No, it would always be pathetic. I wish the best for all our clubs. If that means mine is left behind, so be it.

i wondered why this thread wasnt making sense, then realised its because i have Smokey on 'Ignore'.

That is now a stupid comment... Wakefield now have a firm and viable future financial footing, Crusaders appear not to have! No one, including the majority of Wakefield fans, are covering up the recent financial issues and previous failures but that is the point you are missing... previous, not current. You can see why they might now be a little hacked off, with people like you wishing them to suffer because of their previous history under another owner... that is pathetic!

The only person being pathetic here is you... wishing Wakefield suffer because of previous financial issues under another owner. In actual fact, pathetic hypocrite would be correct, because you don't wish all our clubs the best do you?

and how many times has this Wakefield folly failed over the last 100+years.

they only look ever more likely to fail to those how have already decided they will and are looking around for any evidence, however poor, to back up their prejudice.

So everything on this thread from that release is completely irrelevent to crusaders. There is even a specific not to say Crusaders are unaffected yet you are using it as evidence of their impending doom. Do we? I dont, How on earth do you? We know they were, but we also know that when they went bust they put the blame down to servicing historical debts from the Leighton Samuel era, These now dont exist. But they have fewer debts to service.

They are unable to put money into a business venture they specifically say will never pay off for them. Its fairly understandable, why would they want to? And what has Andrew Glover proved? you think a couple of months proves he knows how to run an RL club? Who is to know that if in a years time Wakefield dont get newmarket and the club is still losing a couple of hundred grand a year, even more know Glover wants to spend the cap, he wont decide to just jack it in? I doubt very much he is rich enough to be putting £500k a year in for the next 6 years.

The lease would be guaranteed under any new ownership. Crusaders own the lease to it, selling the freehold to that property wouldnt mean the lease could be cancelled.
so right now Crusaders dont own the racecourse ground, and have a long term lease on it. If the owners of the racecourse ground sell it, and Crusaders still dont own the racecourse ground and still have a long term lease on it one is fine but somehow the other is silly? will Wakefield own newmarket or have a long term lease on it? will the freehold be owned by AG or by another company? Do Wakefield even own the freehold on Belle Vue or is a long term lease? If its a long term lease should the RFL cut their losses?

Im not wishing them to suffer. I hope they go from strength to strength.

Wakefield may or may not have a firm and viable future financial footing. It has yet to be proven. Im simply not convinced by a couple of months of being relatively stable has got rid of all the deep structural problems within Wakefield that has seen them struggle for so long.

Again, I do hope Wakefield succeed. What have I said which has brought you to a different conclusion?

It seems clear to me you lack confidence in your argument, hence you trying to attribute things to me which are blatantly wrong.

Smokey,

It’s all very well preaching the virtues of this Welsh experiment from your Ivory Towers of Headingley.

Unless it was your club that was facing expulsion from the top table you cannot get a true feel for it.

However admirable, the Welsh expansion has been a botched job. They are trying to compete with Clubs with a wealth of traditional supporters & junior structures etc. In order to simply compete on the field, their playing staff consists mainly of 2nd rate Antipodeans. The novelty value has now worn off and without limited success the crowds will continue to bump along.

Do the majority of Wakefield fans believe that their club is in better shape than the Crusaders, sure they do. Do they believe the dreamers at Red Hall think their club’s in better shape, of course not

If the Welsh licence was to crumble giving Wakefield a last gasp reprieve, their fans would feel vindicated – not pathetic.

It allows me to take an overall view. You admit yours is tied up in your bias, which is understandable.

And we have seen, this season, and in the last round of franchises, a club with a wealth of traditional supporters and junior structures fail massively. Wakefield have relied on mainly 2nd rate antipodeans for almost all of their SL lifespan. Look at HKA a club with a wealth of traditional supporters and junior structures relying on 2nd rate antipodeans.
Of course Wakefield fans think their club is in better shape.

And did Wakefields collapse and trouble vindicate those who argued for expansion? Or vindicate those who argued there wasnt space for 2 SL clubs in WMDC

I have put together a reasoned argument as to why I think Crusaders should not be given a new franchise under the ownership of Moss and Roberts, the only prejudiced person here is you, who clearly wish to see Wakefield fail out of some warped sense of justice... did someone from Wakefield run-over your dog? Wakefield folly... what a joker you are, they have been around since 1873, hardly a folly mate, and while they have had financial problems in that time, so as every other major club... p1ss poor argument!



Because I can do sums mate, being an Engineer I studied maths, so if income (excluding monies put in by owners, because that is the point) is less than expenditure you make a loss. So 1500 paying punters for their recent game leads me to believe that they are probably making a loss, week in, week out... to be fair, so are many clubs, Saints included! They owe £700k to the RFL of which the RFL are stopping off payment at source from their sky money. So their income from Sky is less than any other club in the RFL... does this look like a business turning a profit to you?



Thank you for helping me further prove my hypothesis... that is what you meant to do, is it not... Moss and Roberts could do exactly the same yes... you understand that! BTW, Wakefield were making around a £100k loss per annum under Ted, but I understand that they currently are balancing the books without current financial input from Glover... and they are above Crusaders in the table!


Why would a lease be guaranteed, a new owner might have to give them notice on the lease, but if they buy the ground as a development opportunity, they could get rid of them and buy them out if required. As for Newmarket, the ground will be owned by the community trust and Wakefield will have a long-term lease agreement... but I am not sure what your point is here! The Bank of Ireland own Belle Vue now and Wakefield do have a lease in place and the Bank of Ireland are not interested in kicking them out just yet... they will wait and sell the ground when the housing market improves for obvious reasons.

Your arguments are poor and are actually going a long way to show why Crusaders are, unfortunately, looking like they really should be the club to lose out, not Wakefield.

Indeed it is a p1ss poor argument. Which is what i was trying to highlight to you, and how p1ss poor it still was when you attributed it to Crusaders.

And again, you only seem to be able to rely on attributing things to me which arent correct. There is no reason in your argument, simply speculation and circumstantial reasoning



It doesnt look like I have anywhere near enough to know whether or not it was making a profit or a loss, and if so whether the profit/loss was higher or lower than their previous profit/loss (which we dont know) including previous debt servicing(which we dont know)

All it proves is never take financial advice from an engineer.

In the table where you have made up the figures it probably does.
And im sure, like most leases, that notice has provision for them to be able to find alternative arrangements. It would pretty shoddy to sign a long term lease with a very short notice period. Especially when you are taking the lease for yourself to help in your division of assets because you know you are about to sell the freehold In which case wouldnt the club be adequately recompensed and able to find a new home. Doesnt this apply to every club with a lease and not the freehold on their stadium So theoretically the community trust could sell the freehold as a development opportunity and give notice on Wakefields lease. Sounds fairly familiar WSV own the racecourse ground and crusaders have a lease in place and WSV are not interested in kicking them out.

Your arguments are circumstancial, biased, and frankly pretty silly.

Once again it is you who showing most bias, against Wakefield!

Why have Wakefield failed massively in Super League? Firstly, take this season out, they had players sold off by the administrator and their best players cherry picked by some vulture clubs and why spend any large amounts of money now, not knowing your future. Still they are not bottom and without a deduction would be on the same points as Hull KR and Hull. They won the Academy Grand Final in 09 (crap junior structures eh!!!) and finished in 5th in the same year, they have never finished bottom of SL, never been relegated and have an average league SL position of 8th over their whole SL history! They also have arguably the best community programme in SL.

But they have failed... bloody hell, so what is your opinion on Salford????

I am going to stop now, mainly because you don't need my help any longer to make you look a numpty!

There are some belting statements above, but it is this one that made me laugh most "So theoretically the community trust could sell the freehold as a development opportunity and give notice on Wakefields lease". Yes, theoretically true, but given that the development around it is paying for it in the first place and the current and possible future make-up of the board of directors this is your must stupid statement yet!

I am not biased, pathetic or prejudice mate... have a look in the mirror!

Right, tea time and then Odsal to see if we can beat the Bulls... I am not living in hope... a bit like you losing that chip on your shoulder!

yeah, they are the reasons. A mediocre club at best, a very poor one at worst.

if you wish. But it is you who wants Crusaders to fail because Wakefield have failed. If they were a success, then Crusaders wouldnt be an issue, as they arent for Leeds, Hull, Wigan, Warrington, St Helens, Catalans, Huddersfield, Bradford, etc. The only reason you want Crusaders is because Wakefield have put themselves into a position where they are struggling to deserve a place in SL, you hope their failure covers for Wakefields failures and it is pathetic.