Quote ="Philth"Not about London or Wakefield really, I'm questioning the process, those 2 are an example but throw Hull, Hudds and Salford in there. If there's 5 points for performance and Hudds get 2 for a crap season in Super League and Wakey get 5 for a good season in the league below, it doesn't feel like apples to apples comparison.
All a mute point because there's more on offer and the Wakey chairman has thrown some money and structure at the club.'"
Understand your point, but the swings are not that extreme and Wakey don't get near 5 points. Only Wigan would have scored 5 points as they finished top (4 points), won the Grand final (0.75 points), and won the challenge cup (0.25 Points).
Wakey finished 10th, 12th and 13th in the last 3 years, so I would guess their points to be 3.131 2.781 for league position and +0.25 for Champ Grand Final and +0.1 for 1895 cup.
Huddersfield finished 3rd, 9th and 9th for last 3 years, so their points I think would be 3.314, so better than Wakeys.
Just to show the difference a team finishing 11th for 3 years would score 2.857, so Wakeys score has benefitted to being runaway winners due to them being full time, but then they have had an owner that has supported that financially with little to no central funding, they just got a little lucky as the likes of Featherstone and Toulouse aren't funding similar squads, but the benefit of that was only 0.35 points - though a benefit none the less.
