Yes, but you didnt say that. You said that one set submitted bids judged quantatively and another qualitatively. They werent, they were all judged both quantatively and qualitatively.

But yes, im glad we got that cleared up, the clubs were graded using an objective, quantative criteria, then those in the same grading were judged subjectively to decide who was best.

So you are saying that they rated Leeds and Wigan higher without looking at the bids - So why bother going through the biding process at all?

Are you sure on that? Are you absolutely positive that the Oxford English Dictionary defines subjective solely as ?there isnt anymore you have left out? It isnt describe as an antonym of objective by any chance?

You have a chance to come clean here

No, im saying that the RFL used objective, quantative criteria from within the bids to grade the clubs. Those clubs graded C were then scrutinised in a subjective qualitative way to decide which clubs were admitted and which clubs werent.

If you are dumb enough to think that pies are the only other consideration then yes.

Ok, i didnt ask you that though. I asked you if you thought the RFL would have been able to tell that the Wigan, Leeds or Catalans bid would have been better than Cas's or Fevs without seeing them.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply asking for clarification rather than asking a pointless random question about what I can guess the RFL would guess about Wigan and Leeds.

The RFL used the bids to grade the clubs, the clubs they graded higher were admitted with a few pointers on where they wanted them to improve. Those graded lower were subjected to a subjective analysis and those who came out best where admitted and those who came out worst werent.

Any speculation on what the RFL guessed about the bids before were submitted is frankly ridiculous.

I havent suggested that the RFL guessed. What i am suggesting though is that the RFL didnt need to go through the grading process. It was imo pointless - they could have just said - these are the 14 teams

I am presuming you know what the subjective analysis was that the RFL carried out? If you could provide a link to this it would be fantastic.

But it wasn't just subjective , it was Qualititive, Quantitive, Objective and Subjective or in other words

Total bollox

When they start using lots of big long words tacked onto each other you know they are just trying to sound clever and confuse people

dont forget qualitatively.

Quote ="a.n Other"I havent suggested that the RFL guessed. What i am suggesting though is that the RFL didnt need to go through the grading process. It was imo pointless - they could have just said - these are the 14 teams'" They could, but they didnt know which clubs were the best 14 yet. It seems crazy to make the decision without asking for the information necessary to make that decision. Quote I am presuming you know what the subjective analysis was that the RFL carried out? If you could provide a link to this it would be fantastic.'" The subjective analysis was done on things like the business plans and marketing strategies. The plans the clubs had to get from where they were, to where they needed to be. Things like that would have been impossible to judge objectively. This link has a good explanation from the RFL. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-le ... 4302787.jp btw. This link, which explains the process, how it wasnt a tick box process, and how they would be subjective analysis was published prior to the franchise decision being known. Which shows up a few people and how they have refused to believe the process or condemned the RFL for not being clear about the process.

Quote ="a.n Other"I havent suggested that the RFL guessed. What i am suggesting though is that the RFL didnt need to go through the grading process. It was imo pointless - they could have just said - these are the 14 teams'" They could, but they didnt know which clubs were the best 14 yet. It seems crazy to make the decision without asking for the information necessary to make that decision. Quote I am presuming you know what the subjective analysis was that the RFL carried out? If you could provide a link to this it would be fantastic.'" The subjective analysis was done on things like the business plans and marketing strategies. The plans the clubs had to get from where they were, to where they needed to be. Things like that would have been impossible to judge objectively. This link has a good explanation from the RFL. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-le ... 4302787.jp btw. This link, which explains the process, how it wasnt a tick box process, and how they would be subjective analysis was published prior to the franchise decision being known. Which shows up a few people and how they have refused to believe the process or condemned the RFL for not being clear about the process.

I put that one in first

You think qualitative, quantitative, objective and subjective are long and complicated words?

Not really , but you do talk total bollox though

So why say it?

what an odd thing to do

Quote ="SmokeyTA"They could, but they didnt know which clubs were the best 14 yet. It seems crazy to make the decision without asking for the information necessary to make that decision. =#FF0000The subjective analysis was done on things like the business plans and marketing strategies. The plans the clubs had to get from where they were, to where they needed to be. Things like that would have been impossible to judge objectively. This link has a good explanation from the RFL. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-le ... 4302787.jp btw. This link, which explains the process, how it wasnt a tick box process, and how they would be subjective analysis was published prior to the franchise decision being known. Which shows up a few people and how they have refused to believe the process or condemned the RFL for not being clear about the process.'" So what are they going to do next time , as quite simply it is fairly obvious without having to be subjective , that most of them lied through their teeth

Quote ="SmokeyTA"They could, but they didnt know which clubs were the best 14 yet. It seems crazy to make the decision without asking for the information necessary to make that decision. =#FF0000The subjective analysis was done on things like the business plans and marketing strategies. The plans the clubs had to get from where they were, to where they needed to be. Things like that would have been impossible to judge objectively. This link has a good explanation from the RFL. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-le ... 4302787.jp btw. This link, which explains the process, how it wasnt a tick box process, and how they would be subjective analysis was published prior to the franchise decision being known. Which shows up a few people and how they have refused to believe the process or condemned the RFL for not being clear about the process.'" So what are they going to do next time , as quite simply it is fairly obvious without having to be subjective , that most of them lied through their teeth

Then that will be factored in to the subjective analysis. If a club has shown to be way off in their planning then their planning will be taken with a pinch of salt, with the RFL likely taking a bit more of a pessimistic view than the club

Oh dear , looks like we'll have 4 new clubs in SL in 2012 then doesn't it

No, only 3 applied so it would be difficult.

it would be difficult but not impossible.

Toulouse

Quote ="SmokeyTA" The subjective analysis was done on things like the business plans and marketing strategies. The plans the clubs had to get from where they were, to where they needed to be. Things like that would have been impossible to judge objectively. This link has a good explanation from the RFL. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-le ... 4302787.jp btw. This link, which explains the process, how it wasnt a tick box process, and how they would be subjective analysis was published prior to the franchise decision being known. Which shows up a few people and how they have refused to believe the process or condemned the RFL for not being clear about the process.'" Do you not have a link to the RFL release on what "things" there were exactly looking for or their comments on clubs marketing stratergies and business plans?

Quote ="SmokeyTA" The subjective analysis was done on things like the business plans and marketing strategies. The plans the clubs had to get from where they were, to where they needed to be. Things like that would have been impossible to judge objectively. This link has a good explanation from the RFL. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-le ... 4302787.jp btw. This link, which explains the process, how it wasnt a tick box process, and how they would be subjective analysis was published prior to the franchise decision being known. Which shows up a few people and how they have refused to believe the process or condemned the RFL for not being clear about the process.'" Do you not have a link to the RFL release on what "things" there were exactly looking for or their comments on clubs marketing stratergies and business plans?

Transparency?

The RFL have made the Superleague a closed shop. They will decide who is in and who is out....no amount of threads on a fans forum is going to change that.
The 14 SL clubs signed up to this....and one of them will be leaving SL next year.......of the teams applying to replace them, Widnes will be favourites, but this is the RFL we are talking about.
The RFL have never published exactly what criteria was judged last time or will be this time....why should they? It is their closed shop and they will run it as they see fit in association with Murdoch. I can't fathom why so many people fail to grasp this......
If it is Wakefield who drop down, then the question has to be asked what do Widnes bring that wakefield didn't? The problem is, the RFL don't have to answer.........they are autonomous. There is no suprise in this.......the licence/franchise situation demands that there is a governing body that makes these decisions.

I believe that Fax and Barrow being the only other 2 applicants have made the Widnes decision easy. I believe that whoever makes way for them will have a good argument as to why they shoul not have been ejected.....but it doesn't matter...the RFL are the people who will make the decision and that's it.....

Transparency? I think it is pretty clear already that the RFL will do as they see fit........

You are a tiresome little man aren't you? Here is the definition of subjective, in its entirety, from the online Oxford dictionary:

subjective(sub¦ject|ive)
Line-break:OnOffPronunciation:/səbˈdʒɛktɪv/adjective
1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions:
his views are highly subjective
there is always the danger of making a subjective judgement
Contrasted with objectivedependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence. 2 Grammarrelating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence. noun
(the subjective) Grammar
the subjective case. Derivatives
subjectively
adverb
subjectiveness
noun
subjectivity
Pronunciation:/sʌbdʒɛkˈtɪvɪti/
noun


Now, you accused me of using a deliberately narrow definition and pretending no other definition existed. Firstly nowhere did I 'pretend' no other definition existed, and secondly as you can see I was using the word in the most commonly accepted definition. If you would like to give me the definition of subjective in the context with which you were using it, and a reference, that might clear things up, though as you haven't done thus far I suspect your arguments are simply a smokescreen in a vain attempt to save face.

Thanks for explaining the need for some transparency , all they have to do , is say what you have posted instead of all the pretence