There was a notable silence from Wakefield fans when the previous licences were handed out. Where were the online petitions, the fans threatening to walk away from the game when Widnes missed out and Wakey got another three years in Super League?
One thing I'm really struggling to understand is the constant sniping about the crowds in London and at Crusaders by certain supporters. There's a new thread on the subject minutes after either of them play at home. These very same moaners, throwing their keyboards or pints (happens in the real world too) in the air are the first to bemoan the fact that our great game has become a circus where events off the field are more important than those on it. So which is it? If the performances and results out there on the pitch are all that should count why would any reasonable person constantly bleat about the crowds of another club as a reason for them to lose their licence?

I know it may seem like the end of the world but it's a chance to regroup and rebuild, replacing shaky foundations with strong ones able to support the roots of a bright future, full of possibilities

There is a huge difference in being relegated from superleague and not being admitted in to superleague. The fact remains onfield performances count for nothing with the franchising system how can that be right. It is the RFL that have created the so called "sniping" between supporters.

I'm a little confused. Which club are you talking about here? Are you trying to suggest that Crusaders' foundations are stronger than Trinity's? If so, can you explain further how you come to such a conclusion?

Edited for you.

Whichever club loses its Super League licence.


No, I'm not.

OK, fairy snuff.

IMO the building blocks for Wakefield's regeneration are already in place with the take-over of the new regime. A drop to the championship would only delay growth by 3 or more years. Income streams have vastly increased in the last 6 months and much of the infrastructure of the club would have to be dismantled or drastically down-sized with a shrinking of the business. In many aspects of the criteria Trinity have set standards for SL, in particular the community work, but also in youth development. Clearly the stadium is not yet 100% confirmed, due to PI, and this is seen as the biggest weakness, although alternative plans are in place. The danger is that, if there is no route back, all those positives will be lost.

For Crusaders, the question is whether they would survive a spell in the lower division. Would the backers stick with it? Is it financially viable? I would say they were promoted to SL a franchise too early, but going back would be difficult step. I lived in South Wales for 10 years and was involved with some junior development there and I could see the potential for RL. I'm not so sure about Wrexham. The availability of sufficient funding would be my main concern for the success of a Welsh franchise. I would like to see it succeed, but there have been so many false dawns over the last 100 years, most recently with South Wales RL. It needs to be done properly with a long-term strategy and funding.

In short, a drop would so neither club any favours. Wakefield would survive because of those strong foundations, but their development would be severely damaged. Crusaders, who knows? but then again, IMO, their continuation in SL is still a fairly big gamble.

You obviously know more about the Wakefield situation than me and that is a good well thought out post. For what it's worth I don't think Crusaders will remain as they are, whether that means moving from Wrexham or disappearing I'm not sure. I'm keeping my eye on the Scorpions as I agree with what you say about the potential and organic development taking place down there as we speak.

RFL’s tough licence stance will remove immunity against expulsion The Rugby Football League will warn clubs awarded a Super League licence tomorrow that they risk having it revoked on an annual basis if they do not achieve higher standards. Whereas the first round of licence agreements saw clubs enjoy a three-year period of safety, the Yorkshire Post understands the governing body are keen to get tough with those who are showing little sign of progression.

RFL’s tough licence stance will remove immunity against expulsion The Rugby Football League will warn clubs awarded a Super League licence tomorrow that they risk having it revoked on an annual basis if they do not achieve higher standards. Whereas the first round of licence agreements saw clubs enjoy a three-year period of safety, the Yorkshire Post understands the governing body are keen to get tough with those who are showing little sign of progression.

Thank you for moving this thread on to the subject of licensing. We will all know the answer tomorrow. I personally believe we should expand to 16 but I don't think that will happen. But I would like to get this thread back on topic
I think that unlike last year this year we have managed to do a lot of the preparation for next year already as things stand at the moment and if all we have been told is true looks like this
1 Tansey
2 Youngquest
3 Thomas
4 Mellars
5 Readon
6 Hambury
7 Witt
8 Moore
9 White
10 McPherson
11 Manu
12 Warburton
13 Winterstein
14 Keer
15 Senior
16 Williams
17 George Griffin
18 Sammut (still has a year left on his contract and told me he was staying)
19 Darell Griffin
20 Morrison
22 Flower
23 Jordan James
24 Lupton (Still has 2 year on his contract)
25 Bracek
26 Aled James (from what Iestyn has said I think they will offer him a contract)
27 Dudson
28 Johnson
on joint contracts with Scorpions
29 Grant
30 Chris Davies
31 Burke

I believe this is a very good squad. I would like to see a good half back and bring in a backup hooker (bring back Tommy Lee maybe). This is still the area were we have no in depth strength.

If Crusaders do keep their licence surely it would be the perfect time to blood the young Welsh lads. How many at the club do you think are good enough for Super League?