Re: Dewsbury (H) : Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:02 am  

Duckman wrote:

Capacity
SL – MIN 5000
Champ – MIN 2000

Seats (permanent)
SL- MIN 2000
Champ – MIN 750

Security of tenure – 5yrs

So to sum up, if you are playing in the middle 8's and don't meet the ground standards of 5000 capacity and 2000 seats by July 2016 and you don't get dispensation from the RFL, you cant get promoted or even participate in the MPG as far as I can tell. Which current Champ clubs does that exclude from the middle 8 party?

edit, by my reckoning (quickly done via wiki so could easily be wrong ) half of the current championship are not eligible for the MPG without RFL dispensation;

London - only 3000 capacity
Swinton - only 3387 capacity
Oldham - only 1200 seats
Dewsbury - not enough seats

How come Wakefield are opening speaking about playing there next season then?

[Bullseye]

Re: Dewsbury (H) : Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:08 am  

Maybe investing in that ground? Or just sabre rattling.

Re: Dewsbury (H) : Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:12 am  

paulwalker71 wrote:

How come Wakefield are opening speaking about playing there next season then?

Good question, whilst at the same time dismissing Fev's offer who's ground does meet the minimum criteria. Maybe that move to Dews also includes an upgrade to the ground paid for by Wakey? Probably not that difficult to get the required seats installed at the unused end at Dews. But that begs the question of if they could afford to upgrade Dewsburys ground why cant they upgrade BV? I suspect the Wakey chairman is trying his hardest to leverage whatever pressure he can to get some sort of development going at Newmarket still.

[Bullseye]

Re: Dewsbury (H) : Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:26 am  

There's volumes of discussion about Belle Vue on the Wakey board. A lot of frustration with the council over their inability to help. Club stuck in a crumbling antique of a ground. Sounds familiar.

Re: Dewsbury (H) : Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:30 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

There's volumes of discussion about Belle Vue on the Wakey board. A lot of frustration with the council over their inability to help. Club stuck in a crumbling antique of a ground. Sounds familiar.

If only it was iconic their problems would be solved.

Re: Dewsbury (H) : Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:44 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

There's volumes of discussion about Belle Vue on the Wakey board. A lot of frustration with the council over their inability to help. Club stuck in a crumbling antique of a ground. Sounds familiar.

I'd say our council are probably just inept. From reading some of the (possibly biased) posts on the wakey board about their council, they sound downright corrupt.

Re: Dewsbury (H) : Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:47 pm  

Duckman wrote: Ha, I knew someone would ask, this is probably my worst case of thread drift ever (mods feel free to shift to a new thread if you'd prefer), but the articles from the relevant rfl rules are below; surprised this hasn't been mentioned on the London board. Although to be fair there is also the usual RFL get out clause to all this of dispensation as the rfl see fit, but you can see this causing certain SL and champ clubs pause for thought at least; http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Section%20A2%20Minimum%20Standards_FINAL%20PDF.pdf A2:5 For a Club to be eligible for promotion to the Super League or Championship (as applicable) for any Season its ground must meet the Facility Standards of the Super League or Championship (as applicable) or the Board must have granted a dispensation in accordance with A2:3 above by, in each case, the Friday of Round 23 of Super League/Championship in the previous Season (being 22 July 2016 for the 2017 Season). For the avoidance of doubt a dispensation may include an extension of time beyond the date above to complete any work necessary to meet the applicable Facility Standards. A2:6 Any Championship Club(s) which qualify for the Super 8s Qualifiers but which are not eligible for promotion to the Super League (due to not meeting Facility Standards) shall be entitled to participate in the Super 8s Qualifiers but if, at the end of the Super 8s Qualifiers, any of the Club(s) are 5th or higher in the Qualifiers league: (a) they shall be deemed to have finished 6th (and 7th if there are 2 such Clubs and 8th if there are 3 such Clubs) for the purpose of determining which Clubs are promoted and/or play in the 4th v 5th Play Off Match; but (b) shall be considered to be the highest placed Championship Club(s) (in order of finishing position) for the purpose of determining distributions in the Championship for the following Season. http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/FACILITYSTANDARDS2016%20final%20PDF.pdf Capacity SL – MIN 5000 Champ – MIN 2000 Seats (permanent) SL- MIN 2000 Champ – MIN 750 Security of tenure – 5yrs So to sum up, if you are playing in the middle 8's and don't meet the ground standards of 5000 capacity and 2000 seats by July 2016 and you don't get dispensation from the RFL, you cant get promoted or even participate in the MPG as far as I can tell. Which current Champ clubs does that exclude from the middle 8 party? edit, by my reckoning (quickly done via wiki so could easily be wrong ) half of the current championship are not eligible for the MPG without RFL dispensation; London - only 3000 capacity Swinton - only 3387 capacity Oldham - only 1200 seats Dewsbury - not enough seats Toulouse - only 4000 capacity Sheffield - no 5 yr security of tenure plus FWIW wakey wouldn't meet the standards either on security of tenure alone at the moment having given notice to leave BV with no announced destination, but I suspect any current SL club would get dispensation and their situation appears very much in flux to say the least. Meh, Virtual Schmirtual. Come to RAB for the best posts!!

Duckman wrote: Ha, I knew someone would ask, this is probably my worst case of thread drift ever (mods feel free to shift to a new thread if you'd prefer), but the articles from the relevant rfl rules are below; surprised this hasn't been mentioned on the London board. Although to be fair there is also the usual RFL get out clause to all this of dispensation as the rfl see fit, but you can see this causing certain SL and champ clubs pause for thought at least; http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Section%20A2%20Minimum%20Standards_FINAL%20PDF.pdf A2:5 For a Club to be eligible for promotion to the Super League or Championship (as applicable) for any Season its ground must meet the Facility Standards of the Super League or Championship (as applicable) or the Board must have granted a dispensation in accordance with A2:3 above by, in each case, the Friday of Round 23 of Super League/Championship in the previous Season (being 22 July 2016 for the 2017 Season). For the avoidance of doubt a dispensation may include an extension of time beyond the date above to complete any work necessary to meet the applicable Facility Standards. A2:6 Any Championship Club(s) which qualify for the Super 8s Qualifiers but which are not eligible for promotion to the Super League (due to not meeting Facility Standards) shall be entitled to participate in the Super 8s Qualifiers but if, at the end of the Super 8s Qualifiers, any of the Club(s) are 5th or higher in the Qualifiers league: (a) they shall be deemed to have finished 6th (and 7th if there are 2 such Clubs and 8th if there are 3 such Clubs) for the purpose of determining which Clubs are promoted and/or play in the 4th v 5th Play Off Match; but (b) shall be considered to be the highest placed Championship Club(s) (in order of finishing position) for the purpose of determining distributions in the Championship for the following Season. http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/FACILITYSTANDARDS2016%20final%20PDF.pdf Capacity SL – MIN 5000 Champ – MIN 2000 Seats (permanent) SL- MIN 2000 Champ – MIN 750 Security of tenure – 5yrs So to sum up, if you are playing in the middle 8's and don't meet the ground standards of 5000 capacity and 2000 seats by July 2016 and you don't get dispensation from the RFL, you cant get promoted or even participate in the MPG as far as I can tell. Which current Champ clubs does that exclude from the middle 8 party? edit, by my reckoning (quickly done via wiki so could easily be wrong ) half of the current championship are not eligible for the MPG without RFL dispensation; London - only 3000 capacity Swinton - only 3387 capacity Oldham - only 1200 seats Dewsbury - not enough seats Toulouse - only 4000 capacity Sheffield - no 5 yr security of tenure plus FWIW wakey wouldn't meet the standards either on security of tenure alone at the moment having given notice to leave BV with no announced destination, but I suspect any current SL club would get dispensation and their situation appears very much in flux to say the least. Meh, Virtual Schmirtual. Come to RAB for the best posts!!

Re: Dewsbury (H) : Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:58 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

If only it was iconic their problems would be solved.

Didn't they film This Sporting Life at Belle Vue? They could try that.

Re: Dewsbury (H) : Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:27 pm  

Nothus wrote:

I'd say our council are probably just inept. From reading some of the (possibly biased) posts on the wakey board about their council, they sound downright corrupt.

It's dead easy & fashionable to slag off Councils. I know Councillors of differing parties & they are all committed people; I wouldn't do their job for a gold pig. Similarly Council officers. Councils have had their budgets decimated by a vicious Government intent on destroying social structures but passing the blame to local authorities. There was a large piece on Radio Leeds a couple of weeks ago about Knottingley - the town that time forgot (funded by Wakefield). Virtually every Council social structure in that town is being closed down - libraries, swimming pools, day centres. it is a desperate situation. When you combine that with a place like Bradford, where the political power changes every couple of years, is it surprising that private entities, usually run by millionaires, like RL teams are not their priority?

Re: Dewsbury (H) : Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:41 pm  

tigertot wrote:

It's dead easy & fashionable to slag off Councils. I know Councillors of differing parties & they are all committed people; I wouldn't do their job for a gold pig. Similarly Council officers. Councils have had their budgets decimated by a vicious Government intent on destroying social structures but passing the blame to local authorities. There was a large piece on Radio Leeds a couple of weeks ago about Knottingley - the town that time forgot (funded by Wakefield). Virtually every Council social structure in that town is being closed down - libraries, swimming pools, day centres. it is a desperate situation. When you combine that with a place like Bradford, where the political power changes every couple of years, is it surprising that private entities, usually run by millionaires, like RL teams are not their priority?

All true. The accusations on the wakey board go a little beyond any of this, however.