Where is the evidence to say that happened? Everything was done behind closed doors. One month they were deemed good enough for SL alongside Widnes. 2 months later slammed as not good enough. I am not saying that Fax coud have survived or done much in SL. But the way it was all done was wrong for me and its all guess work as to the real reasons. I have heard Fax worked on a realistic budget and refused to "Dream" of what could happen if such and such happened. Others like Salford and Bradford made ridiculous claims and ended up in serious problems. Again that is just a rumour. I dont think anybody on here can claim 100% the ins and outs of what really happened at licence time.
Do you really want me to post the licensing summary for Halifax's bid in full?
"insufficient", "inadequate", "speculative".
That's what was published in the public domain. If it was completely wrong it was up to your chairman to do something about it. IIRC all he did was bleat about Wakefield, then was ticked off and shut up IIRC.
Yes Salford collapsed but do I really have to remind you that was because Wilkinson decided enough was enough?
Yes Bradford ended up in a mess, but are you really saying Halifax should be in SL before Bradford??
Because that's always been the point about licensing. They pick the best 14 clubs but it doesn't guarantee any of them are any good, all it does is keep even worse clubs out of Superleague.
The Bulls were on 10K crowds and Salford had Wilkinson. you had 2,000 crowds and no rich benefactor.
I love Halifax, I'm not having a go at them, but this is how it was........