How different do you think we would be?

The only good young player coming through at the time was Paul Wood who probably wasn't established enough to get a lot of SL suitors if we'd gone down - 2003 was his big year with us, so I doubt we would have lost any hot young talent. It might have made it easier to clear out players like Sturm and Crouthers who were on longer term contracts and hung around a bit, if we had gone down and been able to release them. We would probably have lost Fozzard, Domic and Burns who made an impact in 2003 but Fozzard and Domic were gone in 2004 anyway so it wouldn't have made too much difference in the long run.

We would have been a bit behind in recruitment for 2004 because we would only have been able to sign players after the NL Grand Final, so we probably wouldn't have got Forshaw - not sure about Lima, Leikvoll and Wilshere.

But overall I don't see it would have made a massive difference. Most of our big signings came mid2004 onwards anyway

Scullys autobiography confirmed that, he said Daryl used to pay for some of the clubs costs like players flights, accommodation etc.

I am thinking more in terms of the move forwards towards the new stadium which surely would have been jeopardised and thus our long term ability to compete financially.

I do wonder how many supporters would have stuck with the team during such a period considering most of them never seem happy anyway.

Very true indeed, I remember Briers asking him for money so he and his wife could go for a meal, when V.D.V found out his wife couldn't cook he sent her on cooking lessons so they could save money and he wouldn't keep asking for it.

He also payed a few players wages whilst we were in the proverbial, he finally got paid back when he left but your spot on, it wouldn't happen these days.

The question came up at one of the Squadbuilder forums in the Touchdown club in 2002 when we were fighting relegation, Andy Gatcliffe said the stadium was going ahead whether we went down or not.

If we'd stayed down and started the first season in the new stadium in the NL that might have made the first season's sponsorship at the HJ harder to sell, but I think as long as we were at the top of NL in 2003 we'd have been ok.

A massive handout from the RFL for a shambolic merger with Sheffield went a long way to help Hudds!

I'd question whether any of those teams were running at a £2 million deficit and losing thousands of pounds a year.

sheffield were losing money quite badly at the time i believe, and this was despite them winning the cup the year before as well.

I was wondering if it would have got past the public enquiry if we had not been in the top flight in light of some of the comments made in the report.

Personally, I couldn't see it. If you are outside the top level of sport, you certainly appear to lose a lot of clout.

That was what I was thinking; the report kept stressing the role of the club as the sporting focus of the town and the 'public need'. Wouldn't have been so strong if the club had to turn part-time and half the sponsors and supporters bailed out.

The public inquiry was in 2001. We got the yes verdict in December 2001, so the issue of relegation wouldn't have been a factor with the public inquiry. The final plans with Tesco were agreed in about May 2002. Remember Tesco wanted to have their supermarket to make money, and they couldn't have the supermarket without the stadium.

dec 2002 wasn't it?

Quote: Tony Catsmith "dec 2002 wasn't it?'" The inquiry "yes" was Dec 2001. Final and full planning permission was Dec 2002: www.warringtonwolves.org/HistoryF.ink

Quote: Tony Catsmith "dec 2002 wasn't it?'" The inquiry "yes" was Dec 2001. Final and full planning permission was Dec 2002: www.warringtonwolves.org/HistoryF.ink