better option?

The problem with this franchise system is that it is never a level playing field. How can you compare two clubs against each other when one is allowed to spend millions per year more than the other??

I doubt that Wakefield are a better option, they have had many years of the high finance and are still bottom of the league playing in a dump of a ground.

Easy way out for the RFL I am afraid.

I didn't lose anything Halifax were not chosen or even given a grade C license when another club fresh out of administration with a ground that does not meet the criteria were chosen and I would like to know why.

Getting over something does not mean that I allow someone else which is the RFL that have lied and twisted their own rules for an unknown reason that will stagger the rugby league world.

It's not about Fax v Wakey or any other club, it's about the people at Redhall that are corrupt and what they are doing sets a precedent for EVERY club not currently in Super League.

One day it may directly affect you and your club and then you might not take it so lightly.
Many people take delight in anything that adversley effects Halifax you would have thought they could get over that but apparantley not.

Well you doubt wrong, on every aspect of the criteria I suspect in fact I know we outscored you other than the ground. Just be reasonable and think about it, there is no way a club that is currently in SL with all the additions in place could possibly be beaten by a club that hasn't been near SL in years. There is no way you can beat a SL team on aspects of the club which you simply don't have as a Championship club, it's not fair bit it's true.

However that's all opinion and wasn't my point.

The problem is we all participate in this charade that is Franchise. When we benefit it's OK and when we don't we all cry foul. We are all complicit in it because none of us challenge it prefering the I'm all right Jack mentality - which is what Fax and their fans did in 1995 and what we will do in 2011. Welcome to life.

Suggestions from RL journos on Twitter, that elements of Halifax's submission had considerable "holes" in it.

Looks to me like your BoD have let the club down big style, with their crayoned submission.

Definitely making himself look silly on Sky with the "poodle" comments. Should be doing an "O'Connor", not a "Rowley"!

You missed my point. I actually agreed that your bid was probably better than ours, it HAD to be you have had many a years spending millions of pounds therefore will have youth structure in place. However I did doubt that your a better option. You have had many years spending Millions and are in exactly the same place, if not a worse place, than you were 3 years ago. Therefore Halifax are the better option, as we have done nothing but grow over the last 3 years. We have also made assurances that with superleague money we would also have a structured under 16 and under 20 development structe (something the RFL agree we shouldnt be able to run on a Championship budget).

I am sure the noises coming out of Wakefield would have been different had the boot been on the other foot. We are all aware of life and we are well and truly in it, it just hurts when the RFL show themselves to do exactly what they want and shaft the clubs outside of the "special club".

Franchising does nothing but feather the caps of those who are in the club and serves to punish those who wish to join. Laural and Hardy (Wood and Lewis) are hell bent on destroying the clubs in the lower divisions under the guise of growth and expansionism.

blackballed again. Its a tough club to get into.

the voice of reason.

You could well be correct. I guess we will never know. I do know that i am finished with RL both Fax and the RFL.

The sports a laughing stock.

I've posted it elsewhere - I'm sure the Wakefield bid was better than the Fax bid for the next three years. But it shouldn't have mattered! Wakefield should have been punished for failing to make progress on a new ground and going into Admin. They should have been removed from SL because they failed to meet the terms of the previous licence. They should have been treated in EXACTLY the same way as Widnes 3 years ago who had a big money backer, all sorts of great plans going forward and financial guarantees and yet were excluded because of previously going into Administration. Now, the RFL can spin this however they want, but they have rewarded failure. They could have sent a strong message to others by replacing Wakefield with Fax, showing how licencing was a genuine attempt to drive up standards. They have failed to do that and now fans are left wondering what on earth the licence basis for the next round will be, because this one wasn't the same as the last one and this is supposed to be about stability!

any links to this please?

Can't be any holes bigger than a company only 41 days old submitting a super league license application and then succeeding.

Submitting how they'd done so well in the past (nearly going bust only 41 days ago) and how they'll be a success in the future after their proven track record of 41 days.

Hmmmmm, sound business acumen there!

After writing that, I can't think how Halifax would think they had a better application then them.

This is where the RFL try and make themselves look credible by whispering to the press that HRLFC's bid had "considerable holes in it".

You mean the RFL would reveal details of the "private and confidential" applications. Surely they wouldn't do that.

You were told you had an application that was clearly Super League standard. You have been cheated out of a place and it makes my blood boil the RFL could embarrass the sport on a very rare day it could get centre stage. Would have loved the Bulls-Fax rivalry to have got going again and I truely am so sorry for you guys. I agree with your chairman you have been used and do NOT take this lying down.

The FACTS are that the stadium in the original licensing process (Thornes Park) did not proceed because WMDC (NOT the club) chose to scrap the plans (and in fact tried to wash their hands of any moral obligation to the club); BV will satisfy the stadium criteria by the start of 2012 (the judgement criteria for today's announcement); and we have been punished for going into Administration by virtue of a 4 point deduction.

The comparison on the financial aspect between today's decision & the decision Widnes got 3 years ago are miles apart. The rules were changed when Crusaders went into Administration last year in an attempt buy the RFL to manipulate the system to ensure that Crusaders would stay in SL.

Ultimately Crusaders withdrew their application & if Halifax's application was considered to be on a par (at worst) with Wakefield's then Fax would be in SL next season. The FACT is that the Halifax application was judged to be the worst of the 14 still being considered and that is why Wakefield have stayed up.

Wakefield fans have learnt over the last few years with the ups & downs of the planning process and the financial turmoil in the close season that all we can do is accept what's happened and move on with a desire to become stronger.

So Mr Rowley was wrong , was he ?

Are you suggesting the RFL are petty enough to let comments from an owner on the subject at hand affect their judgement in the future ?

How petty would that make them ?