from what I can make out from the majority of post/posters these two magical words 'targets' & 'criteria' seem to keep cropping up
my main problem in understanding anything relating to SL candidature is that the goalposts ie targets & criteria appear to change almost daily,depending on who you are,where you are and hypothetical or proposed ambitions of candidates at any given time
There doesn't seem to be a set of rules written in stone to go by - some kind of fixed guidelines & rules laid out by the RFL or SKY or whoever is responsible for SL qualification must surely apply to everyone equally ?
SOC for example had everything in place for SL acceptance only for it to be refused because the RFL wasn't convinced the company would survive due to it only being set-up just before the deadline.The point is that Widnes DID meet the targets & criteria but were still refused !

the game will always survive in one form or another - let's just hope there are enough sugar daddies interested enough to keep it going at a decent level

Classic John Kear comment from last season

Except it wasn't a quote. Look at your post on the bottom of page 41 and tell me you didn't write this:


That is something that YOU typed. You've not quoted me saying anything about wanting Wakefield out "the sooner the better". You haven't quoted me saying that because I haven't said it. I haven't said I WANT Wakefield out. I have said I don't think they will get a license. That doesn't mean I WANT them to be kicked out of SL. It means one club has to go, and I think it should be Wakefield because they meet the least amount of criteria and I think Widnes should come up because they meet the most. It doesn't mean I WANT them out, and it doesn't mean I think they should be out "sooner the better".

Like I keep saying to you. Show me a post where I have said "the sooner the better" or even implied that. The three quotes you keep putting up do not show that.


See above. The three quotes show nothing of me saying I WANT Wakefield out "the sooner the better". They only say I don't think they should get a license and that Widnes should, and that is due to one club HAVING to go.


See above. I am asking you to show me where I have said I WANT Wakefield out, and where I have said "the sooner the better".





I can't make MY posts any simpler for you. You can try and tell me what it is "I" think and what you think "I" mean all you like, but you're only going to keep stressing yourself out and misinterpreting them.

So I'll say one last time. Where have I said I WANT Wakefield out, and "the sooner the better"?

can you make them more interesting if not simpler thanks

) and player development, and salary cap, but not geographic location.

The solvency issue is the biggest one, and unless they sort that out I don't think they stand a chance. The RFL set their stall out with Widnes on that one. It all depends on what sort of application they put in regarding Oakwell and where they intend to get money from.

It's not intended for you, so I don't need to really make it more interesting for you.
If the guy in question reads my posts correctly, I wouldn't need to go through the boring process of having to explain every single tiny little detail of them to show where they went wrong!

I do apologise for the boringness and repetitiveness of them, but when you're dealing with someone who just doesn't want to read what is in front of them, that is the only thing that I can really do!

Seems to work well in football!

OOOOH MRS!!!

It's a fair point, don't you think?

=#800000What is the difference sherlock, its make your mind up time










Yes see above

God loves a tryer, have you truck oil yet in that hole?





I would not attempt to guess what goes on in that nogging of yours, it you donated it to medical science,even they would struggle

Is that a threat or a promise


=#408000One final thing on the word simple and its conitations, just to simplify things for you I have colour coded what is relevent to what, if that is not simple enough for you I give up :

No I don't. We have no end of conspiracy theories here on these boards but none has even been proven true.

RFL's financial interest in Crusaders staying in SL and the much trumpeted need for a Capital presence for the profile of the game will ensure that both teams are considered for the drop........



Also the RFL are well known for admitting if they have got things wrong.

in the context of stability. It makes no logical sense for it to do so. Its a massively unstable and defined by its instability.

So, you don't know. Thanks for that.

Well considering he was my hypothetical (I've also just made him a man) investor, I do know what he thinks. I have also decided that he likes tea with honey.

:3kxvspk9
You've edited my post, therefore you've lost your credibility.

:3kxvspk9
:3kxvspk9
You've edited that part out because you know it is something I never said. That is your admission that I didn't say it. You've tried to be sneaky and failed. You've been caught.



If you don't know the difference between "wanting" something to happen (i.e. something I would "desire"icon_wink.gif to happen, and thinking something "should" happen (i.e. something I thought "ought" to happen) then I cannot help you further.

Just try and understand this: just because I think Wakefield ought to not get a license doesn't mean I desire it to happen. I have no desire to see Wakefield (or anyone) to leave the SL. But somebody has to, and I think that ought to be Wakefield.

Now for the last time, show me where I have said otherwise or else admit that I never made such a claim (you've already tried to slyly do it by editing my post, so you might as well come out with it now).

:3kxvspk9
"Just a play on words, say it how you like the intent and meaning was there" suggests otherwise.

:3kxvspk9
Probably because mind-reading technology is in the very early stages of development!

=#408000:3kxvspk9One final thing on the word simple and its conitations, just to simplify things for you I have colour coded what is relevent to what, if that is not simple enough for you I give up ::3kxvspk9



your still at it huffing and puffing and still bluffing your way through, well trying to anyway. Give it a rest lad have you no self respect, you are spent you lost all your credibility when Jesie James made you look silly and it would seem you are determined to do it all over again without any help from me

Do yourself a favour and calm down stop trying to defend the indefensible an try to be a bit more mature about the situation, all I have done is put up the quotes you first admitted to and then deny, they are there for all to see, you are only making yourself a bigger fool than what she did, lets face it you are out of your depth on here squire

on second thoughts though you'd be out of your depth in a car park puddle



Edited, sorry.

let's all cut out the personal spats and stay on topic, please

I did, tb. But this fella has taken everything I said out of context and hurled abuse at me because of it. I have tried my best to tell him what it was that I actually said, but he has even gone as far as editing my quotes to make me look bad so he can justify his abuse.

Apparently I'm not allowed to voice my opinion on the subject without a tirade of abuse from said character. I'm happy to leave it at that because his above post is just a load of personal abuse with no actual quote to justify anything he's said, so I feel no need to reply to it.

so you know when your beaten then

Yes. When you change people's quotes to suit your argument, that is when you've been beaten


Do you even know what you're on about or are you just upset from before? Have you got anything to add...

Don't disagree but where does this leave Crusaders then?
Personally my main worry isn't dropping a division but having no club to speak of at all very soon

And still people feel the need to continue. Just to be clear, I see one more instance on this thread (especially from Mopsey or Wellsy) and people will be taking a break from posting on this forum.