Thanks, I don't have twitter so it didn,t cross my mind to look there. I can't get on with Twitter, must be getting old!

Fair does Phantom.Your ground might be superior as you say but it holds little weight in the big scheme of things (IMG). Facilities is only one small factor. Attendances and league position will let you down. A chairman who is critical of the grading system won’t help you either.

If the protocols are followed the same as before then no one will bother

Thing is, these kinds of teams never really had much hope of getting into Super League anyway so in terms of that, there isn't a whole lot of change. In fact, realistically it would give them a better chance of doing it one day, and by doing so would force them to invest their money into improving their club itself, rather than the playing squad which would likely be some kind of short term fix/hope and would make them healthier overall.

I can see why teams like Featherstone would vote against as they've invested heavily into their playing squad to try and get them promoted on the field. For teams that have never really been anywhere near getting there on the field, then these proposals would actually be better for their sustainability

Investment? Look at the money Coleman, Moran and Leneghan have put in? The Yorkshire based clubs are the ones holding rugby league back. Awful stadiums that are an embarrassment and penny pinchers.

#yorkshireispropertight

There was. See "Primacy of Tenure."

Strangely though (as pointed out by Bongser passim), when a couple of their "Jewels in the Crown" went bust, the RFU decided to include Primacy of Tenure as one criterion in their hastily assembled, revised licensing. Said criterion was dropped as it was found to be against UK Competition Law.

IMG only allocated 0.25 points out of 20 (1.25%) to this.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey?