Re: Excitement on the 26th maybe not! : Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:44 am  

bren2k wrote:

My feeling is that one way or the other, they'll get us in and you out, either now or in the the next round of franchises, then apply pressure for a merger, which I'd be happy with, providing we play in red, white & blue at NM and are called Wakefield.

For my money, your continued SL existence stunts our growth - we've got the capacity to develop into a Wigan, Warrington, Leeds kind of club - you haven't, and the sooner everyone accepts that, the better.

Wow!

Re: Excitement on the 26th maybe not! : Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:01 am  

Bonzo wrote:

Wakefield's fans seem to believe that going into administration won't count against them in the franchise application, however they seem to have misinterpreted the change in the rules. The rule change didn't omit financial insolvency from the licensing process, it merely allowed clubs to apply for a license after going into administration where previously this wasn't the case.

You try telling them that on the Wakey forum!!

Better still - don't bother!

Re: Excitement on the 26th maybe not! : Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:26 am  

"For my money, your continued SL existence stunts our growth - we've got the capacity to develop into a Wigan, Warrington, Leeds kind of club - you haven't, and the sooner everyone accepts that, the better"

Looking forward to a week on Tuesday even more now. Time approaching to ram this back down his throat.

Re: Excitement on the 26th maybe not! : Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:54 pm  

bren2k wrote:

For my money, your continued SL existence stunts our growth - we've got the capacity to develop into a Wigan, Warrington, Leeds kind of club - you haven't, and the sooner everyone accepts that, the better.

If that's the case, why has WTWRLFC failed to capture the imagination of Wakefield residents over the years of its residency in Super League. We're constantly told that Castleford is a small town with little to offer in terms of expanding the club's spectator base. However, here are some telling statistics: average crowds at Wakefield compared with crowds at Cas in the same season. I've included a few rather telling seasons in this list. The number in brackets after the average attendance is the finishing position of each club in the table that season. NL1 stands for National League 1 and R denotes that the team was relegated from Super League that season.

2004: Wakefield: 4806 (6); Castleford: 7034 (12R)
2005: Wakefield: 5100 (10); Castleford: 5469 (NL1, 2)
2006: Wakefield: 5447 (10); Castleford: 7096 (11R)
2007: Wakefield: 6781 (8); Castleford: 5108 (NL1, 1)
2008: Wakefield: 6962 (8); Castleford: 7501 (12)
2009: Wakefield: 5892 (5); Castleford: 7489 (7)
2010: Wakefield: 5983 (11); Castleford 6616 (9)

Even if you exclude the relegation match at the Jungle in 2004, where the Tigers pulled 11055, Castleford's season average would have been 6725. So, over all those years when Castleford haven't been as good as their supporters would have liked, and where they only finished above Wakefield in the final standings once, the question remains: what have the Wildcats done to capitalise on their on-field advantage over their neighbours?

How can anyone blame Castleford for Wakefield's failure to pull an average crowd of more than 7000 in any of those seasons? What capacity is being developed by WTWRLFC? Why can't a team that has had playoff qualifications under its belt pull in larger crowds? From finishing 6th in 2004 and having success in the playoffs, there was a lot to build on. However, the crowds stayed away in their thousands (on a comparison with Wigan, Warrington and Leeds, anyway). In fact, in a successful playoff season, Wakefield couldn't get more through the gate each week than Castleford did in two seasons in NL1. This isn't really the sort of statistic that backs up your argument.

So my question is why should people accept that Castleford hasn't got the capacity to develop and that Wakefield has? It's got absolutely no foundation in terms of how the clubs have cultivated their support over the past few years.

Over to you...

Re: Excitement on the 26th maybe not! : Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:27 pm  

Still waiting for a reply I see Georgie!

Re: Excitement on the 26th maybe not! : Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:30 pm  

bigalf wrote:

Still waiting for a reply I see Georgie!

Won't get one.

Re: Excitement on the 26th maybe not! : Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:24 pm  

*BUMP*

Re: Excitement on the 26th maybe not! : Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:27 pm  

Georgie Best on a Bloomer wrote:

So my question is why should people accept that Castleford hasn't got the capacity to develop and that Wakefield has? It's got absolutely no foundation in terms of how the clubs have cultivated their support over the past few years.

Over to you...

A good sound argument, very well made. I worry a little about people who boost their own ego by sniping and bitching about others. I have never, and would never, argue that Cas aren't a very well supported team who have a bigger (slightly, but demonstrably) following than Wakey do. I for one think that either team has the potential to achieve much better crowds in the future, and the major factor behind that would be playing good rugby with a degree of success - much more of an influence than stadia, although new stadia will improve attendances.

I look at the relative success that Hudds have had over the past few years, and firmly believe that if either Cas or Wakey had been lucky enough to match their level of investment in the team in a modern stadium we'd be looking at crowds of 9 or 10,000.

So my answer to your question is that people should't accept that Cas or Wakey can't develop. We can and, hopefully, will. Quins, though.................?

Re: Excitement on the 26th maybe not! : Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:21 pm  

wakeyrule wrote:

A good sound argument, very well made. I worry a little about people who boost their own ego by sniping and bitching about others. I have never, and would never, argue that Cas aren't a very well supported team who have a bigger (slightly, but demonstrably) following than Wakey do. I for one think that either team has the potential to achieve much better crowds in the future, and the major factor behind that would be playing good rugby with a degree of success - much more of an influence than stadia, although new stadia will improve attendances.

I look at the relative success that Hudds have had over the past few years, and firmly believe that if either Cas or Wakey had been lucky enough to match their level of investment in the team in a modern stadium we'd be looking at crowds of 9 or 10,000.

So my answer to your question is that people should't accept that Cas or Wakey can't develop. We can and, hopefully, will. Quins, though.................?

Agree totally. I think Wakefield and Castleford should stop having a go at each other, and look at so called superior 'francises' such as Quins and Crusaders. Both struggle on many fronts.

Re: Excitement on the 26th maybe not! : Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:25 pm  

Georgie Best on a Bloomer wrote:

So my question is why should people accept that Castleford hasn't got the capacity to develop and that Wakefield has?

They shouldn't - you're absolutely right! My original post was deliberately inflammatory, however, if you switch the club names around, many of the people who have disagreed might find themselves agreeing. i.e one of us has got the capacity, but both at the same time haven't.

The serious point I was making (not very well, I accept) is that the WMD can't support two SL clubs and I still believe that's the case, for several reasons: a) the governing body don't want us both in the top tier b) the supporter base isn't big enough and c) producing two SL compliant, shiny stadiums 8 miles away from each other, is simply too big an ask in any financial climate, let alone this one.

I was also trying to reignite the merger debate, as it seems that most RL people outside of the district believe it's the only sensible thing to do. As deadline day approaches and one of us appears to be facing the chop, I often wonder where we'd be now if the three clubs had bought into the 'Calder' idea that was mooted back when SL first kicked off?