What?



It was the RFL who decided the criteria for the licensing.

yes it was.

Yet when Hunslet and Dews won the NL play-offs, they were not accepted by the SL chairmen because of their grounds!!



Yet you advocate the dispensing of the insistence by the RFL that SL clubs should have new stadia???



FWIW, I think you are correct. It's Not the 'end of the world argument' like, I just thought some double standards were being played out here given back then, the SL chairmen and the RFL used the ground as the reason for denied access to SL! Fair??

It has been confirmed this morning that crusaders will play most home games in wrexham and two in neath, also on tuesday the signings of Tony Martin, Nick Youngquest, Matt Utai and Michael Witt are set to be unvieled

Matt Utai's not being unveiled. He's retiring from the sport due to injury.

Read my post again. I referred to the recession. That was the context in which I said that the RFL should drop the insistence upon new stadia being part of the licence arrangement. (I don't think I referred to SL clubs specifically)

you may take the opportunity to read your post again!



So a recession occurs - SL clubs shouldn't be required to have new stadia. Is this correct???



Yet when a much less well funded club won the NL, there was an insistence by SL clubs that they SHOULD have a new stadium or vastly improved facilities. A fanancial burden which made it impossible for them to access SL cos of the SL clubs "insistence"!



Smells of double standards to me!

Note, I did say 'I don't think I referred to Superleague clubs specifically', thus indicating I was not sure. But I was right, wasn't I? I did refer to the recession.





In the context of the licensing policy, which is the context of the discussion, I do not think it is appropriate for the RFL to insist upon new stadia as one of the criteria during a recession.



You accused me/my club of double standards earlier but Saints started the process for their own new stadium before the licence criteria were decided; I think even before the licence system was decided. I can't speak for the other Superleague clubs as I don't know their position. However, during a recession (which was not around when this set of licenses were agreed), I think it inappropriate for the RFL to insist upon new stadia as a criteria for a licence.



I am not going to embark upon petty arguments with yet another bitter Championship club fan. Some of you sound like your stuck in the dim and distant past rather than the 21st century and some of you really do need to get a grip.

Whatever our opinions , we do get to watch our teams in modern 21 st century facilities , unlike you

In 18 months time you'll be eating your words, which will give me a tiny bit of satisfaction to witness.

I'm so pleased for you

I know. It's part of the love you show me whenever I venture on to the Crusaders' board.

and if the RFL (just for arguments sake) say Saints ground is a toilet, no more SL for you until you produce a new one, and the fiscal problems persist - I can just hear you shouting - yeh this is the 21st Century! We should be happy we're excluded from SL!!!! - my botty!!