial' is a way of appeasing those who still would rather have P&R while still having the licence procedure, chances are that if you are in the bottom 2 you will deserve the consideration and you cannot just spend your way out because of the financial side.

But when 'lower grade SL sides' are striving to acheive but still find themselves with a favourite to drop moniker then what?

I would personally give Salford the chop but you and Wakey are the closest to them, its a fact, cry all you want but if you scored the points up then i'd hazard Salford scored the lowest, then Wakey, then Cas. Maybe Crusaders too

But thats not how most see it if you have the expansion teams exempted and then the city clubs looked on with a bit more favour....

p.s. not crying, debating..

The expansion clubs get the extra point in the old system, that was it. Personally, other than that point I dont see how you can judge them any differently other than, scoring that 1 extra point out of ten for expansion and I believe this to be fair imo.
Either way, someone like Quins still beat Cas and Crusaders are thereabouts.

Is the system weighted too much on facilities? Maybe so, but there are plenty of other points available HOWEVER without the facilities its difficult to achieve some of these points, the turnover of £4 million, the 10,000 average and THAT is why it becomes a stadium race. I don't mean to sound awful but sing about planning permissions all you like, youve had ANOTHER three years and not a single brick is laid and we have teams in Chp who were unlucky to miss out who delivered on these promises. SL shouldn't be a closed shop, there should be room to move and right now i'd go 2 up 2 down next time.

Well your going to be pretty disappointed then dico, Salford have a very strong, finacially astute and promising application, we won't be going anywhere apart from moving to a fantastic new stadium and up the table. If anybody is going to be crying I hazard a guess it will be wakefield. Salford are here to stay..whether you like it or not

Why should It be Salford? Come on I'm all yours. ..why don't you go on the salford forum and ask them why we should stay?

As I keep pointing out I agree



I disagree.

I can see why they did it, but I think they made a rod for their own back in promising that one championship club would definitely go up this year, irrespective, and it would be wrong to repeat that mistake in the future.

Personally, this year I'd have awarded the licences to the 14 best applications (given the clubs' insistence on keeping the league at 14) - and I wouldn't necessarily expect that to be the 14 current clubs, I'd still expect Widnes to put in a strong bid and get a licence.

In future years, I'd like to see licences given to the best applications - but without a limit on numbers

I'd generally agree with that as well. Some of us got in in 2008 on future plans - and while we can all probably cite mitigating circumstances around the banking crash and recession - those can't be strung out forever, and we (and Wakey and Salford) knew that in 2008.

As it happens, I'm reasonably confident (and admittedly biased) about Cas's bid, but it does rely on building work taking place early next year and a stadium that is on course to being ready to play in by the start of the 2012 season. And the same applies to Wakey and Salford imo.

If your going to say it's Cas vs Wakey vs Salford for the drop...

Lowest crowds! As poor ground. Worst league position. Poorest academy set up!

New ground won't be complete until after franchise bids go in, so too little too late IMO. New squad also irrelevant as you can't gurantee it will work out!

tb I think thats the way it will go, but right now, in the current climate, staying at 14 was the right way to go.

J20, nail on the head there. Cas and Wakeys youth setup is streets ahead of Salfords and on the pitch they've been better for the license period. There's just two examples. As I said before I'd go 2 up 2 down and see how we go

Surely after just posting a million pound profit in thus current climate you have to bring Widnes up? I feel that's the major thing in our favour for the RFL we wouldn't be using SKY money to cover bills etc we'd spend it all on players and investing in our academy and community / development work etc without needing an extra penny... Surely this can only be a good thing?