It was never a 'ruke' in 2008! Don't act like just because Cru will be safe you will they'll beat you both with it But they have expansion & racecourse to bail them out. Your admin makes it easier for them to boot out as they can also 'Mark Cru harshly on it' without having to drop out of SL!

I've genuinely no idea what you're talking about.


Unless you mean the rule that said "an act of insolvency such as giong into administration would lead to the automatic [iloss[/i of a licence at the next round", which was removed by a vote of the [iclubs[/i* earlier this year, before either Crusaders or Wakefield entered administration? Then you're talking nonsense.

That was a rule which came in [iafter[/i the licences, was about [iremoving[/i licences from clubs, and had nothing to do with the judgement on Widnes's 2008 application to be granted a licence.

Think about it: if there was a rule saying that a cub which had been in administration would automatically not qualify for a licence, in 2008, Widnes wouldn't have wasted time putting an application together and the RFL would not have wasted time judging it.

The situation now, with the rule abolished (not even lasting the length of once licence period) is exactly the same as in 2008.



* How did Wakefield vote on that decision?

WTF are you on about??

One of the criteria for even being able to make a license application last time, was to provide 3 year's of accounts - as a new company, you couldn't. Neither can we, and neither can Crusaders.

Racecourse?? There is a racecourse in Wrexham - it has nothing to with Crusaders.

I wasn't saying the criterion change would keep us in SL - I was saying it has been changed so that it won't be used to take Crusaders out!

Crusaders are safe. We aren't.

The point is though that we probably won't find out how these things affected clubs bids and that is where the system is wrong.
The RFL should be publishing the scores that each club gets against each category so that everyone can see a fair process - we know they won't do that though because they would struggle to explain the fairness of their decisions - purely my opinion of course.

We know where gonna struggle to get a licence...

No need for endless discussions debating the fact, you've no one to convince where in a battle.

Also no point stating what the RFL will / won't mark and why the will / wont mark it.
As they'll do what they want !

End.Of.Story.

You Follow?!

That overall is what I was saying but as tb states above it wasn't a rule last time and tbh out 'rejection paragraph' as above says it all!

Quote ="poppys mum"He might have a point. www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... share.html'" Isn't Super League Fans run by a Cas supporter? I seem to recall it is but maybe wrong. Anyway, whomever wrote the piece did the usual journalist trick of creating a headline and hook by making a bold opinion based statement and then later directly quoting James in the piece, so as to actual show what he did say, and not get themselves into trouble for misquoting. My opinion is that the journalist opinion on what James said is rubbish but unfortunately he knows this, but it was a good angle and we are talking about it so he has done his job and drove traffic to the site.

Quote ="poppys mum"He might have a point. www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... share.html'" Isn't Super League Fans run by a Cas supporter? I seem to recall it is but maybe wrong. Anyway, whomever wrote the piece did the usual journalist trick of creating a headline and hook by making a bold opinion based statement and then later directly quoting James in the piece, so as to actual show what he did say, and not get themselves into trouble for misquoting. My opinion is that the journalist opinion on what James said is rubbish but unfortunately he knows this, but it was a good angle and we are talking about it so he has done his job and drove traffic to the site.

No it doesn't. It is just an excuse mate, they had to find one and that was it. 'Well we thought that Widnes need to shown more financial security blah, blah....'

You were not Welsh nor played in Wales... that is why you didn't get in. Simple!

Oh we know that the initial one called the stadium 'adequate' I mean have they been there FFs! (they have now changed this as they like to do).

Point being they can & will use that excuse again!

The problem here though is that you make it sound like Crusaders and Quins are still competing against Cas and Wakey for a licence... but that it rubbish, they are untouchable.

Your point about Cas and GH is a valid one and of course we already know the answer to part of your question. There will not be a stadium at GH that meets the minimum SL requirements by the start of the 2012 season. That ship has sailed. They might have a ground at GH come the start of 2012 but it will be a phased development with just the the two main stands at best. I am not saying this to crap stir, because I want Cas to get a new ground and stay in SL just as much as Wakey, it just the reality on the time-line.

The issue the RFL have created is that they are only seemingly picking from two clubs and from where I sit as a Rhino, it looks like kicking either of them out would be the wrong option. The answer is simple, keep them both and bring Widnes in.

I have been there many times, I used to work for one of your former shirt sponsor companies and it is a great ground.

You are right though they can and will.... it is a big pile of crap, but this time it is worse because Widnes (and Crusaders) were not in SL prior to the decision, now they are potentially kicking somebody out and further more it appears it will not be the 'worst' club! It is a big difference mate and you can't ignore it!

Agree with that, but I'd fetch two in - Id love it to be Fev or 'Fax, but cant see the RFL buying that!

My answer would be are Wakey not the 'worst club' over the past few years? Along with Cru what could go wrong tends to have done unfortunately.

Can i ask with all the work you are doing behind the scenes for our stadium. Why did you write a letter to the council giving your support to the stadium at Glasshoughton? in fact your letter was the first to be received. Isn't that defeating the object.

The simple answer is I am not a hypocrite. I don't have a problem with Castleford or the GH stadium, in fact I fully support it... that is why I wrote the letter. One does not have a bearing on the other and of course, I don't live in Glasshoughton... I live in Stanley.

Why is supporting a stadium at GH defeating any object and what is the objective? My objective is to get a stadium, community sport facilities and lots of new jobs in my community... what did you think my objective was?

On the field we have been better than some as mentioned elsewhere (play offs twice included), and never got relegated (Cas twice). But it aint about that any more is it.

You tell me?

It has to be Salford & Quins does it not?

Don't forget Wakefield winning the Academy GF in 2009 as well!

League Table 2007

1 St Helens
2 Leeds
3 Bradford
4 Hull
5 Huddersfield
6 Wigan
7 Warrington
8 Wakefield
9 Harlequins RL
10 Catalans Dragons
11 Hull K R
12 Salford


League Table 2008

1 St Helens
2 Leeds
3 Catalans Dragons
4 Wigan
5 Bradford
6 Warrington
7 Hull K R
8 Wakefield
9 Harlequins RL
10 Huddersfield
11 Hull
12 Castleford

League table 2009

1 Leeds
2 St Helens
3 Huddersfield
4 Hull K R
5 Wakefield
6 Wigan
7 Castleford
8 Catalans Dragons
9 Bradford
10 Warrington
11 Harlequins RL
12 Hull
13 Salford
14 Celtic Crusaders

League Table 2010

1 Wigan
2 St Helens
3 Warrington
4 Leeds
5 Huddersfield
6 Hull
7 Hull K R
8 Crusaders RL
9 Castleford
10 Bradford
11 Wakefield
12 Salford
13 Harlequins RL
14 Catalans Dragons

Shall we look at Widnes league positions over the same period?

Who's kidding themselves about this, certainly not me!

The criteria has changed and so has the RFLs attitude toward administration when considering a clubs application for a franchise.

What has my post got to do with Castleford, I never drew any comparisons to Cas's situation?

I have outlined the clubs current status for consideration by anyone who cares to read it with an open and objective mind.

Why do Cas fans feel the need to comparethewildcat.com it's nowt to do with them!

Simples

The only travesty will be if Salford get a franchise it is because of a stadium. if we line Oakwell up other than the finances we beat them hands down, lets see how transparent the RFL are.

Add to this 2004 narrowly losing to Wigoon deep into the play offs and i dont think we have been too bad whilst constantly having to sell our key players (Ellis, Solo, Brough, Atkins) and having one of the lowest caps in the league. Yes we have been poor in certain areas in the past, but in some (and the most important one ie on the field) we have been competative and better than some teams (i hate to say but i think Salford have done little for SL).

You read my mind.

Widnes league spots haven't been great but we have reached two cup finals, been remarkable off the field and in academy too.

Salford should be favourites (BEFORE admin) but they have Manchester which is why not even mentioned. Must admit had forgot of Wakey's 5th place 2009 finish (going back to '04 defeats the object) and as said is equal to Cas and still hits the old '8th place' marker.

It's a sad situation but all clubs were happy to vote for it and block off Championship clubs. So if those clubs don't do anything to improve them as a club what can they expect to happen?

I thought clarke's remarks on boots and all last night were disgraceful

If wakey don't get a franchise then the rfl want shooting

Excellent club with excellent support

Last 3 years table finishes-
Trinity - 8,5,10 - Avg 8
Cas - 12,7,9 - Avg 9.3
Cat - 3,8,14 - Avg 8.3
Harl - 9,11,13 - Avg 11
Hull - 11,12,6 - Avg 9.6
It's interesting to see on average Trinity are far from the bottom. So as far as I can see, on field performance is something they can't knock us on.