Are you really that desperate that you have to start acting sexist to make yourself feel superior? I know you're failing to bring up a decent argument, but I didn't think you needed to sink THAT low!

OMG ..o.k they stop meeting the critia in any fu***g shape or form then...stop trying to twist your argument

or lets just say halifax meet more critia points than Quinns/Wigan etc...would RFL swap them places ?

I am certainly not. in fact i am thoroughly enjoying this.

Sorry, I had no intention of bringing up a bad part of your history to embarrass you!

If your ansrew is no...then this is just not the way forward....if you answer yes...I think you lieing to yourself

If they would then yes...maybe this is the way forward, but in a realistic world of RFL thats not going to happen is it?

On or Off pitch , and who makes that decision ?

........... your lack of substance and basic grasp of reality is making your contributions embarrassing. It's a bit cringeworthy to be honest.

going with a womans argument on this issue would be more dangerous than allowing a monkey to fly a plane

I aren't trying to twist anything. You're trying to bring up a completely hypothetical argument that you cannot prove right or wrong, so no matter what I reply you will still disagree with. What's the point?

If Wigan, Saints or anyone in the SL didn't meet ANY criteria to be in SL, then I guarantee that they would not be in the SL. Anyone that is trying to argue that they would despite not meeting ANY criteria is simply idiotic.

It'll count against them in the next round of license applications.

Thanks. I feel better now.

like the awarding of franchises

Edited for accuracy.

Presumably going by the criteria and the decisional will be made by the licence panel.

If you think a club can be in SL and not achieve ANY of the criteria, you are deluding yourself.

i dont mean if they dont meet ANY

lets just say halifax meet more critia points than Quinns/Wigan etc...would RFL swap them places

Top goes up, bottom goes down....theres no arguments then....make NRL1 more competitve and if your sat at bottom of SL, you need to bck your ideas up or your going down.

Lets not have some people in suits making up ideas of why a team should be there and who shouldnt

Which is nothing more than somebodies opinion , and therefore no more relative than yours or mine

One, I'm a bloke.

Two, you are an ignoramous.

well...... [size=200SPOT ON CHAP[/size

No, they wouldn't swap them, because that's not how the process works.

You really need to understand the licensing process more before trying to argue against it.

I think it is a hell of a lot more relevant than yours or mine, as these are the people in the positions of power. And I have a feeling that their opinion is a lot more educated and based on a lot more facts than your or mine, hence how they got into these positions of power.

yeah, you got that part right....that would be their (RFL's) argument too

I did think that about the lads and lasses that ran the banking industry of late

There is no process

You are stupid if you think there is , Franchises are there to expand the sport , nothing more , nothing less

All most want is the RFL to actually announce what they want

I think that the interest in that game was that players were playing for their jobs as there would have been no guarantee that the players on the losing team would have been retained due to the big drop in income that came with relegation.

Being relegated from a full time league to a semi pro one meant that the consequences of relegation from Super League could have been too severe for a club without a backer to help them out. The stakes for playing that one game were IMO too high. It could well have convinced the RFL even more that they were doing the right thing in introducing franchises.