Lots of talk about stadiums etc and how they will count in the decision to be announced in July.

Got me thinking about on-field performances.....so I researched the average points won per game for the least succesfull teams over the last 2.5 seasons. (Regular Season games only)

HKA 1.156
Catleford .9852
Wakey .8750
Catalan .8281
Bradford .7794
London .6617
Salford .6250
Crusaders .5000


I don't see it as being as cut and dried as some think that Wakey will be the ones to go, if anyone goes.

On-field is only really worth 1 point, 2 max. The rest is all things regs your academy, crowds, ground, finances, location etc etc

I know, but crowds, finances, ground etc have been done to death....I would rate Hell View no better or worse than say, Odslum.....there are loads of Wakey academy products in ESL....there kids did well last year I believe. Their neigbours have yet to get a new stadium so are only better off because they didn't get shafted by their previous owners. By all accounts, HKA were teetering before they got a 1 million donation/bribe to the council......we all now my club relies on 1 man to stay alive....crusaders are failing on the field......there are so many reasons to get rid of all of these teams.....it will be a hard choice to select just one.

Leaving aside the silly name-calling, last time I looked Odsal had a 5,300-seat main stand, a 700-seat Coral stand (with all the expected corporate facilities) and can hold 26,000 people. As well as substantial on-site and adjacent car parks and being just off the motorway. And the terraces are steep enough so you can see over the guy in front of you, and you do not take your life in your hands dodging the potholes when you walk on them. Last time the RFL described it as having good corporate facilities but in need of some improvement. It was not one of the five stadia they described as not being suitable for the modern game. How does the other place compare?

I suggest some folk are far too obsessed with the state of the stadia when opining on who should and should not be in SL - I suspect you are sort of making the same point? But even so, when I read inexplicable opinions such as the above, I feel some refuting is in order?

Refute away.....although I didn't sart this thread about stadiums.....it was club records in the 68 SL games so far under the Licence system.....only 3 teams below you and 2 of those are "expansion" teams....and Salford will have a nice new ground soon........with more than 6,000 covered seats....but stadiums are not why we are here......playing record over 2.5 seasons is...feel free to refute again

How Salford are sneaking under the radar still I don't know! Perform worst out of 'non-expansion' clubs in all areas by far. (though I feel RFL see's them as an expansion). If it wasn't for council coming to stadium rescue they'd be pretty stuffed as clear without them they had NO CHANCE of paying for it!

You chose to post an opinion that flies in the face of the facts; I pointed that fact out, that was all. Nothing more or less. Not my fault your comment made you look silly and detracted from your original argment.

Crusaders, Quins RL and Catalans are irrelevant to any decision making process, irrespective of what criteria are used to judge suitability. The licensing process is entirely subjective and the sport cannot afford to 'remove' any club by such a process.

14 current SL stadiums......where would you rate Odslum? In the bottom 6 IMO........hardly state of the art with a load of uncovered areas.......traditional, maybe but 21st century, not a chance.


No. You expressed your opinion which you are trying to pass off as fact....there is a difference.

or just nothing




No it didn't.........well, maybe in your opinion....but you have trouble with facts/opinions......

My post was initially about performance....nice how you have tried to distract attention away from the pi55 poor performance of you once great club

The rest of this thread is irrelevant to the issue. My post was in reponse to one very specific comment you made. You opined that Belle Vue was no worse or better than Odsal. I posted a short list of facts - for facts they were - which indicated why the facts appeared not to support your opinion. It seems you did not like that, but disappointingly instead of saying why, you instead started going on about issues which were never part of the original, very narrow point I was disputing. It is not ME trying to distract attention away from anything - it is you.

Some folk just cannot admit that they posted something that does not stand up to closer examination or challenge, so they resort to trying to find any number of ways of shifting the argument to something different, to detract from their original challenged statement. And throw in a heavy dose of derision. It is not clever. It is dishonest and disingenuous. And very transparent. Big men admit the other guy makes a fair point, and if necessary engage in adult debate. Little men try and avoid admitting that at all costs, and resort to the antics of the playground.

Do you really intend to come across as a little man?

Who gives a toss , does anybody seriously think the RFL will trawl through 1,000 s of pages of bollox to decide who they are going to throw out ?

Wakey are out

Fax are having the p155 taken

And as we know the Mutants are in

All this decided after a 5 minute chat over tea and biscuits , how bloody hard can it be

They will be going through it all. And unless you have seen one of the submissions - or one of the specifications for submissions that the clubs were given - you cannot know whether or not any or all of it is bollox or otherwise. None of us can.

Whether in the end it will make any difference, or whether the outcome has already been pre-determined as you and numerous others appear to believe (and I am not unsympathetic to that view) and the paperwork is merely to help them justify the decision, well that is another matter.