they DO ground share, with united...................you forgot didn't you?

Well it makes me feel better that Sheffield won last night ,all we need now is for them to beat Fax and get into the final. This saying comes to mind " Its not how you start its how you finish "

Definitely won't win the Final if we don't beat Fax.

Don't forget we've drawn and won at Post Office Road this season. Or did those results pass you by ?

I said a month ago that any of the six could win it - it sometimes depends on little things that happen on the day.

I fear the round fat little 2@ that coaches the dee dars!
He knows how to pick fev's pocket - he's done it so many times over the years!
I will probably be more apprehensive playing the Dee dars than Fax!! Unless of course, my mate Jamie gets the final!!!

Why Would Widnes be worried?

Have sheffield managed to attract a regular season average of 2,500 through the gates each week?

Ahh right, absolutely nothing for Widnes to be worried about then is there.

Who are you trying to persuade Tony, us or you?

Well in a pro sport which wants to be treated seriously why not promote the best side from one league and demote the one finishing bottom of the higher league ?

Seems to work ok in footie.

Because a pro team in Sheffield is far more attractive than one in Widnes - 5 miles from Saints & Wire.
Have you forgotten that the RFL are expanding?

Some bits of it are

Sl is expanding at about the same rate as im getting fat. had a couple of years where i have put a few pounds on but now i have peaked ( I hope ). The RFL could not afford to prop anymore clubs up or have any more clubs in SL with Sub 5K average gates.

What i said is true, The RFL say the same crap every time they are asked. The minimum requirement must be met, and if thats the case only Widnes and Fax have any chance to apply. And im not 100% certain about Fax and their bid ( £1M turnover and stadium Being the points im unsure about ).

And i agree with the Top team should go up way of thinking. But i dont agree with it as the cap is now. Should still be 40% of turnover max spend on players salaries, this way the strong well supported clubs can build for the SL and not be held back by the Barrow's, Batley's and Sheffield's of this world.

But Sheffield are not SL material, they may be if they can build on their recent success but as things are they are in worse position than Fev to apply. Big City does not always equal big crowds. Huddersfield, London and Sheffield are proof of that.

TonyGee wrote "And i agree with the Top team should go up way of thinking. But i dont agree with it as the cap is now. Should still be 40% of turnover max spend on players salaries, this way the strong well supported clubs can build for the SL and not be held back by the Barrow's, Batley's and Sheffield's of this world."

Hang on a minute, Widnes fans accused Barrow of buying the title last year and now they are holding Widnes back from reaching their potential because of Barrows weak financial position. Clubs like Widnes are the sole reason there is such stringent financial controls on salaries. You were in administration in 2007 because you were overspending, along with clubs like Oldham, Hunslet, Whitehaven, Doncaster, Bramley, Keighley, Gateshead etc. These clubs have failed to manage their finances effectively and have lead to the situation whereby the governing body has issued legislation to limit what clubs can pay in salaries to try and prevent the embarrassing number of clubs entering administration.

Interestingly two of the clubs you cited have continuous histories, have never been in administration and still own their own grounds as business assets. Widnes have none of these things.

But until they become part of the licensing criteria they are as meaningless as every other time we hear that line from Barrow fans.

They are not meaningless at all and will only be considered such by those who no longer have them, to the clubs in questions they are a source of pride and rightly so.

Consider the following as a fan of Rugby League rather than our respective clubs. Is the current SL franchise criteria what all clubs should be aspiring to?

Should it not be things like proven financial stability, sound business practice and a history of operating within whatever financial constraints apply?. Having strong community links and youth development programmes that start in schools, structured progression into club academies, educational and professional/career development schemes for players leaving the game, this list could go on. The point being the governance of the sport and the aspirations of clubs are being driven by this target orientated "box ticking" nonsense rather than policies supporting the long term future of the sport across the country.