It gets embarrassing at times the most petty arguments! St Helens got a Grade B and that was under the clearly defined rules, everyone was well aware of them and signed up to them.



Finances, can anyone tell me one club in Super League that could survive without the SKY TV money? no one could live on gate receipts alone. It is easy to knock Ian Lenagan at Wigan but did not Eamonn Macmanus when he bought the club really save it with his personal investment? I know David Hughes in London needs a very deep pocket to keep the club afloat, gone of the days of a butcher owning a rugby league club! I am sure Hull's new owner will put in much personal investment.

we made a profit last year didnt we?

We haven't got a fully functioning home ground, "B" grade is what I would have expected.



We'll walk an "A" next time round.

But will 2011, 2012 and 2013 be the seasons we will be judged on or 2012, 2013 and 2014? If as people are suggesting it is the former then we may not; if it is the latter then I'm dead sure we will.

That's not the point. The point is it is average attendances over the last three years that are taken, if you take an average attendance when not everyone has played everyone else you are not treating everyone equally.



One of the criteria is being in the top 8 the last three years - do you think they look at who was in the top 8 when the bids were submitted as take that for this year, as that is essentially what you were saying.

Agreed.

Who cares? A or B we're still in so what are you bothered about?



If it was B and there were 14 clubs with an A I'd be worried.

Yes you are. All you need to do is make sure everyone has played the same number of games.

That's a bit daft.



Say we fell just under a threshold but hadn't played Wigan at home, but Wigan were just above it having played us at the DW.



Would it be fair for them to be graded higher on attendances?

Would it matter? If we were worthy of a Grade A then we would be getting at least 10,000 per season average anyway, like Wigan and Leeds do regardless of who they play. The idea isn't to be 'fair'. It is to be accurate. If a club has to rely on certain matches to increase their attendance then they aren't a Grade A club are they? They're a Grade B club. Like us!



PS: I don't care whether we are Grade A or Grade B, just so long as we aren't Grade C. That's a bit of a wobbly place to be imo.

Not everyone had when the bids were submitted. Did they take the top 8 when the bids were submitted as well using your "logic"?

Teams aren't required to get into the top 8 in every season though are they?



Besides, you haven't answered the question. For the 2014 round of licences, will 2011 be taken into consideration do you think, even though it is outside the next licence period? Or will 2012, 2013 and 2014 be the three seasons taken into consideration?

What's that got to do with it? It's still a criteria. So are you using the same logic and saying the top 8 criteria was at some arbitrary point this season when not everyone had played everyone else home and away?







You've haven't asked me a question before so it was difficult to answer - For some things if they follow the same practice as the last two license rounds yes, because of the simple fact the bids will be submitted early in the third year of the next license period.

This would make things tricky for grading Widnes if they are being judged this year they are on a bad start, or if they are not being judged this year it isn't consistent with the other 13.



That said I do agree with you cannot fairly/evenly judge criteria for attendances for 2011 when the bids had to be in about 6 weeks into the season