It appears that the name of Bramley will disappear once again from the Rugby League map after a decision by the National Conference League to reject their application for entry into a league in which they’ve competed over the past season. The original Bramley Rugby League Club folded in 1999 after years of mismanagement but supporters soon rallied around and the club was reborn in 2004 playing as the Buffaloes in what was the fourth tier of the national summer game. READ MORE ON THIS STORY....

It appears that the name of Bramley will disappear once again from the Rugby League map after a decision by the National Conference League to reject their application for entry into a league in which they’ve competed over the past season. The original Bramley Rugby League Club folded in 1999 after years of mismanagement but supporters soon rallied around and the club was reborn in 2004 playing as the Buffaloes in what was the fourth tier of the national summer game. READ MORE ON THIS STORY....

No, failing nearly all NCL criteria killed the Bramley dream...

I did wonder. Was it just politics? What kind of criteria do they have just out of interest?

They needed reserves and juniors. Also they weren't in the process of getting Clubmark and they called off fixtures due to a lack of a team. I believe renting from another NCL club (Stanningley) counted against them.

The thing is the NCL have turned away many clubs in the past due to lack of numbers (9 from 18 applicants were turned away this time), so they can hardly just make an exception for one club.

The sad part is the lack of an appropriate lower division for them to drop into.

I just don't see the point, I mean, there aren't enough clubs anyway for us to be turning away clubs with nowhere else to go.

Seems crazy to me, it does however make you see that these areas of the game are like the wild west with little direction.

Not really, if the Conference have minimum standards that Bramley failed to meet then there is no argument.

Shame the upper exhelons of rugby league don't folllow the same example

NL3/RLCN/NCL3 has always been a shambles with clubs dropping out and scratching fixtures left, right and centre. The NCL had been a stable league.

The difference is the NCL has minimum criteria and NL3/RLCN/NCL3 has let anyone in.

The stability of a whole league should not be sacrificed for the sake of Bramley (everyone would need letting in if they were). Also don't forget Bramley can't raise a team in April due to their players having winter commitments and yet the NCL starts in March and ends in October (they also called off the last regular season game)

sorry, but that's a really lazy throw away statement - and I've seen RL journalists make similar comments!

The sport is trying to do two things in my view:

1) raise standards
2) increase participation

If you are running a club in the amateur game you're aim (in my opinion) should fundamentally have to include increasing participation; the fact that the NCL, as our elite amateur competition, requires sides to run reserve teams and also have a junior section is a good thing.

Without this, anyone could take a bucket-full of cash, pay lads from other clubs to switch, and then be 'good enough' to play in our elite amateur competition. what does that do for the sport?

Bramley have been trapped by circumstance - folding as a pro-club, then trying to still run a pro-club model in an amateur competition but with amateur players. They got by on that basis when there was a winter NCL and they could utlise players from that competition to play summer games...but now the NCL has switched to summer they're stuck - they don't meet the criteria of the competition, and there has to be question marks about how they can even field a team (when they don;t have their own set-up or players committed to them alone!). They're the masters of their own operating model however and shouldn't be expecting that an exception be made for them! Maybe they thought they'd be able to pop back into the pro-ranks at some point, but given where they are they could have also looked to address what was necessary to meet the criteria as many other sides have done over many years!

as for no direction. there is direction which supports the growth of the game. there are inevitably things that individual clubs don't like etc. but there are 40+ clubs in the NCL, a host of others applying (and in doing so, striving to reach the standads required of the competition) and the suggestion seems to be that all that gets thrown out with the bath water because 'Bramley' (however historic the name!) have had a very very public moan!

I fail to see how they can have any complaints whatsoever, they have constantly relied on other clubs players, on total rl some bramley fan is going mad but with no structure to the club, very minimal 'bramley' players no juniors, no A team, no ground of their own. But they still think they deserve entering, think they need to sort the club before blaming everyone else

I've had tons of abuse directed my way by troglodytes associated with the club for stating that simple fact.

Ive seen pal, they are delusional nothing but a summer side feeding stanningleys coffers, stanningley have it down to a t with them

That's correct. The ability to increase participation is a fundamental, but not just in a small number of siloed squads within your club. You need to have a big focus on player pathways, enabling progression right from your lowest juniors up to open age.

It not only makes increasing participation a perpetual thing, but gives you the player resources to compete in the long term.

Maybe the only way back for Bramley is to drop down to regional leagues i.e pennine and if they are serious about wanting to step up to the NCL start building the relevent structures.

It may take a while but it is possible.

They should have been refused based on their club badge. What the hell is that?