Well, supporting a club that has recently built one of these "forced" stadia - the only way my club could be even remotely viable is in a new stadium which could deliver more income streams for the club than our decrepit old one.



We've also mammothly increased our crowds as a result.



Interesting that you would suggest we didn't "need" our new stadium - our financial statements whilst at KR and chairman would probably disagree.



Which of the clubs in "old" stadia are breaking even? Perhaps the RFL are right to force clubs towards new stadia that can help drive more sustainable clubs?

The RFLs plan for success and expansion has worked where exactly? three clubs going bankrupt in the last two years? The Crusaders debacle? Londons still ongoing problems??

How can you view this as success?

The sooner this game realises it is a small time sport and returns to a semi pro status the better. We lasted for 100 years as such, so why change it? If some one wants to play Union that's fine by me, i'm happy to watch the ones staying behind a playing RL. As long as i can watch my local team on a Sunday afternnon i'm not really bothjered what happens in the rest of the country.

You are looking at it from a purely selfish POV, most clubs can't afford to!!

Could you please point out how the RFL are responsible for any of those clubs going bump? I mean in detail, not some long-winded version of "they just ARE I tell you".

Not sure this would work. If youngesters at grass roots level know that they can earn more money playing kick and clap rather than league then we will lose interest in league from an early age. Money has changed most sports as well as Rugby which has helped our game and other sports. I personally don't see a way back to semi pro game. There are probably more clubs doing ok financially than aren't at the moment it's up to the clubs to run themselves responsibly.

The problem with new stadia is that unless you actually build it as a club (Saints) then you do not get the revenue streams, like food/drink etc. (Salford).

I agree with both side of teh argument to an extent although (an cas fans rarely do) i have to side with our Wakefield colleague.



On one side having a new stadia does open up a massive amount of opportunity for commercial success - corporate entertaining for example is massivly higher in new stadia compared to old ones. This obviously helps to make clubs more revenue and supposedly for viable businesses.



on the other hand new stadia cost a lot to run and maintain - and if Salford is anything to go by hardly a receipe for sucess. failure to get the desired level of income from teh stadia results in it being a hinderance to success as apposed a catalyst.



However before you even get to the new stadia clubs are being forced to spend huge amounts of money on designs - legal fees and the such. Which in the current climate clubs simply can not afford - simply beacuse the RFL want new stadia to appear on TV - which makes teh marketability of the game as a whole go up and inturn sponshorship revenue - Well sort of assuming you dont sell it for free!!

Have some people forgotten that stadium quality is only ONE of the things that clubs are assessed on again?

Give over - Stadium quality was one of probably two criteria to be reviewed by the RFL.



The other one being were you on the predetermined list written by the RFL months prior to the applications being handed in.

Wahey - not often you see conspiracy theory bullcrap spouted about this topic.



Oh, wait a moment...

Nope, a total failure to respond to my point. I have never, anywhere, said the RFL's plans have been a success. I was intersted in how you are suggesting RL should operate to be financially sustainable & still attract the crowds & youngsters necessary for it continue.