Don't follow your logic. Why did the RFL need to "concoct reasons to discredit Fax's bid" when the expansion card had failed? And how have they been hung out to dry?

It seems to me this result highlights 2 things.

1. Many peoples perception of some of the franchise bids was wide of the mark.

2. It's plainly unreasonable to make championship clubs compete on an equal footing with established SL clubs in the franchise application process.

So you admit , the RFL could make Fax's bid look good or bad irrelevant of wether it was or wasn't by the use of positive and negative language ?

Not like you to agree with me ?

Where have I suggested that KPMG have done anything of the sort ? , can you point me in the direction of a statement or announcement by KPMG that suggests it ?

Fax , like any heartland club cannot compete with the expansion argument , the way the Quins assessment is worded shows that quite clearly , it overrides any other consideration , just as it did with the Celtic Crusaders in 2008 , it was only when the Crusaders withdrew their application that Fax were then in a genuine competition for a licence , up to that point they were just ' window dressing ' , The RFL colluded with them to get them up to the required qualification standard

Once they were in a straight fight with a club that had recently had financial troubles , and had repeatedly failed on promises made in the past , both things that had been used by the RFL to exclude clubs from SL in the past , they quite rightly thought they had a genuine chance , they had done essentially everything the RFL had asked for , only to find the RFL s requirements had changed again , a well run sustainable business isn't the requirement any more , a sugar daddy is

You are quite correct , it is impossible for any Championship club to compete equally with a SL club for a licence , so why not just come out and say so ? Instead of dangling carrots , and then snatching them away at the last minute

Its pretty much unarguable, you use positive or negative language to express a positive or negative view. As I said, its how language works.

"the club did not provide sufficient information for KPMG to complete their assessment procedures", the only people who could decide whether or not Fax provided KPMG with enough information for KPMG to complete their assesment would obviously be...........KPMG. It is KPMG who are saying they didnt have the information, not the RFL. Why would KPMG "concoct" this to bad mouth Fax, or if they didnt why would the allow the RFL to use their name to "concoct" this? Whats in it for KPMG? Especially when Fax could quite easily sue KPMG for either telling the RFL this or colluding with the RFL to use their name to add credence to this if it wasnt true?

For once, he's talking sense.

There is no way, whatsoever, that a firm like KPMG would be anything other than objective, in accordance with the criteria they have been set. There would be no advantage to them in doing otherwise, and massive downside risks. The fee they would earn from the RFL for this assignment would probably just about pay the tea and coffee bill for the Leeds office (I assume it will be that office that did the work?), so its just another job and they'll have carried out their assignment just like any other. I speak anyway as someone who has dealt with KPMG Leeds for over 20 years, and I'd bet the mother-in-law on them having acted objectively.

I havent suggested that KPMG have done anything wrong , but surely the RFL would want every club to submit as strong an application as they possibly could ? , and considering Fax's application was put in at Xmas last year and would have been examined in jan/feb , so if it was a case of unsufficient information then surely the RFL should have told Fax , for Smokey to suggest that is giving extra help to one club is ridiculous considering the financial and administrative help supplied to the Crusaders by the RFL

I alsoice that there is not a single mention of KPMG's conclusions for any other club , only the RFL's conclusion , so why were Fax singled out in this way , it would be interesting to know KPMG's opinions of the financial operations of all the clubs especially the ones losing hundreds of thousands a year

An ' objective ' opinion of a ' subjective ' process would be interesting

not bothering with the rest of the thread as i can imagine the conspiracy theories presented but surely, in any competitive 'bid' process you don't go back and give someone a second chance. indeed, you wouldnt normally provide feedback in advance of a decision being made. you put in a bid, and live and die by it. bad bid = bad bid. get over it.

Jesus you're like a squirming eel.
Just get over it before you make yourself look anymore of a plonker

If you dont want to contribute ? , dont

I'm just going to add a quick 2 penneth and then leave this arguing to commence.

3 Years ago, Castleford Tigers submitted their application and Business plans and forcasts as being in another stadium with other income streams available once in there, Surely all those plans were speculative if they were never going to be in this stadium, 3 years later they are given another licence based on business plans again for being in another stadium, Surely again this is specualtive and again they are not going to be in this stadium for at least 18 months 2 years. So how on gods earth can they say on one hand that Halifax who are not in superleague can only estimate and specualte how many season ticket holders they would get etc for business forcasts is not good enough but another club who bases everything out of being in a imaginary stadium is ok.

Now i am not having a dig at Castleford as they clearly had a decent bid with youth structure and other areas etc.
I am saying that the RFL can't have it on one hand for one club and not all the others.

which is an entirely different point. maybe they shouldn't have. but doesnt change the fact that in a standard bid process you don't giev a bidder another chnace by telling them they've cocked up and you generally do not correspond with any bidder until the result is announced.

but you repeatedly mix up a whole load of different points over and over again, going round and round in circles and increasingly looking more and more desperate and foolish to justify some increasingly far-fetched point. Someone makes a reasonable point/explanantion but you'll then roll out another element of conspiracy, ignoring what every one else is seeing as a reasonable point and instead, running down another tangent.

Slight misconception there.
The current sides havent been judged this time on future dreams but the current here and now. It was deemed that Castlefords current set up, overall, was a stronger bid than Halifax's.

Sometimes people get drawn too much into the stadium debate, as if its the be all and end all when that couldnt be further from the truth. The situation being that the stadium supplies revenue and other aspects and facilities to other parts of the bid meaning if you havent modern facilities much falls by the wayside. This is one reason the stadium is deemed so important but in reality, if Cas have many of these things in place, running at a profit, 12k capacity and so forth, they can have a stronger bid than Fax without the new facility.