So we have a SL of 2/3 clubs ?

That sounds exciting

id say wigan, hull are pretty much perfect.
st helens in their new ground join them

leeds have money, crowds, just fix up headingly.

thats 4 fantastic clubs

hudds, warrington, hull kr and les catalans are getting better.

bradford could do with a new ground but are a big club.

so basically its quins and Wrexham who are expansion clubs and allowed lesser crowds.

leaving just salford, cas and wakey as clubs that need to improve or be replaced.

widnes will take one of those clubs out

i see widnes in SL as another warrington

i also think in 5 years time there wont be a poor heartland club in SL, and the lowest one will be at 8000 / 9000 crowds.

having a strong first team in the championship is mainly a waste of funds cause its going to get replaced by new players in SL

what about widnes profits dear?

So you suggest that all the clubs in the Championship that have ambition to get into SL , dont actually bother trying to assemble a decent team to win the Championship ?

That will help them build up their crowds and their sponsorship

How exactly will that help them achieve the on field criteria ?

You do realise that you can be relegated from 9th in an 11 team competition in the Championship , but if you do get relegated you cannot apply for SL

, you really havent thought this through , have you ?

So saints dont yet have a decent ground , and are losing over half a million a year

Leeds have had 3/4 s of a new stand built in the last 70 odd years , hardly what a club of their standing should be proud of

Huddersfields crowds are dire , HKR are millions in debt

Bradford are no longer a big club , they are having to basically let fans in virtually free from next season , Odsal is a disgrace

Quins and Wrexham are a joke

How ' SUPER '

What about Widnes's profits ? , they lost a million in 2008 , and have made a million in 2009 , Yeah right

You havent a clue

thanks for allowing me the opportunity to make all my points re franchising.

theres no need to repeat them, other people on here will get it.

I am genuinely not sure what planet some posters appear to be on, but it isn't the one called earth.

The challenge has been set, quite rightly, to all clubs to go out and improve the infrastructure at their club. Each club has had to apply whatever resources available to comply with this demand and now the 'weak' ones in this respect are all actively pursuing new stadia ranging in price from around £11m to £20m+ - yet they are being told that there may not be room at the table for them? In what other line business would someone invest that type of money with no re-assurance of some kind of return on their investment?

I know people will point to other clubs in the National Leagues who have faced this challenge, it does seem somewhat devisive to suggest that this a major flaw in a process which is, in itself, an entirely unfair system where we all know that several clubs are exempt almost regardless of their application.

Surely the major flaw here can be overcome by the simple addition of one club to the existing 14 - IF the existing 14 come up to scratch in this respect?

FWIW the irony of our overseas contributors is of course that investment made is always on the back of a known presence in the NRL - thus guaranteeing a return on investment made. If we desire that investment, surely it's not too much to ask for some kind of guaranteed return.

This applies to all the clubs involved!

If I am reading this correctly some posters are saying that although all clubs knew the rules with regard to the state of play re stadia some are now going to get upset (legal action!) if they have a half built stadium and they are shown the door.
Now seeing as they all knew where they stood who's fault is it if they didnt make this crystal clear to their financial partners?
Or are we now saying that they have decided to pull a fast one on the RFL?

That makes it sound as simple as deciding whether to go out and buy the latest CD by your favourite band. It isn't, and we shoudl be applauding any succesful efforts by clubs, particularly those without soccer clubs involved, who find a way to deliver top class facilities.

I'm sure people will WHEN they do DELIVER which is they key, surely you can understand some doubters? It's not as if some clubs don't have previous? And as you say it's great when clubs make progress on their own so if at a similar stage come franchises would you take Cas as better than yourselves? As far as I am concerned going off thread title no side has done enough as all promised a completed project by now. None have delivered and that's why they are the 'at risk' sides.

So take stadiums out and look at where other sides have invested money team, youth, marketing etc. Who has better finances? That's what clubs will be judged on (adding league placings) for me that puts Salford & Wakey at most risk. And recruitment next season with neither paying for stadium shows Salford have the better potential to push forwards as a club.

Indeed but you knew the rules.
Its no good now bleating because you can't adhere to them.
Let me ask you a few questions.

Who promised a new ground our major improvements on origionally entering SL was it the RFL or Wakefield?

Who on gaining a SL licence last time agreed that they had to have a new stadium ready for the START of the 2012 season was it the RFL or Wakefield?

Who going by some posters on here haven't been crystal clear with their financial partners was it the RFL or Wakefield?

Now looking at that who is ultimately responsible if Wakefield dont get a franchise due to them not getting their stadium built in time?

BTW im not slagging Wakey off in just making a point that if they miss out they cant blame anybody but themselves and any talk of legal action should be laughable because I would hope Wakey will have made sure their partners would know that a uncompleted stadium in Feb 2012 would not be counted.

They can come up to scratch , build a stadium inside the next 7 months and they will be ' up to scratch '