TBF, a few clubs do, we are covered by directors loans or underwritings and won't be alone.

It was the Armadillo that suggested Mr Morans input , I was just using the assumption as an example , personally I don't believe he puts anything like that amount into Warrington

As for your claim of being bitter and twisted and wanting Leigh in a franchised SL , you couldn't be further from the truth

Yes they are an easy target when discussing clubs being charities rather than businesses , because they are basically a charity , and quite possibly the biggest charity in SL

But that isn't what we are discussing , the point being put forward is that by the clever use of positive and negative terminology , the RFL can make any club look good , or any club look bad , and I am sure if the Halifax Chairman had not given his honest opinion immediately after the licence announcement , their assessment would have been very different to the one released

I don't think anyone reads your posts properly. They see who it is who's posted - "Oh it's Starbug - that Leigh fan. Leigh aren't in SL, ergo, he's moaning about not being in SL".

Maybe you should make it your sig.

TBH, I think you're coming off as more than a little paranoid. Everyone likes to have a go at the RFL if something isn't going their club's way. However, Fax missed out against Widnes on the original decision. So at that point their application had been assessed. Why didn't Fax make an enquiry to the RFL at that point? Asking what areas of their application could be improved for the 2nd round of applications.

Why on earth would the RFL then lie, and that IS what you're accusing them of doing, when they published the application summaries? Is it because a chairman spoke his mind so they're making an example of him and his club? Or is it because said club put in a pie in the sky application with financial figures plucked out of the air? Which seems more likely?

I'd also point out that the RFL got their fingers burnt and got egg on their face from the whole Crusaders thing after their chairman clearly promised things he couldn't deliver. So the RFL doesn't want another embarasing 3 years with a club near the bottom having to close and reform every year.

Which is more likely indeed , have the RFL been ' sing in silence behind closed doors ' at Fax's poor application since Feb/March when they first inspected it ?


Or is it because of Micheal Steele speaking from the heart in the aftermath of the licence decision that they decided to teach him a lesson ?

Given the RFL s penchant for positivity at all costs when making announcements , which do you think is more likely ?

I suspect it doesn’t matter how many people answer that question for you – you won’t agree with them

So you go for the ' s in silence ' option then ?

No, I am going for the ‘Halifax didn’t submit an application with an adequate business plan, budget and performance forecast and the RFL stated that they didn’t submit an adequate business plan, budget and performance forecast’ option

then, when widnes got the nod fax should have been told to go away and try again in anothr 3 years

So what was Quins business plan ?

I don’t know what the Quins business plan was but that is nowhere near the point of our conversation is it? The point is that you believe that the RFL have published an inaccurate summary of the Halifax submission in order to teach their chairman a lesson and I believe that the RFL wouldn’t have any benefit whatsoever in doing that. Add to that the fact that the Halifax summary is the only one that states that the independent assessors KPMG didn’t have enough information to actually complete their assessment and I cannot come to the conclusion that the RFL would risk name dropping their own independent assessors in a fictitious summary just to teach somebody a lesson

But, as I have stated above, I don’t think you will change your mind no matter how many times people answer your question

Would it have been KPMG who judged the widnes application or the rfl?.

The applications of Barrow, Halifax and Widnes were assessed by an RFL Exec team, property consultants Savills and KPMG. These reports went to the RFL’s Board of Directors who made the decision

So the RFL would have been aware of how bad Faxs application was back in Feb/March , but didn't say anything , but told them they were in the mix for the decision in July ?

So they were used then ?

If that's the case shouldn't Fax have been told at this point that there was insufficient info in their application? Instead of being allowed to continue in the application process.

so the same people who said the halifax bid was not as good as the widnes bid, are the same people who said the halifax bid was good enough to go up against the bids of established SL clubs,and they are the same people who've now said the Halifax bid was a load of rubbish?.

I’ve just watched Richard Lewis’s announcement on the Widnes applications award – he states that the Halifax club meets the minimum standards for a licence, there is no comment on the quality of the application itself

Did the RFL give Halifax feedback on the quality of their submission after the Widnes award – I don’t know. It could be argued of course that it would be unfair on the other Super League applicants if Halifax did get feedback on their application as it would put them at an advantage

But... once again, this is deviating from the point. The question I am debating is not did the RFL treat the Halifax application fairly, it is whether they published an inaccurate summary of their application in order to teach their Chairman a lesson for being outspoken about the application process as you stated. I maintain that the RFL have absolutely nothing to gain from doing this and (to state again) to use the name of KPMG, their own assessors, in this fictitious summary is beyond comprehension

We don’t know if the RFL gave Halifax feedback on their application after the first stage (as I said above, this could actually be considered unfair on the other SL applicants) – what we do know is that Halifax had a window of opportunity to improve the standard of their submission, if they did not take advantage of this window then that is the fault of Halifax, not the RFL

And the point we are making is that through the use of positive and negative vocabulary , the RFL can make any club look good , or bad as they see fit

The Halifax fans and administration have been critical enough already of the RFL and the licence process – imagine the reaction if they had been told they were not allowed to actually submit an application?

Again, the only people that can be blamed for submitting an adequate application are Halifax. If they have submitted a sub standard document then the blame lays with them and nobody else

I am not anti Halifax but, like it or not, the licence process if a commercial and business one more than a sporting one and if Halifax failed to submit an adequate application then they have let themselves and their fans down – simple as that

if halifax had already sent there application in ,why would the rfl allow them to take it away and work on it some more?.

i know your not anti halifax and yes it is the Halifax clubs fault for not submitting a better application,but imo a championship clubs application can never ever be as good as an established SL clubs application,halifax never stood a chance.

So the RFL knew it was cack , but didn't tell Fax

Or it wasn't cack , or at least not as cack as has been made out

So why would Fax attempt to improve it

Fax have been used by the RFL to give some perverse crdibility to the licence process

In reality the RFL knew months before the announcement date exactly who was staying and who was going , but the whole process is such a crock of they couldn't back out of it

I agree that a Championship club will always struggle to match a Super League club in the ‘factual’ elements of the application – attendances etc, but the feedback is that Halifax let themselves down in the commercial forecasting and budget element of the submission – there is no reason why Halifax would be at a disadvantage in this element as it the quality of the submission itself in question and not the supporting facts

As for your other point – if Halifax didn’t have the opportunity to improve their application after the first announcement then that’s my mistake