they werent at a disadvantage, they were judged in the same way as everyone else

the totality of their bid wasnt at the level of others, the previous financial problems were likely to be a big factor in this,

and i would expect the RFL made no comment on Widnes bid before they had judged it, purely because they had yet to judge it

it would have put Widnes at an unfair advantage for the financial issue to be ignored

I can't answer that.

........................although Smokey may have just done.

as long as the business plan was good enough to justify their inclusion in spite of the obvious financial issues

and they wouldnt have made him aware of this prior to judging thier bid because they had yet to judge their bid,

If it was announced by the RFL that Widnes could not have been granted a licence, due the the recent administration, there could be no argument.

THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.

THE OPPOSITE DID.

This is what has led to the confusion.

If there was no chance whatsoever of Widnes gaining a licence, due to recent administration, why tell SOC otherwise, allow him to put forward a bid at great expense to the club, and then reject the bid soley on the grounds of the recent administration?

Why not tell SOC straight - YOU HAVE NO CHANCE?

Simple and honest, No?

APART FROM YOUR CHILDISH 'SLAGGING OFF' at LEIGH
ANSWER THE QUESTION
WHY DO WE HAVE HARLEQUINS ?

answers on a postcard ......................

One of your fellow Leigh fans mate.

IMO: As it stands Widnes are best placed to enter SL, the only other teams that have met the criteria are Fax and Barrow.

As for who would miss out? Good question.

Would think that it will be between Salford, Castleford, Wakefield & Crusaders.

A case can be made for any of them to go, as well as most other teams in SL.

Don't know if I could pick one, but would think it would be between Cas & Wakie.

Didn't the RFL say before the applications that Widnes could be have their application judged as a newly formed club? Then Widnes included some aspects of the pre-administration club in their application forcing the RFL to consider all aspects of the pre-administration club (including, going into adminstration). Or in the RFL's words:



You either take into account the history of the club, warts and all, or you don't. You can't cherry pick the good bits and ignore the bad.

It doesn't matter how the RFL phrased it in any way shape or form. The club was never going to get a licence because of their recent administration at the time.

A clubs support base doesn't change because the board of directors change. That will remain the same. It's financial viability will change and, on this case, most certainly did. Either way, Widnes had no chance of a licence.

Fine, but they should have said so, plainly and clearly, so that the club and it's supporters fully understand the situation.

They led Steve O'Connor down the garden path.

because, as you are choosing to ignore, there was a chance, Widnes' bid just wasnt good enough to ignore the financial issues which had gone previously

they could however have submitted a better bid, that was good enough to ignore the financial issues which had gone before, but they didnt,

the RFL couldnt have known whether the bid they submitted was good enough or not until they had judged it, and they couldnt have judged it until it had been submitted

Total bollox , and you know it , a £ 500 K cash bond was more than enough to even up any financial worries

So you're saying that Widnes' administration wasn't a major issue which could've barred them from obtaining a licence?

a £500k bond shouldnt have been needed, the fact the business plan showed it was needed as well as the losses Widnes have incurred since (as a going concern) show that to be a good decision

All those "losses" are part of the club restructuring that happened after SOC took over. Every penny was paid for by Syeve O'Connor in the form of a gift. Widnes vikings currently have no debts.

So any club with losses should not get a franchise by that logic

I'm sure you'll be happy , playing with yourself

it was an issue, and it did mean the started behind the 8 ball, it was a negative for their bid,

but it didnt preclude them from either bidding or obtaining a licence, it just made it more difficult

That's daft - paying suppliers in cash? I'd at least take advantage of the 30 day terms most suppliers offer

yes, because thats exactly what i said, that and i think I insulted your dad aswell somewhere in there

Immediately after the licence announcements Lewis praised the Vikings bid, and stated that the Widnes Vikings have a bright future under the new regime. The business plan put forward was not criticized in the report. It was the administration which was put forward soley as the reason for rejection.

Shut it, you!

great, but relying on the kindness of strangers isnt a business plan is it

the important point is, that restructuring needed doing, those losses would be made, and a company a few months after going to the wall saying they were going to incur big losses during the necessary restructuring and that for the time being both their status as a going concern aswell as the funding for this necessary restructuring was only going to come in the form of gifts is hardly a company showing its position as a viable entity

maybe it has something to do with one of the biggest areas of junior development in the country






also they are nicer people too

But it was the only real reason put forward as rejection.

Not the business plan.