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?

I know all about the construction industry , having been in it 20 odd years , and I can tell if a stadium is 4/5 months from completion , I dont need a company like Savilles to tell me , =#FF0000neither do the RFL , they refused to acknowledge the LSV when it was right in front of them with only internal finishing beeding to be done

They just dont have the bottle

Utter bollox

It boils down to them not having the backbone to make a decision

It does make sense and I 100% support it but I think Savills have been asked to give their opinion on who is most likely to currently succeed and if so when exactly the ground will be finished. I think that will play a big part in the final decision.

to have somebody else make a decision for them

People wonder why our sport is not taken seriously by the media and people who dont watch it