The ground is mortgaged up to the hilt, so they are no better off than us, so you're wrong on that one.

Like I said the ground is only 15% , so it doesn't really help us to get that far Infront.
By the way we have a mortgage on our ground . Cas do not have a mortgage on their ground you are wrong.
They own the ground outright. What they have is land registry charges and these are to their directors and only have to be paid once they sell. The directors do not charge them tent and these charges are interest free.

It doesn't matter what other teams have. It's up to us to make the best we can of Wakefield Trinity.
Trying to not be the worst is exactly why we are nit succeeding.

It does matter what other teams have though, if there are 12 teams better than us then we won't be in, if there are 11 teams better than us than we will be in so what other clubs do is actually very important.

Just noticed this tweet in the Twitter page of The Game Caller (Mick Gledhill). Does anyone know if this is now in the IMG criteria? If not then Gledhill should be taken to Task by our club, we don’t need any more mud thrown at our club.

Just for clarity both Castleford and Wakefield will be deducted points for failing to meet minimum standards with their respective stadiums. Both clubs have taken millions of pounds in broadcast revenues and have failed to improve their stadiums to meet minimum standards.

A couple of tweets from The game caller.
Interesting that IMG won’t reveal specific thresholds until the vote has been taken. Although I can understand IMG reasoning, it would appear clubs will not know what’s in the small print until it’s too late.

The RFL/IMG have sent clubs examples of what a Grade A club looks like, Grade B club in the Heartlands and a Grade B club in an expansion area look like. It's clear from these examples that clubs will make the cut for the top tier with an accumulated points total of 12 points.

Clubs asking for specific thresholds on the five pillars have been told that these will be released after the vote at Huddersfield on Wednesday. This to ensure that clubs don't know where they currently are in the new RFL/IMG table and that they don't vote with self interest.

How does that make sense to a ANY of the clubs,
Turkey and Christmas springs to mind.

I'm pretty sure they said clubs have details before public and media. They had chance to talk to IMG and challenge some things so they are not going in completely blind.

So even though IMG are looking at the future clubs will still be penalised for their past even despite vast considerable improvement ongoing for facilities and no lack of effort on attempts through planning etc thwarted by various issues most not in the clubs control. Can’t see that. It should be on what currently is in place or what currently the club offers in terms of facilities.

And we didn’t fail to improve stadium.

We built the flats, we also had two roofs put on and various paint cosmetic jobs over the years, these are improvements in tune to hundreds of thousands and also let’s not forget that the club I believe have had money reduced I think recent years for having restricted capacity due to safety?

This all added to the fact that in promotion and relegation a playing squad capable of competing must be maintained or clubs face losing monies altogether.

Seems an incredibly poor thought out tweet from this game caller.

I'll read it again today but
1) the minimum standards aren't included in the IMG paper, they were RFL minimum standards.
2) by the time IMG come to do their assessment we will exceed those standards

Surely not, Mick Gledhill?!

I would think the first clubs to be considered will be the 12 in SL. It will then be the Championship which the way this season is going will contain us to replace any from SL. The problem we face is our location goes against us because we are in a densely populated rugby area and they are favouring expansion.
I believe the only way we would be admitted is if we had an A rating but sadly we are way off at the moment and being in the Championship will probably ensure we never do.

I know these are Mick Gledhill tweets from today, so ibut I’m sure the information is correct, anyway, it’s time we all had some more information that will affect our future.

Good to learn clubs have finally received their IMG/RFL handbooks which shows clubs the thresholds of where will be assessed against to gain points from the five key strategic pillars. I’m just going through the handbook now and will provide an update later this evening.

For example on Attendances:

Average attendance of 7,500 over three years = 2.5 points.

Average attendance of 3,000 over three years = 2 points


Average attendance of 1,500 over three years = 1.5 points.

Average attendance under 1,500 over three years = 0.75 points.

The Bradford Bulls would score 2 points based on their average attendance over the past three seasons. That’s the same as Huddersfield, Castleford, Leigh, Toulouse, Wakefield, Widnes and Salford.

Does anyone else think that the 12 month delay by IMG, for implementing their new criteria, was designed to help any particular side gain a spot in SL, with Bradford being the most likely to benefit ?