The Grinder

For me it is not about blaming anyone (RFL or whoever), it is about understanding the reasoning and the consistency of the situation. In the statement from the RFL about our exclusion from the league they state: “There wasn't enough separation between the old company and the new company. "It’s not about one set of owners, it’s about the operational standards we accept as a game. That’s the reason it couldn’t be approved. “There were just too many conflicts and too many links to the old company for it to be a good governance decision." Link here: https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rfl-chief-explains-decision-to-deny-featherstone-rovers-membership-5474183?utm_sf_post_ref=651869681&utm_sf_cserv_ref=33729005969&fbclid=IwY2xjawP5ag9leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETBIaFJDUW5CVGJJUmhXSTJtc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHvd3bceRQHvpehAYwbmJ1zf9kycb5VT1wcL3_m0361lTQW1dELV6D0_66Ta5_aem_eikAPWKLLzIVrfdX5M04Vg However, in the Love Rugby League (LRL) article the LRL state: "Sources have indicated to Love Rugby League that the mood at the RFL on Monday evening was one of panic, with the governing body only definitively learning of the club’s demise just minutes before it was made official. Unlike the Featherstone situation, where the governing body actively decided against giving Rovers’ playing licence to a consortium that included former owner Mark Campbell, there is no ill feeling towards the current board and administration of the Panthers." link here: https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/halifax-panthers-wound-up-as-club-and-championship-plunged-into-uncertain-future Implying at least the the same owners are allowed to carry on, and there implying the RFL are going to ignore their own rules about separation from the old company to the new company for Fax. It is this inconsistency that I am querying.

My feelings exactly and I was going to highlight the same section. Though I would state upfront, I don't want what has happened to us to happen to any other club and I hope that Fax can find a way to be up and playing again in the championship as soon as possible. However, if the RFL go by the same standards then they can't allow the same people involved running the club (Fax) as the ones that are in charge while the club is wound up. In Salford's case it is a new set of people that are in charge, in the Fev case the RFL want new people running the club, and therefore by implication the RFL would want the same at Fax. This is regardless of the fact that initial winding up order was started 2 years ago. Therefore if what is stated in the article is true and the RFL are happy for the same people to be involved after insolvency, I want them (the RFL) to tell me the truth about why Fev have not been allowed in the league this year.

This is what was reported at the end of November: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/super-league-2026-big-questions-answered-on-promotionrelegation-tv-coverage-play-off-format-5420778 snip: "... Will the team finishing bottom of Super League be replaced by the Championship winners, or is it the IMG grading system? We don’t know, but a decision is expected after an RFL council meeting in December. Jones revealed: “That’s still to be determined. It’s fair to say that needs to happen before the start of the season so that’s something that will come over the next couple of weeks or months. ...” And I haven't seen anything since. Given that Jones said that it has to happen before the season starts probably means we'll not find out while September

I understand that the RFL/SL can change the rules on a whim. However what I am asking is can someone point me to any link where the RFL have stated what rules will be in place for P&R at the end of the 2026 season. Does anyone have a link to this detail, since the last that I saw/read was that this decision is still to be confirmed? Likewise I'm not saying it matters to Fev (or necessarily Batley for that matter), I just would like to know for my knowledge.

Where has this been confirmed? Just prior to the fixtures coming out it was stated by the RFL that the decision on promotion/relegation was still to be confirmed, and the board meeting on the 9th December would start the ground work for this discussion, but I haven't seen anything since.

They'll have to change the rules then because at the moment you can't DR with a team in the same division (only going to be one division below SL next year), there are loans, but these have to be for a minimum of 2 weeks. The again this is RL and the RFL so the rules will change 3 weeks into next season

I'm not aware of there being a quorum requirement on the vote and therefore believe that the vote would have been valid (FevNut) may be able to confirm that either way, since I believe his knowledge of the constitution is better than mine. I'm afraid that the vote was to sell the land. In particular at that meeting I specifically asked if any new properties would be developed as freehold or leasehold and the answer I got was that it would be freehold with a possibility of some leasehold, but not decided as to the mix at that point in time. Freehold means selling the land. At the time the whole plan was "sold" as we have to do this to clear the clubs debts. I'll let you decide if certain individual hope to profit from any potential future sale of the land, rather than all the profit going back into the club.

It was voted through by the "A" share holders a couple of years ago at an EGM (I can't remember the exact date, hopefully someone on here can), though whether all the relevant information was forth coming at the time is a debatable question.

They asked for additional information (hence abstaining not ambivalence) from the RFL which has never been forthcoming (I could say nothing new there) hence the reason that they are now against pushing this through in a few weeks rather than due diligence taking place. To be fair to Wigan I think this has been a pragmatic approach that any judge (to carry on the metaphor) would understand.

I'm not sure how a successful London Club makes for a more successful sport. The argument here is that is that a "London" presence would mean more media coverage, which would lead to better sponsorship. However personally I don't see this as a given.

IMHO way off, main stand and family stand how just below 2500 with the last row f seats removed for advertising hoardings, post office road end down to 300 tickets on the terracing, stable about 250 and the club house about 250. makes out current capacity around 3300 at the moment, but not a problem because I don't see us getting that many attending on Sunday.

I just think Oldham might for this, strong season back in the championship for quite a while, last regular season game for them (they have the bye next week), which if they can win and Bradford drop 3 or 4 points would allow them to pinch 3rd spot, one close league game earlier in the season and a semi-final loss to us denying them a trip to Wembley. All adds up to a decent showing from the Oldham fan base for me.

Lingaro, Then you have answered your question in your first post, the BBC as a "national" broadcaster is interested in appealing to the majority interest, unfortunately that means Football, Cricket and Rugby Union will get greater coverage. There might be 40 million that could be interested in Union compared to 8 million for League.

Stupid question on my part I suspect, but which similar offences?

which 6th place team is going to beat you in the play-offs then?