https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/ ... ders-rugby More proof. Not sure what else there is I can post as all articles are interpretive, however, they are all saying the same thing. In regards to the Willows being redeveloped, I can't find any articles proving it but I do know that it was not possible due to the surrounding houses backing onto the stands and lack of car parking around.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/ ... ders-rugby More proof. Not sure what else there is I can post as all articles are interpretive, however, they are all saying the same thing. In regards to the Willows being redeveloped, I can't find any articles proving it but I do know that it was not possible due to the surrounding houses backing onto the stands and lack of car parking around.

Again, nowhere is there evidence of an RFL statement, saying that clubs ABC will be out of SL, if XYZ doesn't happen.

Just a loose interpretation of what "might" happen; an empty threat at best.

The RFL never said any club would be out if they didn't get a new ground. That's the absolute fact of the matter.

All it is Salford saw the chance of a new shiny stadium but the fans didn't like the idea and failed to support them, now it a noose around they neck as the cost will be too much, hope there's a lesson to learn from it

The failure of the Newmarket build may be a blessing in disguise - as long as we get the enabling funding as promised.

Quote: dboy "Again, nowhere is there evidence of an RFL statement, saying that clubs ABC will be out of SL, if XYZ doesn't happen. Just a loose interpretation of what "might" happen; an empty threat at best. The RFL never said any club would be out if they didn't get a new ground. That's the absolute fact of the matter.'" It was the required criteria to gain a License for Super League.Grading was required with a points system. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 138760.stm https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/georgeriley ... _will.html

Quote: dboy "Again, nowhere is there evidence of an RFL statement, saying that clubs ABC will be out of SL, if XYZ doesn't happen. Just a loose interpretation of what "might" happen; an empty threat at best. The RFL never said any club would be out if they didn't get a new ground. That's the absolute fact of the matter.'" It was the required criteria to gain a License for Super League.Grading was required with a points system. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 138760.stm https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/georgeriley ... _will.html

Which again won't happen

Time to move on I think Reds89. Seems like most on here have their own interpretation of a situation they quite frankly know f*ck all about

Really not worth arguing the toss anymore. See you all at Moor Lane sometime guys (unless it's too inconvenient for you all to travel to of course ).

The quality of ground was only one "Licensing" factor in deciding who would be in Superleague. Yes there was pressure on Wakey and Castleford to provide a better facility to play in, but this was impossible at the first time of the licensing due to the refusal of the council to provide any help at all to the clubs.

Then at the next round of licensing Castleford applied still with no prospect of a ground, but were given a license with the footnote "[ithe significant challenge for the club for the next (the planned third) licensing period will be to move to a proposed new facility[/i many many years on any idea of removing Castleford from Superleague remains a joke, as big a joke as the Lewis led falling over to accommodate the Harlequins and Celtic Crusaders.

On that second round of licensing in 2011 Wakefield had also failed to deliver the stadium but all that was said about that was the "stadium position was uncertain"

Again there was no real threat of expulsion at all. Cas had been bottom of SL in 2008 and only Harlequins had worse crowds than Cas and Wakey so low crowds and poor grounds should have seen an end to their SL status, but the RFL were not so stupid as to actually drop them from Superleague and hoist in such as Salford & Celtic Crusaders instead, so they moved to a 14 club Superleague so they didn't have to back their threats with action.

Empty threats from the RFL and promises that could not be kept by Cas and Wakey were just stuff and nonsense......

The idea of "passing the criteria" was an utter joke.

Of course clubs could not pass criteria in Tommy Cooper style[i "just like that"[/i in 2009 with licensing sprung upon them, but three years later when the second round of licenses came about in 2011 only Hull, Leeds, Wigan and Warrington actually passed the criteria in full.....

Saints were criticised for their rubbish ground in the 2011 round of licensing, and were "downgraded" for that.......

The reality was that Richard Lewis came into the game to take it away from being a northern M62 sport. Protecting London was important to him. then introducing Les Catalans was another move which expanded the footprint of Superleague (but shrunk the footprint of the French game) and then along came Celtic Crusaders in Wales.

Just what Lewis wanted, to move towards, a spread of clubs whose expanded geographical positioning would bring in new investment and growth. Eyes were on a scottish club perhaps joining?

Scotland never happened, Wales collapsed, London struggled and may be at their lowest point now, and Catalans ignored their French players remit.......

So clubs were kicked out of SL then?

"Eluded to", "promised" - nonsense.

It's a FACT - the RFL did not say Wakey/Cas/Saints/Salford would be out of SL if they did not build a new ground.

It's also a FACT that neither Wakey or Cas made any promises regarding stadium developments.

And "never intended to materialise" - that's an idiotic thing to say; of course the clubs want better facilities.

Another lazy and simplistic assumption. Neither Wakey or Cas have been fortunate enough to have a rich owner, a willing Council/developers or a bigger football club to scrounge of.