General Zod. wrote:There's so much up for interpretation that they should because it's the only fair way to do it.

hkrdavidhkr wrote:JUST TAKEN THIS OFF WIPEDIA



Licence criteria
Stage two of the licence decision process saw the clubs allocated the points used to decide licence grades according to their strength in several areas.[5]


Facilities
Teams will get one point for having a stadium with a capacity of 12,000 or more. Another point will be awarded if the ground meets the standards of a premier competition in the 21st century.[9]


Attendances
A point will be awarded to clubs with an average attendance of around 10,000 spectators. Another point will be awarded if stadiums are operating at 40 per cent capacity.[9]

Finances
Teams will receive a point if they are solvent. Another point will be awarded if their turnover is more than £4 million.[9]


Player strength
Teams earn one point if they are considered to have made a contribution to the competition - that means averaging a place in the top eight over each of the last three seasons. Another point is available to clubs who make a contribution to home-grown player development. That means at least eight members of a first-team squad of 25 should be discovered, trained and developed in the team's home country (United Kingdom or France).[9]


Salary cap
One point is on offer to teams who have not committed a major breach of the salary cap in the last three seasons.[9]


Geographical expansion
The final point goes to clubs who do not have another rugby league club within a 20-mile radius.[9]


Total score
The scores attained by each club (out of ten) are translated into a Licence grading.

8 or more points - A licence
5-7 points - B licence
4 points or less - C licence
Sky Sports report that it is believed teams who achieve an A or B Licence will be awarded a place in Super League, while those who achieve a C Licence will undergo further scrutiny before the RFL decide who makes the final cut.[9]

JB Down Under wrote:Guess the Crusaders are stuffed! (or will there be a miraculous change of heart?)

Mrs Barista wrote:They will want to recognise the contribution that clubs like Wigan and Leeds make to the future of the sport by developing future internationals through their academies. Just including academy players notionally in a first team squad doesn't do this.

hkrdavidhkr wrote:Player strength
Teams earn one point if they are considered to have made a contribution to the competition - that means averaging a place in the top eight over each of the last three seasons. Another point is available to clubs who make a contribution to home-grown player development. That means at least eight members of a first-team squad of 25 should be discovered, trained and developed in the team's home country (United Kingdom or France).

General Zod. wrote:Give your head a bang - this is simply not gonna happen because a player's quality is merely an individual's intepretation which cannot be applied as valid legislation.

Besides, as the hkrdavidhkr's quote shows:



I know it's hard for you to come to terms with, but that's just the way it goes I'm afraid.

Mrs Barista wrote:We don't know that. For starters these are last time's criteria. The "8 out of 25" measure was what the RFL deemed as worthy of a point last time but in excess of the minimum requirements. How do you know they won't give a point for, say, 10 homegrown players but none for just having the minimum of 8 next time? Also you are assuming that they will not take into account any qualitative inputs in deciding whether to award the point.

Whilst the aim is to raise standards across the board, there will still be some differentiation required, hence the RFL's statement, that on things like stadia quality, the bar will be raised and clubs have to deliver on what they promised in last time's applications in order to just stand still from a ratings perspective. The definition of what constitutes a "21st century stadium" will have some element of quantitative scoring but will also take account of judgements and opinions of the panel and external assessors and there will be ranking of each club on each criteria.

If the licence application was just a page long and a ticklist of numbers, e.g. attendances over 10k yes/no I would agree with you. The fact is that the process is more of an in-depth audit of every aspect of each club, from finances to stadium quality to marketing and player development, which involves the RFL and external experts. This provides the qualitative context to inform the overall decision and grading, which I understand is as important as the crude top-line measures. I know it's hard for you to come to terms with, but that's just the way it goes I'm afraid.

General Zod. wrote:Correct.

But the bottom line is that a player's ability is merely down to an individual's interpretation and cannot be quantified in the same way that "Stadium X has 1887 seats" or "Stadium X only has X number of toilets"..

I know it's hard for you to understand, but that's just the way it goes I'm afraid.

Mrs Barista wrote:Perhaps they'll go for something quantifiable like number of first team appearances of the 8 homegrown players. The fact is that the RFL didn't publish which criteria each club fulfilled and how many points out of 10 they got. Why do you think that is?

General Zod. wrote:No they won't because there's no way you can reward a club for picking certain players over others - it's a ridiculous suggestion.

I know it's tough for you to take, but that's just the way it goes I'm afraid...