Furry muff, misunderstood your point.

I dont have a desire to prove our club wrong at all, I want us to be in the top flight and to have as much sucess as possible. Like most on here I spend loads of cash and time on Trinity so dont want them to fail at anything. Doesn't mean I have to think the sun shines out of the clubs and doesn't mean they are imune from criticism - especially when people continually want to slag off other clubs that I think have "better" (for want of a better word) credentials than us. I don't consider London to be a "Sacred cow", but like you and Widnes I dont have a problem with a club getting in infront of us if on merit. Anyway, back to the point in hand:

a. As I said, I don't know the first thing about Quins RL's community department - and I would be very suprised if you did too, although I am happy for your to set me straight on that if you like. I knows our's is pretty good and has won awards, but it's impossible for me to say how they compare to ours and who's is best and unlike you if I don't know something I tend to either admit it or keep schdum.

b - we agree on this

c & d - where did I say anything about us being a new club or not? For the record, when you suggest we are better of financially and management wise are you talking about us pre or post administration, that will help me discuss it with you.

e - I think we both agree on this one, but since when was your place in the top flight ever decided on your last game? Relegation has always been judged on your performance over a period of time hasn't it?

A lot of great points made on this thread, but it all boils down to this one question that no one can give a reasonable answer to;

[iWhy should Wakefield Trinity accept been kicked out of Super league when we are clearly not the weakest franchise???[/i

Why should we, when the clubs signed up to this system several years ago was not said that the best 14 clubs would be awarded a franchise? A fair system we were told, the current system is anything but fair. It's promotion and relegation by choice! the criteria is that vague that you could pick who you want in SL, justify it by putting certain weight on anything really, eg Widnes youth development rather than Fax winning the actual competition.

If I was Glover I'd been consulting with the solicitors and making a case for the courts to decide.

Answer - because there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

No case. I seem to remember that they have introduced some kind of general discretion clause, where they look at what the club brings to the league or something. By importing a personal judgement rather than a pure points comparison, they can do what they want.

In relation to those people who stay away as a protest, one I understand, isn't there an argument that you make it worse for Wakey. One of the arguments against the expansion clubs is that they add nothing to the matchday experience as they don't bring any fans, if we don't take any to them, we lose the argument. An empty away stand will look pretty bad.

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that any general discretion clause would not be legally binding especially now the system isn't fair like they said when we signed up. The RFL are the ones that have broken the agreement not us! I don't believe for a second we have to take this injustice on the chin. The effects of this will finish the club imo, I don't believe we will ever play top flight rugby league again.

I agree that we might never see top flight rugby again, but on what grounds could we legally challenge it? That we don't like the outcome? There has to be a legal ground to mount a legal challenge.

Discretion clauses abound in the law and there is no issue with them. Public bodies are entitled to use discretion in all sorts of areas, and the only ground to challenge them is when they have fettered their discretion; ie, already made their mind up. We might believe that the RFL have made their mind up, but you and try to find one public utterance where they have said that or hinted that. And to prove something, you need proof. Provided that a decision is one that could reasonably have been reached, it is hard to challenge the exercise of a discretion, and as everyone expects us to go, it would be hard to argue that the discretion has been exercised unreasonably.

Those category C clubs will be judged against "the strategic needs of the sport", as determined by the RFL, as well as "historical contribution and potential future performance". We fall down on the first, if we think the RFL is against us, and the strategic needs of the RFL are all about expansion.

You can't legally challenge that if the strategic needs of the sport are clear. You can shout from the rooftops all you want, but I doubt you could do anything about it. They have a discretion based on the "strategic needs of the sport". If those needs are about expansion, then they have exercised it reasonably if we lose out in favour of an expansion club.

That is not "reasonable" in my view, but what is legally "reasonable" is a decision that could be reasonably justified, within the criteria set out.

Also, the Sheffield United example is not a good one, as the FA agreed with the courts, it would seem, that West Ham had acted improperly.

You're wrong about nothing being beyond a legal challenge, because it can be dismissed pretty quickly if it is groundless. In making a civil claim, you have to set out what your civil claim is and under what ground. There would be no benefit to it if you couldn't get an injunction to stop the 2012 season going ahead, and the judge considering the injunction could rule at that point that the application is groundless. It may not end the case, but it would signal the end of it. Also, you can suffer significant cost penalties if the application is frivolous and vexatious, and I would rather the club spent the money on players.

Legal action would do us no favours whatsoever and would damage both the Club and the game. Like it or not this is the system that we signed up for along with the rest of the SL clubs. If we are the team that is not given a franchise then I will take great pride and pleasure in the fact that we were never relegated from SL despite all the well documented problems/troubles/tradgedies we have had along the way. A court case would taint this for me and I would hope as a Club we are bigger than that.

You're going to end up with an ulcer pal.

Ignore him Wadski. We do.

I hope this is not classed as a consultation M'lord, with the usual fee to follow in the post

That's fine, but what you're saying is that London are a special case and thus should not be relegated for that reason. My gripe is that is [unot[/u what the RFL or the expansionist lobby are saying. Every time this protected issue is brought up they deny it.

If you take away London's protected status then you have to question their viability and you certainly have to question if they beat us on criteria.

The game can't have it both ways, things need to be transparent and they are not. There seems to be a belief in the game that follows your logic and London are a done deal but no ones admitting it. What you are asking for is that London who IMO are no longer a development club get special dispensation. OK, but surely fans of the other 13 clubs deserve to know that is the case?

This whole thing stinks of nods and winks, typical RL.

What I do think is that we fight to the end and make it as awkward as hell for them. Not by picking on another club and certainly not through the courts (unless it really does stink) but by simply demanding the whole thing is fully transparent and the reason should it happen that we lose our license are explained in detail and without ambiguity.

Yes and no. Think it depends. It would have to be an utterly massive injustice (that we could prove) to make it worthwhile. Even then it would do us few favours.

Certainly wouldn't attempt it on pure technicalities (which I think we could), as you say that would just isolate us.

I'm only questioning the criteria or more to the point London's case. That said, 1 CVA, 1 Administration, 1 failed new stadium and one stalled stadium has not helped our case in terms of support within the game. We don't have the strongest case in some respects even if they don't all fall directly within the SL application. I can't help thinking in my darker moments that we deserve National Leagues (which isn't true) but as a fan I can't give up that easy.

Are the results of the franchise application decision, made public.
I would imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to place them on the RFLs website, if they wanted to.
I can't believe that they would think that nobody's interested.

Like I said I'm no expert but if we do have a case for legal action I say take it. What damage do you think it would do taking it on the chin? It would mean a permanent existence in the Championship. sub 2000 crowds no real youth development and another lost generation of potential fans just like on the 80s. I would bet that this would have serious repercussions imo for Newmarket as well. Dreams of Wembley and one day making it to the top are over, our club should do anything to avoid this fate and keep the dream alive. No dream = a soulless game with no passion or emotion.

Any criteria would surely have to be [iweighted[/i in some way and if there were too much emphasis placed on any specific one so as to create a 'trumps all' criteria that could be used to place a significantly inferior club into a position of being sacrosanct at another clubs/business/employers expense then that surely is grounds for action of some type.

Oh aye, it will be weighted, all right, with "strategic needs of the sport" having most weight. So that's the expansion clubs in. It is then for the Category C heartland clubs to battle it out on the basis of historical contribution and anticipated future performance. Salford's historical contribution isn't as great as ours, but their stadium is well on its way, and so they're in.

So it's us and Cas. I think we may edge historical contribution, on the grounds that we haven't been relegated and not been fined for crowd misbehaviour. Equally, they have been more financially stable and are a good solid club. On the future potential, it is all down to whether the RFL will swallow another postponement of the Cas ground, or whether they will guess the probability of getting Newmarket getting passed. If they like the way Glover is running the club, with a promise to spend to the cap as part of the bid (as I understand it is), along with a good guess as to the probability of Newmarket, we might nick it yet.

"Not liking the verdict", however, has never been a legal ground for court action. And it would be costly, and hugely counter-productive in terms of PR.

Do you guys think you'll stay in with Widnes coming up?

A thread like this may already exist but i'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Yes I do, next question...

Unless the RFL go back on everything they have previously said NO.

Have the RFL actually been quoted saying that a team will come down...?

I can't find anything anywhere and if this is correct they may have done this knowing that they may have to expand our league.

I've pinned you on to the end of the last thread we had on the subject, which wasn't that long ago. 8 pages of opinions for you to read on what we think about our prospects of retaining a license, and other stuff. There's plenty more from where this came from too. Just look through the old threads.

They have said on several occasions that SL will remain at 14 teams and with Widnes coming up that means one team will go.