: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:22 am  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

I have doubts about the effectiveness of some of the published criteria for the next round of franchise applications for example the (apparently arbitrary) 40% average attendance and 12,000 capacity stadium requirement. Why would a club build or move to a stadium greater than 12,000 capacity when all that does is make the 40% average attendance point more difficult to earn?

Have criteria already been officially published?

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:32 am  

Glenn Morangie wrote:

Have criteria already been officially published?

Yes the 10 point plan to be applied in 2012 was published last year. Angela Powers spent ages applying that to clubs for this round of franchising even though the criteria this time was different.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:43 am  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

Yes the 10 point plan to be applied in 2012 was published last year. Angela Powers spent ages applying that to clubs for this round of franchising even though the criteria this time was different.

Thanks, do you know what they are?

Seems a really good idea to publish them now so clubs know what to aim for.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:07 am  

Glenn Morangie wrote:

Thanks, do you know what they are?

Seems a really good idea to publish them now so clubs know what to aim for.

From a Yorkshire post article, the exact wording from the RFL may differ slightly but I couldn't easily find it:

Stadium capacity of at least 12,000 – one point

Having a 21st century stadium with modern facilities – one point

Recording an average crowd of 10,000-plus – one point

Regularly filling a stadium to at least 40 per cent of its occupancy – one point

Having a £4m annual turnover – one point

Possessing a strong financial history – one point

Averaging a top-eight place in Super League in the past three years – one point

Having a minimum of eight home-grown players in their 25-man squad last season – one point

Never having breached the salary cap – one point

Potentially being the only Super League club within a 25-mile radius – one point

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:25 am  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

I think that demanding clubs meet specific criteria can only be good for the game as a whole. Clear targets for clubs to meet encourage improvement across the board to reach the minimum standards required and since the criteria cover a wide range of targets clubs and the game should benefit in the long term.

I have doubts about the effectiveness of some of the published criteria for the next round of franchise applications for example the (apparently arbitrary) 40% average attendance and 12,000 capacity stadium requirement. Why would a club build or move to a stadium greater than 12,000 capacity when all that does is make the 40% average attendance point more difficult to earn?

So what we now have is a raft of new stadiums/plans all around the 12,000 capacity mark. If the "attendance" point was based on say a percentage growth in average attendance (rather than a percentage of the stadium capacity) then I'm sure some of the new stadia may well have been bigger, which may be better in the long (longer than 3 years) term.

A franchise point for achieveing a sell out, in itself, does little for the game or the club.

Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, I don't believe the 40% of capacity average has much of an effect on the size of newly built stadia. 40% of 12,000 is 4,800. If clubs can't achieve that then I doubt they will be in SL for very long anyway.
40% of 25,000 is 10,000, which is the aim crowd average that the RFL want. So clubs can still build huge stadiums and achieve the other two criteria.
Most clubs have an average of around 7,000, which would allow for a stadium of 17,500 and still covering the 40%.

Having a bigger stadium should make it easier to achieve the 10k average, as just one big crowd will push the average up.

Like I say, I'm not sure about the number of sell-outs criteria which is why I've put it up for discussion. It does give a good indicator of how many people are willing to come down to your stadium though (regardless of promotions, etc.). You could open the doors for free and still no-one extra come, which would show how weak the club really is.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:47 am  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

From a Yorkshire post article, the exact wording from the RFL may differ slightly but I couldn't easily find it:

Stadium capacity of at least 12,000 – one point

Having a 21st century stadium with modern facilities – one point

Recording an average crowd of 10,000-plus – one point

Regularly filling a stadium to at least 40 per cent of its occupancy – one point

Having a £4m annual turnover – one point

Possessing a strong financial history – one point

Averaging a top-eight place in Super League in the past three years – one point

Having a minimum of eight home-grown players in their 25-man squad last season – one point

Never having breached the salary cap – one point

Potentially being the only Super League club within a 25-mile radius – one point

Thanks BB.

Nothing to do with your posts but I still think crowd progression would be a better yardstick than a discrete figure.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:56 am  

Glenn Morangie wrote:

Thanks BB.

Nothing to do with your posts but I still think crowd progression would be a better yardstick than a discrete figure.

Not necessarly.

You could have a crowd of 4,000 on average, and that being 1,000 higher than the previous season (which is a 25% increase). That's a good increase, but still nowhere near good enough for a SL club.

Should be a combination of both so that we know that clubs are progressing AND they are in the position already wanted.

I don't think it should be a case of 1 point for a certain figure, either. It should be weighted. Bigger crowds, more points. Bigger increase, more points. You could have 9,000 crowds and get nothing which doesn't seem fair as they aren't far off.