franchises? July 26th?

July 26th I believe.

the thing is if the club lose their franchise ALL that work goes down the pan and those people will be looking for jobs elsewhere ... also the expectation and reliance which now exists in the wakefield area for these activities will be unserviced

a championship club will not be able to maintain that level of commitment or investment.. the business will need to be dismantled and rebuilt to survive the championship years then if we are lucky enough to get back.. re-built again...

yes we went into administration... but so did Crusaders.. yes Widnes bid was rejected on the grounds ofadministration.. but they were applying for promotion... and had no existing superleague infrastructure to dissmantle...

As I have said before - removing a franchise is NOT like relegating a team...

Told you so.

So... it seems, Trinity are currently benchmarked as best-in -class in two areas of franchise qualification...

And this means to bin Wakefield, would ditch two business excellence framework criteria in a wider business which just [istruggles[/i along... that with the Newmarket Sports complex awaiting the government tick... and other club initiatives pushing the Rugby League paradigm to its limits...

however...

To bin Castleford would ditch a hotbed of youth talent, an area steeped in RL tradition and the prospect (post developemnt planning permission for Wheldon Rd) a superb stadium

To bin Salford would rake the game out of one of our remaining BIG CITIES,and consign a super stadium complex to obscurity

To bin Crusaders would stamp on the dream of premier RL in Wales

ditto London

who next... HKR... Bradford... even Leeds?


whoever is forced out will suffer dire consequences for the game in their area, and I am glad I do not have this "sophie's choice" decision to make.

Many of the posters on there can't seem to grasp the administration bit no longer count, jeez some fans are thick.

Seems encouraging that a Jorno all be it one of the better ones gives us some chance - these guys rarely deviate from the script unless they know something.

It does still count against you in the application. All they got rid off was the clause that said you couldn't apply for a franchise if you had recently been in admin.

Pound to a penny says the RFL will use this as the excuse when they kick us out. What will be more interesting is what spin they put on things to justify keeping Wrexham. Some comical excuse no doubt!

Presumably there would be a return of serve from the club along the lines of "yes! but so have crusaders and look at how better we are excelling in all the other areas of the franchise than them, surely you are mistaken, these are not the droids you are looking for".

What infuriates me most is that the RFL can still even to this day keep up the pretense that all clubs will be judged equally and fairly against one another, when everyone can see this is clearly not the case. If the RFL came out and said, Harlequins and Crusaders will be awarded licenses owing to their location and a belief that we should expand the game in these areas and nothing more, then as infuriating as that is, I could learn to accept it. However, to be paraded in front of the RL world as been a team that is weaker than both these sides is simply not true. Taking a step back and looking at each application from the most neutral of perspectives, I can't see many if any areas of the license process where we wouldn't rank above either of these clubs.


Take the London model in particular, here is a club that first started out albeit under the guise of Fulham in 1980. This is not a fledgling club, and should not be looked upon as a structure that should be allowed to bed in. This is a club that has been trying and failing for 31 years. The fact that they are still hemorrhaging money and again talking about changing identity is testament to the fact that RL in the capital simply has not and does not work. As much as the RFL has thrown at them, and however much they feel the need to "wait and see", there comes a point that even Red Hall can't side step their shortcomings. Granted it may come too late to save our bacon, but it will happen.

We just need to keep the pressure on. just remember it only takes one bit of bad publicity to undo all the good work the club has done.
Yes we have pushed the boat out, lets make sure nobody sinks it. Great Work lets keep it going.

Which is one off the reasons why I think we would have a good case for legal action?

What narks me most about the development franchises is the fact that they don't have to deliver as a business like other clubs. These teams will never have an incentive to improve. They simply don’t benefit from healthy competition; they can just sit back and enjoy the benefits of SL membership without ever having to excel as a business. They are guaranteed a franchise whatever happens for a long time to come which is not an healthy competitive environment. Not been exposed to that environment will never bring the best out of such teams!

You'd better start accepting, 'cos the application will almost certainly include aspects where expansion / geography is seen as a very big factor. The licence application will have been worded in such a way that the RFL will have every excuse (oops sorry ! considered reasoning !!) to support any decision they make. Faia and reasonable are not words they understand. Money, ie Sky, IS a word they understand.

we could threaten, but i doubt there would be the appetite to take it to court. how deep are mr glover's pockets?

I guess it depends whether it would be better for him to take the financial hit of dropping into the championship or spending money on legal fees to preserve our place in Super League where there is far more money available in terms of various different types of income.

IMO there is no chance of a legal challenge. O'Connor and Widnes set the precedent for this situation in 2008.

The RFL knew they were wrong omitting Widnes for the disaster of Crusaders. The sweetener to O'connor was the promise that as long as they didn't rock-the-boat ( ie legal action), won one of the specified competitions, they would then be guaranteed a place at the next licence application round. Hence the reason they've done the minimum on the field and looked to build up reserves and improve off-field.

Has Mr Glover the charm ( or power ??) to ring the same agreement from the RFL ??

He may be able to get a deal sorted but unless he has a fully signed contract which guarantees us promotion then there is nothing to stop the RFL saying that will will be back in 3 years time and then not promoting us.

The big difference is that Wakey are already a SL club from top to bottom. The whole infrastructure of the club will be taken apart to survive in the Championship. Many redundancies will have to handed out and community programmes will be shelved. This I could except if we were the weakest link but I don't think we are by a long way.

Exactly, forget about returing in 3 years, the whole direction of the game is moving away from clubs like Wakefield.

I think it is safe to assume if we stay in SL for another term Mr Glover will have the following.

Ground improvements have been estimated around £500K
Full cap funding shortfall for three season. Some people estimate this could be as high as £500k per season.
If you half that it is still £750K over the period.
If you add to this any legal costs and I can't even guess what they may be.

All in all Mr Glover may do the sums and decide the most prudent action would be to take the hit and sit tight in the championship. Hope Newmarket is delivered within that period and then mount a strong application in 3 years time.

It is too easy to draw comparisons between Wakefield and Widnes.

Widnes were demoted last time around for a number of reasons. They have to be fair to Widnes now corrected most of these. The one offered by the RFL was the fact that they had recently gone into administration. The difference between then and now, however is that Widnes were alone in their predicament. People draw similarities between our entry into administration and that of Widnes, automatically linking the two. Widnes were dropped for reasons of financial failure, therefore so should Wakefield. WRONG!! Wakefield are not the only club to enter administration this season. The RFL simply cannot use this as a stand alone reason for expelling us from the league.

The thing I do struggle to understand is that Salford who both on and off the field have hardly set the world alight are being looked upon as dead certs because of a new stadium. Correct me if I am wrong, but the stadium Widnes were playing out of when they were dropped was in stadium terms, new. Without looking further than geographical location I don't see any other reason why they are seen as impervious to the drop. However, here are some ground to ground, interesting facts for you:

WIDNES to ST HELENS (new stadium) - 5.5 miles
WIDNES to WARRINGTON - 8 miles
ST HELENS (new stadium) to WARRINGTON - 9 miles
WAKEFIELD to CASTLEFORD - 9 miles
ST HELENS (new stadium) to WIGAN - 10.5 miles
SALFORD (new stadium) to WARRINGTON - 14 miles

and there was me thinking you can't possibly have 2 clubs playing out of Wakefield...

I know. And as if that fat see you next tuesday wasn't annoying enough

is hickey a blue?

Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233

Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233

Quote ="charlie"Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233'" Like with all contracts I would imagine it is dependant on their survival although it does look a lot better that they are announcing signings for next year. Maybe we could announce a big signing to show our intent?

Quote ="charlie"Looks like Cru are staying up; www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=5233'" Like with all contracts I would imagine it is dependant on their survival although it does look a lot better that they are announcing signings for next year. Maybe we could announce a big signing to show our intent?