Fair answer to a fair question. : Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:46 am  

This concerns only Halifax and has nothing to do with any other clubs right to be in Super League.

The following is a reference from the Super League forum to what he said in March 2011.

"In the RFL statement, Richard Lewis stressed how both Halifax and Widnes passed the RFL criteria and were both therefore valid for Super League."

Notice, Halifax were "Valid" for Super League".

Can anyone explain in a reasonable way.

What has changed?
How have Halifaxc gone backwords?
Accepting not being awared a Super League place.
How have Halifax failed even to be awarded a minimum standard grade "C" rating.

Since March Halifax have.
Improved their league posistion.
Won through to the NRC final.
Developed and progressed the under 23 side.
Hosted several super league games for Huddersfield Giants with 2 games on live Sky Sports.
Received positive comments about the facilities from all clubs and supporters involved.

What have they done in a negative sense to justify the "U" turn from Richard Lewis and the RFL.

How can anyone believe what these people say.

Re: Fair answer to a fair question. : Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:51 am  

no money man willing to support unsustainable business models and not in an expansion area - they can't make it any clearer

Re: Fair answer to a fair question. : Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:56 am  

harry1 wrote:

no money man willing to support unsustainable business models and not in an expansion area - they can't make it any clearer

That was the case in March though, what has changed that's my point.

Re: Fair answer to a fair question. : Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:03 am  

faxcar wrote:

That was the case in March though, what has changed that's my point.

wrexham not sustainable and they don't have to pay a parachute payment to a club who is not promoted (imo)

Re: Fair answer to a fair question. : Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:07 am  

Can only presume that when we were assesssed with Widnes, we were compared with each other as Championship clubs applying for SL and both graded as suitable for SL, then when the SL bids went in, our initial application has been directly compared with the SL bids.

This would be totally unfair as Championship clubs operate in totally different circumstances and to much lower budgets with more restraints than the SL clubs.

It would be nice to find out if the criteria for each of the two selection decisions were exactly the same and if not, was our bid at Christmas given a chance to be amended to fit the second application before it was put up against the SL teams bids. If this was not allowed, then our bid would always lose out to the others.

Re: Fair answer to a fair question. : Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:29 am  

I think I might have worked it out.

Only 14 ratings available for the number of clubs.

Out of these 5 grade "C" ratings were awarded and against them we came sixth.

Hence no rating even though we were "Valid" for Super League before any ratings were mentioned and now they have been we are not "Valid" enough.

Which is a perfectly "Valid" system to have in place when the future of a few rugby league clubs and several thousand supporters are involved.

It does PROVE that championship clubs can be "Valid" for Super League on criteria and yet still not get a license because of the cap on the number of clubs allowed in.

Are you happy with that Championship clubs and supporters.

It will apply to every cub not just Halifax.