I was under impression they continued as Tier 1 Academy ?

I meant they don’t have the pulling power they once did.

Or more likely they don't have the finances to lure the kids anymore.

Same thing really, I do think that the lack of a viable Bradford team has allowed us to pick up one or two juniors we’d have lost in the past. I think it’s shows as well.

The game needs to generate new spectators, younger ones at that, new sponsors and in and around York, there is a rich seam of money with a good amateur base to build on. I hope they don’t pick Bradford just because of the “iconic” “stadium”!,

I am glad we are going to 12 teams .
The rfl will know better clubs infrastructures I know feth are run very well.
Feth, tolouse or York for me.
Are Toronto playing in the championship?

As much as I would like Fev in and York a close second, I honestly don’t think either will get near. If I was a betting man it would be between Leigh or Toulouse.

Can anybody explain why the chosen team will be on reduced funding?

If I was a betting man, my money would be on Bradford. Don’t forget the former RFL leader, and some family members, now have a financial interest in Bradford Bulls. I can well imagine someone on the 12th team selection panel, having their ear bent.

I don’t know what the criteria will be but if you are right I think that there would be some legal challenges thrown up.

i·con·ic (ī-kŏn′ĭk)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or having the character of an icon.
2. Symbolic, emblematic, or representative: a classroom scene that is iconic of what is wrong with the education system.
3. Having a conventional formulaic style. Used of certain memorial statues and busts.


2. Symbolic, emblematic, or representative: a typical SLE/RFL scene that is iconic of what is wrong with Rugby League

They seem to spend a lot of time making mistakes and sadly even more time trying to correct them and even sadder making further mistakes with all the usual suspects either in full view or lurking in the background

Serious question. I can't understand why the promoted team should be penalised in this way. It's hard enough for a team to make the transition anyway but this is like insisting they play every game in slippers! What's the rationale behind it, does anybody know?

Loosely as I heard it explained, or as I understood the explanation. SL clubs will all be operating to a reduced budget and have to rebate a chunk of their central funding to Sky. It’s cost the clubs to keep the sport going and they will need to offset this expense against next years central funding.

The championship clubs are seen as having had an advantage of being able to use furlough for a longer period of time and not having operating costs such as the Covid testing.

I’m not sure I’m buying it but that was my understanding of the decision.

Plus, if the "promoted" side were to receive a 1/12th slice of the funding, this would have to come out of the current 11 clubs share.
It was always odd that every club didn't receive 1/12th, although, perhaps Toronto thought they could do better in N .America.
They were proved very wrong in that assumption.
Having said that, even though its a "free" promotion, the promoted side do seem to be being penalised.

Mind you, I think Trinity had to manage without a share for their first season too, which was equally mad.

1st two season wasn't it? Also Shudds only got 50% Funding when they came up to replace Paris. So it's hardly unique.

That's two positive Shudds threads in the same year from me btw.