[tb]

Re: Which clubs should be added to Super League in 2012 + 20 : Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:03 pm  

vastman wrote:

Any team brought into SL at the expense of one of the existing clubs would be doing so against the RFL own criteria

Nope. Only your misreading and misquoting of them

vastman wrote:

and would very much be open to legal action.

Nope.

IIRC there's an RFL bylaw that any club taking such legal action would immediately forfeit its place in all RFL competitions.

[tb]

Re: Which clubs should be added to Super League in 2012 + 20 : Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:04 pm  

littlerich wrote:

Whilst your post makes sense, this last part is questionable. Legal action? The RFL can change the criteria if needed. They can, at will, bring any special dispensation to non-Super League clubs who apply. It's a "members" club don't forget.

Also - these still may be achievable:
3 An average crowd that fills more than 40% of a club’s stadium capacity.

10 Compliance with salary-cap regulations. Specifically, clubs must not have incurred any breach of the salary cap in the last three years.

Apart from that, you make a good case for your argument.

And of course, the playing strength criterion for non SL clubs is demonsrated by their performance in non SL competitions (specifically the Championship and NRC – ie win the NRC or compete in a Championship GF)

Re: Which clubs should be added to Super League in 2012 + 20 : Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:07 pm  

tb wrote:

And of course, the playing strength criterion for non SL clubs is demonsrated by their performance in non SL competitions (specifically the Championship and NRC – ie win the NRC or compete in a Championship GF)

.............. and of course the Challenge Cup?

[Mild Rover]

Re: Which clubs should be added to Super League in 2012 + 20 : Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:11 pm  

vastman wrote:

1 A stadium capacity of at least 12,000.

2 An average crowd of 10,000 or over.

Not going to happen in the C'ship... or for a number of SL clubs.

3 An average crowd that fills more than 40% of a club’s stadium capacity.

Stupid criterion. If you don't make the 12K, knock down a stand and get a point. 40% will be doable for C'ship clubs with smallish stadiums.

4 A turnover of at least £4m per annum.

Again, some SL clubs won't make this - probably the same ones that won't get the point for crowds either.

5 Solvency, in accordance with accounting definitions of solvency, although this criterion can be satisfied if there is a written owner’s guarantee of the club’s debts.

6 A reasonable playing strength, which is likely to be satisfied if the club has finished the season in the top eight in each of the last three years.

Bottom 4 (2008) or 6 (2009 and 2010) and that is another point lost.

7 A reasonable contribution to junior development, judged by the number of scholarships and the performances of the club’s Under 21s and Under 18s Academy teams in the last three years.

Judged how?

8 The stadium meeting the standard of a premier sporting competition, which is judged on the quality and quantity of its facilities in accordance with detailed criteria.

9 Geographical position. Clubs that are more than 20 miles away from any other likely Super League club will be allocated one point on this criterion.

10 Compliance with salary-cap regulations. Specifically, clubs must not have incurred any breach of the salary cap in the last three years.

The cap is live now, so should not be an issue. A point equally avaiable to all.

There are a number of SL clubs who won't pick up many points on that (hopefully rather simplified) ticklist and would be vulnerable. If it stays at 14, an underperforming incumbent could easily have to make way.

Re: Which clubs should be added to Super League in 2012 + 20 : Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:22 pm  

tb wrote:

Nope. Only your misreading and misquoting of them



Nope.

IIRC there's an RFL bylaw that any club taking such legal action would immediately forfeit its place in all RFL competitions.

Your first point is a typical and meaningless side step to as ever avoid the truth.

Swcond point. What you seem to forget is that the clubs are limited companies and thus covered by the law of the land. No rules of the RFL can over rule those of a court of law, and the law would have no troble judging this as a blatant retstraint of a companies ability to trade - they won't give two hoots about RFL bye laws. Ditto an individual employee can do the same and sue the RFL for unfair dismiasal and unfairly restraining there ability to work.

Remember I'm talking here about a case in which the RFL breaks it's own rules but to be honest it would apply anyway even if they didn't. It is down to the good will of the clubs as to whether they abide, let's hope that good will is not tested to far.

RL does not live in a bubble. If any company and RL clubs are companies was told it had to forgo millions in revenue through no fault of it's own to let another company take it's place do you think they would. Get real, you can't have it both ways, you can't have clubs run on bussiness like grounds with shareholders, emploees etc and then not expect them to behave like one. By law the directors of a limited company are obliged to protect their shareholders!

In the days of members clubs you could have enforced the franchise, but in this day and age it's little more than a gentlemans agreement and Red Hall knows that for starters.

I can't imagine it would ever get this far, but to pretend it couldn't is typical of some on this forum. Get real.

Re: Which clubs should be added to Super League in 2012 + 20 : Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:26 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

There are a number of SL clubs who won't pick up many points on that (hopefully rather simplified) ticklist and would be vulnerable. If it stays at 14, an underperforming incumbent could easily have to make way.

Make way for what, where is there a NL1 club or a new club that could prove it could do better. Tell me how they do it. I can't really see any SL underperforming enough to allow a new bid to win, for me it's just not possible as much of that criteria simply can't be obtained outside SL it's a bit of a closed shop.

Re: Which clubs should be added to Super League in 2012 + 20 : Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:30 pm  

vastman wrote:

Make way for what, where is there a NL1 club or a new club that could prove it could do better. Tell me how they do it. I can't really see any SL underperforming enough to allow a new bid to win, for me it's just not possible as much of that criteria simply can't be obtained outside SL it's a bit of a closed shop.

I think that's just wishful thinking on your part. If any club in SL returned similar results to Halifax in 2003 for three years running they'd be out on their arse.

Re: Which clubs should be added to Super League in 2012 + 20 : Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:39 pm  

vastman wrote:

No your wrong - look at how the franchise is scored, there simply are not enough points available to an NL1 club to dislodge a SL club except on Stadium criteria.

Here is the list in full, I have bolded the the points that simply will not be available to non SL clubs and thus render them incapable of dislodging an existing club - go on tell me where I'm wrong

1 A stadium capacity of at least 12,000.

2 An average crowd of 10,000 or over.

3 An average crowd that fills more than 40% of a club’s stadium capacity.

4 A turnover of at least £4m per annum.

5 Solvency, in accordance with accounting definitions of solvency, although this criterion can be satisfied if there is a written owner’s guarantee of the club’s debts.

6 A reasonable playing strength, which is likely to be satisfied if the club has finished the season in the top eight in each of the last three years.

7 A reasonable contribution to junior development, judged by the number of scholarships and the performances of the club’s Under 21s and Under 18s Academy teams in the last three years.

8 The stadium meeting the standard of a premier sporting competition, which is judged on the quality and quantity of its facilities in accordance with detailed criteria.

9 Geographical position. Clubs that are more than 20 miles away from any other likely Super League club will be allocated one point on this criterion.

10 Compliance with salary-cap regulations. Specifically, clubs must not have incurred any breach of the salary cap in the last three years.

If any of the existing SL clubs maintain what they already did to get a 2009 liscense then there is now ay a club from outside can IMO beat the existing 14 teams.

Any team brought into SL at the expense of one of the existing clubs would be doing so against the RFL own criteria and would very much be open to legal action.

It is you who is talking utter rubbish.

A nice outline of the old criteria for licencing not franchises.

However.....

RFL/SLE have already put down markers with certain clubs re their facilities / stadia. This has been done via public general statements and the specific reports to clubs. they have also indicated that at least one club will enter SL next time around (this need not necessitate a relegation from the RFL/SLE pov. However SL clubs are unlikely to expand the SL if the Sky money would be 'diluted'.)

RFL/SLE are in the process of reviewing the criteria and the assessment process. So last years will be unlikely to be used next time. For e.g. the move to a U20s competition may have repurcussions.Also the new criteria will take into account that Championship clubs 'cannot' achieve 10K etc. There will also be considerations of clubs making improvements rather than mere maintainence.

The criteria are likely to change. One club is likely to be 'promoted' and SL is unlikely to go to 15 clubs. Everything possible will be done to keep Quins and Celtics in. Saints at KR would stay in but with a potentially 'lower score'.

That leaves Wakey /salford/Cas vunerable. If they are all groundless in 2011 other things being equal I think cas should go down.

Re: Which clubs should be added to Super League in 2012 + 20 : Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:12 pm  

Marsdengiant wrote:

A nice outline of the old criteria for licencing not franchises.

As far as I know the 10 point criteria was for round 2 of franchising, and there was a different criteria for last years. As soon as the 10 point criteria came out everyone jumped to conclusions and we had people such as Angela Powers making up nonsense.

Was there any mention of the 10 point criteria in the franchise announcement? I can't remember this being the case.

Re: Which clubs should be added to Super League in 2012 + 20 : Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:17 pm  

vastman wrote:

No your wrong - look at how the franchise is scored, there simply are not enough points available to an NL1 club to dislodge a SL club except on Stadium criteria.

Here is the list in full, I have bolded the the points that simply will not be available to non SL clubs and thus render them incapable of dislodging an existing club - go on tell me where I'm wrong

1 A stadium capacity of at least 12,000.

2 An average crowd of 10,000 or over.

3 An average crowd that fills more than 40% of a club’s stadium capacity.

4 A turnover of at least £4m per annum.

5 Solvency, in accordance with accounting definitions of solvency, although this criterion can be satisfied if there is a written owner’s guarantee of the club’s debts.

6 A reasonable playing strength, which is likely to be satisfied if the club has finished the season in the top eight in each of the last three years.

7 A reasonable contribution to junior development, judged by the number of scholarships and the performances of the club’s Under 21s and Under 18s Academy teams in the last three years.

8 The stadium meeting the standard of a premier sporting competition, which is judged on the quality and quantity of its facilities in accordance with detailed criteria.

9 Geographical position. Clubs that are more than 20 miles away from any other likely Super League club will be allocated one point on this criterion.

10 Compliance with salary-cap regulations. Specifically, clubs must not have incurred any breach of the salary cap in the last three years.

How is compliance with salary-cap regulations not attainable in the Championship? And how can they not contribute to junior development?
Also, the reasonable playing strength is judged differently for non-SL clubs, as already mentioned.

vastman wrote:

If any of the existing SL clubs maintain what they already did to get a 2009 liscense then there is now ay a club from outside can IMO beat the existing 14 teams.

Absolute garbage.

You have highlighted points that would be very difficult (close to impossible) to achieve outside SL. That doesn't mean that clubs inside SL will achieve any of them.

Should a club not turn over £4m+, not fill 40% of the ground, not achieve 10k attendances, as well as other points that being in SL gives you a considerable advantage for, then they will be in a similar position to those outside of SL. That's not to mention the quality of their ground or geographical position which many outside of SL applying will have as an advantage.

If clubs don't take advantage of these advantages of being in SL, they will not remain in it. If you think Wakefield will remain in SL on the back of an exact replica of their last franchise application, you are seriously deluded! Standards rise.

vastman wrote:

Any team brought into SL at the expense of one of the existing clubs would be doing so against the RFL own criteria and would very much be open to legal action.

It is you who is talking utter rubbish.

No they wouldn't. It is not against the RFL's own criteria. You have just misinterpreted it, and thrown in a load of stuff about laws of the land and business companies for no reason. Before franchising (P&R time), they were all still PLCs, and they could still leave the SL then through relegation. Why where they not suing then?