<Is there any deadlines in place for AP team to get their grounds in order or face action from the RFU?>
A very good question!
No, I don't think so. But there is this in the MSC.
Minimum Standards Criteria
The PGB recognises that three Clubs currently playing in the Premiership namely London Wasps, Saracens and London Irish may not currently meet the Criteria relating to Primacy of Tenure and that no sanction will be taken by the PGB in relation to this save for any action pursuant to paragraph 3.5 (ii)
3.5 (ii) states that if one of those three come bottom and the top Chamionship side also don't have PoT then there will be a play-off between the two.
Also, those of you blaming the RFU for this should bear in mind that the RFU supported promotion/relegation when PRL wanted the Premiership ring-fenced. The MSC was part of the compromise over this (amongst other things) agreed in the long term agreement.
Of course, that doesn't mean the RFU still think the same way but in this situation they are merely enforcing the rules.
Also, Heath Quinn's point is a good one. LW made absolutely no attempt, it appears, to build up the infrastructure necessary for a Premiership club, as Exeter and Worcester did and Pirates are doing. They winged it, probably won the Championship by surprise and now they're whinging.
Yes of course you could say that people knew the criteria for promotion before hand but if thats the case as far as I currently know only Bristol meet that criteria at present, although I am not sure they do hold PoT (do they?)
Bristol don't have PoT at their main ground but they have an alternative which will always be available within 30 miles thus they satisfy the criteria.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27/06/2012 13:09 by Brown Bottle.