Cant see how anyone would see that as us having a poorer write-up.

There are positives and negatives for both clubs and I wouldn't want to get into a p***ing contest with our neighbours about who comes out on top.

The interesting thing for me that came out of the summaries is that there were numerous holes in the Halifax application making it impossible for them to be given a franchise and that 2 clubs were acknowledged as operating at a level exceeding their income courtesy of board investment - Huddersfield & Hull KR.

and Harlequins

"Huddersfield acknowledge the continued support of Ken Davy to operate at their current level" - B grade

"Hull KR benefit from director investment to operate at the level that it does" - B grade

Quins - "the club remains dependent on the financial support of its Chairman" - C grade

You would think that these would be massive minus points against each club.

"At present Castleford are a well-run, sustainable club that lives within its means" - C grade (Just scraped in if you believe all you read)

As I said - egging people on.



Not much to choose between us from those write-ups, although our previous regime does besmirch us a bit - I fully expect our new owner to get us well past that over the coming licence period.

Given the abject failure of the Halifax bid, I await with baited breath for an apology from their gobe Chairman, who was all over the media following the announcement, slagging us off; I expect I'll be waiting a while though.

Egging people on to do what?

Stating a fact, that's all.

"Not much to choose between us from those write-ups"

Exept this:-

"However commercial, financial and governance performance in this Licence period has been poor, with the club entering administration in February of 2011. The club continues to face a number of challenges. The stadium position is uncertain"

Don't think Quins, HKR, Salford or Hudds come into that category.

Wakey were saved by the Welsh falling on their sword and Halifax's incompetance.

In his response to the RFL feedback RW says "We (the Board of Directors) could spend money that the club hasn't got to achieve short term success and run the risk of going into bankruptcy."

A sensible and at first glance commendable approach but shouldn't he be questioning his/the club's inability to generate more revenue. If we are as potless as our recruitment/pricing strategies suggest and the future currently holds only bankrupcy or championship rugby in store for us, then the time must be approaching when the BOD should invite offers for the club. In the likely event of no serious/viable interest the divisive arguments about the merits of the current management would be largely academic and a more unified/focussed effort by club and fans may result.

I think we all know what the main restriction is increasing revenue...

Do we though? The BOD apologists point to the stadium issue and I accept that the two relegations will have impacted massively but I can't recall much in the way of aggressive/speculative recruitment activity since the early 90s. Whatever the reasons I think we've reached the point where it would be in the club's best interests for the BOD to either sacrifice or vindicate themselves by expressing a willingness to consider buy-out proposals. If no-one comes forward we might not like the continuation of the current regime but we'd have to lump it.....and hopefully move forward together (without the Wakey-type motto)

If I'm missing the point Bonzo perhaps you could give us a clue as to where else the revenue flow is blocked.

I think you have made some very good points there

Lottery needs re-vamping - £2 per week maybe ?

I would also look at getting rid of the contractors who pay a yearly rent for the Burger vans, Coffee stall, Pie & Peas stall excetera. There is more money to be made by doing this "in-house".

Ive never understood why we dont do that.

Whilst I think you make some good points I still think the biggest restrictor on our revenue is the stadium, or lack of.

Sounds familiar - almost exactly what Richardson ended up having to do with WTW, although our club ended up having to go into administration before it could be rescued; that will stay with us for a while, both in our ability to attract and retain staff and in the snide comments from fans of other clubs.

On the revenue from catering issue - our previous BoD had that all sewn up by one of their own; I gather that since we took it back in-house, it's become a significant revenue stream, so there is a precedent for that working much more in the clubs favour.

Nope. Nothing like that.

You really are desperate. If you take away the administration issue which as has been pointed out more times than even a dobbin like you requires no longer counts. Then there is no difference between the two clubs as far as any open minded person could detect.

Our stadium situation remains the same as your, uncertain.

So it would appear we were both saved from having to slug it out by Halifax inability to make SL standard and Crusaders failing.

That is how it is and no amount of one eyed spin can change that - both got grade C licences with reservations regarding the stadiums. Anything else is speculation and if that hurts your macho and blinkered pride so be it.

If you want me to speculate, tough I won't. Follow Cecils advise and stop indulging in willy measuring contests. Games both clubs remain ill equipped to indulge in - or in other word grow up.

Sound exactly like it to me. I am not privvy to knowing what sort of a state Cas are in right now, but I shouldn't think many SL clubs are more than 8 weeks from going under at the moment. So do tell why Cas are any different - I've read last year accounts by the way and I see nothing to suggest you are.

If you say so.

Aye, looking at that it would seem the Fax chairman's comments that the main thing counting against them was the lack of a wealthy backer has some basis in truth.

Of course, that's putting aside the indications that their (Fax's) franchise application was ineptly prepared...

It's amazing what you can find out reading accounts.

Almost as much as you can reading RFL critiques on the licence applications.

Yep' but accounts are legal documents.

"I've read last year accounts by the way" - No you haven't. They haven't been done yet. The share holders meeting (AGM) hasn't taken place yet. First sight of any accounts (2010) from RG Hiltons will be by the shareholders.