But that is the whole point, Leeds can afford to do both whilst most other clubs have to make do with one or the other.

It's not a criticism of Leeds just a fact.

Leeds fans love to crow about them being the big city club with the most fans and most corporate backing etc. That's fine, but you can't then when it suits (Smokey style) deny the obvious advantages it gives you. It's a very perverse logic some fans have.

But won't happen due to the pennies we put in the coffers of the away clubs we visit.

Both Hull and Rovers take a huge number of fans to away games and it keeps the other chairmen happy

But as we saw more than most clubs, the ageing aussies can easily be done without

If it’s a choice between the two, then the expensive luxury is the Ageing Aussie, not the scout who is going to help you sustain your club

Besides, who the hell is paying a scout £100k a year, its bloody ridiculous, I doubt there is a scouting system in world RL that costs half of that

And it goes both ways,

You (and especially you) love to play poor little wakefield, fighting against adversity, struggling to survive and just being here is a massive achievement for them when everyone else is so much bigger, and meaner and they steal all our kids, and we are just little wakefield trying to compete against all intrinsic disadvantages we have

Yet when you think about it, if that really is the case, then you shouldn’t be in SL, simple

You cant have it both ways, either wakefield are big enough and strong enough as a club to play with the big boys and compete against the big boys or they arent

Good thing you didn't realise where our 1 club trained player came from then

it really really doesnt

even if we are very very generous, and say Hull KR brought an extra 2k fans than (for instance) Widnes would, and each of those fans bought a ticket which bringing in £15, and spent another £10 whilst there on average, thats a total of £50k turnover, out of about £13m

thats added value of 0.004% of turnover that Hull KR being in SL bring,

as a comparison,

the new TV deal brought in an extra £300k per year, all profit, if having another team in SL gave a better chance of an increased TV deal in 2012, Hull KR would be dropped faster than you can say 'stop banging on about your away support, its really not that great'

That's £50,000 every away game, yes? And how many club's turnover is £13m?

I also wonder how much of that incredibly generous £50k you've given them goes on the increased police presence that is generally needed whenever either Hull club come to visit?

HKR dropped thier academies and concetrated on the 1 st team



It is counterproductive is it ?

So clubs that have done all they can within difficult financial restraints to run all the junior levels they can should be in SL ?

And clubs that have basically ignored junior development and concentrated on the 1 st team should not be in SL ?

If that is what you are saying then it is the RFL that are at fault then

Which club are in SL ? Leigh or HKR

I would say that what HKR decided was not counterproductive at all

You cannot compare a club that has been outside SL for 11 years to a club with massive financial and profile benifits

As regards other clubs in SL , well yes some should have done more , but since the bosman ruling the importance of player production has dropped significantley and that will not change

Unless the RFL come out and state that all clubs have to reach a certain level by a certain time or they will be excluded

This they cannot do because expansion clubs will not be able to match the heartland clubs and then you would end up with clubs playing to different rules , which is very counter productive

So argue all you want , despite what you say junior development will be low on the criteria importance for several years if not decades

£50k turnover, a fraction of that as profit, and they dont take 2k to every away match, never mind 2k more than another team would bring,

im not privvy to every clubs turnover, we do know though that most, if not almost all clubs are turning over more than £4m, even if we take this bottom figure as the average we are still looking at the £50k turnover hull KR bring (which they dont get close to, but seeing as how we are pretending, lets pretend they do, will still only contribute 0.013% of a clubs turnover

its really not that big an amount

no, not at all, a club who has done well in youth development will have that in their favour, the financial difficulties are irrellevant, other than to say a club in financial difficulties arent really in a position to apply for a place in SL



yes, that is true



probably so yes



hull kr



really? third year in SL, still struggling financially, still not got a team which will challenge, still not got the basis of long term sustainability, still not bringing through the youngsters they would need to add depth to the squad, and over the next 2 years they will need to cut down their imports by 5, and replace them with british players to comply with the rules, as well as put a competitive team out!

it seems to me to very counter productive, had they used this season and last to blood a few youngsters rather than compete with Quins and Wakefield, then they would be closer to complying with the rules and had made it easier to compete because of a smaller playing squad turnover

added to the fact they would have saved a bit of money not paying these aussies which could have been used to mitigate thier financial issues, maybe the could have even gone on the pre-season training camp Justin Morgan reffered to as the most important part of pre-season?



if they want to be in SL you have to, if they dont we can drop them

it will if we change it



or they can implement rules which force clubs to invest in youth development, and where failure to do so becomes an obstacle to putting out a competitive team,

and anybody who doesnt realise heartland clubs and expansion clubs are clearly different are clearly idiots and should be roundly ignored



hang on a minute here

are you starbug, implying that different criteria have differing levels of importance? and that not all criteria are weighted the same? and that you not knowing the different criteria have argued long and hard that this wasnt the case and that there is no way celtic could have scored higher on the franchise applications than widnes and leigh? are you now saying that the scoring was weighted? and if you are, surely you must accept that, not knowing the weightings, it was untruthful to put it politely for you to cast doubt on the integrity of the process? are you now admitting that to say the process was bent is clearly errant nonsense?