You could be right, but only a certain few people know what has actually happened, and the majority of supporters are not one of them so we have to pick up scraps such as the article referenced and third hand info.

Actually yes, the more and more I look at this I don't think the RFL want to lose a SL team in Wakefield, they just want to lose the currently owned team in Wakefield and of course new facilities to go with it!

Wakefield is still a hot-bed of amateur RL and outside of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Leeds and Sheffield the biggest catchment demographic in the North (taking out the North East of course!).

New ownership, new ground and a well run-club (they would have to demonstrate this, like Widnes have) in NL1 then I think the RFL would want them and Castleford in SL.

I think the RFL didn't want to lose any SL club , but have talked their way into a corner , will they do that again ?

I think you are right again re Belle Vue but any new investor will do the sums and I am sure Newmarket would be a big part of the plan, so would have to be willing and able to cover any possible gaps, but if you are getting a new ground for relatively little then it would be worth it. Also, I think your right, any potential investor would have to do his sums based on NL1 in 2012 but a year is a long time and they would be hoping to keep SL status! Even if things went wrong in July they could still change before the end of this coming SL season... after all, tax bills are coming to all clubs and Leeds test case plays a huge part in clubs futures I suspect!

Starbug, don't rule out a 15 team SL. If Wakefield's potential backer has the money, and rumour is that all of the several interested parties have a few bob, then the RFL might not want to lose them by putting their newly owned team out of the top flight!

I present Probiz, Castleford, Halifax and the WCC!

Sounds a fair enough deal , lose the Magic weekend , keep Wakey

Which is why, I have argued that franchises are given in perpetuity, only revoked or threat of revocation when we see and issue like this or Crusaders rears its head.

Teams should be admitted and demoted on the merits of their business.

They wouldnt need to lose MM,

have the WCC played the same Weekend. Maybe even as part of MM. The Champions have their bye week the first week.

The batley case is true, it was well documented a couple of months ago. And yes it seems the same rules don't apply to SL clubs. IIRC the Batley chairman was very annoyed and implied that they were being forced to pay up their much smaller debts in full in order to take pressure off SL clubs. They were told by the RFL that they couldn't register players until they payed up.

I agree with that - no team should be demoted purely on location. Promoted based on location yes, but not demoted.



Then the 7 'home' teams during the MM lose a home game and the revenue they would have received. Would Wigan want to lose their home game against Saints in a particular season?

You can understand why he'd be annoyed. I'd be flipping fuming!

exactly, this half way house that the lower leagues fought for helps no-one. It doesnt quite make the championships a competition on their own, it doesnt quite give the stability SL needs. If you can contribute to SL your promoted, if you cant your not. If you struggle in SL for a long period or have financial meltdown, your out. There is no need for arbitrary time-frames which help no-one

I think they would need to go back to a random draw, but im sure those teams could receive a payment from SL for their trouble.

any idea how the SL clubs are recompensed from the MM - do they receive a guaranteed sum each or is it dependant on gate receipts etc over the two days ?

£0

£0 on top of the Sky money though isn't it!