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.'"

That's a good question - I'd say go for a 13 team league, but my argument falls down if only, say, 8 teams met a set of standards. (And I don't want to kick off the 'what about magic weekend' debate) The RFL stated SL would stay at 14 - why not wait until decision day? They could have then said: You know what? We've only got 12 decent applications, therefore it's 12 teams in. By stating it was going to be 14, they left the possibility that they would have to pick someone that didn't measure up, simply because they were slightly better than other bids.

If you say so.


Did I? I'm not sure I did. I may well have argued against some rash statements that didn't have any evidence behind them, but I certainly didn't argue with anyone about Samuels one way or the other.