Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:36 pm  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote: 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? Hey all publicity is good for the club, Isn't it ?. We made the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 584106.stm

Greg Florimos Boots wrote: 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? Hey all publicity is good for the club, Isn't it ?. We made the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 584106.stm

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:41 pm  

The Spirit of `95 had very litte to do with not geting into Super League as our being denied was only the catalyst that started it moving.
The group was more concerned with the governance of the RFL on issues such as presiding over the Crusaders debacle that were given the nod for Super League over Widnes.During that time they employed illegal players , did not pay players , moved from the area which was the reason for being in Super League , went bust.All this under the watchful eye of the RFL , they were then allowed to withdraw instead of being told they were not good enough.
`95 were also questioning how much did all this cost in the name of expansion when the Championship clubs could have used that money.They talk about Catalan but forget Paris Gateshead , Sheffield , Crusaders all costing money.
Other things they were queerying were differant rules for every division it`s farcical .Some have relegation ,some have bonus points , some have promotion and then if all else fails they move the goalposts to fit the team.
Whichever way anyone wants to look at it does everyone think the RFL are governed proffessionally ?

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:49 pm  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

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

Some soul searching needed by the board. As you know GFB, i'm not one to criticise the board but your point about getting an independant specialist company in is a good one. Lessons to be learned for next time (if indeed we are in a position to do so next time).

That said, as i've pointed out before, the RFL's own process aint that great considering what happened to Crusaders and Wakey.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:50 pm  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

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?

When Graham Clay left it was in the press that it wouldn't affect our bid preparation as Michael Steele was doing it.

I get the impression that our board thought our stadium would get us in to SL as the feed back we received last time commented on that being the key issue.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:06 pm  

we should have just lied about future income, Wakey and Cru's obviously did last time round.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:18 pm  

Norman Bates wrote:

we should have just lied about future income, Wakey and Cru's obviously did last time round.

that would fit nicely with rfl policy.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:22 pm  

One has to wonder how long we will all have to wait to see wether they have done the same this time as well re` the stadium.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:25 pm  

I would have preferred this to have come out in a statement from the club rather than reading it on the RFL spin press release.

Just like previous bid the RFL show inconsistent reasons. Previously we were slated for not having a completed stadium whilst others lied about the future if theirs. This time they say our future financial plans are speculative, whilst on a couple of the other bids it says their financial plans are based on them moving into new stadia. Isn't that speculative?

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:32 pm  

It's all RFL b0ll0cks.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:41 pm  

spanishbob wrote:

I would have preferred this to have come out in a statement from the club rather than reading it on the RFL spin press release.

Just like previous bid the RFL show inconsistent reasons. Previously we were slated for not having a completed stadium whilst others lied about the future if theirs. This time they say our future financial plans are speculative, whilst on a couple of the other bids it says their financial plans are based on them moving into new stadia. Isn't that speculative?

Why what kind of statement do you think the Club would make other than to agree with the RFL , I`d hardly expect them to come out and say something contrary to them .