Im not wishing them to suffer. I hope they go from strength to strength.

Wakefield may or may not have a firm and viable future financial footing. It has yet to be proven. Im simply not convinced by a couple of months of being relatively stable has got rid of all the deep structural problems within Wakefield that has seen them struggle for so long.

Again, I do hope Wakefield succeed. What have I said which has brought you to a different conclusion?

It seems clear to me you lack confidence in your argument, hence you trying to attribute things to me which are blatantly wrong.

Smokey,

It’s all very well preaching the virtues of this Welsh experiment from your Ivory Towers of Headingley.

Unless it was your club that was facing expulsion from the top table you cannot get a true feel for it.

However admirable, the Welsh expansion has been a botched job. They are trying to compete with Clubs with a wealth of traditional supporters & junior structures etc. In order to simply compete on the field, their playing staff consists mainly of 2nd rate Antipodeans. The novelty value has now worn off and without limited success the crowds will continue to bump along.

Do the majority of Wakefield fans believe that their club is in better shape than the Crusaders, sure they do. Do they believe the dreamers at Red Hall think their club’s in better shape, of course not

If the Welsh licence was to crumble giving Wakefield a last gasp reprieve, their fans would feel vindicated – not pathetic.

It allows me to take an overall view. You admit yours is tied up in your bias, which is understandable.

And we have seen, this season, and in the last round of franchises, a club with a wealth of traditional supporters and junior structures fail massively. Wakefield have relied on mainly 2nd rate antipodeans for almost all of their SL lifespan. Look at HKA a club with a wealth of traditional supporters and junior structures relying on 2nd rate antipodeans.
Of course Wakefield fans think their club is in better shape.

And did Wakefields collapse and trouble vindicate those who argued for expansion? Or vindicate those who argued there wasnt space for 2 SL clubs in WMDC

I have put together a reasoned argument as to why I think Crusaders should not be given a new franchise under the ownership of Moss and Roberts, the only prejudiced person here is you, who clearly wish to see Wakefield fail out of some warped sense of justice... did someone from Wakefield run-over your dog? Wakefield folly... what a joker you are, they have been around since 1873, hardly a folly mate, and while they have had financial problems in that time, so as every other major club... p1ss poor argument!



Because I can do sums mate, being an Engineer I studied maths, so if income (excluding monies put in by owners, because that is the point) is less than expenditure you make a loss. So 1500 paying punters for their recent game leads me to believe that they are probably making a loss, week in, week out... to be fair, so are many clubs, Saints included! They owe £700k to the RFL of which the RFL are stopping off payment at source from their sky money. So their income from Sky is less than any other club in the RFL... does this look like a business turning a profit to you?



Thank you for helping me further prove my hypothesis... that is what you meant to do, is it not... Moss and Roberts could do exactly the same yes... you understand that! BTW, Wakefield were making around a £100k loss per annum under Ted, but I understand that they currently are balancing the books without current financial input from Glover... and they are above Crusaders in the table!


Why would a lease be guaranteed, a new owner might have to give them notice on the lease, but if they buy the ground as a development opportunity, they could get rid of them and buy them out if required. As for Newmarket, the ground will be owned by the community trust and Wakefield will have a long-term lease agreement... but I am not sure what your point is here! The Bank of Ireland own Belle Vue now and Wakefield do have a lease in place and the Bank of Ireland are not interested in kicking them out just yet... they will wait and sell the ground when the housing market improves for obvious reasons.

Your arguments are poor and are actually going a long way to show why Crusaders are, unfortunately, looking like they really should be the club to lose out, not Wakefield.

Indeed it is a p1ss poor argument. Which is what i was trying to highlight to you, and how p1ss poor it still was when you attributed it to Crusaders.

And again, you only seem to be able to rely on attributing things to me which arent correct. There is no reason in your argument, simply speculation and circumstantial reasoning



It doesnt look like I have anywhere near enough to know whether or not it was making a profit or a loss, and if so whether the profit/loss was higher or lower than their previous profit/loss (which we dont know) including previous debt servicing(which we dont know)

All it proves is never take financial advice from an engineer.

In the table where you have made up the figures it probably does.
And im sure, like most leases, that notice has provision for them to be able to find alternative arrangements. It would pretty shoddy to sign a long term lease with a very short notice period. Especially when you are taking the lease for yourself to help in your division of assets because you know you are about to sell the freehold In which case wouldnt the club be adequately recompensed and able to find a new home. Doesnt this apply to every club with a lease and not the freehold on their stadium So theoretically the community trust could sell the freehold as a development opportunity and give notice on Wakefields lease. Sounds fairly familiar WSV own the racecourse ground and crusaders have a lease in place and WSV are not interested in kicking them out.

Your arguments are circumstancial, biased, and frankly pretty silly.

Once again it is you who showing most bias, against Wakefield!

Why have Wakefield failed massively in Super League? Firstly, take this season out, they had players sold off by the administrator and their best players cherry picked by some vulture clubs and why spend any large amounts of money now, not knowing your future. Still they are not bottom and without a deduction would be on the same points as Hull KR and Hull. They won the Academy Grand Final in 09 (crap junior structures eh!!!) and finished in 5th in the same year, they have never finished bottom of SL, never been relegated and have an average league SL position of 8th over their whole SL history! They also have arguably the best community programme in SL.

But they have failed... bloody hell, so what is your opinion on Salford????

I am going to stop now, mainly because you don't need my help any longer to make you look a numpty!

There are some belting statements above, but it is this one that made me laugh most "So theoretically the community trust could sell the freehold as a development opportunity and give notice on Wakefields lease". Yes, theoretically true, but given that the development around it is paying for it in the first place and the current and possible future make-up of the board of directors this is your must stupid statement yet!

I am not biased, pathetic or prejudice mate... have a look in the mirror!

Right, tea time and then Odsal to see if we can beat the Bulls... I am not living in hope... a bit like you losing that chip on your shoulder!

yeah, they are the reasons. A mediocre club at best, a very poor one at worst.

if you wish. But it is you who wants Crusaders to fail because Wakefield have failed. If they were a success, then Crusaders wouldnt be an issue, as they arent for Leeds, Hull, Wigan, Warrington, St Helens, Catalans, Huddersfield, Bradford, etc. The only reason you want Crusaders is because Wakefield have put themselves into a position where they are struggling to deserve a place in SL, you hope their failure covers for Wakefields failures and it is pathetic.

Sure Wakefield have relied heavily on imports, the difference in Wakefield’s case was, in order to stay in the competition year after year, with the threat of relegation, year after year, they had to perform on the field, simple.

To say the club has failed, well, how do you compare success?




Wakefield’s collapse, as you put it, has happened once, the Welsh experiment is on its second, with maybe another one in the pipeline.

As for your theory on the District, that’s just a red herring, one of your pet hates.

guys, as i have learnt recently your effectively ing in the wind when debating with smokey. life is much more serene when you embrace the 'Ignore' function

Correct, and yes indeed, correct.

According to the Crusaders accounts they have not paid any rent for the use of the Racecourse ground.

If there is a new owner of the ground and they do honour the lease agreement then Crusaders will not be allowed to use it without paying for it and that makes them even less financially viable.

Smokey, fans can talk about eras of dominance by certain clubs, we've had Sts in the naughties, before them Bradford, Sts again, Wigan, Widnes then lo and behold in the 60s it was Wakefield.

To say Wakefield has over 100 years of folly is a ridiculous comment.

Ineed it is, one of his worse comments ever, and thats saying something!

Yet other clubs havent.

trophies, finals, attendances, players brought through. Measures of success.


Crusaders have collapsed once. Not twice, once.

explain the difference. Explain how the collapse of Crusaders vindicates those who say there isnt the strength for a team in Wales, but the collapse of Wakefield doesnt vindicate those who say there isnt the strength for two teams in WMDC.

Crusaders havent filed any accounts in this guise, they are a couple of months old.
a modicum of success in the 60's in a semi-pro game does not guarantee the club can still compete 50 years in a fully pro game. Some seem to have spent their lives battling against it but the game has moved on.

To dismiss the hardwork and successes that have happened in Wales of the last few years as a folly is equally ridiculous. The Game in Wales has never been stronger.

1959-60 League Championship runners up
1959-60 Challenge Cup Winners
1960-61 Yorkshire Cup Winners
1961-62 Challenge Cup Winners
1961-62 Championship Final runners up
1961-62 Yorkshire Cup Winners
1961-62 Yorkshire League Winners
1962 invited to Tour South Africa & went unbeaten (6 games)
1963 Challenge Cup Winners
1966-67 League Champions
1967-68 League Champions
1967-68 Challenge Cup Runners up (watersplash, robbed)

This era also included numerous wins versus the Touring Kangaroos & Kiwis
Wakefield Trinity players making up the backbone of Great Britain Team & Touring sides
Wakefield Trinity officials managing full tours during a period when Great Britain were the best international team in the world.
We produced the world record points scorer in Neil Fox (6,220 unadjusted)

And to top it off we were the subject of probably THE BEST ever sports related movie

Modicum of success!

You are a buffoon!



I hav'nt dismissed anyone, that's something you made up to support your ridiculous argument.

:1r6lck5yIf you want to pretend thats dominance fine, Ive no interest in trying to correct you. However it doesnt address the main point which you have tried to avoid which is it was 50 years ago, in a semi-pro game. It bears no relevance to this fully pro game.

That is what I was addressing. Which is where the comparison came in.

What have wakefield done in the last 30 years?

You are talking about a time in which they were successful. Any team can do that. The fact of the matter is, they have been a relativly poor team for a number of years

And you should go back and read the thread before posting,

I was responding to Smokeys ridiculous comment that Wakefield were a waste of a club for it's whole history

i never said that. You have made it up. I said that they have taken 100 + years to get to this point. The fact they have relied on overseas players throughout their SL lifetime, the fact they facilities they play in are poor, the fact they dont have a lot of money to put out a competitive side, the fact they have struggled on the field for the last 50 years, the fact they are in danger of losing their license is down to their failings, nobody elses, and wishing the death of Crusaders to cover up for these failings is pathetic. If Wakefield excelled as a club then they wouldnt be in danger, it is because they havent that they are in danger and regardless of Crusaders, it is Wakefield who have got themselves into this position.

You must have been spoilt for choice.

Thats 8 Barry/Katie/Phipps.