should not be in that league.

i do, 100%. If a big money man came in, said im going to invest this this and this, Wakefield got their stadium sorted, and were ready to move forward then yes, without a doubt i think the RFL would keep them in. They would be the poster child for franchising. What better proof, what better evidence could they wish for. It would be a godsend for the RFL.

if a club were to be in that position, then it would be demoted. If a club had no owner, and no-one coming forward then it would likely lose its franchise.

You implied that we were going to start the season on minus points because you asume we will go into administration,my sarcastic reply to you which is all it were, was in response to your know it all attitude about our future and as for not mentioning our on field performances why should you when administration has nothing to do with it.



My reply to the other poster was in keeping with his post if he chooses to do some selective editing to make him look good at my expense then pardon me for reciprocating, and as for reading your post properly I admit I do find it difficult trying to keep up as you keep changing your opinions so quickly, another thing you have probably learnt from your SPATS with her ladyship, and as for explaining things more simply for me, I get more sense from my 3 year old grandkid than from you, and for what its worth my contributions on this particular thread are in defence of my club, whereas yours are just insinuations and fantasy and the intentions like others on here to cause embarassment, remember it was you what said we did not deserve to be in SL and the sooner they kicked us out for Widnes the better some contribution that squire

there are no guarantees, no guarantee under P+R and no guarantee under franchising, other than if you are good enough you will be promoted. The difference is with P+R you need to be good enough once for one day, with franchising you actually need to be good enough to play SL
Sorry you agree with me, but because i said it, its pathetic. Wierd.

If its top of the league that gets promotion then that does away with 'good enough once for one day'.

The guarantee is that if you finish bottom , you go down , if you finish top , you go up , sorry if that is a bit too simple for you

The ' rant ' was pathetic , because we weren't discussing Leigh , but you felt it necessary to try to bring it into the argument , thinking in some way it would upset me , I would beg the difference about being ' good enough for one day ' if that is the case why do we bother playing 20 odd games beforehand , are you suggesting Leeds won the WCC by being better than all the other SL clubs just for one day ?

As I said earlier , the RFL will be happy that the decision has been taken out of their hands , they don't have the balls to make the hard ones

Where did I agree in the post you quoted? I think you are struggling to comprehend what it is I was disagreeing about.

I wasn't disagreeing about stepping down. I was disagreeing that a club should announce at the start of a season that they intend to step down at the end of the season (due to financial reasons), which would disillusion fans (IMO) to the point where they wouldn't even turn up, sponsors and corporates would be difficult to find, and the entire reason for stepping down (financial reasons) would be made even worse due to less revenue generated than if they had just kept shut and battled on.

The quote you posted, in which I said the spat was pointless, is because if they go bust, then it won't matter if they announce it or not anyway as they wouldn't make it to the Championship regardless.

Are you following now? Or are you going to tell me something I haven't said again?



I think saying I have "you know what" in my head would constitute as abuse, my friend. Don't play innocent.


Did I say you said that? No.
So I have no idea what that has to do with anything. Or why you brought Hull into things in the first place. Why don't you answer that one?


I would, and have done. If the licensing system was in place when Hull were the Sharks, we wouldn't (and shouldn't) have gotten one. We had poor crowds, a poor ground, poor finances and a poor team. We wanted to drop down to the then NFP after the season finished (not before the season started like Ceejames thinks your lot should announce), but the APC (Association of Premiership Clubs) rejected us so we had no choice but to merge. We are lucky to have our stadium, and have come a long way because of it and the new business, and I have never said anything otherwise.

I understand completely that not everyone can be as lucky as that, but that's not an excuse. Hull have put a lot of work in regardless to get their business to where it is today. Your point you're making is simply not true, and if Hull were still in the situation we were in as the Sharks, we wouldn't, shouldn't and couldn't complain about not obtaining a license. Don't attack the poster, attack the post. It's the sign of a poor argument if you have to do the former because you can't do the latter.


Or, option number three, you have misread what is pretty simple, and (instead of doubling over it to check if what you think I said is what I said) you have let your emotional involvement control your thoughts and become extremely defensive in your reply. All this would have been irrelevant if you had just re-read the post with a level head on.

You have not shown me anywhere where I have not made my mind up on what I am saying. You've only shown me where you haven't read properly and understood what I have said. For some reason, you seem to think I am attacking Wakefield when I have done nothing of the sort! Perhaps the reason Ceejames talks to you in the way I am is because your posts illicit that kind of response!

No, I implied you MAY be starting the season on minus points, because you MAY be going into administration. Which part of that isn't true? I don't have a know it all attitude, you've gone into defence mode again thinking that I'm attacking Wakefield (which I haven't done).
Administration has nothing to do with on-field performance, you are correct. So what does not winning any games (something you said, not me) have to do with anything?


So you're being a hypocrite then? You can't have a go at someone for something and then do it yourself.


Your problem with reading my posts has nothing to do with me changing my opinion (which if you would still like to direct me to where I have, I would greatly appreciate it). Your problem with reading my posts is your inability to understand the English language properly. You have interpreted me saying "may" and "could" as "will" and "would", and have thus attacked my posts on this basis. I said that Wakefield "may" go into administration, that they "could" go bust. Nobody knows if they will or won't, and if they do think they know then they are arrogant because nobody knows and you could justifiably ridicule them if you like. But I haven't said that. You have just struggled to read the post properly.


Where have I said anything of the sort?!



You can defend your club all you like, and I don't knock you for doing so. What I do knock is your defensive attitude towards things that aren't an attack on your club and are perfectly valid contributions. My contributions have been what may happen if something else happens (which is what a discussion forum is all about). Your contribution appears to be to attack anyone that has a criticism for your club, which is very sad. Criticism is not always a bad thing.

When you have calmed yourself down and read the posts properly (and not in a way that you think people are attacking your club), you may see that I have not said anything that isn't a fair comment at all. Your defensive attitude is an embarrassment to other Wakefield fans.

I didnt think it would upset you. I just thought it an apt example.

The guarantee you finish bottom you go down, you finish top you go up maatters not one jot to an investor. It is ridiculously unstable as an option. To argue there are any guarantees or stability in the P+R option is complete, unadulterated nonsense. There is no stability, no guarantees.

It is pointless asking me a question if you don't like the answer you get and just make up your own?

P&R in a sport not strong enough to support it = clubs gambling on promotion/avoiding relegation + not getting promoted/avoiding relegation = financial disaster

Which clubs have suffered financial disaster because of P and R in recent years ?

Widnes, Wakefield, Halifax, Featherstone, Keighley, Wigan (almost), Leeds (almost), Bradford (almost). How's that for starters?

A list of clubs that have had financial difficulties, and your point is?

How Wigan, Bradford and Leeds suffered at the hands of P+R I'll never know?

I said recent years , Widnes were hamstrung by a bad rental agreement , when did Fev have a problem ? , Fax would have been in problems with a licence system as well

W1g4n ?

Leeds ?

Bradford ?

Keighley , yes , so you are suggesting we should end P and R between the Championships ?

With the salary caps in all divisions and the SL contract clauses there is no problems

?

2007 isn't 'recent years'? Though it was the last year of qualified promotion and relegation between the professional and semi-pro competitions? Really? So you're actually asking for a list of clubs financially damaged by P&R, but obky since P&R ended ...

Even by your standards, Starry, that's just ludicrous.

So W1g4n , Bradford , Fev and Fax , or do you mean Widnes , either way , if you know better tell us which clubs ?

That P&R encourages short term financial gambles whereas the franchise system encourages longer term growth and development.

You don't think Wigan spent a lot of money trying to avoid relegation? They spent one of the biggest transfer fees and one of the highest wages paid to a coach in getting Stuart Fielden and Brian Noble to help out of the mess. If they hadn't had a massively wealthy owner they would be in the same position as Wakefield now.


Yeah that was Widnes' only problem, a bad rental agreement





2002



Probably, but it would have been less likely since with a licence system there is a chance to write off a bad season and build for the next one. With relegation as a threat you never have that option.


No because there isn't as massive a jump in ambition from Championship 1 to Championship as there is from Championship to Super League.


How does the salary cap avoid financial disaster? It helps but since the removal of the 50% of income requirement it doesn't regulate how much a club can be losing. Wakefield for example weren't spending the full cap but were still losing money.
I want promotion and relegation. I think it is the way sport should be, but only when that sport is mature enough and strong enough to deal with it. There is only one sport who can currently do this and it's football and it barely manages to deal with it in football.

Hopefully in 20/30 years time the sport will be strong enough to return to P&R but right now there aren't enough strong clubs to make P&R viable.

so are you saying wigan had a financial because of P&R ?.

In 20 years time we won't have any clubs left to be promoted

Without a guaranteed end product there is no long term growth

So W1g4n should be protected ? , what happened to their attendances ?

Are you suggesting they would have gone bust ?

You say " without a rich benefactor " , so that is what you suggest all clubs must have or they are not worthy of SL ?

In Widness case , it was the rental agreement that was the biggest factor , that and the ' rich benefactor ' signing players and then walking away is that not the problem you get with having a ' rich benefactor ' ?

Are you sure Fev problems were caused by overspending and that was before the salary cap came in