Wigan fans have retrospectively constructed some sort of terrible performance against them in the CC semi-final (there was one bad decision when they were already getting hammered) in order to erase the memory of how bad Tomkins was that day.

You haven't answered the question of why Leeds and not Wire. You are also ignoring the fact that other clubs and fans have had issues with refereeing this season, most notably Catalans who would seem to rank higher on your "paranoia" scale than us since they think they have been unfairly treated.

I'm still unsure how alleging that Leeds get favourable treatment equates to paranoia on Wigan fans part - surely we'd have to think the refs had it in for Wigan. Your argument also ignores the fact that all season on the Wigan board (including when we were top of the league and playing superbly) the poor standard of refereeing and inconsistent disciplinary process have been issues of discussion. As for the apparent favouritism towards Leeds, this has been talked about for some time and not only by Wigan fans but by those of other NW clubs.

From a NW perspective the RFL looks to be seriously West Yorks biased. How else can the buying of Odsal by the RFL be explained when Wigan were not helped to keep CP and Saints struggled for many years to finance a new stadium... and then Bradford get to keep their SL place, when the RFL prevented Widnes from going into SL because they had previously been in admin, even though they accepted that the new owner (who is still the owner) had placed the club on a sound financial footing.

You can't explain why we are "paranoid" because your use of the word doesn't make sense. This isn't about hostility to Wigan but favouritism towards Leeds. It's very difficult for you to build an argument that such concerns are extreme and irrational given the appalling record of the sport in governance and transparency, of which the Bulls fiasco is just the most recent example. So you don't even try.

infamy, infamy....they've all got it infamy

Seriously, this persecution complex does you no favours.
Surely, if the RFL favour Leeds, Briers would have been judged to have knocked-on in the CCFinal, and subsequently, we wouldn't have scored a pivotal try, when the game was in the balance.

If you think the RFL is anti Red Rose, that's your funeral.
Besides, the Wigan professional era (ie pre 1996) got away with murder for a decade (dodgy tries, ridiculous disciplinary let-offs, etc). I bet you weren't screaming for parity then, were you, eh?

I totally accept that my use of the word 'paranoia' was misplaced. I only made reference to it as you had in your earlier post. I apologise, and will try to be more accurate in future.

As for the rest of what you said - wtf?!? I love that you are trying to build a rational argument on the basis of conjecture and opinion, in the absence of fact. I could counter all your illogical ramblings if I thought it would do any good, but clearly it would make no difference.

OK, so you think that the RFL making a secret loan to Bradford and then acquiring Odsal, and becoming the landlord of a SL club, which then goes insolvent and is allowed to stay in SL despite the clear precedent of administration barring Widnes from entry to SL is fine, and I'm guilty of illogical ramblings for mentioning it. It's no wonder RL is in such a state when many of its fans are so blind to its failings.

Surely you're not questioning the integrity of an organisation known to some as 'The Yorkshire Mafia'?

I'm not accusing you of 'ramblings' just a poorly constructed argument.

The RFL's dealings with the Bulls were ratified by the relevant parties and the clubs had knowledge of this, so in what way were they 'secret'? And how is a club being barred from entry to SL through the franchise process a 'precedent' for a club that goes insolvent in SL (I.e. in completely different circumstances, more akin to say Wakefield, Crusaders or London, all of whom were allowed to continue)?

I'm still struggling to see what you think the 'failings' or the RFL are, or more to the original point, where the evidence of a Yorkshire (or more specifically Leeds) bias is. But that's probably because other than in your head there isn't one.

rlhttps://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secret?s

Secret. See above. Neither the fans nor the media new.

Quote: NtW "And how is a club being barred from entry to SL through the franchise process a 'precedent' for a club that goes insolvent in SL (I.e. in completely different circumstances, more akin to say Wakefield, Crusaders or London, all of whom were allowed to continue)?'"

When did London go into administration?

Widnes were told that the administration under previous ownership barred them from membership of SL.

Wakey went into admin and then the next season were given a franchise. Not the best evidence to show there is no W Yorks bias.... but thanks!

Crusaders is an interesting one because the next season they applied for a franchise but then withdrew so we will never know if the RFL would have allowed them to stay in, though they bent over backwards to help them as an expansion club, which I have less of a problem with that the different treatment of established NW and W Yorks clubs.

Oh dear!

Crusaders is an interesting one because the next season they applied for a franchise but then withdrew so we will never know if the RFL would have allowed them to stay in, though they bent over backwards to help them as an expansion club, which I have less of a problem with than the different treatment of established NW and W Yorks clubs.

No need to repeat yourself Deano, I get it. I see the error of my ways now, and your ramblings, sorry, articulate persuasions, have convinced me that they really are out to get me!

Enjoy the rest of the season and good luck overcoming them terrible odds on Friday-maybe you should have picked us to avoid the Yorkshire Mafia denying you another GF appearance?!?

Thanks, but no.