Starbug you are bang on about having a spokesperson/director just for the champ leagues ,we need someone looking out for interest for a change ,i'm a bit fed up of the RFL using our leagues purely to expand without any consideration to the clubs it affects .Why include Toulouse in our comps if its not purely to get them in SL.

Does anyone really think that the RFL will have someone connected with them that doesn't tow the RFL line. Dream on baby. This has to be someone who the clubs appoint and who they comfortable with.

Well if they have they don't seem too bothered what happens to us either ,but thats just how I feel or should I say how they make me feel

Maybe they dont want to waste the money

[urlhttp://www.superleague.co.uk/article/super-league-licensing-summaries-published/23477[/url

Over to you Starbug.. as you were saying

So, given the comments on Halifax, why was their 'application' (incomplete apparently) allowed to go forward?

Completely agree. Why didn't they get them to withdraw it. Suprising given the fact that they had the application well before the SL clubs had to deliver theirs.

And why have 'Fax been awarded a grade C if they're "well below" Super League standards? Surely there must be a grade to differentiate or it could be argued they've been grading the same as Salford etc!

As I said on the VT [i'They're pretty much general negative statements that could be applied to any club they wanted to keep out.'[/i

Good to see that Harlequins only have the minor issues of not knowing where they should play, or what the club should be called.

And for Salford it is [iessential that the club significantly increases its current attendances [/i yet Harlequins [iis developing detailed plans to meet these challenges and grow attendances[/i. Despite Salford averaging higher crowds than Quins.

There's inconsistencies all over this press release. Same as in 2008 really.

yeah but quins are in a strategically significant area.what do they mean by that?

Probably so you could spend a fortune preparing their bid - much as we did three years ago - when neither of us was realistically likely to get in. The RFL seems to have problems understanding that Championship clubs aren't as 'cash rich' as the Sooper Dooper league ones.

Because they met minimum standards, please engage the brain.

I told you ages ago that Halifax's bid was practically written on the back of a fag packet. They were given a shot and completely blew it instead of preparing a complete and detailed application.

I wouldnt have been suprised if Lambert and Butler were listed under two directors

your treading the line again Dico post respectfully you are a guest on here.

i thought insulting wind up merchants was allowed.

I offer a alternative opinion to the one way traffic of RFL being bent trends on here.

People on here should post accordingly to how they would speak to someone in person. You can get away with name calling if you know that person, otherwise people should be respectful.

Fair enough

An there endeth this weeks lesson in humanity

Actually, I did 'engage my brain' (thanks for crediting me with having one

) and read the RFL statement before posting. I reproduce that statement for your benefit -


[iHalifax RLFC submitted an application with =#FF0000insufficient detail in their marketing, media or commercial plans. The club =#FF0000business plan was inadequate, figures presented by the club as the budget and =#FF0000performance forecasts for the 2012-14 Licence period were speculative and =#FF0000the club did not provide sufficient information for KPMG to complete their assessment procedures. Whilst the club has an excellent community program, a good facility and has recently strengthened its Board and player performance system, =#FF0000the club fell below the standards expected of a Super League club.[/i

There are several snippets in that statement to suggest that they did not meet 'minimum standards' - just in my humble opinion of course. I've highlighted a few that would suggest they fell below minimum standards, or if they do meet minimum standards, the RFL doesn't want much!

Isn't the minimum standards for applying actually the bit we didn't meet for us to hand in a app?
ie the invisible fans, and on field success etc

Yes it is , so why did the RFL encourage Fax to fiddle their attendance average ? , they were stitched up like a kipper

If things had gone as expected , Fax would have been praised in their assessment , but because their Chairman had the audacity to public ally challenge the decision , they have been persecuted like a leper

Not according to this [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/14490479.stmbeeb[/url. As it seems he put his foot in it, and has virtually admitted as such.

Read the bit about Quins , and tell me that is a fair assessment ? When compared to others ?

Besides which Tony Abbot isn't the Chairman , in fact he is the recenty appointed media director , a point they were criticised for , just what exactly do you expect any Championship club to achieve to have a positive assessment for SL ?

One wonders just what the cost of all this is and what is really achieved by it.