Maybe due to the recession?

Steve O'Connor invested in Widnes after they went into administration. He didn't know whether they'd be in SL or not, but he still did. And they didn't end up in SL. And he had to invest for 3 years in the Championship. It's not ideal, but it can be done.

Perhaps the potential investor at Wakefield didn't feel he was up to the task? Whereas another person might feel they are? It's all personal.

Did I say guaranteed, er no tb. Don't try to play your sad sack games with me.

After the next round of licences the door is firmly slammed. Everyone knows it, even you. Except you're too far into your arguments and always right to be in a position to admit it.

As far SOC, he's one of these local heroes smokey says we need to avoid, and there's loads of them lining up to invest in RL outside of super league isn't there.

Sometimes you guys are so sad I wonder if you're for real - I hope for your sakes cas don't lose their licence tb, not sure you can handle a dose of reality

The RFL cannot, in any circumstances, promise that Wakey will stay in SL. What should they have done to this 'potential investor'? Lie to him, or, as tb wondered, guarantee Wakey a place in SL although that breaks all the licensing rules and would be condemning another club to lose a license? Why can't you understand that?

Very subtle editing sherlock merging two quotes into one, sorry no prize though

Must admit though its a bit unusual to have part of your quote dissappear when the rest of it has posted





Below are three quotes of yours which you are saying you did not say, these are not edited and can be found in this thread along with the quote where you denied saying them, I have already said I could not give a toss about your thoughts on all things Wakefield and not for the first time I have said you have the right to change your opinions at any time you want, but for the final time I will say to you that having said these things please be a man and have the b*ll*cks to admit it. Thanks in anticipation.












Okay if I must

If you reply to this post and I hope you do not because I am sick to death of your prevaricating, then please stick to what I have written and either admit or deny what I have said and not what you think I meant. Oh just one other thing, heres another one of your pearls of wisdom below.



Stevenage 3 Newcastle 1 does that mean that before yesterday you thought Newcastle were better side, but now having lost that Stevenage are now the better side

So, you don’t believe the RFL have told Harlequins & Crusaders they will be guaranteed a licence for the next three years?

Did I say they should?

What should be there is the opportunity for clubs to achieve super league status and that is fast disappearing, especially after the next round of licences.

I am aware of criteria and letting clubs in that can cope with super league and the best clubs being in super league etc, etc and I would back any system that allowed this, but our current system, forget it.

As devils advocate said - you don't think quins and crusaders haven't been guaranteed licences? Doesn't this break licence rules?

Oh dear

We are all guessing about everything on this one , but maybe he asked if they would be guaranteeing a promotion for a Championship club in 2015 ? , I don't think even the most loyal Wakey fan would expect the RFL to compromise the licence application at this point in time , and only an idiot would think they would tell a 3 rd party a definate decision now

What two quotes merged into one are you referring to here??


It wasn't a part of my quote. It was a separate quote (because it was a completely separate post) that I posted straight after the last reply. Apparently it did not post, so I apologised for that. Apparently you do not accept my apology. I have posted it again regardless, it hasn't made any difference.


Where have I said I didn't say them? You've quoted something I have said, I cannot deny that, and haven't tried to.

What I have denied is you saying something (not quoting something) that I said and that being completely fabricated.

I'll repeat, I have not once said that Wakefield should be kicked out of SL as soon as possible for Widnes. None of the quotes you have posted show anything of the sort. You're beginning to look silly.


I have never said that the sooner Wakefield are out of SL for Widnes the better, and none of the quotes you have put up show that I did.
All you have done is quote three posts that I made, that show the opinion that I don't think Wakefield should be in SL. You still haven't shown me to say that.


I have always stuck to what you have written. I have never missed a point. What point do you think I have missed that you think I need to address?

The part in bold is extremely laughable. I have denied making any suggestion that I have the opinion of the sooner Wakefield being kicked out of SL the better. I have never denied making the three posts you have quoted. This is your problem with reading again.


I chose boxing for a reason, and a chose two games against two world champions for a reason. (I knew you'd pick a random minnow beating a big team to try and prove some kind of point)...

I chose boxing because it is an individual sport and not a team sport (so squad selection isn't a factor in David Haye beating anyone in boxing). Newcastle picked a weaker team than they did when they beat West Ham 5-0 three days previous. So no, it doesn't mean Stevenage are better, it means that they were better on the day than that team selected.

I picked two games against two world champions for consistency. If you have one world title, it could be luck. If you have two it could be coincidence. If you have THREE world titles, it wasn't luck.

Hope my perfectly logical explanation is suffice for you.

Now tell me where I said I the sooner Wakefield are out of SL the better, or admit that I didn't...

Maybe they will "if" they hit certain targets. I don't think anyone is guaranteed anything in SL, and it is all dependent on other factors.

He may not but i do.

" If they hit certain targets "

So you are saying they should be treated differently ?

Where have I said they should be?

By the suggestion that if they hit certain targets they will be guaranteed a place , surely that is probably what this mysterious investor would have asked ?

What sort of time scale would you suggest these targets should be met by given that they are a new company with only 7 months until a decision is made ?

Do you think the new owners of the Crusaders would have asked the RFL for a guarantee before committing to paying them back 700 K over ten years ?

As will any club, so not treating differently at all. If you meet the targets and the criteria, you will be guaranteed a place. But you cannot guarantee hitting targets.


And he probably did, and was probably told, and probably doesn't think he could meet them in time. Maybe somebody else could?


When the applications are due to be handed in? Or at least show significant evidence that they will be achieved in a certain timescale (which will be difficult, seeing as they said they'd have a stadium come 2012!).


They might have asked for one, but it doesn't mean they will have gotten one!

So your answer to Devils Advocate , should have been

No

Its all quite sad isn't it starry?

How their opinions would change if their clubs were staring into/already in the rugby league abyss. Its so easy to back a system that protects your club!

As for smokey, how quick he forgets where he came from. No longer will anyone be able to match the fantastic work he did with an unfancied underdog now he's protecting his post in super league. Sums it all up.

Greed and self interest. Sadly our sport turns its backs on the very principles it rose from

You couldn't get "no" from that?

this thred is turning into something like watching paint dry

And this contribution has improved it how?

If you don't like it, either do somthing about it or you know where to go...

[uI'm sorry, I thought if it said Wellsy13 wrote then that meant that wellsy wrote it not me.[/u



[uAre you getting flusted as well as busted here? thats twice in the same paragraph you have denied the same thing, even after I have shown all your quotes on the offening article. and the quote from you below shows that I did[/u



[uIn your first sentence you openly admit that I have shown that you in your opinion Wakey should not be in SL, then in your next sentence you are asking me to show you where you said it,even after I have posted it on here 3times.[/u



[uThe only thing that is extremely laughable is your view that I cannot read, also in the four paragraphs above you have written on the matter, you have changed your mind in every one and in one of them changed it back again

whats all that about, you say you have denied saying you want Wakey kicked out of SL for Widnes then say you have never denied making the 3 posts, er hello thats what the 3 posts of yours implied. [/u



I dont have to admit you didn't, you did and then you didn't, and then when you thought about it you did admit it then you changed your mind
again

I think. I'm getting to the stage where I can't be @rsed any more but if you like I will put the offending posts up again and be warned because the next time I do they will also be in BRAILLE then if you really do have a problem with your eyesight you won't be able to riddle away as easily.

ok ill improve it
by pointing out its a bunch of people who are outside the club and the story talking about something they know little or nothing about, in what can only be described as a borish and self opinionated way. Petty oh how funny lets laugh at wakey points may be the in joke but I hope when you realise that this is just the start of the financial implosion of RL for all teams wthout sugar daddies that you will pause, reflect, and realise that without all teams sticking together, the games finished.

ta

So where is this " let's all laugh at Wakey " stuff

As for the financial implosion for certain teams , yes I won't disagree there , then again it is something many have been predicting for a while

Yes you are right that clubs need to stick together , unfortunately that ' ideal ' went out the window a few years ago , if you expect it to change now you will be disappointed

The game won't be finished , just parts of it , from your point of view it is just unfortunate that your club might be dropping into that part

Is that part the Co-op Championship? I had a cracking time last year. It's a good comp when you're at the top of it.

You are correct Rich , it is a good competition , hopefully they won't mess about with it too much , as for it's future , well hopefully it will continue , will it and the clubs in it be able to grow and be sustainable is the question , that is the problem