I'm really sorry if this has been answered already in the pages of posts.

I was reading from a fax fans submission that Crusaders had been accepted and we were out and then Crusaders were encouraged to drop out and the RFL just said we could stay in ( despite theoretically not having met the criteria ? )

Is this true ? Did we fail, and then just get given the remaining space because we were the best of the "failed" clubs ?

R Lewis said this morning we met grade C criteria which means we're in, surely ? He didn't say we had failed but had the next best application of those remaining that had applied. ( and failed )

I've only read that crusaders had their [i[uapplication [/u[/iwithdrawn, which is not the same as having their [u[ilicense [/i[/uwithdrawn. ( my limited understanding suggesting the latter has been awarded, the former merely being in the process of consideration )

Or is this just heresay / false accusations ?

I'm trying to find something official thats been said, published, printed. Can anyone confirm whats happened and give me a link ?

Like I said, really sorry if this has been addressed.

Quote ="Rumour13"Is this true ? Did we fail, and then just get given the remaining space because we were the best of the "failed" clubs ?'" To add another twist to it - I read a post the other day from someone who called the outcome correctly 12 hours before the event. (Could have been a lucky guess, I suppose, but then again.) James Elston went on record several times stating that our application was by no means the weakest. The poster mentioned above also stated that Wakefield would not have been removed even if Crusaders had not withdrawn, because there were other SL club applications that were not as strong as ours. I can't remember where I read this now (I'll try and find a link later), or if I've got all the details exactly right, but it would put pay to the idea that we were only awarded a franchise because Crusaders withdrew. The public perception was that we had the weakest application. It seems this may not have been the case after all. One thing is absolutely certain, though - had the RFL not changed the rules regarding administration to help Crusaders, we would be playing in the Championship next season, end of. EDIT: Here you go: viewtopic.php?p=16319524#p16319524 On the money or pinch of salt?

Quote ="Rumour13"Is this true ? Did we fail, and then just get given the remaining space because we were the best of the "failed" clubs ?'" To add another twist to it - I read a post the other day from someone who called the outcome correctly 12 hours before the event. (Could have been a lucky guess, I suppose, but then again.) James Elston went on record several times stating that our application was by no means the weakest. The poster mentioned above also stated that Wakefield would not have been removed even if Crusaders had not withdrawn, because there were other SL club applications that were not as strong as ours. I can't remember where I read this now (I'll try and find a link later), or if I've got all the details exactly right, but it would put pay to the idea that we were only awarded a franchise because Crusaders withdrew. The public perception was that we had the weakest application. It seems this may not have been the case after all. One thing is absolutely certain, though - had the RFL not changed the rules regarding administration to help Crusaders, we would be playing in the Championship next season, end of. EDIT: Here you go: viewtopic.php?p=16319524#p16319524 On the money or pinch of salt?

i agree with sandal cat. crusaders were told to withdraw by the rfl in my opinion, the rfl made the phone call rather than the other way around.

i also didn't see any of the tv yesterday, but i heard on the radio that crusaders withdrew which meant we were saved. this suggests that we have been identified as the weakest application (excluding halifax who didn't have a fair chance at all imo) but have the rfl actually said that we were worse than cas and some others or is this just lazy journalism?

Don't think that's a theory I think it's obviously what happened.

For me it's lazy journalism!!

I said before all this that I would like to see the rankings and deliberations of all applications. This was more to prove that we had been kicked out even though we didn't have the weakest application.
I would still like to see this info given out so that we can once and for all put a stop to the slagging off of Trinity, that we only got included because Crusaders dropped out.
I still firmly believe that we had a stronger application than not only Crusaders but at least two other clubs as well. That should be being shouted from the rooftops but it never will be as I suspect we will never find out exactly what the results of the assessments were.

on look north last night mr Rimmer told mr (were leds rhino's) gration that the 13 teams who had been given licences on top of the widnes licence were the 13 teams who had submitted the best applications.
he also said that he had been in touch with Halifax along with some other clubs to advise them of weaknesses in their applications and advise them all how to improve the application.
after all this advice the halifax application was still not as good as the other C catagory clubs.
there was no mention of it being a two horse race i.e. fax and Wakey. Mr Rimmer constantly referred to all the clubs.

havn't posted for many years but thought this might help answer / clear up the question.