18 teams vying for Super League licenses

[bowes]

delete

 

[bartman]

the applicants outside of SL are Salford, Widnes, Leigh, Crusaders, Toulouse and 1 other. I think the one other is actually Featherstone but it's definitely not Whitehaven, and don't think it's Halifax though they're a possibility

Cheers for that. I think any two extra franchises award will come down to Salford, Crusaders or Tolouse. Can't see them being too adventurous and opting for two "expansion" sides at the one time to be honest? Although I may be wrong...

 

[bowes]

Cheers for that. I think any two extra franchises award will come down to Salford, Crusaders or Tolouse. Can't see them being too adventurous and opting for two "expansion" sides at the one time to be honest? Although I may be wrong...

I think 3 from Cas, Salford, Crusaders or Toulouse. Salford will be definites as they won't give 7 Yorkshire and 3 Lancashire franchises out, therefore one Yorkshire teams in SL is at risk, and I think Wakey and Hull KR edge out Cas. Think Crusaders and Cas will be the other two but Cas could miss out if they want Toulouse in as well, or Crusaders could if their bid's unsound

 

[ucantseeme]

Having 2 Hull teams wouldn't maximise the potential of a revamp competition.

 

[bowes]

But Hull KR have already shifted far more season tickets (1.5 times or more) than Harlequins actual season average crowds and obviously will be more with away fans and fans that turn up on the day

 

[deluded pom?]

But Hull KR have already shifted far more season tickets (1.5 times or more) than Harlequins actual season average crowds and obviously will be more with away fans and fans that turn up on the day

But they are scum who sign players without first checking whether they are under contract or not. Get rid.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

It should be the Crusaders and Toulouse. We should be looking to expand on the back of the WC and these two teams fit the bill the best.

 

[The Tank]

I'm praying for Toulouse and the Crusaders. I think Toulouse are a must although Celtic may be a tad too soon for professional rugby.

 

[ucantseeme]

Promotion and relegation will not apply in 2008 but a National League team is guaranteed a Super League licence when they next come up for review in 2012.
This would either be at the expense of a relegated team or as a result of further expansion.
Three grades of membership are proposed for existing Super League clubs, based on both off and on the field criteria.
Assessments will be completed and made public next year, with the bottom tier teams in danger of relegation.

So they aren't doing away with the the pro/relegation altogether but are putting it off every 3 years, starting from 2009. With the 3 grades of membership, it could mean a team could scrape into the playoffs in 2012 but still get relegated due to their membership level. I do hope none of the frontier teams (ie ouside heartlands) get bottom tier membership as they need the most help to grow and prosper.

The league are confident of winning over the critics, who claim that the temporary suspension of promotion and relegation will result in more meaningless matches.

Officials admit much work needs to be done to change the mindset of a rugby league audience accustomed to the cut and thrust of relegation but argue that the change needs to be made for the good of the game.

Awarding three-year licences, they argue, will enable clubs to make long-term plans and encourage the development of local players at the expense of short-term overseas signings.
There are also plans to increase prize money for the National League champions to provide a further incentive for clubs outside the elite.

Forget about approval seeking from critics who think meaningless matches will result from a move away from yearly relegation. What's in bold is of major importance.

 

[deluded pom?]

But when the reviews come out after three years no one is going to want to be at the bottom of the league so the old short termism will still prevail. Three years is not long enough.

 

[bowes]

Though if you score at least 5 out of 10 on the franchise points scale (which isn't hard) then you can finish bottom and be safe. Harlequins and Catalans will be safe assuming they both have stable finances, not so sure about the Crusaders or Toulouse (if they get in). Also will likely be who of the bottom category has done worst over the three years and they may just expand anyway

 

[bowes]

Also the only teams at risk will be the smaller ones that don't sort their ground out

 

[shaggy]

i hear earlier that a team from italy was a possibility, is that still a possibility or are they gone?
i think its a bit early for a second french team, let the dragons grow and go with manchester then mabye tolouse in 2012

as for going for players at the end of every three years, i don't think that will happen with other things being stronger factors than on field results as well as the rfl is decreasing the number of import players including kolpak

 

[winnyason]

to me it is a no brainer to not put in toulouse consider this:
*The largest growing city in toulouse
*average crowds of 2000 already
*5 million in the bank
*a team that includes the best of the rest in france outside gresque includes courtier, houles, planas, vacarri, villgas, carraco, fellous, pramil, gay.
*it is a chance for league to go big with crowds with potential of 15 thousand plus crowds.

Now the wales bid is very flawed for starters it is a town of 40 thousand people & not bigger enough i looked back at when a welsh team bid in 1998 farcial gateshead expansion that the on the road match in swansea it attracted 9 thousand, they must move from bridgend or not get end that is it.

 

[joshreading]

I think the Welsh side should be played out of more than one venue - eg. Bridgend - Cardiff and Swansea. There has already been rumours of such a move.

 

[ucantseeme]

[SIZE=+1]Most Populated Cities in Britain



[/SIZE]( 2001 Census)

1 London England 7,172,091​

2 Birmingham England 970,892
3 Leeds England 715,404
4 Glasgow Scotland 577,869
5 Sheffield England 513,234
6 Bradford England 467,665
7 Edinburgh Scotland 448,624
8 Liverpool England 439,477
9 Manchester England 392,819
10 Bristol England 380,615
11 Cardiff Wales 305,353
12 Coventry England 300,848
13 Leicester England 279,921
14 Belfast Northern Ireland 276,459
15 Nottingham England 266,988
16 Newcastle on Tyne England 259,000
17 Kingston upon Hull England 243,589
18 Plymouth England 240,720
19 Stoke-on-Trent England 240,636
20 Wolverhampton England 236,582
........
39 Huddersfield England 146,234
........
64 St Helens England 102,629
* Dublin 1.6million in region​

With the franchises, obviously it's going to go to the current ESL clubs with a few additions from NL1 and maybe a Wales or France team. But based on the above data, the ESL must have an eye on the future. What teams will be part of ESL in 20 years? I'd be putting development dollars into the top 20.​

 

[deluded pom?]

I find it hard to believe that Leeds has a bigger population than Glasgow. I always thought Sheffield was the biggest city in Yorkshire. I also don't believe those figures for Manchester. What was your source ucant?

 

[ucantseeme]

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/population/cities.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_cities_by_population

Obviously on these numbers it is essential to have a London team.

 

[deluded pom?]

It depends which site you use. Woodlands figures claim to be from the 2001 census but other sites claim the same source but have different numbers.

 

[shaggy]

quins will stay, london is to big a region to loose same with the reds

as with the next twenty years, id like to see the number of teams go up and include more teams from outside england and maybe less from in england