WiganWarriorsFans.com

[/quote]

DaveO posted:
It means in simple terms if Leigh and Celic Crusaders (the Welsh team who have said they are interested in applying for a franchise) end up on the same points total due to their facilities, finances etc then Celtic would get in and Leigh would not.

But is that fair? A major factor in this is support attracted to these teams. If they are the same on points you cant really award the franchise to for example celtic can you? Surley if the teams are on the same amount of points but a team on the M62 has a better support than for instance Celtic surley the M62 team should be accepted?

It makes perfect sense if you want to expand the geographic coverage of the game as it helps the likes of Celtic. It also acknowledges that if teams are close together they compete for supporters.

Does it? If you where a wakefield fan and you where refused a franchise could you really see fans supporting the likes of leeds? Bradford? Castleford?

warrior till i die posted:

DaveO posted:

It makes perfect sense if you want to expand the geographic coverage of the game as it helps the likes of Celtic. It also acknowledges that if teams are close together they compete for supporters.

Does it? If you where a wakefield fan and you where refused a franchise could you really see fans supporting the likes of leeds? Bradford? Castleford?

More to the point, what if the "new" club fails to attract the necessary support/sponsorships/merchandise, then we will be left with another defunct club and yet more dwindling funds from Super League deposited into the realms of fantasy ideas!

butt monkey posted:

warrior till i die posted:

DaveO posted:

It makes perfect sense if you want to expand the geographic coverage of the game as it helps the likes of Celtic. It also acknowledges that if teams are close together they compete for supporters.

Does it? If you where a wakefield fan and you where refused a franchise could you really see fans supporting the likes of leeds? Bradford? Castleford?

More to the point, what if the "new" club fails to attract the necessary support/sponsorships/merchandise, then we will be left with another defunct club and yet more dwindling funds from Super League deposited into the realms of fantasy ideas!

I think the concept is that if there is no other club close by you can grow your fan base. As you say if Wakefield fail to get in then there supporters won't go elsewhere

Fujiman posted:

butt monkey posted:

warrior till i die posted:

DaveO posted:

It makes perfect sense if you want to expand the geographic coverage of the game as it helps the likes of Celtic. It also acknowledges that if teams are close together they compete for supporters.

Does it? If you where a wakefield fan and you where refused a franchise could you really see fans supporting the likes of leeds? Bradford? Castleford?

More to the point, what if the "new" club fails to attract the necessary support/sponsorships/merchandise, then we will be left with another defunct club and yet more dwindling funds from Super League deposited into the realms of fantasy ideas!

I think the concept is that if there is no other club close by you can grow your fan base. As you say if Wakefield fail to get in then there supporters won't go elsewhere

But can you grow your franchise? For example quins struggle to build a fan base and they have very few clubs near them. Would celtic be the same? At least teams like cas and wakefield usually attract 7,000- which is still not a good amount although Ive been impressed with Wakefields support recently they seem to be attracting 9,000 - 10,000 crowds. To increase a fan base the rfl need to start at the amature level! I feel they should give free tickets to schools and amature clubs for millenium magic this coming year. Surley this will increase the fanbase and intrest in the sport in Wales?

warrior till i die posted:

DaveO posted:
It means in simple terms if Leigh and Celic Crusaders (the Welsh team who have said they are interested in applying for a franchise) end up on the same points total due to their facilities, finances etc then Celtic would get in and Leigh would not.

But is that fair? A major factor in this is support attracted to these teams.

[/quote]

Support is part of the franchise criteria as well so in order for Celtic to beat Leigh by virtue of getting the one point for location, they would have to at least match Leigh's total on all the other criteria including support.

It wasn't fair Les Cats were immune form relegation for three years but if you want to promote the game outside the heartlands by having teams in SL in those regions, fairness isn't high on the criteria. In fact it isn't on there at all.

If they are the same on points you cant really award the franchise to for example celtic can you? Surley if the teams are on the same amount of points but a team on the M62 has a better support than for instance Celtic surley the M62 team should be accepted?

For them to get the same total (before Celtic get the extra point for location) Celtic would have had to match Leith's total which means by definition they can match the support. So given two teams on the same total it's a simple question of where you want the new team. In Wigan borough or down in South Wales?

If you want to expand the leagues goeography the answer is obvious but that won't go down well with traditionalists.

It makes perfect sense if you want to expand the geographic coverage of the game as it helps the likes of Celtic. It also acknowledges that if teams are close together they compete for supporters.

Does it? If you where a wakefield fan and you where refused a franchise could you really see fans supporting the likes of leeds? Bradford? Castleford?

It certainly makes sense from the geography point of view. Whether if a team was refused a franchise their current support would migrate to another club is doubtful but over time (and I am talking at least a generation here) kids would see a big SL club in the next town cand in the same way people I know who are members at Chester RUFC support Sale so maybe the same would come to pass in RL.

Mo tried to tackle this when SL first came about by suggesting merged teams but that didn't work because no one supported "Calder". If you look to RU hanging the franchise on a real club even if it is not everyone's own local club seems to work better. People who remember Orrell being a great side may never support Sale but there are lots of new fans from all over the North West who do.

Dave

Unfortunately sport proves the opposite. The big clubs in football are condensed into small geographical pockets; London, Yorkshire, Merseyside, Manchester, North East, Glasgow and so are NRL clubs; Sydney and Brisbane.

butt monkey posted:
More to the point, what if the "new" club fails to attract the necessary support/sponsorships/merchandise, then we will be left with another defunct club and yet more dwindling funds from Super League deposited into the realms of fantasy ideas!

First of all the club would have to satisfy the franchise criteria which includes all that before it was given the franchise in the first place but if what you say happened, the club would lose its franchise after three years.

Dave

cpwigan posted:
Unfortunately sport proves the opposite. The big clubs in football are condensed into small geographical pockets; London, Yorkshire, Merseyside, Manchester, North East, Glasgow and so are NRL clubs; Sydney and Brisbane.

So what you are saying is, the big football clubs are spread all over the country then?

As to Australia the population and geography of the country is so different it just isn't a valid comparison IMO.

Dave

I find that 40% criterion somwhat bizarre, though. Why effectively deter a club from building a decent sized stadium?

For example, Salford's new ground will have a 22,000 capacity, so they don't have a hope in hell of reaching 40% (averaging somewhere around 4 - 5,000) yet if they'd gone for a ground the size of Warrington's or Widnes, they'd have had a chance of an extra point.
Leigh's new ground will only hold 10k, so they'd get an extra point if they got 4k supporters, but Salford need to get 8,800 for the same point.

It seems to be encouraging a lack of ambition to me.

Clubs like Huddersfield (and perhaps Hull, who are borderline with a 25.4k capacity, and crowds of around 10k) are being penalised unnecessarily, in my view. A grotty but small ground gets one point, just the same as a big new one.

I don't understand their thinking (not for the first time!).

cpwigan posted:
Unfortunately sport proves the opposite. The big clubs in football are condensed into small geographical pockets; London, Yorkshire, Merseyside, Manchester, North East, Glasgow and so are NRL clubs; Sydney and Brisbane.

Yeah, but in big cities, with massive populations, for the most part. That's why I can see Hull, for example, providing two teams, but not Wigan & Leigh. I can't think of any big football clubs that are in small towns just 5/10 miles apart. Wigan & Bolton are probably the closest examples, and neither are well supported.