I can understand them with nice stadiums having a pop,But when i stand at the back of the sticks at leeds witch is the same as the north stand at wakey ,looking at that sandpit of a pitch i dont see your point.

Good on Wakey, excellent news for them when it all comes off.

For people saying the new roof is pointless, whose to say that when the new stadium gets built they can't sell it on to someone else, it could be a good cheap option for HKR for the South end of the ground after the North has been built.

Or Leeds for their Western Terrace.

They did They sold assets to generate some cash and used innovative agreements with existing sponsors to top that up a little.

Unlike Wakey, Leeds have no need or reason or intention to cover the W Terrace.

Leeds don't have a need or reason to improve the experience for the away supporters? Surely the people running a ‘Grade A’ (is Headingley a Grade A?) stadium should have intentions of doing so.

Headingley is grade A (it ****es all over the criteria - in fact it's probably the only traditional RL ground fully compliant with Framing the Future). I had a chat with the S Stand architect last year - after that project is done, they're waiting on YCCC to find their cash to do the N Stand. After that, the W Terrace may need replacing, but it will always be an open terrace, possibly with facilities underneath. That is years and years (possibly decades and decades) away though.

Although a roof is feasible it is not considered desirable - not only due to planning considerations but also because the club knows an open end is popular when it's sunny. We get more sun in Leeds than Barcelona y'know.

Yes, watching RL on open terracing when the sun is shining is a joy, but conversely, as someone who frequents Belle Vue quite often, it is terrible when it’s raining.

I know a common reason as to why the end terrace at Headingley cannot be covered is due to the houses behind it, however if you look at the latest image of the new roof over the Northern Terrace at Belle Vue, the supports at the back of the terrace hardly rise significantly above the existing elevation, so that shouldn’t be an issue with this cheap solution.

Still if a Grade A stadium still leaves some supporters vulnerable to the elements, then I’ll have to amend what I thought a Grade A stadium constituted.

Fairly straightforward as defined by the RFL. Since the average Leeds attendance could all be accommodated under cover it is not the most pressing of priorities to erect further cover.

It may satisfy the technical requirements as to being a grade A stadium....but does the general fan think it's worthy of grade A status? Doubtful.

That assumes that the 'posts' will not be moved and therefore Khlav makes a valid point about Headingley in the longer term. Leeds might still get a grade A licence overall but in the future the stadium could be re-judged as a grade B against the newer stadiums at Warrington, Saints, City of Salford and when Newmarket and Glasshoughton hopefully both get built then, you have to think that the RFL will have to move the stadium compatibility element of the license to take account of this!

This is also why the whole issue of the RFL buying out Bradford's long term lease caused so much of an issue, because while Headingley might be re-judged as a grade B stadium at worst in the future, what would Odsal be graded as with no improvements?

What criteria do people want to judge an older stadium by? How will or can "new" and "shiny" be written into the licence criteria? It's impossible to define - particularly in Headingley's case because, unlike most other classic grounds, it has had millions thrown at and is mostly shiny anyway! (especially the bits that really matter to Leeds, the prawn sandwich zones...)

Leeds don't have a sugar daddy willing to throw cash at the club; nor do they have the option to sell the ground and start elsewhere so replacing any of the stands has inevitably to be done piecemeal. For the time being, especially since another wedge of cash has just been thrown at the S Stand, it remains somewhat antiquated in places but perfectly serviceable.

What does that matter? If it meets the standards set, then its a grade A stadium.

Stadiums don't need to be new to offer great facilities, great viewing, covered seating etc. I've visted Wigans stadium and whilst the seats and view were great the food outlets were terrible, the ques at the toilets were no shorter and the place was a bit souless I felt. You can only judge a ground on its capacity, facilities etc and they should also include corporate facilities in the criteria as that is a major financial sustainability factor these days.