Cos you know it's a heads I win, tails you lose answer?

That seems to be the standard response on here to things that aren't understood or don't fit with preconceptions. Ah well.


I wasn't saying it at the time because I didn't have the facts at the time. I had no idea what a piece of work Samuels was until some of the Crusaders fans started to talk about on here. When he pulled out and Crusaders moved to Wrexham I [idid[/i criticise the RFL and also expressed doubts about the move. All of which is beside the point and doesn't change the facts.


As I said, I'm not going to comment on a performance I didn't see. I'll also take your version of events with a pinch of salt as you're hardly an unbiased witness. He's certainly failed to cover himself in glory on past occasions though.

You have a theory based on your particular feelings about the RFL. That's fine, but personally I prefer to base an opinion on facts where possible. Those available at the moment don't align with your view.


For this theory to be true, every other SL club would have to be in on the conspiracy as they had to vote on it. Another, possibly more likely, theory is that the RFL and the clubs were putting in some insurance against the impact of a couple of major HMRC cases now in progress which could lead to serious financial problems for all SL clubs.


What has changed is that, for whatever reason, administration isn't in the rules any more. It's therefore utterly pointless to keep referring to it. It could not and did not have any impact on the current round of licences.


It isn't impossible at all. You have to put forward a compelling case for how you would operate as an SL club with the built-in advantages you mention, not how you would operate in SL with no improvement in resources.

And you're still banging away about Wakey when there is zero evidence that they were chosen over Fax. In fact there's more actual evidence to the contrary. You're also ignoring the fact that the current owners haven't broken a single promise and is willing to invest in the club.


So you haven't seen any very angry people posting about this topic? Not one?

OK.

i sure do hope you beat Welshies on sunday!

what a meaningless game that is now! laughable!

There are quantifyable things we do know though. Things which make such a comparison a foregone conclusion.

In terms of crowds, by some distance, stadium, by quite a bit, youth, by some distance, turnover and backing, by some distance, Widnes were simply ahead of Halifax. Those are things we as fans know. There isn't many areas we can only guess about. On field, Halifax have been stronger than us, but it's no longer about that solely.

There really is no point in continuing this string further.

Tricky - if the roles were reversed you'd be hacked off. Yes - the bids were judged as they lay side by side at that moment in time and the panel made their judgement. But to Halifax fans they see their club keeping it's nose clean and being fairly successful on the field of play. They see Wakey going into administration and still playing out of a toilet. How did you expect Fax fans to react? Honestly, how would you have reacted? I totally understand that faced with a club with a new wealthy backer up against a club with limited resources the panel took their choice but it doesn't say much for the principle of franchising when two of the clubs holding licenses go bust.

The RFL need to go back to the drawing board in this regard and not simply abandon the rule during a license period because one of it's projects has gone tits up.

But this is the problem with the Widnes logic, because we've had three years of "franchising isn't fair, boo hoo, we cant get back in Super League", but you proved you couldn't get up to the top flight by any other route than franchising. Halifax's best beef is that franchising is wrong and it should be about rugby on the pitch, with which I agree, but of course that wouldn't suit Widnes.

How about the RFL idea that the 14 best applications get in, which was then changed to the 13 best to suit Widnes? I presume you would prefer another shift to allow the 12 best plus two from the Championship. Shifts if it suits are okay?

For me, you would be in over Widnes because you've done it on the pitch. Under franchising, the imperfect thing that it is, Widnes get in. It seems that under either idea, Wakey stay up, so what's the beef?

littlerich, your chairman was willing to accept you weren't in when he thought Crusaders were, even though they clearly had the worst application of all teams, but kicks off against Wakey. He has then proceeded to slag Wakey off desipte not seeing our application and made some glaring errors in relation to things that have been in the public domain for months (ie we are upgrading BV with the hope to move to NM if and when the PI come back in our favour and the admin rule being changed).

Your Chairman and you as fax fans don't even know that it was us vs you, it is just assumed because of all the negative press. The franchising era means results on the pitch aren't that important, I tend to agree with you and think they are, in which case you should be arguing with Widnes not us.

Exactly the same in a Wakey vs Fax scenario.

Not to everything, just nonsense.



You seemed to quite enjoy making rash judgements on the people who were pointing out the flaws in the crusaders business though. Samuels had history. This was ignored. And the detractors weren't "flatcappers" or "knuckle draggers" or whatever vitriolic nonsense they were referred to, they were right to have reservations.



I knew you'd pull the bias card. And people like you. I figured you'd concentrate on the Fax fans. Thats why I intervenedYou have a theory based on your particular feelings about the RFL. That's fine, but personally I prefer to base an opinion on facts where possible. Those available at the moment don't align with your view.'"