Quote: vastman "www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news/we-are-super-league/2011/07/
Of special interest, Andrew Glover (Chairman) states “I mentioned on Calendar that we have been informed by Blake Solly, RFL Compliance Manager, that we won this licence on our own merit. It’s a shame that the gloss was taken off our award by the mention of Crusaders removing their application. That being said, we here all know the truth that it’s our efforts, commitment and hard work that has got us this licence.”
Now he doesn't specifically say we beat Cas but clearly we had already blown Fax and Crusaders bid out of the water. I'm told we had a marginally better bid than a Yorkshire team but frankly I don't care as no team should have been anywhere near losing a licence IMO other than Crusaders FACT and for me Quins but that's just an opinion. We were also as good as at least two others.
But hey you keep telling yourself whatever claptrap keeps you happy.'"
Didnt the RFL then address those comments and state Mr Glover was being a little presumptuous with what he had been told by Blake Solly, which was nothing more than Wakefield had one of the 13 best bids of the 14 considered?
Now, what would bother me is why the RFL would rank the clubs they had given a license to? what benefit or use is there for that? Once Cas and Wakefield had been given a licence why would they then need to be judged against each other? and why was this information then given to Wakefield?
