So you go for the ' s in silence ' option then ?

No, I am going for the ‘Halifax didn’t submit an application with an adequate business plan, budget and performance forecast and the RFL stated that they didn’t submit an adequate business plan, budget and performance forecast’ option

then, when widnes got the nod fax should have been told to go away and try again in anothr 3 years

So what was Quins business plan ?

Would it have been KPMG who judged the widnes application or the rfl?.

The applications of Barrow, Halifax and Widnes were assessed by an RFL Exec team, property consultants Savills and KPMG. These reports went to the RFL’s Board of Directors who made the decision

So the RFL would have been aware of how bad Faxs application was back in Feb/March , but didn't say anything , but told them they were in the mix for the decision in July ?

So they were used then ?

If that's the case shouldn't Fax have been told at this point that there was insufficient info in their application? Instead of being allowed to continue in the application process.

so the same people who said the halifax bid was not as good as the widnes bid, are the same people who said the halifax bid was good enough to go up against the bids of established SL clubs,and they are the same people who've now said the Halifax bid was a load of rubbish?.

I’ve just watched Richard Lewis’s announcement on the Widnes applications award – he states that the Halifax club meets the minimum standards for a licence, there is no comment on the quality of the application itself

Did the RFL give Halifax feedback on the quality of their submission after the Widnes award – I don’t know. It could be argued of course that it would be unfair on the other Super League applicants if Halifax did get feedback on their application as it would put them at an advantage

But... once again, this is deviating from the point. The question I am debating is not did the RFL treat the Halifax application fairly, it is whether they published an inaccurate summary of their application in order to teach their Chairman a lesson for being outspoken about the application process as you stated. I maintain that the RFL have absolutely nothing to gain from doing this and (to state again) to use the name of KPMG, their own assessors, in this fictitious summary is beyond comprehension

We don’t know if the RFL gave Halifax feedback on their application after the first stage (as I said above, this could actually be considered unfair on the other SL applicants) – what we do know is that Halifax had a window of opportunity to improve the standard of their submission, if they did not take advantage of this window then that is the fault of Halifax, not the RFL

And the point we are making is that through the use of positive and negative vocabulary , the RFL can make any club look good , or bad as they see fit

The Halifax fans and administration have been critical enough already of the RFL and the licence process – imagine the reaction if they had been told they were not allowed to actually submit an application?

Again, the only people that can be blamed for submitting an adequate application are Halifax. If they have submitted a sub standard document then the blame lays with them and nobody else

I am not anti Halifax but, like it or not, the licence process if a commercial and business one more than a sporting one and if Halifax failed to submit an adequate application then they have let themselves and their fans down – simple as that

if halifax had already sent there application in ,why would the rfl allow them to take it away and work on it some more?.