Thats how i see it, not too long ago we offered them the easy choice, now its not that easy for them and the clubs moving forward (of the field at least) we may still be considered the weakest link but if we are its not by much.

If its a straightforward 14 we may well miss out.

We "may" have to concede we are the weakest link compared against Cas, thats not bigging them up, its just we are both almost the same, it could be measured in the breadth of a gnats pube, and in all fairness we have both failed to take the franchise initiative anywhere near as seriously as the RFL would have liked us to, we have both been busy playing rugby and just surviving.
What i cannot concede is that either London or Crusaders offer anything in comparison to either Cas or ourselves, and the whole world, bar HedgeHunter and one or two others know this as well.
If the Franchise system was a fair one, we would all be safe in the knowledge that both Cas and ourselves would be safe, if only for this set of franchises. The fact that we are not says everything about both the RFL and their franchise system.

13, ones already been awarded

I was optimistic that the RFL would bottle it and go for 15 clubs, but that option seems to have been removed by the fat controller.
The way I see it now is one of two scenarios:

1. The recent praise for WT's application is pollite Britishness, i.e. we're really impressed with the the quality of application put forward in such a short space of time and in difficult circumstances, but you're still out.

2. The praise for the application is genuine, and it has in fact taken us above Cas based on the fairly applied criteria. In which case, both WT and Cas are relegated based on broken stadium promises. Widnes and Fax in. The RFL have been pretty consistent on this.

This may be where the proviso of "get your stadium built and we'll let you back in" comes in.

What I would like to see on the 26th, in my dreams, is Sky doing a run-down of clubs' applicatons starting with Widnes and the A-grade clubs and moving down to B-grades. This is where we scrape in in tenth place with a B-grade and there is a mass sphincteral failure over the common. A bit like when London won the Olympic bid ahead of Paris.

I like your dream - can I share it?

What I have always said I would like to see is a clear justification of the decisions made, points scored for each criteria etc.
Then see them justify why we as a team have been relegated despite outscoring other clubs.

We're well aware of that!

I will say this again. I have nothing against Hull KR

but there ground is worse than ours ; at least we are improving our ground .
they have tons of debt
apart from this year our average finish is higher than theres.
Only thing is administration but in the long run was administration a bad thing?
No because we got a dead wood owner out.

Seen as the RFL are picking on us all the time why not let them have a worry...

My league next year would be

WIRE
WIGAN
STS
SHUDDS
WIDNES
WAKEY
CAS
HULL
HULL KR
LEEDS
SALFORD
BRADFORD
QUINS
CATALAN

Expand to 15 would be better for injuries etc and then i would have FAX in. Crusaders with a team of 3rd rate aussies thats bodering the border are a disgrace. We are a miles better club.

Thank you.

If I was AG I would already be seeking a legal opinion on the our upcoming demise from the games top table. An impartial decision can in no way be made by the RFL especially with the monies involved in loans to the Crusaders and legally it's a very strong point to challenge because all this about charges on the Wrexham ground is nonsense.

You are right but the cost of taking a case of this scale to court would be huge and although Glover is wealthy I don't think he could afford it.

they could give any clubs a years grace and if not building in 12 months then kick them out. We are not the only ones not got a new ground and who's to say our situation and any other clubs situation will not change for the better or worse. The RFL could be way too hasty with their decision and find that they have got it all wrong. From a legal point of view i wouldn't pursue anything now if kicked out, But would look at this if other clubs defaulted on agreements. i know people will say why didn,t widnes when they were passed over bu i think it,s different situation we are already in superleague they were not.

Seeking an opinion is not too expensive, if it is found that there is a case to answer, then the only people that would be worrying about costs would be the RFL!

A question was asked on Radio Leeds today by text - What have Widnes got to offer that we haven't?
Well, that sums up the attitude of not just Wakefield fans but SL fans in general.
So the question to you is why shouldn't other clubs currently out of SL not have a crack at playing at that level?
You might feel hard done by if you go down and you might think the RFL are a bunch of....well i'm sure you could fill in the blank but fans in the lower leagues have held that opinion for years but have had very little support from fans of SL clubs.Only when you face the chop do you start to realise that franchising is unfair and SL positions should be decided by on field exploits.
You might be lucky because the RFL have a habit of moving the goalposts but if you are then don't forget how close you have come to Championship rugby.
Below SL the game is dying a slow death but hey it might not be your problem so why should you care?.