But you're just making that up? Aren't you? You have no evidence whatsoever to support that contention.



Again, you're making it up as you go along. Moran doesn't put £2 million into Warrington every year. Most if not all of Warrington's turnover is generated from a successful SuperLeague club. Suspect you're suggesting he does because it allows you to convince yourself that Warrington are lucky, Leigh aren't and that's why your languishing in the lower divisions and Warrington are pushing for the title.

You just sound like a bitter, twisted old man who wants to watch his team play at the highest level but because you can't you complain, bitch and moan about the system in place to decide who does.

Did stabug say this or was he just quoting another poster?

It's interesting that everyone's focused on Quins reliance on their chairman, mainly I think because Quins are an easy target, however no one is pointing out that Huddersfield have a similar reliance on Ken Davy, something pointed out in their report.

I'm sat in my office 200 metres from Bank tube station - I do understand how the city works

What I also understand is that people only bend the rules and take major risks for major rewards... not to fiddle licensing application process for Super League

Edited for accuracy.

Made up rubbish.

Really? wonder if anybody has mentioned that to David Hughes.

TBF, a few clubs do, we are covered by directors loans or underwritings and won't be alone.

It was the Armadillo that suggested Mr Morans input , I was just using the assumption as an example , personally I don't believe he puts anything like that amount into Warrington

As for your claim of being bitter and twisted and wanting Leigh in a franchised SL , you couldn't be further from the truth

Yes they are an easy target when discussing clubs being charities rather than businesses , because they are basically a charity , and quite possibly the biggest charity in SL

But that isn't what we are discussing , the point being put forward is that by the clever use of positive and negative terminology , the RFL can make any club look good , or any club look bad , and I am sure if the Halifax Chairman had not given his honest opinion immediately after the licence announcement , their assessment would have been very different to the one released

I don't think anyone reads your posts properly. They see who it is who's posted - "Oh it's Starbug - that Leigh fan. Leigh aren't in SL, ergo, he's moaning about not being in SL".

Maybe you should make it your sig.

TBH, I think you're coming off as more than a little paranoid. Everyone likes to have a go at the RFL if something isn't going their club's way. However, Fax missed out against Widnes on the original decision. So at that point their application had been assessed. Why didn't Fax make an enquiry to the RFL at that point? Asking what areas of their application could be improved for the 2nd round of applications.

Why on earth would the RFL then lie, and that IS what you're accusing them of doing, when they published the application summaries? Is it because a chairman spoke his mind so they're making an example of him and his club? Or is it because said club put in a pie in the sky application with financial figures plucked out of the air? Which seems more likely?

I'd also point out that the RFL got their fingers burnt and got egg on their face from the whole Crusaders thing after their chairman clearly promised things he couldn't deliver. So the RFL doesn't want another embarasing 3 years with a club near the bottom having to close and reform every year.

Which is more likely indeed , have the RFL been ' sing in silence behind closed doors ' at Fax's poor application since Feb/March when they first inspected it ?


Or is it because of Micheal Steele speaking from the heart in the aftermath of the licence decision that they decided to teach him a lesson ?

Given the RFL s penchant for positivity at all costs when making announcements , which do you think is more likely ?

I suspect it doesn’t matter how many people answer that question for you – you won’t agree with them