listening to Ray French on radio Merseyside tonight, he said he was talking to your coach last week and he said that there is going to be a clear out at the end of the season, some of the National league players are not up to Super league standards.

Wouldn't surprise me but don't think we're particularly flush with cash to sign players. Will be sad to see some of the NL guys go who served us so well but we need a few more quality players if we are to progress.

The difference between this year and last so far as your finances go is Sky money, which helps to keep all the SL clubs going! So although you won't be the richest club around, given that you're still working on your gate revenue, you will have more money than last year to recruit. I reckon it would be wise to replace as many of your players as possible, with a few exceptions like your fullback who was outstanding for you before his injury.

We were in the same situation at the end of our first and second year in super league, with many of our players from NL1 being released. It's sad as they have helped to get you where you are, but you also accept that you need to progress. Some players make the step up, we still have several from our NL1 team, others have found their level. Sad but it happens.

I think that's probably a touch over the top. We need some continuity, and a few players e.g. O'Hara, Lupton have impressed almost every week. However, players who were stars in the team in NL2 inevitably can't progress all the way.

I did say 'as many as possible', not everyone!

Next season is a transitional year. First season - important to make a decent impression, even if its hard to be competitive. Third season - immediately before franchise process, must be good on the pitch and be attracting increasing numbers off the pitch.

In other words, in business terms, next season could well be about paying as little as possible to a squad that doesn't really need to be competitive, and saving the money for a serious tilt in year three. It's almost 'better' to have a poor year next year so that the momentum in year 3 is upward (eg it reads better to say 'crowds up 50% in 12 months' because you've got 3000 in for 2011 against 2000 in 2010, rather than just to look at flat figures of an average of 3000 for both years).

It would be a shame if that's what happens, but it would make very sound business sense.

Very good post but I am sure the applications have to be in next year.

If they are not then I would prefer to plod on with what we have and have a big push in year three as has been said above.

Applications submitted in April 2011

Decision in July 2011

So 2 years to get onto a positive movement

Even better then.

We should know where we'll be playing long term and have a better team on the field and will have improved things off it by that time.