So was it not Wakefield's fault they weren't included in SL, even if partly? Do Keighley and Widnes not have more of a claim to be aggrieved? Take off those blue, white and red glasses and see that Wakefield's destiny, like Castleford's, is in their own hands. This bitch fighting is getting very tedious, especially considering we have very little, if any, control over what happens at Red Hall in 1 and half years time.

God, we've got 1.5 years of this?

My point is in the last decade Wakefield have been the superior team.

In your own head. Unfortunately, the majority of other people, including neutrals, would probably disagree.

Over the past 5 years, yes. Over the 5 years from 1999 to 2004, no - consistently much lower.



FINAL LEAGUE PSOISTIONS:



Wakey Cas

2009 7 8

2008 8 12

2007 - -

2006 10 11

2005 - -

2004 6 12

2003 11 8

2002 11 6

2001 11 6

2000 10 5

1999 11 5



AVE: 9.4 8.1

2 relegations and a wooden spoon.

How can you say that.

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

).

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 ?

I get that to 6-4 to the mighty trin in the last 10 seasons. And by the way we finished 5th in 2009.

Try counting again.

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

Quite right - the table I looked at had the final weekend results missing.