Because the difference is too big between Semi-pro and pro RL.

it isnt, you would have to be particularly stupid to believe anything i have said could possibly lead you to the conclusion I believe Wakefield should be relegated simply because we dont have P+R or because other clubs failed to prepare for relegation. Wakefields survival or relegation is dependant solely on Wakefield.

That was only a calculation that James Elston made in response to a question about how big our attendance will need to be for the club to financially wash its face while spending the full salary cap!

The ability to spend the full salary gap is there right now and should we maintain a super league status we will have the ability to spend the full salary cap irrespective of the attendances.

But that would go completely against what AG said he wanted Wakefield to be, according to those that went to the evening with event, which was a self-sufficient club.

Also, with the RFL looking at 10k attendances, I think the RFL will want to move away from sugar-daddy owners to try and get clubs to grow fanbases and their businesses.

The gap between semipro and pro rugby league is and always has been there for people to see and plan for well in advance of any promotion push for relegation battle. Only clubs foolish enough to gamble their whole existence on achieving or maintaining super league status would find themselves staring down the barrel of extinction due to not being promoted or relegation.

You would have to be particularly stupid not to see the comparisons between your foolish statements and some of the Rugby football league's motivations for removing promotion and relegation, motivations which have partially led to the introductions of franchising which now places Wakefield in jeopardy. Pull the blinkers on if you wish but you only reveal yourself as a hypocrite

It's nothing to do with stadiums or even crowds, both of these things are largely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. The only way the competition and the sport is going to grow is with more exposure from the media, and most of media outlets in this country are not going to be bothered about a competition based solely along the M62. Therefore I would never support a team like Wakefield from getting in ahead of an expansion club. Why do you think Sky insist on a London club? It's because they know their viewing figures would take a hit without any intrest in the capital. Bums on seats isn't at all important compared to viewing figures and television rights.

I know the club has alot of history and I do have sympathy with the fans but we are not going to move forward by looking at the past. Fwiw aside from the crowds a team like Harlequins beats Wakefield hands down in every department (and Wakefields attendences are nothing to write home about anyway).

And clubs who didnt, couldnt compete. The SL salary cap is more than 5 times the championship. How were clubs supposed to sign the best sponsorship deals, or the best players when they were only likely to see 1 year of SL rugby?

P+R led us to the ridiculous situation where Wakefield were putting out teams with 12 overseas players and struggling to bring through any youngsters because their only objective could ever be avoiding relegation.

The idea that either I or the RFL would like to see Wakefield relegated because there is no P+R or because other clubs struggled to bridge the gap is simply laughable nonsense which you have made up

I was at the evening and know exactly what was said, why it was said and how it was said!

Andrew Glover has stated that he wishes to move the club into position where the business model provides enough financial support to sustain the club without the need for further investment from individuals. To do that will perhaps take a number of years. In the meantime Andrew Glover has confirmed that he has the financial wherewithal and is willing to invest enough money in the club to allow John Kear to spend the full salary cap while at the same time improving all aspects of the club in the quest to make it self-sustaining. It was that statement that prompted a question from the supporters to which James Elston made a quick calculation regarding how big the attendances would need to be for the club to become self-sufficient.

That's interesting because Neville Smith who has been the director of super league's live broadcasts for about 20 years argues that that is a complete fallacy.

I doubt he would be involved in discussions between the RFL/IMG and (was) Vic Wakeling and (will be) Barney Francis

And now we have at least on side in SL that could turn out that many without the threat of relegation, thats working then eh.

Coming from someone who's done this for years on here whats the problem?

Are you really wanting to pretend the situations are the same? If so im sure you can find somebody who suffers fools better than I do to explain the very obvious differences to you.

Listen you fool, you said 12 for Wakey and i said another team team with 12.


Now both those 12's look the same, the only difference is Wakey and thats all you need, fool.

By bringing together the board of investors who are prepared to underwrite the costs of reaching and sustaining a place in super league in the same way that the much maligned Ted Richardson had to do for the first two years of Wakefield Trinity's stay in super league, by methodically building the revenue streams that support the club and doing so on solid foundations, by employing quality people to carry out essential roles within the organisation such as marketing, community work and junior development, by attracting sponsors will share in the vision of seeing the club compete in the highest division our sport has to offer, in short by employing long-term sustainable strategies which build the club from the bottom up, which are adaptable and sustainable and to which everyone is committed to a long-term.



That is one of your most ill informed and ignorant statements of recent times.
The relaxation of the overseas quota, EU employment law, the development of the KOLPAK ruling and the relaxation of the exemption rules are what lead to a number of clubs recruiting far too many overseas players.
Your suggestion that Wakefield Trinity did not develop their own juniors during that time is simply moronic! Unfortunately for Wakefield they do not have the financial strength to hold off larger predator clubs like Wigan, Melbourne, Leeds, Warrington even a Ken Davey financed Huddersfield. Stripped of their home developed talent Wakefield had little choice but to sign overseas players in order to compete against relegation but this was a symptom not a cause.



OH! I'm another poster making things up, change the record, if you can't understand the statement or are incapable of formulating an answer just say so!

All the same, I'll accept his informed oppinion of the situation over your guess!

clearly you do need somebody to explain the very obvious difference between Wakefield and Crusaders.