Meaningless babble.



You say this in hindsight but it's not what you were saying at the time. Not only were Crusaders a shambles, the RFL have been a shambles ignoring the massive warning signs and the propaganda about the strength of their club when there were plenty who could see the fragility of it all. People wanted it to be a success, ergo, they ignored their best senses. I can understand that, if not the reaction to the fans who didn't share their optimism.

As for Wood, you obviously didn't see it. Eloquence would have been wonderful. Coherence would have been nice. Stumbling over every question, repeatedly failing to answer anything asked, which is a sign of dishonesty, well it is completely fair to say that it was not really acceptable. It was political speak, all of it. No substance. No amount of insight. It was like Question Time, although less professional. If he had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have been so guarded. I don't think they honestly considered the Fax bid for one second. They were throwing wakefield out, and then something happened. Crusaders pulled out at the nth hour. Despite making very recent signings for next season. And when they pulled out, for whatever reason, the RFL went with the easy option instead of working out how they could make Halifax work. Thats a theory, we will never know the complete truth.



It is very very hard to understand actually. Why they changed the rule in the first place for instance. Was it to protect Crusaders? I think it was. Has it been used now to protect the status quo now? Yes it has. Does it make any sense whatsoever? Probably not.

Sorry but you're asking me to dismiss the administration as it is now part of the rules to ignore it. Except it was the only reason given why my club was kept out of super league last time. What has changed? Apart from the goalposts? Saying "its in the rules now" doesn't cut it for a second.



The problem is, when you're looking at a whole package, it is absolutely impossible to prove from the championship that you will better a super league outfit. More money involved, more crowds (due to human nature) it is much easier to run things like youth setups and have better crowds. This is no reason to protect wakefield indefinitely at the expense of Halifax. When a club has had a season like they have, have defaulted on several promises for a new stadium, have recently been through administration, you have to wonder what they'd have to do to actually get replaced.

As for the rage thing, yeah, standard b.s. tactic designed to throw muck at people. Grow up.

You're telling me you've never been relegated to the second tier?

Not during the super league era.

You didn't enter into it until 1998!

But that's all irrelevant as we're not working under P & R any more.

They met the [uminimum[/u criteria. They were lucky to get a second bite of the cherry. How do we know Widnes put in a better application than Fax first time around and the RFL weren't merely keeping a promise to Widnes for shafting you last time. The only way we know is because the RFL told us that was the case, you were happy to believe it then, but aren't so sure when they say Wakey are better than Fax

We know because it's plainly obvious and a lot of Fax fans openly admit it. Clutching at straws.

Look do you support franchising or not?

If not, accept you don't deserve to be in the top flight and Fax do, on playing merit.

If you do, why can't you accept that the independent analysis said our application is better.

You don't mind the decisions when it suits, don't like them when it doesn't.

FWIW, I would go back to P & R.

Bringing this argument onto a personal level? A below the belt move. I could argue this nonsense, but I wont bother arguinging with you further because of this.

Simply its an unfair playing field,

for championship clubs, with their budget, be able to compete in all these areas against million pound spending super league clubs is ridiculous!

you may as well just say thats it! it stays as it is, noone up.......

.....oh no that wouldnt work would it?!



because the RFL need someone to 'fill the boots' when one of these 'well run' 'financially stable' 'licence holding' clubs go bust! i get it now!!

so if Fax keep their nose clean, we might be at the becon call at some point....mmmmmmm, no thanks!

its a joke, and im affriad most true RL fans would agree the only way to save the sport is by reintroducing P&R!

then everyone has a fair crack.

Why is it plainly obvious? To you it is. But you never saw the respective applications.

Are you a professional property consultant, a qualified accountant from one of the largest accountancy practices in the world or an academic from a well respected university? The answer is you aren't, but the people who had input into the franchise application process were and said our application was better than Fax.

As I say, you were happy to go with the decision when it was you vs Fax, but questioning the one that says Wakey were better than Fax.

I don't need to clutch at straws as thankfully the decision went in our favour.

Cos you know it's a heads I win, tails you lose answer?

That seems to be the standard response on here to things that aren't understood or don't fit with preconceptions. Ah well.


I wasn't saying it at the time because I didn't have the facts at the time. I had no idea what a piece of work Samuels was until some of the Crusaders fans started to talk about on here. When he pulled out and Crusaders moved to Wrexham I [idid[/i criticise the RFL and also expressed doubts about the move. All of which is beside the point and doesn't change the facts.


As I said, I'm not going to comment on a performance I didn't see. I'll also take your version of events with a pinch of salt as you're hardly an unbiased witness. He's certainly failed to cover himself in glory on past occasions though.

You have a theory based on your particular feelings about the RFL. That's fine, but personally I prefer to base an opinion on facts where possible. Those available at the moment don't align with your view.


For this theory to be true, every other SL club would have to be in on the conspiracy as they had to vote on it. Another, possibly more likely, theory is that the RFL and the clubs were putting in some insurance against the impact of a couple of major HMRC cases now in progress which could lead to serious financial problems for all SL clubs.


What has changed is that, for whatever reason, administration isn't in the rules any more. It's therefore utterly pointless to keep referring to it. It could not and did not have any impact on the current round of licences.


It isn't impossible at all. You have to put forward a compelling case for how you would operate as an SL club with the built-in advantages you mention, not how you would operate in SL with no improvement in resources.

And you're still banging away about Wakey when there is zero evidence that they were chosen over Fax. In fact there's more actual evidence to the contrary. You're also ignoring the fact that the current owners haven't broken a single promise and is willing to invest in the club.


So you haven't seen any very angry people posting about this topic? Not one?

OK.

i sure do hope you beat Welshies on sunday!

what a meaningless game that is now! laughable!

There are quantifyable things we do know though. Things which make such a comparison a foregone conclusion.

In terms of crowds, by some distance, stadium, by quite a bit, youth, by some distance, turnover and backing, by some distance, Widnes were simply ahead of Halifax. Those are things we as fans know. There isn't many areas we can only guess about. On field, Halifax have been stronger than us, but it's no longer about that solely.

There really is no point in continuing this string further.

Tricky - if the roles were reversed you'd be hacked off. Yes - the bids were judged as they lay side by side at that moment in time and the panel made their judgement. But to Halifax fans they see their club keeping it's nose clean and being fairly successful on the field of play. They see Wakey going into administration and still playing out of a toilet. How did you expect Fax fans to react? Honestly, how would you have reacted? I totally understand that faced with a club with a new wealthy backer up against a club with limited resources the panel took their choice but it doesn't say much for the principle of franchising when two of the clubs holding licenses go bust.

The RFL need to go back to the drawing board in this regard and not simply abandon the rule during a license period because one of it's projects has gone tits up.

But this is the problem with the Widnes logic, because we've had three years of "franchising isn't fair, boo hoo, we cant get back in Super League", but you proved you couldn't get up to the top flight by any other route than franchising. Halifax's best beef is that franchising is wrong and it should be about rugby on the pitch, with which I agree, but of course that wouldn't suit Widnes.

How about the RFL idea that the 14 best applications get in, which was then changed to the 13 best to suit Widnes? I presume you would prefer another shift to allow the 12 best plus two from the Championship. Shifts if it suits are okay?

For me, you would be in over Widnes because you've done it on the pitch. Under franchising, the imperfect thing that it is, Widnes get in. It seems that under either idea, Wakey stay up, so what's the beef?

littlerich, your chairman was willing to accept you weren't in when he thought Crusaders were, even though they clearly had the worst application of all teams, but kicks off against Wakey. He has then proceeded to slag Wakey off desipte not seeing our application and made some glaring errors in relation to things that have been in the public domain for months (ie we are upgrading BV with the hope to move to NM if and when the PI come back in our favour and the admin rule being changed).

Your Chairman and you as fax fans don't even know that it was us vs you, it is just assumed because of all the negative press. The franchising era means results on the pitch aren't that important, I tend to agree with you and think they are, in which case you should be arguing with Widnes not us.

Exactly the same in a Wakey vs Fax scenario.

Not to everything, just nonsense.



You seemed to quite enjoy making rash judgements on the people who were pointing out the flaws in the crusaders business though. Samuels had history. This was ignored. And the detractors weren't "flatcappers" or "knuckle draggers" or whatever vitriolic nonsense they were referred to, they were right to have reservations.



I knew you'd pull the bias card. And people like you. I figured you'd concentrate on the Fax fans. Thats why I intervened:

I have no stake in this.

None. My club is in super league next year come what may. I'm neither angry, nor mad. For me, the difference between Halifax and Wakefield is completely minimal. So I'm as unbiased as anyone when it comes to their licenses. Wood was completely terrible on Boots N All and failed to answer any questions regarding why they fell for the Crusaders scam and why they've not put Halifax in.



I find that to be untrue.



Simply repeating that it isn't in the rules any more again doesn't cut it. Why is it not in the rules? Who was it to protect? Why the double standard? Why shouldn't it be taken into account at any point? Of course the super league clubs have voted for it! It's like turkeys voting to close down bernard matthews factory! Like this somehow legitimises this. Funnily enough they didn't ask the championship clubs.



But its nigh on impossible to PROVE that you will do better than a Wakefield or a Castleford. Why? Because the interest and money isn't in the Championship. You can put in a compelling argument, but you can't prove it.





















The only evidence is coming from rumour mongering. The same people who were dead certs that wakefield were already out and had insider information on it in many cases. So Crusaders don't fold. Who is going from super league? Come on, use your loaf.



They've been here five minutes. Thats why. Again, last time, this wasn't good enough. They haven't broken any promises because they've been in no position to fulfil any. Doublespeak again!



Whether I have or I haven't, its still completely irrelevant. You're just mudslinging anyone who is arguing in favour of Fax by dismissing them all as "raged" whether they make a compelling argument or not.

It's the exact sort of two faced crap which turns people away from the VT.

I've told you, I'm not going to waste my time on someone who steers this to a personal level as soon as the argument goes wrong for you. Although I feel compelled to tell you, this argument is so full of crap you're embarassing yourself.

Not exactly I'm afraid. It's super league vs championship. We're not a direct comparison here. If you're failing in super league, you might still be stronger than a team too big for the championship in terms of turnover and crowds. You have to make a judgement on potential and punish weaknesses in the super league team. Not direct comparisons I'm afraid.

I would like to think that clubs who go bust whilst holding licenses aren't rewarded with another license. It sends out the wrong message. You might argue that it's a pointless punishment given that a new regime is in place and you might be right. It just makes a mockery of a three year licensing system. The best of the best of the best? It's just not the case is it, when the best of the best go bust? Like I've said - it's formulated and made up by the RFL. It's their problem to sort out if they want to give any credibility to a franchise system.

If neither Wakefield or Halifax had really earned their license, what would you have wanted the RFL to do?

"You're wrong, but I'm not telling you why. I'll just assume an air of superiority and hope it wins through."

Interesting debating style.

Whatever?........