The Phantom Horseman

Good news, very pleased for the Cru supporters.

Yes, sadly we all have to accept that there is a loyalty premium with most of these utility firms. Anecdotally (ie solely from my own experience) the best approach is to be polite when you call them, sound a bit reluctant that you might have to leave them but give a rough idea of the best offers you can find elsewhere (having done your research first), and see what they come back at you with. I myself have been guilty in the past of letting auto-renewals proceed without shopping around but am now paying £120 for a well-known car breakdown service that quoted me £900 for renewal, and £27 for a well-known broadband provider that quoted me £90 for renewal. They just got too greedy in the end, I think if you don't query a couple of small annual increases their algorithm tells them to try and get away with a huge one.

The minutes to that meeting (as tabled via Hansard) are in my opinion a fair bit more revealing than that Labour Home article. In particular the comments by Jon Trickett about Featherstone Pride In Place (who have £2m in funding every year for 10 years from the government) are interesting: "The (Pride In Place) board has said that it is prepared to make a substantial contribution to the acquisition of the stadium and the surrounding land. It has been difficult to put this together, but the board is unanimous, and, led by the by the chair Kay Binnersley, we are now in a position to say that, when the money arrives from the Government in the next financial year, it can then be made available to the RFL. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-10-28/debates/063B6E6F-7938-40EC-A027-3C92BC8C9375/RugbyLeagueClubs Unfortunately it looks like there is going to be some political wrangling going on in the background as a Featherstone Reform councillor has put out a public post having a go at Trickett for "attempting to take credit for the phoenix club that will be made possible through a Reform Council's decision". I'm sure all we care about is getting the club back rather than arguing over who gets credit for it. Personally I thought the Reform-led Wakefield council meeting about the club was quite balanced and acknowledged that the money they were proposing to give to the RFL to help buy the ground was part of the RL resilience fund, and one of the Reform councillors at that meeting put out a fairly impassioned plea for the RFL to "work constructively with Featherstone Pride in Place and the board there and the wider community stakeholders around the future of the stadium and associated land holdings." That councillor and Trickett appeared to be singing from the same hymn sheet as far as I could tell so hopefully political point-scoring on any side won't get in the way of saving the club. One other thing that's clear that we had been in a bit of doubt about before, whatever acquisition happens of the ground, we are clearly talking about the surrounding land etc not just the stadium itself.

A couple of points of interest in local MP Jon Trickett's piece in the Wakefield Express yesterday (or at least on their website. He talks about the importance of the club to the community and then adds: "I am pleased the administrator has recognised that and is prepared to sell for less than a purely commercial price. We believe it can be acquired for about £1 million." It sounds like the "pieces are being put together" still in his words, and adds that long-term he would like to see the ground back in community hands rather than the RFL part-owning the assets forever. https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/politically-speaking-with-jon-trickett-mp-featherstone-rovers-belong-to-the-people-of-featherstone-9317462?fbclid=IwY2xjawVReQxleHRuA2FlbQIxMABwZG9mAWJyaWQRMEhtenBjaUc0VlVBcjJvbEhzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEfPwo-WCTbDof0kKvshb575ZOXZITI1KWKfPxwu-gocg68jASd1xikgWUWnbk_aem_tkshNk1MYw9wFF29cQU4pg

Good to see you back Colin.

I think that might turn out to be correct, though what each club's cap will be will depend on their revenue. The Barrow chairman posted on social media last month that his club are one of only 3 that will have the £500k salary cap next season, having managed £1m revenue this season. You'd presume that we will be on the minimum £250k cap if we return next season, that has to include contract payments, match appearance bonuses, win/loss money, employer national insurance and pension contributions, travel expenses, flights and accommodation. Divide that by say a 24-man squad and presumably we will be fishing in the player pool of £5-10k salaries rather than, say, £30-£40k that might have been more typical of previous seasons.

We had a team which was probably quite expensively-assembled in 2025 playing entertaining rugby with Hampshire, Reynolds, Aekins, Jones, Vuniyayaywa, Wynne, etc, the likes of whom are presumably going to be well out of reach given the new salary cap etc, yet despite reaching the play-offs and the 1895 final the crowds were pitiful.

You mean nobody told you when they did the last county boundary reshuffle?

The more venerable amongst us will remember that we have discussed this issue a few times in the past, perhaps the most recent one being a couple of years ago.

That absolutely mirrors my views. RIP Harry.

Absolutely, I'm sure most of us feel the same way, I think we're all fed up of having to read embarrassing stories about the club in recent years.

That will come if/when the successful club is announced. The RFL, and other sports organisations for that matter , tend to make only the blandest of public statements even when a decision has been reached, and that will be directed by their legal advisors - check out what they said back in January when we were denied the license, it was just a cursory statement about not meeting the required standards, they don't say more than they have to because they will be constantly aware of the threat of legal challenges. It's been a similar case this week withe the Crusaders situation, the RFL put out a short, bland situation along the lines that Cru hadn't been able to satisfy their requirements, meanwhile the Cru owner is all over social media having a go at the RFL and talking about legal avenues etc, in my opinion the RFL are under instruction by their legal advisors to be as tight lipped as possible and that's why we rarely get much feedback from them about governance decisions. Personally I'm less frustrated now than I was a few weeks ago because the developments with the council and RFL looking set to buy the ground suggest we should get some positive news fairly soon. I can totally understand why the consortia involved might not even want their identities revealed yet given the nature of social media but if we do get a consortium announced things should develop fairly quickly then.

I'm done with you, you're going off at a different tangent with every post.

Sorry but that's a ridiculous take, I never said it was more strategically important, I talked about the community and culture being closely entwined with that of the area they represent and the history being a big part of the game. But in any case this should be discussed in the Featherstone thread if anywhere, not in the Crusaders thread, because the issue for Crusaders seems to be whether or not they are being treated differently in terms of the financial securities they are being expected to provide. Again, I will remind people that Featherstone were denied a license in January for the 2026 season because the sole bid did not "meet the required governance criteria.".

I mentioned in an earlier post that the council leader stated that around £1.3 million of the £2 million had been used.