If we get a deal sorted with Barnsley, increase our crowd sufficiently by offering reduced ticket prices and spend up to the full cap then it's three extra points on the Franchise scoring system. If we achieve a higher score than our competitors then we are in a strong position.

Thought the bit with Elston and Glover was really good and a real positive for the club. Glover came across very well and seems a very determined bloke.



As for the rest I turned off just after Clarke and Eddie started talking not because of what they were saying just because I don't have any time for this sort of show. It baffles me that a bloke like Cullen sits there picking teams/players faults to bits when his own coaching career was/is hardly setting the world on fire. You then have the likes of Clarke/Eddie/Carney/Stevo giving their opinions well if I want opinions on the game I will come on here/talk to people in the pub/talk to folk at the game. Just because they are on the telly and have played the game at a high level doesn't make their opinions any more or any less valid than anyone elses. Watch the highlights and forget the rest cos it's mainly as pointless as your own drunken after match analysis.

We have limped along but not anymore. Hows it the best thing that could happen to us dropping down. What a fool ! We are financially stable and a 70% chance of a new ground. Whats he talking about.

It's TV. Should NM get a positive shove in the near future, should we win a few, should we sign a big name etc it will all change.



As Cat says, it's been nothing but negative stuff for month now, it will take a while for the positive spin to work. Remember we have a part to play in this so all the we are doomed stuff doesn't help.



At the end of the day Eddie and Clarky work for SKY and do as they are told, they owe us nothing - forget about fair, since when was the media fair.



Give it a while and some other club will choke (quite soon I suspect) and we will be yesterdays chip paper.

Feck me! That didn't take long! Normal service is resumed at Wakey!







People, what Clarkey and Wiggy were articulating last night, is simply the considered view within the game, that the years of under achievment, both on the pitch and the boardroom have finally caught up with Trinity.



These are simple demonstrable facts, and no amount of petulant posturing, or chanting your mantra, "Together we are strong" is going to change that FFS! RedHall stated years ago that at least one Club would be kicked out of SL in 2015.



Salford appear to have got their act together, which obviously leaves you and Cas, possibly both, if Redhall decides that it could get away with dropping 2 from SL



Realism has never been a Wakey strongpoint, but the ball is firmly in your court, and you have a year left in SL in which to impress. More results like last weekends, together with a decent turnout at games could still swing it. Approval for Newmarket may further strengthen your bid, but as long as you have a ground share agreement that ticks the SL box, then if and when that happens is simply a bonus.



What will be coming under very close scrutiny, from both Redhall and HMCE, is how Glover actually runs Trinity this season, and that is what may ultimately decide your fate in SL.

The point annoying Wakey fans is that Mr Clark advocates sharing the Cas stadium, in order to have a chance of retaining our licence this time round.



There isn't a stadium, and won't be one in time for licencing - if ever!



Sharing at Cas's invisible stadium would not be a solution.

Again not wanting to put a gloomy outlook on things but SO'C took over Widnes in Nov '07 yet was told though great improvements and offer of 500k security on club wasn't enough evidence of the company being solid in such a short time. Glover has taken over 4 months later than that with announcements at a similar time. As long as Cas & Salford keep a low profile they'll get through at least this time. Too many lies on stadium & finance will unfortunately take there toll along with crowds and on field performance.



Salford IMO should be at big risk but it seems they have one more round of playing the 'Manchester' card to the RFL!

The same is definitely true of, I personally feel, the majority of objectors to Newmarket. It is amazing how much totally incorrect and apocryphal information about the scheme seems to become the general perception of truth among people objecting. Most of this information has been deliberately disseminated and even actively promoted and because human nature is to generally believe and trust this information then it actual does become 'their' truth, they believe it 100% even though it is wrong and can be proved to be such.



There are some classic doing the round about Newmarket. One common one appeared on Cas Forum a couple of days after they spotted my letter of support for GH. I'd put about GH being and excellent location for a stadium it being so close to the M62. Someone then wrote, well it is a shame the same thing can't be said about Newmarket and other people joined in agreeing!!! The thing is they believe this because they have not seen a plan!



Another common one is about HGV traffic using the narrow and unsuitable Newmarket Lane... they don't even understand or appreciate that a new section of brand new road is being built right through the site. Someone even wrote to the Wakefield Express banging on about this... just look at the plans!



The destroying of footpaths and the Trans-Pennine trail is also one that is popular! We had a local cyclist activist turn up at the public meeting who is a volunteer cycling warden for the area and patrols these footpaths. He had been told that the footpaths were all getting ripped up and the Tran-Pennine trail was going to be destroyed and he came to object. When we showed him the actual plans and that all the paths were staying and only being diverted, the upgrading of all the paths, the health trail and also the proposed cycle access routes and provision for road cyclist (cycle lanes) on the new section of road he said... well this is not what I was told!!! That is because what you have been told is apocryphal! He took statements of Support to get fellow cyclists to sign when he understood how much better the access would be for them and the public.



Unfortunately it is always the negative stuff that people want to and end up believing!!!

But this is not true is it mate, this is the thing. You can't argue with the boardroom quote and I suspect that nearly every Wakey fan would agree with you but then the rest???



So they never been out of Super League, never finished bottom and have better playing records than Castleford, Quins, Salford & Catalan and Crusaders throughout the SL era. They get better crowd averages than all those bar two and then it is only slightly less. They have a good youth set up and in 2009 won the Academy Grand Final. Their community set-up is arguably best in the whole of Super League.



They do have a crap ground and it the worst in SL.



Now, when you take away the fact that Quins, Crusaders and Catalan are untouchable, it just leaves you with Cas, Salford and Wakefield. Now that Salford have the council and Peel throwing £20m at a new stadium that is being built and will in all probability be ready for 2012 and if the RFL tried to kick them out, would find themselves in front of a high court judge in heartbeat, they too can be added to the list! So it leaves Cas and Wakefield, who are both working as hard as they can in the worst post war world economic downturn to deliver new stadiums and both clubs are better in every department than at least three of the teams who will not be touched.



So explain to me how this is fair again. Also, please don't bang on about Widnes, if you support Widnes coming up and Crusaders now staying then you have no argument IMO.



The thing is the RFL needs to bring up Widnes and leave Wakefield and Castleford alone until half-way through the 2013 season. If new grounds are not being built and not going to be ready for the 2014 season, then you take-away there and then their right to even apply next time. Then from 2018, we go back to P&R (when hopefully the RFL will have it's £700k back from Crusaders).

Though havent the RFL just given Wakey & Cas the last 3 years based on promises of new grounds? Wakey 10 more before that? What message does that send to the likes of Fev & Barrow looking to invest in grounds when we keep letting current SL sides away with it year on year? Defeats the whole point of franchising if so!

I agree with all your points above IA, apart from the last bit. I do think it is unfair how they are choosing the franchise members, and I think Wakefield in particular have not been looked after in the years leading up to this point, when other teams evidentially have been.



However, I do think franchise is a good step forward for rugby league and I do think the push for new stadiums by the RFL is a good thing too. Although it is hurting Wakefield and others by pushing so hard in a tough economic period, I don't think stepping back from the principle is better.

They can decide whether we are due a franchise whether the stadium is built or not. Oakwell and other options fulfill that criteria. It shouldn't be as big a deal as it is being made out to be.

I don't agree they should give us more time, which would just put us in the "untouchables" category like Crusaders which is unfair on other teams. I do think they should assess the franchise bid purely on it's merits, whether another team wants to come in or not.

When we get NM up and running it will be a great stadium. It shouldn't be rushed just to meet a RFL criteria. They should allow us to just play at a "worthy" SL level ground and let us build our new home at what ever speed is most profitable (both financially and politically) to Wakefield.



Don't bring back P&R. Just assess the best bids and form a league from that. Whether it is 14 teams or more (or less!)

Had this last three years not being during the worst recession in living memory then I think I would have no sympathy. This is the whole point of franchising, it does not defeat it at all, otherwise Featherstone, Barrow or Halifax would be the choices in front of Widnes would they not, given they have all done better on the pitch than you in recent years?



Castleford's and Wakefield's problem is both money and investment to build new stadium and I do think that both of them would be further on if it was not for the economy yes.



BTW, I think Widnes should come up but Cas and Wakey stay this time, this Welsh experiment has failed and if they were not a sacred cow, they should be making way for you.

What they should do is have a clearly visible scoring system that is used (for everyone)



If going into administration costs us a point so be it, but it has to cost Crusaders a point too.

If playing out of the district loses us a point then fine, but deduct a point from Saints as well.



The RFL should publish a definitive list of what aspects the clubs are being judged on and what points are allocated to each of those categories. They should then publish what points everyone scored on each category.

Even if that list says you get a point for being an expansion club then fine, let's just be sure that the decision is being made by judging bids honestly against the criteria.



If at the end of that we are bottom of the pile, then don't give us a licence.

If we're not bottom then don't give a licence to whoever is.



It's not rocket science is it?

and while we are on the subject of untouchables......I don't get it.



I see the benefit to the game of expansion.



I think the point has been proved in France that we have a bunch of new players, from a geographical location adding to the quality player pool in Super League. It has improved French rugby, though time will tell at international level, and they get good crowds at home.

Of course rugby has been played in France for a long time and the groundwork has been in place for a very long time, just not utilised in the right way.



London has been going a long time and is really only starting to see green shoot in the player development department now which is great, but the crowd side is not improving. I know it is tough, and I support the principle, but we are not managing it in the correct way to expand. We are simply moving players around and filling the gaps with second rate overseas players which is of no benefit to the expansion theory.



Crusaders are proving the point by going down exactly the same route as London. Poor crowds, little development and actually increasing not decreasing the reliance on overseas players.

If we are to truly expand we should learn from London’s experience and jump straight to the developing local players phase.

Either we don’t protect them and they work their way up, following the same rules on overseas players as everyone else, or we do protect them, for the specific reason of developing local talent and crowds.

If we said Crusaders are immune from relegation for 3-5 years, I’d be ok, and even support it, providing we also said they must play Welsh players in their team. Not one odd aussie player with a passport but newly developed locals, even brought in from Welsh RU. This way the locals have something to bond with and the team will develop players outside the normal RL area, which is the point of expansion surely. Of course they would be beaten by the big teams, but that is the point of the protection.

I’d even say for both London and Wales, they can count locals as anyone south of Sheffield! (and Scotland as well if needed)