You do , do you ?

So having my own businesses for over 18 years with turnovers in total of over 40 million pounds doesn't give me an insight into business ? , let alone being a director of NL and SL clubs ?

Whats your CV look like ?

I am an Executive Director of an IT Services company managing a Cost Centre with a budget of £60m in our current FY

That tells a story , " The Office spring to mind "

And your involvment in pro RL is what ?

You do realise that The Office was a sitcom based in the office of a paper retailer don’t you?



What has that got to do with anything – you stated a few posts ago that this conversation was not about Rugby league but business and politics? You can't reverse that now when it works in your favour

I am not reffering to the on field part of the sport , as the licence system disregards that to a large degree

I have said many many times on these boards that there is no business experience in normal , mainstream business that can prepare you to run a pro sports club , I assume you have never had dealings with the RFL ? either

Are Chelsea a successful pro sports club ?

Are Chelsea a successful business ?

You can have the most successful sports club in the world and lose hundreds of millions a year , but you are still considered a success

Try that in business ?

What Fax submitted was the truth , from where they were starting from , and from what they reasonably expected to achieve , they told the truth , other clubs fill their applications with totally ourageous predictions based on business plans and forecasts , the RFL used KMPG last time , they passed these business plans , some of those business plans fell apart the day after the clubs were granted licences

So unless the RFL want to publish exactly what was in all these applications I wont believe a single word of their assessment , their history of assessing clubs properly is very , very poor

Are Quins a viable potential successful business in the next 3 years ? , Huddersfield maybe ? , HKR perhaps ? , Wakefield ? , Salford ?

That is a very convincing argument – and I very much agree with you

Without reading all of the submissions in detail, we don’t know what predictions were made by the various clubs

My point was (if we go back to the beginning of this conversation), and still is, if the Halifax submissions lacked clarity and quality in their budgets and forecasts then that is their own fault for submitting a below par document. And I say that because it is a shame for in many ways the club has got all the building blocks in place to be a successful and viable SL club

No, it doesn't. On field success is very important.



Really? When did you get access to all the applications?

Not to the RFL it doesn't

I didn't , but history tells us that I am right

That is generally how language works Starbug.

What if Wakefields was worse?

Its fairly simple. Fax submitted a bid, it wasnt very good, it was judged against a better one Widnes. It was then put forward to be judged against the other 13 bids which were submitted and because it wasnt very good the other 13 were chosen.

The RFL couldnt possibly know that the Fax bid wasnt better than one of the other 13 which had been submitted before they had looked at the other 13 submitted. When they had done so, they released their decision

No the wording doesn't work like that ,it states KPMG couldn't properly check what they had put , it doesnt compare to other clubs applications at all , it is nothing more than a club ' Character assasination '

The two things arent mutually exclusive. The quality of the bid and the level to which the RFL could rely on the information provided within were part of the bid process. The fact KPMG couldnt properly check what they had put was correct impacted on the quality of the bid and how the RFL judged it. That doesnt discount them from judging another bid worse.Why would KPMG wish to do that? what problem do they have with Halifax?

Don't be silly. There were plenty of people on here (and elsewhere) who knew which applications were better than others, even before they had been written.

You can't claim the RFL lack precognition when they clearly decided not to tell Halifax their bid was the worst (before seeing the others) in order to be able to publicly ridicule the Halifax bid in response to a future outburst by their chairman.

It's the time line that is relevant here , KPMG would have checked Fax's bid in Jan/feb , if they had a problem to the extent suggested then they would have told the RFL at that time , for the RFL to then not inform Fax of the problem for 3/4 months is quite simply ridiculous , or it tells us they never intended to take Fax's bid as a serious one anyway

KPMG dont have a problem with Fax , neither did the RFL until they couldn't sustain the Crusaders , up to that point they were just in the process to give some perverse credibility to it , only when their bid suddenly had to be taken seriously , because the ' Expansion ' card had failed did the RFL then either come out with the truth or concoct reasons to discredit Fax's bid in reaction to public criticism

Fax have been hung out to dry , hopefully no other club will ever be put in that situation again

Or it tells us the RFL, rightly, judged it to be unfair for them to help Halifax improve their application because that facility wasnt available to everyone else.
So if KPMG dont have a problem with Halifax why have they concocted this 'character assasination'?