Guess it's down to the council then not that trailfinders would be allowed to the top division with temporary stands anyway

Why not? Bath are!

Apparently the toilet situation, with the players using the same toilets as fans was cleared as acceptable by the rfu! Quite odd. The extra toilet block built for the “away team “ was not essential.

Bath were already in the top flight when the rules came out so it doesn't apply. There was also a rule of having first choice on pitch which most didn't have when sharing with a football team. it was only when London Welsh were willing to take the rfu to court did the authorities relent. It is said that if bath get relegated they would not meet the criteria was told there was/Is plans to share with Swindon if this ever happens.

Not really sure where the sharing with a football team comes in, the reason Bath have to take the temporary stand down is due to use of the land and the cricket pitch. The land they play on has restrictions as to fair and equal use, unlike Trailfinders. So pretty sure any temporary stand at Ealing would need approval even if it was to come down after use, I have no links only word of mouth from Ealing residents with links to the club, it has been discussed with the local authority and is an option.
For the superior sport I doubt even a temporary stand would get us to super league standards, so either an exemption or our nomadic existence kicks in again. Realistically do we need a 10k stadium? No! A 5 k maybe but would the RFL accept that?
FWIW could never see Bath RU sharing with Swindon Town

Maybe we could be a team that doesn't have a home ground and play games at different stadiums in the south. 13 games not massively difficult to sort out. When we play Salford, Wakey etc we could host that at Ealing

Some Aussie teams don't have home grounds

Yeah we could stay permanently on the road like Toronto !

...and ignore the cap too?

Being nomadic during the season is marketing suicide, especially with DH holding the purse strings. Much better to get permission to erect a 2,500 seat temporary stand and fill the place with 5,000 fans for all games........do that for a couple of seasons and then if need be take Wigan, Leeds and Saints OTR, but realistically no other team averaged more than that in the capital, even before" the Gus years".......3 Event games to fill a 10k stadium.....but let's rewind..........Sheffield this week.

Groundsharing with a football club is seen as a problem due to tv coverage even though half the league were groundsharing. any club wanting promotion were not allowed. Exeter had the urinals measured at their ground(22 cms apart apparently) the rfu tried their hardest to stop exeters promotion. As for Bath the rec wouldn't pass the criteria so I assume Swindon is their nearest option.

1. Bath are a mid to upper table side and I doubt will be relegated in the near future.
2. They are in the early stages of designing a new stadium within the current UNESCO heritage site and knowing how Union "greases wheels" I can't see them facing much opposition.
3. Surely the ETRU/Broncos have already contacted the council to sound out the process for applying for temporary seating?

Any new stadium in Bath at the current ground would have to incorporate mobile stand similar to what they currently have. That is what the plans include. They will never get permission for a permenant stand in the current location, that field has to be multi sport.
If Bath moved out of the city they would most likely go to Bristol not Swindon.
It’s only word of month so sorry dog no link for you, but already shown I don’t make it up, but contacts in Ealing with links to the club have said the temporary stand issue has been discussed, and approved, not sure of the size or restrictions.
For the middle 8 games broncos could have had a temporary stand but decided it was not required.

Thanks for the update on Bath. I feel that they'd never be "banned' from re-entering the Aviva on the basis of a temporary stand.....they get 14k at home as an average and they got 60k to Twickenham on the road.......if there were bigger clubs waiting to step up, then maybe, but I don't see them as being refused entry.
I'd hope that if we continue as we are and look set for the 8's, that the club announce that if we go up, we are staying put....

Good article from Gavin Willacy
rlhttps://www.theguardian.com/sport/no-helmets-required/2018/feb/27/rugby-league-structure-super-london-toronto-winter-olympicsrl

It is staggering though that nobody really knows what the RFL are discussing for next season, let alone what it is likely to be. Effectively freezes any planning for Championship clubs.

The TV rights for a super 8 type system are signed over to Sky to 2021, so suspect there will not be a big enough consensus of SL clubs to force a change. Interesting times.

Bath is a strange one, when they talked about moving to the outskirts of the city with a new perpose built stadium there was up roar. But the current ground they have to keep one side open or available to be open as the playing field use has to be multi sport. I can’t see them moving, but agree with you the rfu would never bar them from the top flight.
But for us, I think the RFL need to be realistic, we are a long way, a long long way from 10k crowds, a 5k capacity is all we would need. I would love that to be Trailfinders (even if it is a wedding venue at the mo) to be able to play multiple games on one day is paying dividends I feel.

I think part of the sky deal was competition, and that means winners and losers! That includes demotion, like it or dislike it, if teams place in the top flight is guaranteed then you get to the point where games don’t mean a lot apart from pride in league position for teams at the bottom.