that would fit nicely with rfl policy.

One has to wonder how long we will all have to wait to see wether they have done the same this time as well re` the stadium.

I would have preferred this to have come out in a statement from the club rather than reading it on the RFL spin press release.

Just like previous bid the RFL show inconsistent reasons. Previously we were slated for not having a completed stadium whilst others lied about the future if theirs. This time they say our future financial plans are speculative, whilst on a couple of the other bids it says their financial plans are based on them moving into new stadia. Isn't that speculative?

It's all RFL b0ll0cks.

Why what kind of statement do you think the Club would make other than to agree with the RFL , I`d hardly expect them to come out and say something contrary to them .

I dont get the bit where it says our bid wasnt up to SL standard. How did they asses the bid the first time round? Did it change after Widnes got in? Were we judged on different criteria first time round? Thats the only assumption i can make after the RFL said our bid was good enough to be judged along side SL teams while Barrows was deemed not good enough.

You miss my point.

I wouldn't have expected the club to have told us anything different, but it would have been nice for the club to have been open and honest with the fans. The club had their meeting with tge RFL a few weeks ago now and they could have put this to bed then.

O h right but what I can`t understand is a couple of months ago the RFL said they could not publish clubs information on their bids as the clubs did not want it done. So I would have thought they must have spent a good bit of time informing clubs they intended now to do so. Also if as they say our bid was no good then why did they not say that in March as they did with Barrow instead of puting us through this farce. RFL= FAIL.

Because, as Starbug pointed out previously we were used. We were used in order to make the licensing process more palatable as Wakey were going to be a straight swap for Widnes and that would have negated the need for process.

Spot on , ( my question was a rhetorical one)

My question is why has the RFL released this info today of all days .... this is the day of the seasons most important fixture as infact it may well be the last game of our season ? why not wait at least till tomorrow....

Do you really think the RFL give a flying one about Fax?

Noble advised Fax to apply on the strength of their kit lady.

If it was a little better put together, it would still have been enough to beat Wakeys.

thing i cant understand.. is if we met the criteria when we lost out to Widnes, whats the difference a month or so later?

Do you really think that? I'm not sure to be honest. In all the bulltery i still feel that not having a big money backer puts us out of the equation. Widnes have it and Jesus, as bad as Wakey are - they have it. That's it in a nutshell. You can even go into adminstration and play your rugby out of a colliery toilet and STILL get a license - [iif you have a money man.[/i

I was referring to the licence being based on Hilda. The other stuff doesnt interest me anymore.

I'd say that is a reasonable assessment , Quins are totally crap , but have a money man , Huddersfield are under performing , but have a money man , Salfird are a joke , but have investement , Wakey are , well ' Wakey ' , but now have a money man , Fax on the other hand are a sustainable responsible business , why would they want you in SL ?

So we have run a successful club on the field within the Championship these last few years, without a major backer and without going into debt whereas even in this league some other clubs have relied on single backers and still struggled. We have had 2 major sponsorship deals during this time with the Halifax and Probiz. But it would seem that unless you have that money man as a guarantee then simply running the club on your TRUE income isn't sufficient.

God forbid if one of these money men at these clubs is mowed down by a bus tomorrow or more likely his business goes t*ts up. But hey the RFL would prefer to take that risk. Oh and the fact that whilst you still have the Bulls and Daveyfield in SL, there is not a cat in hells chance of Fax getting in.

You believe what you want, do you really think KPMG are 'neutral'???
Come on they are paid by the RFL to match the RFL's own 'criteria' in other words wish list and do as they are told. Not saying we were perfect but WHO KNOWS? = Only the Fat Controller and he will have told KPMG what to put in the report, come on they are puppets.
Cometh the day this goes against you then that day you will see what we mean, believe the RFL and their 'clones' at your peril!

You know what thinking about this you have to ask why the delay???

Looking at the wording I am damn sure the Fat Controller has been going through these with a fine tooth comb as no application is worded the same way, its written to show positives and negatives where it suits.

Its a FIX.

If we've truly lost out on a Super league franchise because the submission wasn't up to scratch (ie. missing appropriate financial detail), then this begs the question why the RFL didn't invite Fax to resubmit.

It's supposedly not a game to be played around who can assemble the best rhetoric in the application, and if it was really that bad, then it would have been in order for the RFL to tell Fax that they needed to smarten up their documentation.

Some would say that this wasn't fair, but if the RFL really want the best managed teams in SL, then that's what they should have done.

Fax have shown that they are a self-sustaining club, but a few £000 spent on a professional financial guru would maybe have made the difference.

It keeps on being said that we need a financial backer to get into SL (I did hear that a previous backer was interested, but only after we got the nod), but I fear that the series of admin "errors" (and I'll include a potentially amateurish submission) have cost us dear.

RFL=Fail? I'm not sure...? It's easy to slag them off, and they will, and have, made mistakes (Wakefield/Salford/Quins may be among them), but if we're really all honest with ourselves, do the RFL genuinely have it in for Fax. I think not.

I posted on another thread (on the VT) that folk should say who should be in SL if their own team was excluded. Surprise, surprise, not a bite to be had. We're all passionate about our own team (Starbug is now confirmed as a Fax fan!) and (like the Dogs fans tonight) like to think that we're hard done to.

Rambling now, but I go back to my point that we should have paid for a consultancy firm to assess (rip to shreds) our application and work up a new and improved version.

it also helps when your already in that league.