i know your not anti halifax and yes it is the Halifax clubs fault for not submitting a better application,but imo a championship clubs application can never ever be as good as an established SL clubs application,halifax never stood a chance.

So the RFL knew it was cack , but didn't tell Fax

Or it wasn't cack , or at least not as cack as has been made out

So why would Fax attempt to improve it

Fax have been used by the RFL to give some perverse crdibility to the licence process

In reality the RFL knew months before the announcement date exactly who was staying and who was going , but the whole process is such a crock of they couldn't back out of it

I agree that a Championship club will always struggle to match a Super League club in the ‘factual’ elements of the application – attendances etc, but the feedback is that Halifax let themselves down in the commercial forecasting and budget element of the submission – there is no reason why Halifax would be at a disadvantage in this element as it the quality of the submission itself in question and not the supporting facts

As for your other point – if Halifax didn’t have the opportunity to improve their application after the first announcement then that’s my mistake

I don't believe that Halifax have been used and I believe that had they submitted a better application they would have had a better chance of success

You don't believe this and, to be honest, I think that is probably where we have to leave it

it sound like your advocating telling lies to make it look better.

Not at all – budgeting and commercial forecasting can be done well and it can be done badly (funnily enough, just like playing Rugby League) and it looks like whoever wrote this part of the Halifax submission did it badly

So you are suggesting that the cover is more important than the contents ?

How sad a sport are we when that is the case ?

That’s a strange comment. Where did you get that from what I have written – it is the content of the submission that I am talking about not the cover

As for whether the licensing is the right way to decide the membership of Super League or not – well that is a debate for another time. What I do know is that I joined this forum to talk about the sport of Rugby League not commercial forecast and budgets as that is a bit too much like work!

have you not noticed how quite this board can get when its SL being talked about and not the politics.
Business first ,sport second.

Maybe from this



If you dont want to discuss the politics of the sport , dont comment on threads about the politics of the sport , how simple is that ?

You clearly don’t understand that two business proposals can contain the same foundation data and yet can have very obviously differing standards in financial forecasting and budgets. This is of course what I was referring to... not ‘the cover’

I appreciate the advice but I have a real inability to see people spout utter rubbish and ignore it... I guess it’s just a weakness of mine

It seems you also have a weakness of believing everything people tell you , no matter how unlikely

I fully understand , but essentially it is the facts and foundation data that is the important bit , not the forecasting of what may or may not happen in the future , especially when the people charged with checking it have a history of getting it wrong already , as in the case of the Crusaders and Wakefield

So now you are saying that the budget and forecast included in a licence application for the next three years is not as important as the past. Can I remind you that the 2012-14 licence period is in the future

Anyway, it is this element of the Halifax submission that the RFL criticised and is at the root of our discussion so it doesn’t really matter if you think it is relevant if the RFL do – after all, it them who make the decision, not you

Now I categorically know that you do not have any experience in managing a commercial entity and you are simply making up your arguments as you go along