: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:31 pm  

rovers wrote:

Unbelievable, try building a new stadium with no sky money not the 13 million or so super league teams have had, the thing is some championship teams HAVE managed it

Do you own the stadium or is it council owned, only a question not a skit, if its the latter you did well

: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:50 pm  

swifty62 wrote:

wakey, salford n cas got away with plans last time, dont think will work again.

if you think they will let you in your having laugh your behind 3 clubs at least.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:23 am  

When they say you may lose your franchise,it just sounds like a empty threat.
If a debt collection agency phone me up and say we may take you to court,i just tell them to F*** off.
Why don't they just say your last franchise was awarded on a promise of a new stadium, if you don't deliver next time around you will lose your franchise.
Either that or they should say nothing.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:02 am  

Speedy wrote:

Do you own the stadium or is it council owned, only a question not a skit, if its the latter you did well

Yes we own it

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:15 am  

rovers wrote:

Yes we own it

and the substantial land around it too i believe. but really means nothign when you are an average NL1 club - maybe prove yourself o be the best side in NL1 for a few season then contemplate SL.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:36 am  

I really can't believe the RFL has gone public with this, why on earth would they?
Surely they could have sent each club a letter reinforcing the issue of having suitable stadia, for the next set of licence applications, rather than hang our dirty washing in public once again and telling the world that almost half of Superleague is played in shabby run down stadiums.

I can't believe that HKR, Bradford aren't amongst the names included in the report, surely neither are up to scratch? After attending games at both venues this season, I find it hard to believe they are considered better than Wheldon Road.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:58 am  

WRE wrote:

and the substantial land around it too i believe. but really means nothign when you are an average NL1 club - maybe prove yourself o be the best side in NL1 for a few season then contemplate SL.

You got it wrong my friend, Rovers are not doing what they are with the sole purpose of getting in super league, they are doing the best for the future well being of the club, and if super league comes along fair enough. I will give you an eg: super league require 12k stadium, Rovers are building 6k with plans to increase as and when, there thinking what is the point of having 12k with 2k rattling around in it, just to tick a super league box. Your point about been an average NL side is spot on, but remember the big difference with the new set up Rovers are getting and many others it is solely OURS we pay nothing to no one and will earn a substantial amount from the 5 a side pitches and rental we get from the outlets / supermarket. So in time we will be up there with the top NL sides, the Rovers board now are very astute and are looking very long term, and im with them all the way

[tb]

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:08 am  

danny boy1 wrote:

I really can't believe the RFL has gone public with this, why on earth would they?

Dammed if they keep things secret. Damned if they conduct business in an open and transparent manner. This is no different to the 2005 promotion criteria inspections and demands for improvements, which were fully public.

As I said earlier: "No surprises there". Generally, it's a nothing story.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:37 am  

Cas respond: http://www.castigers.com/cgi-bin/news.cgi?773_9195

Cas respond: http://www.castigers.com/cgi-bin/news.cgi?773_9195

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:41 am  

we remain committed and confident that we will meet our objectives and in turn those of the RFL.
same old same old