Saints made over 150k from the wcc this year, and have already stated they would do it if it's offered to them.

It's about teams not wanting to fork out the money and Wire have enough to do it.

Besides only two sides have actually qualified properly so it's up to the RFL to choose the third side as they see fit. If Huddersfield know they won't bring in the gate receipts to recoup paying for the fixture to go ahead because their fans wouldn't turn up, i can see why they'd turn it down.

I agree and wasn't blaming us specifically. If it's true that Hudd's are backing out again then shame on them. If the 'reward' is being turned down because it isn't financially viable, then as part of the 'reward' wouldn't it be worth giving an element of prize money in your placing that had to be reallocated to the series?

I know as a sport we aren't awash with money, but, I really like the idea of a credible SL V NRL tournament it could in time help with awareness and cash

I thought all the teams involved in the WCS made a profit.
I don't understand the logic of Saints refusing.

Am I right in thinking that only the LLS, CC winners and GF winners or GF runners meet the criteria for WCS qualification?

I seem to recall that outside that criteria, qualification hadn't been finalised. So under that decision Saints, Hudds or Cas have no more right for qualification that Wire or Wakefield for that matter.

Perhaps Warrington once again have requested a selection and the RFL have considered Warrington to be a safe candidate.

I would imagine Anderson might have a say at Hudds, he strikes me as a guy who wouldn't want to play in a game he sees as a gimmick.

That would make sense, had Saints not made 150k profit on it last year. The rumour could just not be true?

Was that anything to do with Saints playing in the only game that actually mattered though?

So the mini comp has a criteria of the RFL's making giving Leeds and Wigan the right to play, the third place is open to whoever the RFL deem to fit the bill? The amount of hard cash needed as a surety will always scare off cautious money managers. We had a go last year and probably made a good few ££'s and as such the RFL would consider us as a safe bet to go again. The offers have to be made to those ranked above us in the league, but taking a couple of hundred k's off a team without sound financial backing could be a disaster for the club involved and the RFL. They will go with a safe bet.

Everything you say Snag except, I believe there is nothing in place about offering teams a WCS game in order of SL positioning in desending order.

Outside the winners of silverware and the GF runners up if the same teams wins all three, or wins two plus GF runners up....Then the 3rd entrent is unseeded and open to election or selection without criteria.

I think because SM was active and very instrumental in the concept of the WCS, the RFL may have took that into consideration.

I guess SM had already got his shout in after we demolished St's.
Perhaps it wasnt just chance we beat the travelling friends but that was in fact our agenda!? To put them in a difficult position to win their semi by forcing an away fixture upon them.