It would have been a shame if Catalans had been relegated in their first 2 seasons for finishing bottom. They've certainly added to the competition since then (as well as providing an excellent holiday venue for rugby league fans, but that's just by the way).

Some projects take longer to mature than others. The first Welsh rugby league teams could have been a success, with the right kind of support at the time. Perhaps this one deserves a little longer?

Likewise London. No one can seriously suggest that this has been a stable club (in the sense of a single club) over the last 30 years, and should be judged on that basis? The Harlequins club faces obstacles that other clubs don't. I think it's good that they are in SL.

I love Trinity and think, given the present conditions at the club, that we deserve to be in SL too.

That's my opinion.

Furry muff, misunderstood your point.

I dont have a desire to prove our club wrong at all, I want us to be in the top flight and to have as much sucess as possible. Like most on here I spend loads of cash and time on Trinity so dont want them to fail at anything. Doesn't mean I have to think the sun shines out of the clubs and doesn't mean they are imune from criticism - especially when people continually want to slag off other clubs that I think have "better" (for want of a better word) credentials than us. I don't consider London to be a "Sacred cow", but like you and Widnes I dont have a problem with a club getting in infront of us if on merit. Anyway, back to the point in hand:

a. As I said, I don't know the first thing about Quins RL's community department - and I would be very suprised if you did too, although I am happy for your to set me straight on that if you like. I knows our's is pretty good and has won awards, but it's impossible for me to say how they compare to ours and who's is best and unlike you if I don't know something I tend to either admit it or keep schdum.

b - we agree on this

c & d - where did I say anything about us being a new club or not? For the record, when you suggest we are better of financially and management wise are you talking about us pre or post administration, that will help me discuss it with you.

e - I think we both agree on this one, but since when was your place in the top flight ever decided on your last game? Relegation has always been judged on your performance over a period of time hasn't it?

A lot of great points made on this thread, but it all boils down to this one question that no one can give a reasonable answer to;

[iWhy should Wakefield Trinity accept been kicked out of Super league when we are clearly not the weakest franchise???[/i

Why should we, when the clubs signed up to this system several years ago was not said that the best 14 clubs would be awarded a franchise? A fair system we were told, the current system is anything but fair. It's promotion and relegation by choice! the criteria is that vague that you could pick who you want in SL, justify it by putting certain weight on anything really, eg Widnes youth development rather than Fax winning the actual competition.

If I was Glover I'd been consulting with the solicitors and making a case for the courts to decide.

Answer - because there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

No case. I seem to remember that they have introduced some kind of general discretion clause, where they look at what the club brings to the league or something. By importing a personal judgement rather than a pure points comparison, they can do what they want.

In relation to those people who stay away as a protest, one I understand, isn't there an argument that you make it worse for Wakey. One of the arguments against the expansion clubs is that they add nothing to the matchday experience as they don't bring any fans, if we don't take any to them, we lose the argument. An empty away stand will look pretty bad.

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that any general discretion clause would not be legally binding especially now the system isn't fair like they said when we signed up. The RFL are the ones that have broken the agreement not us! I don't believe for a second we have to take this injustice on the chin. The effects of this will finish the club imo, I don't believe we will ever play top flight rugby league again.

I agree that we might never see top flight rugby again, but on what grounds could we legally challenge it? That we don't like the outcome? There has to be a legal ground to mount a legal challenge.

Discretion clauses abound in the law and there is no issue with them. Public bodies are entitled to use discretion in all sorts of areas, and the only ground to challenge them is when they have fettered their discretion; ie, already made their mind up. We might believe that the RFL have made their mind up, but you and try to find one public utterance where they have said that or hinted that. And to prove something, you need proof. Provided that a decision is one that could reasonably have been reached, it is hard to challenge the exercise of a discretion, and as everyone expects us to go, it would be hard to argue that the discretion has been exercised unreasonably.

Those category C clubs will be judged against "the strategic needs of the sport", as determined by the RFL, as well as "historical contribution and potential future performance". We fall down on the first, if we think the RFL is against us, and the strategic needs of the RFL are all about expansion.

You can't legally challenge that if the strategic needs of the sport are clear. You can shout from the rooftops all you want, but I doubt you could do anything about it. They have a discretion based on the "strategic needs of the sport". If those needs are about expansion, then they have exercised it reasonably if we lose out in favour of an expansion club.

That is not "reasonable" in my view, but what is legally "reasonable" is a decision that could be reasonably justified, within the criteria set out.

Also, the Sheffield United example is not a good one, as the FA agreed with the courts, it would seem, that West Ham had acted improperly.

You're wrong about nothing being beyond a legal challenge, because it can be dismissed pretty quickly if it is groundless. In making a civil claim, you have to set out what your civil claim is and under what ground. There would be no benefit to it if you couldn't get an injunction to stop the 2012 season going ahead, and the judge considering the injunction could rule at that point that the application is groundless. It may not end the case, but it would signal the end of it. Also, you can suffer significant cost penalties if the application is frivolous and vexatious, and I would rather the club spent the money on players.

Legal action would do us no favours whatsoever and would damage both the Club and the game. Like it or not this is the system that we signed up for along with the rest of the SL clubs. If we are the team that is not given a franchise then I will take great pride and pleasure in the fact that we were never relegated from SL despite all the well documented problems/troubles/tradgedies we have had along the way. A court case would taint this for me and I would hope as a Club we are bigger than that.

]

You're going to end up with an ulcer pal.

Ignore him Wadski. We do.

I hope this is not classed as a consultation M'lord, with the usual fee to follow in the post