Moderator curls up into ball and starts whimpering!

which is probably why there will be only 1 of the teams playing in SL in 2012.

So, now that your stadium driven attempts to get rid of Wakefield and/or Cas are failing, you want to make it an attendance competition!

Make a list of all the franchise-assessed reasons why Wakefield should be the team dropped from SL and let's have a proper, reasoned look at the situation; Ground, crowds, junior development etc etc.

What's the result? Bye bye Salford!

exactly dboy. Salford are gone first.
For me it's the strength of Stade, Toulouse, Halifax or Barrow as to whether one of the Calder clubs goes

as long as there is a chance the stadium at barton gets built, they offer expansion via manchester

that leaves wakey vs cas.

cas are the stronger club.

junior development - both clubs benefit from pretty much the same junior development so it cancels out

cas much larger crowds put them in front of wakey, given neither will get their ground started within a year

if it takes relegation for people to open their eyes so be it

a ground share doesnt mean a merger.

it seems cas proposal is more advanced and closer to completion so it makes more sense for wakey to share with them

by sharing i mean on equal terms as cas, not as their tenants.

either way the distances arent very large and its just ego as to where the stadium is built

if i were a wakey fan, i wouldnt care if my club had to ground share at glasshoughten if it meant the clubs SL status remains,

I think Wakefield feel they are at a much stronger position.

Dont forget Dally the license criteria points were more complex than 'crowds and juniors'.

If we take the ten points highlighted on sky and apply them up to the end of 09 so to speak i'd have Wakey 5-4, what about anyone else?

In planning terms, Cas are in a stronger position due to them having outline PP. In funding terms Wakefield are in a stronger position because that is all accounted for and indeed if they are able to secure further funding can boost capacity to 15K.

We’ll find out this year whether or not the Stanely stadium will get the go ahead, if/when it does they can more or less crack on with construction.

Unfortunately this piece of "new" news has started all the old debates but lets just stick to basic facts for a moment....
the news item referred to simply says that the stadium will be launched in stages. It doesn't say it won't be built. Why is building in stages a problem? As said above, if it's fit for purpose and is not breaking the bank then it's good enough.
If 12k capacity is no.1 priority importance to the RFL then Cas are not the only one in trouble and if the stadium is built with "capicity increasability" then I'm ok with that too.
Sounds like sensible Project Management if the alternative is proving difficult.

Also, when deciding who should be getting franchise, why not stick to the criteria already stated by the RFL rather than picking the one that fits your arguement.....otherwise we'll just end up mirroring the previous epic threads and getting it locked at 500 pages.

The biggest concern I would have if I were a Cas supporter isn't that it's that potentially the ground is going to be built in stages, it would be the fact that he has confirmed they don't have the funding in place to build any of it at present.

I wonder if any of the money that has been WASTED on overseas players could have gone towards the cost of a new stadium for some clubs?