IMO there is no chance of a legal challenge. O'Connor and Widnes set the precedent for this situation in 2008.

The RFL knew they were wrong omitting Widnes for the disaster of Crusaders. The sweetener to O'connor was the promise that as long as they didn't rock-the-boat ( ie legal action), won one of the specified competitions, they would then be guaranteed a place at the next licence application round. Hence the reason they've done the minimum on the field and looked to build up reserves and improve off-field.

Has Mr Glover the charm ( or power ??) to ring the same agreement from the RFL ??

He may be able to get a deal sorted but unless he has a fully signed contract which guarantees us promotion then there is nothing to stop the RFL saying that will will be back in 3 years time and then not promoting us.

The big difference is that Wakey are already a SL club from top to bottom. The whole infrastructure of the club will be taken apart to survive in the Championship. Many redundancies will have to handed out and community programmes will be shelved. This I could except if we were the weakest link but I don't think we are by a long way.

Exactly, forget about returing in 3 years, the whole direction of the game is moving away from clubs like Wakefield.

I think it is safe to assume if we stay in SL for another term Mr Glover will have the following.

Ground improvements have been estimated around £500K
Full cap funding shortfall for three season. Some people estimate this could be as high as £500k per season.
If you half that it is still £750K over the period.
If you add to this any legal costs and I can't even guess what they may be.

All in all Mr Glover may do the sums and decide the most prudent action would be to take the hit and sit tight in the championship. Hope Newmarket is delivered within that period and then mount a strong application in 3 years time.

It is too easy to draw comparisons between Wakefield and Widnes.

Widnes were demoted last time around for a number of reasons. They have to be fair to Widnes now corrected most of these. The one offered by the RFL was the fact that they had recently gone into administration. The difference between then and now, however is that Widnes were alone in their predicament. People draw similarities between our entry into administration and that of Widnes, automatically linking the two. Widnes were dropped for reasons of financial failure, therefore so should Wakefield. WRONG!! Wakefield are not the only club to enter administration this season. The RFL simply cannot use this as a stand alone reason for expelling us from the league.

The thing I do struggle to understand is that Salford who both on and off the field have hardly set the world alight are being looked upon as dead certs because of a new stadium. Correct me if I am wrong, but the stadium Widnes were playing out of when they were dropped was in stadium terms, new. Without looking further than geographical location I don't see any other reason why they are seen as impervious to the drop. However, here are some ground to ground, interesting facts for you:

WIDNES to ST HELENS (new stadium) - 5.5 miles
WIDNES to WARRINGTON - 8 miles
ST HELENS (new stadium) to WARRINGTON - 9 miles
WAKEFIELD to CASTLEFORD - 9 miles
ST HELENS (new stadium) to WIGAN - 10.5 miles
SALFORD (new stadium) to WARRINGTON - 14 miles

and there was me thinking you can't possibly have 2 clubs playing out of Wakefield...

I know. And as if that fat see you next tuesday wasn't annoying enough

is hickey a blue?

Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233

Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233

Quote ="charlie"Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233'" Like with all contracts I would imagine it is dependant on their survival although it does look a lot better that they are announcing signings for next year. Maybe we could announce a big signing to show our intent?

Quote ="charlie"Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233'" Like with all contracts I would imagine it is dependant on their survival although it does look a lot better that they are announcing signings for next year. Maybe we could announce a big signing to show our intent?

Quote ="charlie"Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233'" How fecking presumptuous is that Seriously though, we have signed a few players who I reckon won't stay if we drop - nothing to say we can't sign Thurston if we wanted to. Also Crusaders are a shop window for any Aussie wanting a chance in SL and would soon find a new mug sorry club to take em on (don't actually know who this bloke is tbh).

Quote ="charlie"Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233'" How fecking presumptuous is that Seriously though, we have signed a few players who I reckon won't stay if we drop - nothing to say we can't sign Thurston if we wanted to. Also Crusaders are a shop window for any Aussie wanting a chance in SL and would soon find a new mug sorry club to take em on (don't actually know who this bloke is tbh).

Quote ="charlie"Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233'" How do they do it?? What do they say to players in australia when they are trying to sign them?? they must guarentee they are playing SL next year or else they would wait until after the franchise is confirmed...it makes you wonder..

Quote ="charlie"Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233'" How do they do it?? What do they say to players in australia when they are trying to sign them?? they must guarentee they are playing SL next year or else they would wait until after the franchise is confirmed...it makes you wonder..

Yeah but why would a player sign now if it was in doubt? it seems like nobody will sign for us because our future is in doubt but Crusaders? oh yeah mate I will go there....

Not really, with 10 games or so left it's plenty of time to sell yourself so another SL club will take you regardless of whether Crusaders stay up. That may well be Hickeys plan (see we do it too) however he may have got his image tactics wrong

Hickey did, it's not like our plight was any different 6 month ago - not sure I'm with you on this one

If we do sign a bigish name for next season now and we then don't get a franchise if they are good enough then I am sure another club will come in for them and if we do stay up then they have a contract.

but Hickey signed last year and then must have realised he's that overweight he's got no chance elsewhere so I will go where I signed and honour the deal...

Think thats a bit harsh to salford.

since promotion back to super league 2 years ago we are making progress

- New staidum
- some briliant community initiatives
- some good youth players - ratch, sneyd, clay, etc
- increased our league position every year since we returned

Ok crowds arent ghreat - the club are working hard to address this and hopefully barton will help.

It makes me laugh people expect the clubs to make huge strides in just 2 years......rome wasnt built in a day!

PLus, I think fans of other clubs dont see some of the goo work other clubs do in their own communities

I hope you stay up, I hope its increased to 15 (unlikely) - whoever goes down will rightly feel cheated!

That's fair enough but the point was we are better, except for the Stadium of course - not just better than you but most it would appear. I agree most fans don't see what other clubs do bit like most of us never spot our own team committing fouls. That's why this company ?? has been employed to sort out fact from fiction, we shall see.

Over all I think we have brought to SL more than Salford, certainly so far - just how I see it.

we should get the nod over salford after brooker sorted goulding out.

Brooker

There is one possibility that we may all be overlooking imo . The legue could demote 2 current SL teams in preference for Widnes AND Halifax . This way they could have more justification for their decision and make it very difficult for clubs to mount a serious objection . Wakefield and Crusaders could both be demoted on the grounds of administration . This takes away Wakey's argument that it's unfair they should be the ones to go if Crusaders also went into admin . From a personal point of view it could be us and Wakey on the grounds of broken promises on the stadium front , again if we were both demoted then neither of us could use the counter argument that if Cas ground not built etc then why are Wakey different to us or vice versa . With Halifax already being allowed to re-apply I feel , more and more , that this could be the way RFL are thinking . Demote two clubs on similar grounds and allow Fax in

[url=http://www.redpassion.co.uk/forums/wrexham/75361-wrexham-village-ltd-proposal-strike-off.htmlIt Looks Like The Owners Of Crusaders May Have Issues[/url

Another combination, Crusaders and Cas. Crusaders because of lack of funds and Cas with no stadium and no up-grade of Wheldon Road, now BV is going to be brought up to-date.