Apart from Wigan, who went bust and rent from a soccer team, all of those clubs were reliant on either direct local authority funding or in the case of Warrington and St Helens local councils who were fully behind them on inquiries and allowing enabling developments etc.

Where that hasn't been the case, particularly Wakefield MBC, the ability for clubs alone to raise the finances for significant ground redevelopment and pushing through the planning process makes it very, very difficult indeed to find a viable route to success.

So it really is silly and mindlessly partisan to suggest it's some sort of East vs West thing. This is very much a club-by-club issue, each of them seeking to progress what is possible. The active disdain of Wakefield council for years and years in helping Cas or Wakefield get new grounds or redevelop their existing ones is finally changing and we are beginning to see the sort of results clubs with more favourable local authorities have seen some time ago.

No club, even those few who effectively funded their stadium redevelopments themselves, can do much without a co-operative local council. If your council or a local soccer club has built you a ground then that's great - but it's pretty weak to use that to gloat over those who haven't been so fortunate.

That’s just lame excuses though, Superleague should go back to Framing the Future model instead of moving the goal posts because councils won’t buy into it. If that means a 10 team Superleahe to showcase our sport as professional with the correct image profile then so be it.

The thing which is absolutely fundamental to the development of stadia for every single Rugby League team, even those who are paying for it themselves, is just "lame excuses".

OK, this clearly isn't going to be a very adult discussion.

Framing the Future Model was very fundamental in its creation. We have a very similar issue with overseas players the Framing of the Future was to promote club academies to promote the game from grass roots level. The RFL and Superleague moved the goalposts on that one as well and we have around 7 overseas players at clubs, young players struggle with opportunity and we lost some Sport England funding in the process.

We can’t keep faffing about on this merry go round we are just sleep walking into obscurity with other sports.

This is just my opinion on what’s going and I will leave it at that.

That is a fundamentally different question and one totally within the control of the clubs and the RFL. I can't see any relationship at all with the matter at hand.

How long? About 105 years in the wider Wakefield district clearly.

Makes me laugh all these supporters of club that have had helping hands to get decent stadiums yet forget their holes they played out of, rugby league family indeed

I'll never show the snobbery that some do on here if we ever get this refurb done at Belle Vue

Oh dear, please try and keep up.

Do you think it was Trinity trying to delay things or would you think that the local authority had something to do with it

Quote: The Ghost of '99 "Some people will never take the time to understand the reality. They sit back in their soccer club or council funded stadium and demand to know why everyone else hasn't done the same.'" Indeed. Planning was granted in 2012 but, it seems that we needed to wait for the former Leader of WMDC to move on before any proper support and action was properly permitted. At least there is a date for the bulldozers to move in and hopefully, everyone will see the benefit: https://www.thestadiumbusiness.com/2022 ... agreement/

Quote: The Ghost of '99 "Some people will never take the time to understand the reality. They sit back in their soccer club or council funded stadium and demand to know why everyone else hasn't done the same.'" Indeed. Planning was granted in 2012 but, it seems that we needed to wait for the former Leader of WMDC to move on before any proper support and action was properly permitted. At least there is a date for the bulldozers to move in and hopefully, everyone will see the benefit: https://www.thestadiumbusiness.com/2022 ... agreement/

Pros and cons in everything but i think R.L. teams that share with football clubs (or even with a Rugby Union club, in Salford's case)have a major disadvantage because the 'major' entity (it seems) takes over to the detriment of the Rugby League team. Wigan and Huddersfield i believe are both now minor partners in their joint stadiums (despite in Wigan's case) being the more popular sport there and Hull FC facing enormous financial problems (and tenure difficulties) because Hull City have ownership of the SMC and call all the shots. Quite ironic really as it was Adam Pearson in his previous role at the Hull City who negotiated the terms and conditions with Hull FC that he is now complaining about.
A big advantage to R.L. teams who own their grounds is the advantage to generate many different income streams, which means the grounds can be used for other events 12 months of the year rather than just on match days once a fortnight during the season.
I do think some teams both inside and outside of Super League will be 'cutting their cloth'; accordingly just in order to survive never mind prosper.

And you are only here because your club lied about the fake merger with Sheffield Eagles. Some people have very short selective memories.