So we have run a successful club on the field within the Championship these last few years, without a major backer and without going into debt whereas even in this league some other clubs have relied on single backers and still struggled. We have had 2 major sponsorship deals during this time with the Halifax and Probiz. But it would seem that unless you have that money man as a guarantee then simply running the club on your TRUE income isn't sufficient.

God forbid if one of these money men at these clubs is mowed down by a bus tomorrow or more likely his business goes t*ts up. But hey the RFL would prefer to take that risk. Oh and the fact that whilst you still have the Bulls and Daveyfield in SL, there is not a cat in hells chance of Fax getting in.

You believe what you want, do you really think KPMG are 'neutral'???
Come on they are paid by the RFL to match the RFL's own 'criteria' in other words wish list and do as they are told. Not saying we were perfect but WHO KNOWS? = Only the Fat Controller and he will have told KPMG what to put in the report, come on they are puppets.
Cometh the day this goes against you then that day you will see what we mean, believe the RFL and their 'clones' at your peril!

You know what thinking about this you have to ask why the delay???

Looking at the wording I am damn sure the Fat Controller has been going through these with a fine tooth comb as no application is worded the same way, its written to show positives and negatives where it suits.

Its a FIX.

If we've truly lost out on a Super league franchise because the submission wasn't up to scratch (ie. missing appropriate financial detail), then this begs the question why the RFL didn't invite Fax to resubmit.

It's supposedly not a game to be played around who can assemble the best rhetoric in the application, and if it was really that bad, then it would have been in order for the RFL to tell Fax that they needed to smarten up their documentation.

Some would say that this wasn't fair, but if the RFL really want the best managed teams in SL, then that's what they should have done.

Fax have shown that they are a self-sustaining club, but a few £000 spent on a professional financial guru would maybe have made the difference.

It keeps on being said that we need a financial backer to get into SL (I did hear that a previous backer was interested, but only after we got the nod), but I fear that the series of admin "errors" (and I'll include a potentially amateurish submission) have cost us dear.

RFL=Fail? I'm not sure...? It's easy to slag them off, and they will, and have, made mistakes (Wakefield/Salford/Quins may be among them), but if we're really all honest with ourselves, do the RFL genuinely have it in for Fax. I think not.

I posted on another thread (on the VT) that folk should say who should be in SL if their own team was excluded. Surprise, surprise, not a bite to be had. We're all passionate about our own team (Starbug is now confirmed as a Fax fan!) and (like the Dogs fans tonight) like to think that we're hard done to.

Rambling now, but I go back to my point that we should have paid for a consultancy firm to assess (rip to shreds) our application and work up a new and improved version.

it also helps when your already in that league.

Have your books been published yet? Keep saying your self sustainable but this time last year this board was rife with rumours playoffs were boom or bust and we only got from RFL that you reached 1mill turnover... Still doesn't mean debt free?

KPMG cannot be neutral, surely the are paid by the RFL to do a job?
The bigger point is that other than Widnes will any Champ club get in to SL, it's not just Fax, as Starbug said, it could have been Leigh. the route into SL needs to be be clear cut and what criteria need to be met, if you do not meet these then you are out. Not just you went bust but it's Ok this time carry on and drain even more money.
The issue of hidden agendas makes the whole game a laughing stock.

There has been rumours on here that we were signing Sonny Bill Williams, doesn't mean that they are true though.

What part of "speculative" means "detailed business plan"? "Speculative" means given to conjecture, which is impossible to avoid when you're dealing with what hasn't happened!

I thought speculative meant basically guesswork based on nothing?
Whereas 'estimated' and even 'ambitious' as used on other bids suggest had something behind them.

E.g.

Ambitious
Widnes feel they will reach crowds of 10,000 in SL by 2013 due to intense marketing in the south Liverpool area, strong local rivalries and a previous SL attendance of 7-8,000 previously.

Speculative
Halifax believe their SL return would see an average crowd of 7,000 at the Shay.

Just like the last round of franchises, a different use of words to describe what in reality is the same but to make one bid sound better than the another. They did this with the current state of grounds last time, on some bids concentrating on them not being up to standard where on others said they had potential. Just making it up to back the clubs they had already decided on, only this time Crusaders through a spanner in the works so they had to quickly look for the team they would prefer not to have. And I've said before, we will never get back with our near neighbours already taking up 2 spots.

I do agree that no doubt your bid has been give an extra kick in due to Wakey staying as ours did with Crusaders getting the nod. Though to compile a report not detailed enough to be assesed financially is not just a shot missed but a big worry in general?

Some of the summaries are a bit of a joke. See Salfords! Pays no attention to performance of the club on or off the field and basically says new ground nearly done so be fine for now.

Was thinking about this today and the whole 'speculative' thing. Maybe the details in Fax's bid were so unrealistically speculative (no chance of hitting the proposed targets) that the RFL had no option but throw it out.