Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:50 pm  

dboy wrote:

Erm...how about based on a detailed business plan?

You got a "C" because there isn't a "D" grade.

I will keep checking my inbox for an apology from certain Fax fans. I won't hold my breath though.

The Fax application wasn't worth the paper it wasn't written on!

Maybe not But the paper it was written had actually been paid for

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:57 pm  

a.n Other wrote:

Why didn't we withdraw our bid if it was as bad as the feed back suggests? I hope the club will stop stating about readying ourselves for SL in their blogs announcements from now on. As we won't be anywhere near ready. This was our big chance with Wakey and Crusaders being awfull and that chance was blown.

I totally agree with you their, If they are not able to fill the application in properly then perhaps employing a specialist to get this right in the first instance would have been what was needed. I know the board work hard and that but sometimes its worth getting someone in who knows how. It such a let down to read that basically we didn't have a chance anyway as KPMG couldn't do their assessment due to lack of information, and now the part that really gets me is the " Would we have been in if the bid was up to scratch in the first place", we will never know. ces la vie

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:59 pm  

spanishbob wrote:

Wait a minute, it also says Wakefield was poor in Commercial, Governance and Finance and of course we can only speculate what our gates would be in Superleague, we are not there....

Rather than appologise its worth pointing out that Wakefield is extremely lucky to just get a licence ahead if us. What tickled me was the statement that on field performances were acceptable.

What baffled me was why we were told in Marchthat our bid was acceptable, but come July its not. Typical RFL. Didn't KPMG see the bids in March?

The state of any other clubs bid is not an issue. The point is the Fax was appallingly bad and lacking in detail - there is nothing to compare to other clubs.

This is something I posted at the time of the decision and the idiotic ramblings of the Fax chairman.

I was derided by certain Fax fans (not you), and it is they I await the apology from - not as a Wakefield fan, but as someone who posted the truth and was abused for doing so.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:05 pm  

Did KPMG study Celtic Crusaders bid the last time round? Did they study Wakefields? Both went bust during the license period. Their bids may have been presented nicely but they were obviously flawed because they we both financially knackered.

The club should hopefully be in possession of a more detailed feedback from the RFL so that they can put in a "proper" bid next time or decide that it's unable to put in such a bid and withdraw from the process.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:06 pm  

dboy wrote:

The state of any other clubs bid is not an issue. The point is the Fax was appallingly bad and lacking in detail - there is nothing to compare to other clubs.

This is something I posted at the time of the decision and the idiotic ramblings of the Fax chairman.

I was derided by certain Fax fans (not you), and it is they I await the apology from - not as a Wakefield fan, but as someone who posted the truth and was abused for doing so.

"You want the truth, You can't Handle the truth"

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:09 pm  

I'm confused as to why the RFL kept publishing intitial SL bid was between Widnes, Halifax and Barrow when it seems they didn't even look at the Raiders!

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:11 pm  

littlerich wrote:

Did KPMG study Celtic Crusaders bid the last time round? Did they study Wakefields? Both went bust during the license period. Their bids may have been presented nicely but they were obviously flawed because they we both financially knackered.

The club should hopefully be in possession of a more detailed feedback from the RFL so that they can put in a "proper" bid next time or decide that it's unable to put in such a bid and withdraw from the process.

There is a fair point there. We are told that our plans are speculative. Well Wakefields and Crusaders previous bids must have also been speculative as both were completely mis-managed as they went bust. I would suggest that Wakefields current bid must also be speculative as the board are guessing what the future will be, which cannot be based on previous achievement?

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:14 pm  

spanishbob wrote:

There is a fair point there. We are told that our plans are speculative. Well Wakefields and Crusaders previous bids must have also been speculative as both were completely mis-managed as they went bust. I would suggest that Wakefields current bid must also be speculative as the board are guessing what the future will be, which cannot be based on previous achievement?

Wakefield were Crusaders' replacement, in effect. Had Crusaders not capitulated Wakefield would be gone. They could at least put up a "money man" at the time the RFL had to sift through the remaining weak applications left after Crusaders demise. We couldn't

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:21 pm  

Spirit of 1895 Now seems a waste, Those T-Shirts with RFL fail on them probably need to be cut up and used to polish cars with, I'm sure the Car washers down by the 3 pigs will take em off ya.

No wonder the Board Urged people not to make a stance on the game against widnes. Would have looked a little silly when it was our bid that had short comings, not the RFLs process.

Well the saving grace that is, At least we are not in Barrows unfortunate circumstances at the minute.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:34 pm  

I said at the time we should have got an independant specialist company in to do the application for us. Im guessing we didnt, if we did then why was the application so bad? Did the club not provide the information or did the company that did it not do a good job. If the board did it themselves then enough said really. This is a rather smart move by the RFL just comfiriming a lot of the rumours that were flying about and taking the onus off them and placing it back at the feet of HXRLFC.

The bit about some things been speculative, i mean wtf? How could they be anything other?

I guess this just leaves even more questions than answers, will the board respond this time?