It is silly to assume that people did not read what TRB wrote. Perhaps we understand the process and can read what the RFL actually wrote!

The RFL will ask Savills to indicate whether the stadium new builds or developments will be complete by early Feb 2012. If the answer is no then the 'scoring' wil be done on the current facilities and the 'score' will probably be a poor one. If savilles say yes the scoring will be done on the new facilities. Where has there been any suggestion that the applications will be dismissed?

Can you please expand on this?
How are Wakefield any further forward than Salford?

Yes and that is why Savills are going to assess whether a stadium will be fit to use early Feb 2012 for the start of SL. If they have to be ready for SL games in Feb I assumed they would need to be playing some friendlies there by December 2011.

if none of these clubs are ready to go for Feb 2012 they will all score poorly re facilities. This rules out all the 'the stadium is on the way' ' we will have one soon' cr*p that we heard during the last round.

Say Trinity submit in their application that they intend to play their home games for the 2012 season at Oakwell until their new stadium is ready. They will have satisfied the RFL criteria on the stadium front.

Listen, I am more than happy to have a sensible debate with you about this but your 'trolling' record goes before you, especially when the words Wakefield are in anyone's posts!!!

Ok, I might once again live to regret this but I will give you a chance.

You say the the RFL 'will ask Savill's' to indicate whether the stadium new builds will be complete for Feb 2012, well that is not what I understand they have already been asked to look at because I and the RFL can pretty much tell you the answer to that with a fairly high degree of certainty and that would be... none of them!

The RFL are doing there home work and as I have already said I think it highly likely that not all three of them will pull this off and at least one will fall, unfortunately, if they all do pull it off (which is highly unlikley) then it becomes interesting and I can still this going out to a 15 team comp.

But that would be wrong IMO , a few years ago Leigh suggested they would play at the Reebok until improvements were made if we got promotion , we were refused , I understand where you are coming from , just that it isn't what has been promised , playing at Oakwell would seriously reduce Trinity's already somewhat fragile finances

Not nice I know , but that is the way it is

Not really as Wakefiekd at last bids promised a move to a new rugby stadium. So to last min say oh were going to Barnsley wouldn't fit for me. At least Saints were clear about Widnes move if Wajey throw Barnsley cover inbit would just be more desperation again and another unfilled promise on stadium after years of plenty gone by.

Well that's the key from what we were told by the RFL in 2007 doesn't matter about squad age or how good youth side is all that matters is how many if YOUR developed products are regually on the pitch. How many Reds trained players played say 1/3 (10?) games last year? As that's what they look at (according to them last time).

FFs , how much money are they paying for that ?

I can do that by looking at the site , if there is a big stadium there , then it will be ready , if there is a pile of dirt , it wont

Once again a quite pathetic side step by the RFL to not get blamed , " It was Saville's decision , not ours "

Unbelievable , they are willing to spend probably tens of thousands of pounds to have somebody to cover their 4rses , then they pay Ralph Rimmer probably another 100 K to be the one making the phone call

They disgust me

Less backbone than a jellyfish , the pair of them

Ok, no problems, and maybe the terms further forward and also pole-position are misleading.

I firstly think that whichever way you look at it at the moment, it is tight! Salford seemingly have finance in place but of course the majority of that is coming from the local authority. Although work has started on site I am not aware (and I could be wrong here, but I usually hear about these things in my day job) of any sub-structure and super-structure subbies having order as yet placed and the current main contract order still only extends to enabling works.

Wakefield have the money but that totally relies on the official political crap phase of the next 20+ days going to plan! If it doesn't they could be in serious trouble, but I can only see that decision going one way and that Yorkcourt having someone contracted to do the whole stadium project pre-Christmas and then on site in February is very likely.

Castleford, like Salford have all the official stuff out of the way but still have not submitted a reserved matters application or have revealed much in the way of detail about the scheme. They have issues with Wheldon Road, which I understand is not sold at all, but has an option, they don't seem to have all the money required to complete even if they do get started and if what I have heard to day from a colleague turns out to be true, then they do have problems.

I am not putting any of these clubs down and my heartfelt wish is that we keep them all in SL and boot the failed Crusaders experiment into touch. I am just calling it as I see it and based on some industry knowledge.

I know where you are coming from and I understand your frustrations but if only the construction industry was that simple... we could do with out QS's and construction lawyers!

I have been in this industry too long and let me tell you I have not won a project until the main contractor/client returns and seals the contract! I am never 100% sure if I will get paid, with all the credit checks in the world, until they approve my first valuation... even then what they give me and what I say I have built and should be paid for or any valuation is nearly always different and always less!

Savills are an large astute company with a full understand what a real contract and a sham contract look like and that is they only way you will get any certainty... even then, it is never certain till the keys are handed over!

The trolling accusation comes from wakey fans who cannot tolerate a different viewpoint. They want to write about me and I want to write about RL. Go figure.

You and the RFL could well be able to tell me which, if any, stadiums will be ready. However by using Savills, a reputable business, the RFL can claim to have an independent view. That makes sense.

I think a 'lead body' should get good quality professional advice. If they want good legal advice then they should consult a high quaity law firm. Likewise it makes sense to consult someone like Savills re the stadium builds. Would you prefer Rimmer and Wood to make decisions on whether a stadium will be ready in Feb 2012 based on what they see and discover in may/June 2011? I would not. Indeed if Rimmer and Wood opted to make these decisions there would be some posters only to happy to slag them off for doing so.

So comparing Salford and Wakefield only:
Both Wakefield and Salford have the money in place (in Salford's case £10million loan from local authority and the same from Peel, not sure where the funding for Wakefield is coming from?).
Salford have all the red tape sorted out, Wakefield have not.
Salford have started work on site (£4million from NWDA spent on enabling due to be completed Nov 5th), Wakefield have not started on site yet.
The successful bidder for the Stadium phase of Salford's is expected next week, not sure about Wakefields?

Yes, I think the terms "further forward" and "pole position" do look a little misleading

If they're laying bricks and the stadium will be built before the end of that franchise round then I don;t see why you wouldn;t count it. Seems a bit pedantic to say no points when they may be only 12months out from moving into a modern stadia. Fair enough if building hasn;t started but if it has then what's the problem?