Hence why I said if all judged evenly on their overall merits. We lose out on stadium and expansion, but in most if not all other areas we beat these 3 IMO. Nice satdiums are no good if there is hardly anyone in them to watch the game.

All clubs arent the same, arent at the same point, and done have the same pro's and cons. To try and shoe-horn such a varied and mixed bunch of businesses is into a process which pretends they are all the same is a pointless as it is naive.

Wakefield have been in SL for 12 years, Crusaders 2. It would be idiotic to judge Crusaders in their 2nd year against Wakefield in their 12th. Crusaders are ahead of the curve Wakefield set.

Wakefield need to save themselves, they need to argue their place in SL on their merits. Trying to argue they deserve a place at the top table because they are in some ways better an expansion club they have had many years head start on is pathetically embarrassing. Being better than Crusaders isnt enough or the reason for franchising or how it is judged. Wakefield needs to offer something to SL itself.

One of the primary purposes of franchsing is surely to make viable businesses. Crusaders have had 3 different guises in 3 years so hardly viable and nothing to suggest that they will be.

Wakey have been poorly managed in the past, but the crowds are reasonable and although its early days yet we seem to have turned a corner in how the club is run. In addition, we have always been playing catch up as far as finance is concerned because we got no SL money for the first two years.

Oh and final point, whether you like it or not, all we should have to do is prove were better than 1 or 2 others to retain a licence because it is supposed to be about the 14 strongest applications Overall

Have ago at the Championship and see how it feels with poor away support and low salary cap.

Crusaders have had two different guises. Celtic Crusaders and Crusaders. There is no need to start making things up to try and help your point. It wont.

Catch up to who? Crusaders? You are playing catch because in 1999 and 2000 you didnt get Sky money and Crusaders have a head start for joining SL 9 years later? Salford who needed to deal with relegation? Castleford who were relegated twice? Quins who have needed to build and infrastructure and playing depth from pretty much scratch? Les Catalans who didnt even exist at the time? HKA who were didnt join SL for another 8 years?

no, it isnt. It has been explained a million times that this isnt the case. This isnt some tick box exercise where you score enough points and you are in. It isnt about being slightly better than one or two applications therefore you are in. However much wakefield fans wish it were so, it isnt and never was.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=491826&start=90

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=491826&start=90

All clubs should be judged the same, on what they offer, stop trying to find excuses for anyone thats not Wakefield, its pathetic.

3 guises as in 1 in Bridgend then moved to Wrexham mid-franchise under the same name and then folded and became new business again mid-franchsie.

Re not having the SL money years 1 and 2 that is not an insignificant amount of money which we had to do without. Whilst some other clubs went through sham mergers and got a significant cash boost off the back of it.

So if there are no criteria to measure teams on then why do the RFL persist with publishing details about the areas upon which applications will be considered. I also think you will find that numerous times in the past reference has been made to the 14 strongest applicants receicing licences.

Don't intend to get into any further debate with you cos there is no point. You just carry on posting your usual drivel and from this point on I will do what most sane people on here do and ignore u.

in which case all clubs in SL will never, ever be relegated. There is no club outside SL. Not even Widnes, in a better position that those in SL, Simply by definition of them being in a higher league, thats why it is idiotic.

No, you are wrong. Crusaders became Crusaders when the moved. 2 guises. Stop making things up

And it has sod all to do with Crusaders or any other club. You arent comparing Wakefield to either Hull or Hudds, you are comparing them to Crusaders, a club you had a 7 year head start on.

no, you have pretty much hit the clean sweep of simply being factually wrong. Check your facts and stop making things up.

So lets remove someone who's stronger then , it all makes sense now and is the only way forward.

How about we remove them the old way, relegation, instead of protecting certain clubs and doing it behind behind closed doors.

[sizeThe Co-operative Championship needs a strong Wakefield.[/size

Paybacks a bitch innit?