Salfords new stadium looking doubtful until 2011.

Saints will have theirs first at this rate..

This is exactly why teams like Leigh and Widnes should have been given a licence instead of Salford, wakey and celtic.

Yet another botch up from the RFL.

Totally agree. Spend a few quid on some fancy graphics and a website and convince everyone you are going to build a new stadium.

Show me the drawings and show me the work on site, otherwise its all just a load of spin.

Not their fault that the 'credit crunch' turned up, is it? We should just count ourselves lucky that we got the HJ done when capital was more freely available.

Im not having that excuse.

The funds should have been in place long before the 'credit crunch'.

The licence scheme came into being way before the cc and all clubs knew the criteria of having a fit for purpose stadium or at least having one in the pipeline.

All these clubs have done is pull the wool over the RFLs eyes.

I'd rather have teams that can compete and play decent rugby than useless teams with good (but empty) stadiums

Why was the only criteria for things the stadium?

The only one I can fully agree with is Salford as it would appear they lied to get the points for the stadium saying it would be built during this franchise when it seems the chances of that are very slim

The chances of that were always negligible.

The franchise system is cack. I'd wager Celtic will finish bottom in all 3 seasons, their crowds will be poor, the facilities will not improve nor will youth development.

I think you - as usual - are over simplifying and jumping to ill-informed conclusions. You are implying that Salford don't really want a stadium, they just to want to look like they want one. A lot of hard work and effort will have gone into their stadium project and they must be gutted things keep going wrong. Remember we were extremely fortunate Tesco wanted to build a store in the town and couldn't do it without us.

And as others have said - franchises were not simply awarded on stadium related criteria.

Im sorry Seb but I object to your somewhat over critical analysis of my post and also the way you have decided to comunicate it.

Your reply IMO is a personal attack and is not reasonable debate.

As for your comment about Tesco's, are you seriously telling me that their new store was dependent on Warrington Wolves. Tesco's is a giant entity and have massive influence on all things including political decisons both at local and central government. If they wanted a new store in Warrington they would get one simple as.

The reliance was the other way round, ie no tescos no new stadium.

Tesco's store was entirely dependent on Warrington Wolves they had been trying for years to get a big store in but as the council had recently spent A LOT OF MONEY on the Cockhedge Centre they turned them down. The stadium being funded was the answer.

Where exactly did the funding come from for the new stadium?

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, but:

The council, who received the funding from Tesco's for being allowed to build a superstore within the town?

Do you have to turn everything into an argument? Get over yourself. The irony is you accuse me of strong views, yet it's you that starts all these threads with very strong views, and object when anyone offers an alternative perspective - and some truth to counter your guesswork.



Yes. The community benefit of the stadium was THE factor that secured planning permission for a project that contravened national and local planning policy.



No, wrong. They tried and failed TWICE to secure planning permission, once with a retail park and once with a mixed use retail/residential. They were denied planning permission both times.



The reliance was mutual - they needed us for planning permission, we needed them for finance.

Er, no, that's bribery! Quite simply - Tesco funded the stadium build.

I did say it was a shot in the dark. Turns out the gun was pointing towards me.

I'm going to make a complaint against you now for pointing out that I made a daft suggestion.

£10m to tesco is like a tenner to me and you so it was well worth it for them.

Wakey shouldn't have a license? Sitting 5th in the table and on the same points as Leeds? Don't know where you've got your superiority complex from but Wakey have so far more than justified their license.




Completely agree with that. I understand the RFL wanting to make sure rugby grounds have certain standards and facilities but there is way more important criteria than whether a team's stadium will be ready in 2010, 2011 or 2012. I'd much rather have a competitive league than Leigh (for example) who have a lovely stadium but will get hammered each week.

Rugbychick

yes quite rugby chick.

Now remind me, how many games from celtic won this season?

You can't use that as an argument for giving Widnes and Leigh a license. There is no guarantee that they would have won any games yet either. Widnes' financial problems have been well documented and the RFL made the right decision giving them 3 years to prove they are financially solvent. There is no way Leigh would be more competitive than Celtic and the benefit of allowing Celtic the license is the expansion of a top-flight RL team in Wales and not yet another team in the Northern heartland.

Rugbychick

You only have to look at recent results to know that Youth development is going really well at Celtic.
Last season their 'A' team won the RLC National with 99% of the side welsh, and only last Sunday their Under 18s side won the National Youth League Grand Final 32-0 at Widnes against Leigh Miners Rangers.
These two mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg, as the game is without doubt getting stronger and stronger in South Wales which is to be applauded and encouraged rather than mocked.
So to say that they will not improve in that area is untrue.

we will have to agree to disagree there rugby chick.

as for teams like wakefield, they get poor attendances because their ground is terrible with no adequate facilities. poor attendances create rubbish atmospheres which tends to produce poor games.

therefore i think decent stadiums are a must for a SL team.

come the end of the season im sure all the usual suspects will be down at the bottom. for mine i would prefer them to be clubs who have good grounds ie, clubs that are looking to progress.

im sure Leigh could become a force if they were given three years in SL with all the finance that comes with it.

What would Leigh bring to Super League, bugger all. Widnes would bring a bit more but at the end of the day they are not a long term franchise that is going to grow, its a small town with little future, both of those teams would always be struggling to retain their franchise as they would be struggling to grow.

Salford at least is in a growing area with the Quays and media city and there's the prospects of some serious investment, sponsorship and a big population, which has more of a case for a long term Super League franchise than the other clubs.

If we are looking at cutting vulnerable franchises then thats one thing but lets not argue to replace them with others that would struggle - I would rather we trimmed down to 10 teams and upped the quality, than diluted with small town clubs for which the only argument is nostalgia and tradition.