: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 am  

jourdmart wrote:

You can't compare relative finishes when we were in differnt leagues.

Course you can.
The fact that you were in a LOWER league means WE are superior thats the point i am trying to make.

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:04 pm  

stantrin wrote:

Course you can.
The fact that you were in a LOWER league means WE are superior thats the point i am trying to make.

So shall we take into account pre-1999?

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:11 pm  

Fully wrote:

Each to their own but it it clear that Castleford have been superior for the majority of the last decade.

The arguement is the last decade

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:13 pm  

deeHell wrote:

Wakefield missed the first 3 seasons of SL, the first season was out of our control, after we was evicted from the SL project in a act of gross injustice.

Castleford have missed 2 seasons of SL due to not been able to cut it on the field. Two embarrassing relegations, on both occasions the fatal blow coming from Wakefield.

You also have to consider Castleford great fortune in staying in SL. If the franchise system hadn't been introduced Cas would of been relegated last season, which imo would of been justice. You should be punished not rewarded for having such an uncompetitive season.

A change in the rules for play off qualifying also benefited Cas, any other year a 8th place finish would got you jack!

Wakefield are a better club, deal with it!

You werent included because you werent good enough, if you dont know why you dont know enough about rl for me to bother to explain that to you. You missed those seasons as you werent good enough to compete at the elite level, otherwise not only would you have been included in the first place but you would have been good enough to gain promotion sooner (please tell us what its like to be anything but champions when in nl1, or whatever the name was then, as we wouldnt know anything about that like your selves.

Its been wakefields good fortune that in none of the many seasons where you finished 11th, no team was relegated from 11th place, if that rule had been in place in any of those years its doubtful wakefield would have made it back to sl.

As for last year it was made clear to all clubs that blooding youngsters was more important than league position, castleford took this on board and played a number of home grown kids instead of filling the team up with a bunch of aussie journey men (we didnt lower our selves to including 16 overseas players in our 17 just to avoid finnish at the bottom).

Erm cas finished 7th not 8th, showing the level of your knowledge there.

The highlights of your tenure in sl have been finnishing 5th (something we have done twice to your once) a challenge cup semi (which we have also done, and we we were nearer to winning it) and less play-off appearances than us, and how many play-off games have you actually won again? we've been all the way to the final eliminator.

Since on average we finish higher than you, have been in the play-offs more often, have been more succesful in the playoffs, have spent more seasons in the elite competition, i think its obvious than in the sl era we have been the better team.

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:15 pm  

stantrin wrote:

Course you can.
The fact that you were in a LOWER league means WE are superior thats the point i am trying to make.

So when you spent more time out of the elite division we were the superior team, for longer yes?

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:17 pm  

SimonBarrett wrote:

So you are just discounting our 2007 and 2005 seasons???

It is not our fault you were not in the league (well l suppose you could argue that point ).

So its ok for him to discount the seasons you werent in sl, but when we arent in sl it should be counted? ok........

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:35 pm  

stantrin wrote:

2 relegations and a wooden spoon.
How can you say that.

And? Three 1996-1999 you weren't in SL. The past is past.

I could say: Two CC Semi-Finals, four play-off appearances.

In all honesty, what happened five years ago won't be taken into account for the next round of licences. It will be what happens in the licensing period.

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:18 pm  

pyeman wrote:

So when you spent more time out of the elite division we were the superior team, for longer yes?

He'll say no.

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:42 pm  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

Regarding paragraph two. The first time we were relegated it was not the fatal blow from Wakefield. If you bother to find out we had to batter whoever we were playing that day and your lot had to be battered by whoever you were playing that day. We also saved your teams bacon in 2000 ( IIRC ) by beating Salford at their ground and the thank you from the Wakefield team to ours was, I think, a crate of booze ( do correct me if I'm wrong ). So have Wakefield always been competitive in SL ?

In 2002 (not 2000) you beat to Salford on the last day off the season to qualify for the play offs! A win for Cas would of done Wakey good as long as they beat Wires at home. The Castleford team and the fans motivation that day was to make the play offs. Don't try and make out that it was noble crusade by Cas to do their neighbours a big favour! It as just favourable circumstance on our part.....FACT!

: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:45 pm  

deeHell wrote:

In 2002 (not 2000) you beat to Salford on the last day off the season to qualify for the play offs! A win for Cas would of done Wakey good as long as they beat Wires at home. The Castleford team and the fans motivation that day was to make the play offs. Don't try and make out that it was noble crusade by Cas to do their neighbours a big favour! It as just favourable circumstance on our part.....FACT!

Similarly, Wakey's 'actions' to 'send us down' were equally nothing to do with Cas, hasn't stopped you and your breathren banging on about them for the past 5 years though...