Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:27 am  

HXSparky wrote:

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.

I'm a fan of all clubs specifically the ones outside SL , the RFL don't ' have it in for Fax , they just needed someone to play a game for them , you fitted the bill , it could quite easily have been Leigh , but you were never in with a shot at SL no matter what you put in your application , or who you had used to help you submit it

As soon as I heard that the RFL had encouraged you to post the large attendance at your last match of the 2010 season it dawned on me what game they wanted you to play , unfortunatly the prize of SL can blind some people , your BOD in this case to what is actually going on in front of them

Let's hope in future nobody else gets used , then abused in this way , although I won't hold my breath on it

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:03 am  

Fax4Life wrote:

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!

Totally agree.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:58 am  

Have your books been published yet? Keep saying your self sustainable but this time last year this board was rife with rumours playoffs were boom or bust and we only got from RFL that you reached 1mill turnover... Still doesn't mean debt free?

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:05 am  

KPMG cannot be neutral, surely the are paid by the RFL to do a job?
The bigger point is that other than Widnes will any Champ club get in to SL, it's not just Fax, as Starbug said, it could have been Leigh. the route into SL needs to be be clear cut and what criteria need to be met, if you do not meet these then you are out. Not just you went bust but it's Ok this time carry on and drain even more money.
The issue of hidden agendas makes the whole game a laughing stock.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:02 am  

J20 wrote:

Have your books been published yet? Keep saying your self sustainable but this time last year this board was rife with rumours playoffs were boom or bust and we only got from RFL that you reached 1mill turnover... Still doesn't mean debt free?

There has been rumours on here that we were signing Sonny Bill Williams, doesn't mean that they are true though.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:57 am  

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!

What part of "speculative" means "detailed business plan"? "Speculative" means given to conjecture, which is impossible to avoid when you're dealing with what hasn't happened!

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:34 pm  

Fax Faithful wrote:

What part of "speculative" means "detailed business plan"? "Speculative" means given to conjecture, which is impossible to avoid when you're dealing with what hasn't happened!

I thought speculative meant basically guesswork based on nothing?
Whereas 'estimated' and even 'ambitious' as used on other bids suggest had something behind them.

E.g.

Ambitious
Widnes feel they will reach crowds of 10,000 in SL by 2013 due to intense marketing in the south Liverpool area, strong local rivalries and a previous SL attendance of 7-8,000 previously.

Speculative
Halifax believe their SL return would see an average crowd of 7,000 at the Shay.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:59 pm  

Just like the last round of franchises, a different use of words to describe what in reality is the same but to make one bid sound better than the another. They did this with the current state of grounds last time, on some bids concentrating on them not being up to standard where on others said they had potential. Just making it up to back the clubs they had already decided on, only this time Crusaders through a spanner in the works so they had to quickly look for the team they would prefer not to have. And I've said before, we will never get back with our near neighbours already taking up 2 spots.

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

I do agree that no doubt your bid has been give an extra kick in due to Wakey staying as ours did with Crusaders getting the nod. Though to compile a report not detailed enough to be assesed financially is not just a shot missed but a big worry in general?

Some of the summaries are a bit of a joke. See Salfords! Pays no attention to performance of the club on or off the field and basically says new ground nearly done so be fine for now.

Re: AT LAST - SL FRANCHISE DECISION : Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:42 pm  

Was thinking about this today and the whole 'speculative' thing. Maybe the details in Fax's bid were so unrealistically speculative (no chance of hitting the proposed targets) that the RFL had no option but throw it out.