Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:44 pm  

thing i cant understand.. is if we met the criteria when we lost out to Widnes, whats the difference a month or so later?

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:46 pm  

a.n Other wrote:

If it was a little better put together, it would still have been enough to beat Wakeys.

Do you really think that? I'm not sure to be honest. In all the bullshittery i still feel that not having a big money backer puts us out of the equation. Widnes have it and Jesus, as bad as Wakey are - they have it. That's it in a nutshell. You can even go into adminstration and play your rugby out of a colliery toilet and STILL get a license - if you have a money man.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:50 pm  

littlerich wrote:

Do you really think that? I'm not sure to be honest. In all the bullshittery i still feel that not having a big money backer puts us out of the equation. Widnes have it and Jesus, as bad as Wakey are - they have it. That's it in a nutshell. You can even go into adminstration and play your rugby out of a colliery toilet and STILL get a license - if you have a money man.

I was referring to the licence being based on Hilda. The other stuff doesnt interest me anymore.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:53 pm  

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:57 pm  

littlerich wrote:

Do you really think that? I'm not sure to be honest. In all the bullshittery i still feel that not having a big money backer puts us out of the equation. Widnes have it and Jesus, as bad as Wakey are - they have it. That's it in a nutshell. You can even go into adminstration and play your rugby out of a colliery toilet and STILL get a license - if you have a money man.

I'd say that is a reasonable assessment , Quins are totally crap , but have a money man , Huddersfield are under performing , but have a money man , Salfird are a joke , but have investement , Wakey are , well ' Wakey ' , but now have a money man , Fax on the other hand are a sustainable responsible business , why would they want you in SL ?

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:16 pm  

So we have run a successful club on the field within the Championship these last few years, without a major backer and without going into debt whereas even in this league some other clubs have relied on single backers and still struggled. We have had 2 major sponsorship deals during this time with the Halifax and Probiz. But it would seem that unless you have that money man as a guarantee then simply running the club on your TRUE income isn't sufficient.

God forbid if one of these money men at these clubs is mowed down by a bus tomorrow or more likely his business goes t*ts up. But hey the RFL would prefer to take that risk. Oh and the fact that whilst you still have the Bulls and Daveyfield in SL, there is not a cat in hells chance of Fax getting in.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:59 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 believe what you want, do you really think KPMG are 'neutral'???
Come on they are paid by the RFL to match the RFL's own 'criteria' in other words wish list and do as they are told. Not saying we were perfect but WHO KNOWS? = Only the Fat Controller and he will have told KPMG what to put in the report, come on they are puppets.
Cometh the day this goes against you then that day you will see what we mean, believe the RFL and their 'clones' at your peril!

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:48 pm  

You know what thinking about this you have to ask why the delay???

Looking at the wording I am damn sure the Fat Controller has been going through these with a fine tooth comb as no application is worded the same way, its written to show positives and negatives where it suits.

Its a FIX.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:54 pm  

If we've truly lost out on a Super league franchise because the submission wasn't up to scratch (ie. missing appropriate financial detail), then this begs the question why the RFL didn't invite Fax to resubmit.

It's supposedly not a game to be played around who can assemble the best rhetoric in the application, and if it was really that bad, then it would have been in order for the RFL to tell Fax that they needed to smarten up their documentation.

Some would say that this wasn't fair, but if the RFL really want the best managed teams in SL, then that's what they should have done.

Fax have shown that they are a self-sustaining club, but a few £000 spent on a professional financial guru would maybe have made the difference.

It keeps on being said that we need a financial backer to get into SL (I did hear that a previous backer was interested, but only after we got the nod), but I fear that the series of admin "errors" (and I'll include a potentially amateurish submission) have cost us dear.

RFL=Fail? I'm not sure...? It's easy to slag them off, and they will, and have, made mistakes (Wakefield/Salford/Quins may be among them), but if we're really all honest with ourselves, do the RFL genuinely have it in for Fax. I think not.

I posted on another thread (on the VT) that folk should say who should be in SL if their own team was excluded. Surprise, surprise, not a bite to be had. We're all passionate about our own team (Starbug is now confirmed as a Fax fan!) and (like the Dogs fans tonight) like to think that we're hard done to.

Rambling now, but I go back to my point that we should have paid for a consultancy firm to assess (rip to shreds) our application and work up a new and improved version.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:54 pm  

littlerich wrote:

Do you really think that? I'm not sure to be honest. In all the bullshittery i still feel that not having a big money backer puts us out of the equation. Widnes have it and Jesus, as bad as Wakey are - they have it. That's it in a nutshell. You can even go into adminstration and play your rugby out of a colliery toilet and STILL get a license - if you have a money man.

it also helps when your already in that league.