There are actually some facts about if you look hard enough. And want to see them.

Crusaders were a shambles and as I've said elsewhere the RFL were to blame for ignoring warnings about Samuels and clearly not carrying out a proper 'fit and proper persons' test on Moss and Roberts. I didn't see Woods' interview so I'll refrain from commenting other than to say that he could have been persuasive eloquence personified and it still wouldn't have helped, such is the entrenched attitude towards the RFL right now.

Administration can't be held against a club now because the rules were changed. Not hard to understand. Neither [ishould[/i it be hard to understand that the 'competition' is about ALL the things you mentioned plus others. It's the overall package that counts. For some reason this seems to be a difficult concept for some fans - and to be fair some commentators - to grasp.

Finally - there has been plenty of rage on here and the Fax board, whether you feel it's justified or not.

Genuine question - what would they have failed on?

Don't have to, because we have never been relegated to the championship. Think about that.

You can't have it both ways.

If you are for franchising, our application was stronger. That was the determination. End of.

If you are against franchising, Fax would have been in this year in place of Quins as a promoted side. If you are against franchising, however, you have to accept that Widnes don't deserve to come up, because you've never won the Grand Final. You can't have it both ways.

Meaningless babble.



You say this in hindsight but it's not what you were saying at the time. Not only were Crusaders a shambles, the RFL have been a shambles ignoring the massive warning signs and the propaganda about the strength of their club when there were plenty who could see the fragility of it all. People wanted it to be a success, ergo, they ignored their best senses. I can understand that, if not the reaction to the fans who didn't share their optimism.

As for Wood, you obviously didn't see it. Eloquence would have been wonderful. Coherence would have been nice. Stumbling over every question, repeatedly failing to answer anything asked, which is a sign of dishonesty, well it is completely fair to say that it was not really acceptable. It was political speak, all of it. No substance. No amount of insight. It was like Question Time, although less professional. If he had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have been so guarded. I don't think they honestly considered the Fax bid for one second. They were throwing wakefield out, and then something happened. Crusaders pulled out at the nth hour. Despite making very recent signings for next season. And when they pulled out, for whatever reason, the RFL went with the easy option instead of working out how they could make Halifax work. Thats a theory, we will never know the complete truth.



It is very very hard to understand actually. Why they changed the rule in the first place for instance. Was it to protect Crusaders? I think it was. Has it been used now to protect the status quo now? Yes it has. Does it make any sense whatsoever? Probably not.

Sorry but you're asking me to dismiss the administration as it is now part of the rules to ignore it. Except it was the only reason given why my club was kept out of super league last time. What has changed? Apart from the goalposts? Saying "its in the rules now" doesn't cut it for a second.



The problem is, when you're looking at a whole package, it is absolutely impossible to prove from the championship that you will better a super league outfit. More money involved, more crowds (due to human nature) it is much easier to run things like youth setups and have better crowds. This is no reason to protect wakefield indefinitely at the expense of Halifax. When a club has had a season like they have, have defaulted on several promises for a new stadium, have recently been through administration, you have to wonder what they'd have to do to actually get replaced.

As for the rage thing, yeah, standard b.s. tactic designed to throw muck at people. Grow up.

You're telling me you've never been relegated to the second tier?

Not during the super league era.

You didn't enter into it until 1998!

But that's all irrelevant as we're not working under P & R any more.

They met the minimum criteria. They were lucky to get a second bite of the cherry. How do we know Widnes put in a better application than Fax first time around and the RFL weren't merely keeping a promise to Widnes for shafting you last time. The only way we know is because the RFL told us that was the case, you were happy to believe it then, but aren't so sure when they say Wakey are better than Fax

We know because it's plainly obvious and a lot of Fax fans openly admit it. Clutching at straws.

Look do you support franchising or not?

If not, accept you don't deserve to be in the top flight and Fax do, on playing merit.

If you do, why can't you accept that the independent analysis said our application is better.

You don't mind the decisions when it suits, don't like them when it doesn't.

FWIW, I would go back to P & R.

Bringing this argument onto a personal level? A below the belt move. I could argue this nonsense, but I wont bother arguinging with you further because of this.

Simply its an unfair playing field,

for championship clubs, with their budget, be able to compete in all these areas against million pound spending super league clubs is ridiculous!

you may as well just say thats it! it stays as it is, noone up.......

.....oh no that wouldnt work would it?!

because the RFL need someone to 'fill the boots' when one of these 'well run' 'financially stable' 'licence holding' clubs go bust! i get it now!!

so if Fax keep their nose clean, we might be at the becon call at some point....mmmmmmm, no thanks!

its a joke, and im affriad most true RL fans would agree the only way to save the sport is by reintroducing P&R!

then everyone has a fair crack.

Why is it plainly obvious? To you it is. But you never saw the respective applications.

Are you a professional property consultant, a qualified accountant from one of the largest accountancy practices in the world or an academic from a well respected university? The answer is you aren't, but the people who had input into the franchise application process were and said our application was better than Fax.

As I say, you were happy to go with the decision when it was you vs Fax, but questioning the one that says Wakey were better than Fax.

I don't need to clutch at straws as thankfully the decision went in our favour.