If this is true then there will be another SL club worried right now. I'm still convinced Widnes will get the nod. So that's possibly Toulouse (given today's goalpost shift) and Widnes in. Who's out?



At the moment it's Salford but who's going to join them? Strangely enough and contrary to the expansionists wishes i think it could possibly be Harlequins. The RFL would be hard pushed to oust Wakefield, especially with their on-field performances of late. Any others? Castleford? Crusaders? Unlikely.



Therefore, if i had to put my semi-detatched on it the following would be the running order:



Salford

Harlequins

>>

>>

>>

Crusaders

Wakefield

Castleford



Next year is going to be a real ding dang do !!

My copy arrives Tuesday. Just seems strange no other outlet has commented on it.

Harlequins are certainly in the mix, but I wouldn't be so sure that either Wakey or Cas are that much safer. Think that will rather strongly depend on how their respective stadium projects progress.





Indeed. Every chance that there'll be more people hacked off than happy.

why does it seem strange?

who,outside the championships actually gives a flying f__k about whats going on in RL.

This is the problem now. What the hell IS the priority of the RFL? How will they percieve the non-action on promised stadiums? Will they use the opportunity to "punish" those who haven't fulfilled the stadium criteria? If so, how do you separate the likes of Saints vs Cas/Wakey/Salford? The RFL ceratinly know how to make a rod for their own back. Do they care? Probably not if they've got their long-term specs on. In ten years time no-one will give a hoot.

The priority of the RFL is pretty evidently to make the sport (at least appear to be) modern and professional. Good stadia are an important aspect of that agenda and so I expect it to weigh heavily in the assessment of future applications - particularly where promises have been made that may not have come to pass for a variety of reasons.



You differentiate between Saints and the rest through use of other aspects of the criteria - most likely the 'contribution to competition' aspect. Or just make the decision you want and justify it later.





That seems to be their stance. "One day you'll thank us for this, guys".

Add a club like Widnes and you get no less than 6 extra derby games. Go figure...

I'm just writing out my nomination for Messrs Lewis & Wood for the 2020 New Years Honours list. God bless 'em.

No way will the Harlequins be dropped. No chance at all.

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/london/8509461.stm[/url

Key words:

=#0040BFthe [size=150success[/size of Harlequins is paramount to the future of Super League.



This statement could just as well have been a warning shot across their bow. Shape up, or ship out?

Possibly common law but the RFL and the clubs are at a close proximity so that it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that, an act or omission on the part of the RFL has caused any of the clubs loss. Whether that be costs associated with the preparation of the SL Applications or whatever.



The grounds for the criteria for SL admission are based on the clubs agreeing to the decisions that have been made. The fact they've signed something amounting to an agreement to abide by the any decisions proves there is some sort of contract in place in any sense, depends what the terms of it are. However, at common law and not contract law it could be implied that the process that has determined those decisions is carried out in a reasonable, just and fair manner. If the clubs can prove that such a process was not carried out in a fair manner then it is likely there could be a case for court. That on the face of it without knowing all the paperwork in place is one possible route for clubs to go down should they consider that route.

Found this: www./news_3335-tou ... eague.html But it looks to be lifted direct from here and has no quotes at all from the RFL confirming this "change".

Found this: www./news_3335-tou ... eague.html But it looks to be lifted direct from here and has no quotes at all from the RFL confirming this "change".