Not exactly I'm afraid. It's super league vs championship. We're not a direct comparison here. If you're failing in super league, you might still be stronger than a team too big for the championship in terms of turnover and crowds. You have to make a judgement on potential and punish weaknesses in the super league team. Not direct comparisons I'm afraid.

I would like to think that clubs who go bust whilst holding licenses aren't rewarded with another license. It sends out the wrong message. You might argue that it's a pointless punishment given that a new regime is in place and you might be right. It just makes a mockery of a three year licensing system. The best of the best of the best? It's just not the case is it, when the best of the best go bust? Like I've said - it's formulated and made up by the RFL. It's their problem to sort out if they want to give any credibility to a franchise system.

If neither Wakefield or Halifax had really earned their license, what would you have wanted the RFL to do?

"You're wrong, but I'm not telling you why. I'll just assume an air of superiority and hope it wins through."

Interesting debating style.

Whatever?........

That's a good question - I'd say go for a 13 team league, but my argument falls down if only, say, 8 teams met a set of standards. (And I don't want to kick off the 'what about magic weekend' debate) The RFL stated SL would stay at 14 - why not wait until decision day? They could have then said: You know what? We've only got 12 decent applications, therefore it's 12 teams in. By stating it was going to be 14, they left the possibility that they would have to pick someone that didn't measure up, simply because they were slightly better than other bids.

If you say so.


Did I? I'm not sure I did. I may well have argued against some rash statements that didn't have any evidence behind them, but I certainly didn't argue with anyone about Samuels one way or the other.


People like me?

Dear oh dear.



You're biased against the RFL in general, and the people who run it in particular. It doesn't matter what they do, you'll always find fault. Every single time. Without fail. That's the bias I was referring to, not any personal investment in Fax failing to get a licence.

As for the idea of you stepping in to save the helpless Fax fans from some imagined onslaught...



The furthest I've gone with being 'anti Fax' is to have a mild pop at some of the more ridiculous and hysterical posts. That's it. Personally I would have been just as happy to see Fax get the last place as Wakey - I'm not emotionally invested in either club.

As for the Woods bit - you've already been told why Fax didn't get in. You simply choose not to believe it.


Good for you - that's your right. I disagree, and will continue to do so until someone provides some actual evidence.


I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this. My point is that the reasons behind the removal of the criteria are a separate argument, since the criteria was removed before applications were made and all clubs were aware of it. It's therefore completely irrelevant when considering the reasons behind which teams were awarded a licence this time around.


SL clubs can't prove everything in their applications either.


There is just as much actual evidence for either case. And unlike a lot of folk I hadn't written Wakey off even before Crusaders pulled out. From the outside, and without access to details of the applications, I could see Cas being in at least as much trouble for instance.


*sigh*.


No I haven't. The [ionly[/i post where I've even used the word was the one you quoted. If you read the post I was replying to you may be able to work out what I meant. Only the most paranoid would draw the conclusion that I was referring to every single poster who had questioned the exclusion of Fax no matter how reasonable the questioning.


Funny. Myself and a number of others avoid posting on the VT because of the constant arguments that have replaced discussion in most threads. It's nigh impossible to have a reasoned discussion because people spend most of their time just trying to shout each other down. God forbid you should try and walk a middle path because then you just get both sides shouting at you. Pointless.

that, in essence, is the definition of a C grade license

Without a franchise system, the game this weekend between Wakefield and Crusaders (who wouldn't have declared themselves out yet) would have been a real humdinger of a game. Maybe not the most highly skilled, but full of passion and drama.

What will it be now? Probably a procession of points for Wakefield, in an irrelevant game with no real interest for the fans.

Franchising is great for raising standards off the field, but it's of no benefit whatsoever for the fans (other than a comfort for the "favoured ones" that regardless of performance there's always "next year"icon_wink.gif.

Without franchising theres is a good chance neither club would exist. Both found it difficult enough to function financially with the guarantee of 3 years SL money, imagine how much more difficult it would have been without the guarantee of that money.

Which is exactly why Fax should be in SL next season. They have shown that they can deliver a successful team without spending more than their income.

Did I imagine the last time you were in SL?

I could have sworn you were relegated with zero points, breaching the salary cap along the way.

What you've shown since then is that you can deliver a relatively successful side in a semi-pro competition.

Yeah you rotters, i'm sure I can remember throwing some bronze coins in a bucket to save your ass' as well at some point in the not too distant past

Nah, if a business can't run itself properly it won't get any charity off me to prop it up.

Yeah that was a time when Nigel Wood was i charge of our cluib who bankrupted us and then f*cked off and now he gets to pick the teams that get a franchise. Its a joke!!!!

You are right, we probably should just have gone into Administration rather than sort it out. But then who in their right mind would give a licence to a club that has recently been in administration.....

How long ago was that? You can't keep punishing them for that season. This "you've had your chance" is not only unfair, it doesn't make business sense.

That was 8 years ago, and yes it was bad management that caused it by spending cash we didn't have. We've learned from that, and have a BoD that spends within its means now.

Oh and look at the results in the last three seasons. If that's only "relatively successful", then virtually every other team might as well pack in for being abject failures. We can only measure success in the league we play in, and under the constraints that we operate under.

So instead we prayed on the good nature of most RL fans and got out our begging bowl to sort out our mess. Hardly the epitome of financial responsibility

We can settle this once and for all.

The Fax chairman will get the response from the independent consultants, and let him publish it and see how well the Fax bid was regarded. That's all he has to do.

So go on, publish, Mr Chairman, I'm listening.

Tick, tock, tick, tock.................................................................................................................

Still managed to get out of it though, but in hindsight we should have gone into administration and not bothered sorting out the stadium. Would have been nailed on for a licence.

No, because you submitted a bid that was inferior to the Wakey bid. Get over it.

We did. We don't have a backer. Still we manage to keep a good business going. Without a backer in SL it's difficult - as demonstrated by the fact that you went bust and are still playing out of a toilet. Well done Glover though - his money should mask the underlying fragility of your club. Same goes for Harlequins and the other weak clubs in SL. Had Crusaders not imploded you would have been visiting the Shay next year. Don't forget to thank them.

Spot on fella!

Seems that a large proportion of fans and club officials think there's only 2 criteria considered for a franchise:

1) Is the club an expansion club?

2) Does it have a good ground?

If you fulfill either of these criteria then you get a franchise, if not you should be out.

Whilst Huddersfield have been at the Shay, the ground has seen its biggest attendances since the figures were 'massaged' against Batley last season to miraculously get an average attendance of 2500.

Maybe the RFL saw through that ploy.

The RFL instructed that ploy. At least get your facts right.