I think there's some double-think going on which suits the prejudices of those who are ultimately opposed to any expansion because they fear that it threatens the place of smaller "traditional" clubs. There are people on these boards who were implacable in their opposition to Catalans, for example (just as they were to Crusaders, and as they are to Quins), who argued that Catalans needed to be "built up from the bottom" and start in the lower divisions and not be "parachuted in" too soon etc etc. All the objections raised to Crusaders, Quins and indeed any attempt to create a new club. Yet now that Catalans have been a success, those same people claim that actually Les Cats were really a heartlands club who were developed in a bottom-up way. Yet that's clearly not true. Catalans combine some of the things most hated by anti-expansionists : they were the result of a merger of established clubs, solely to obtain a place in the top flight. They never played in the lower leagues. They never won promotion. The idea that they're based in some sort of league heartland equivalent to humberside or West Yorkshire is based on a misconception about the state of RL in France - the RL "heartland" is almost entirely overlapped by the RU "heartland", and everywhere within it, RL is the junior partner.

In many ways, Crusaders followed a much more traditionalist-friendly method of entering SL - a lower league campaign, building local roots, and then applying for a license alongside every other club (Catalans were given special treatment without a formal licensing process). To suggest that they represent the failure of top-down franchising compared to the success of Les Cats bottom-up development is just plain wrong.

Yes, they did.

Union Treiziste Catalane played in the Elite League before joining SUper League. Let us at least get some facts right.

The problems the Crusaders face are a direct result of the RFL rushing them into SL ill prepared, without serious commitment from the money man and then leaving them to flounder (as evidenced by the deportation debacle and movement of the Magic weekend to Scotland).

If expansion of this type is to work it needs real, long term commitment from all parties.

Maybe a largeish cash bond deposited to the RFL would have ' focussed ' the mind of an investor Bill , what do you reckon ?

I think it's a slightly pedantic point, but I was referring to the lower leagues of pro rugby in this country.

2 years playing to different rules hardly constitutes a realistic lower league campaign , anybody that had any contact with the Celtic crusaders knew deep down they were nowhere near ready for SL

The issue now is how does the sport save the development done in South Wales ? , moving to Wrexham is not the answer

You wouldn't be wanting to wind up Smokey would you now?

firstly cause you were the person who didnt even know areas other than sydney where RL was dominant and 2ndly because someone like you using the expansion clubs LC & CC to back his argument is very funny

every post of yours just sticks to the conservative heartland script.

are you running for president or something of the anti expansion league

im not trolling.

how come other sports clubs were able to do it?

how come wigan and leeds were able to do it?

did they have access to a time machine

its not the national sport but they are certainly trying to make it so.

the way they back their sport 100% is a lesson for all of us, but more so you guys

you need expansion to succeed more than us to make the sport a whole lot bigger

youve got a whole nation of france which could give you critical mass

Quote ="bowes"I was referring to Dally's suggestion that the RFL should fund expansion with the logical conclusion. I have no idea how much extra money (if any) the RFL give the Crusaders though they have had an RFL task force running the club since July when they hit financial troubles. The debts would suggest they haven't been bailed out as such www.walesonline.co.uk/sports/rug ... -25253709/'" so what the AFL has been doing in nsw and queensland is the wrong way to go. and forcing more clubs down peoples throats who dont care wont work? it shows that top down expansion can work if its well funded. that was my original comment.

Quote ="bowes"I was referring to Dally's suggestion that the RFL should fund expansion with the logical conclusion. I have no idea how much extra money (if any) the RFL give the Crusaders though they have had an RFL task force running the club since July when they hit financial troubles. The debts would suggest they haven't been bailed out as such www.walesonline.co.uk/sports/rug ... -25253709/'" so what the AFL has been doing in nsw and queensland is the wrong way to go. and forcing more clubs down peoples throats who dont care wont work? it shows that top down expansion can work if its well funded. that was my original comment.

I think Super League will become an European compétition to face H Cup notoriety and NL1 will become the english first grade comp. I imagine Toulouse it's the last team playing into it. If they are ready and they join SL in 2 years, all other non english who wants enter in SL will have to ask direct integration like perhaps Paris or an other Great Britain team. Sorry for my poor english. you know my first language is catalan and french.

so leeds dont play RL any more? last time they played the sport they averaged more than 14,000. if they didnt play at a dump they could easily get double that.

if you think RL should stay a minority sport for the next century good for you

i think its up to the RFL to try and grow the game a lot.

so even when you are shown up you still stick with the argument.

brilliant

the question asked was an excellent one and your silly answer only highlighted it.

truly brilliant post

Well since I don't live in the heartlands maybe it just proves I know more about the game outside the heartlands than you

There is no script it is a paranoid fantasy of trolls (I can maybe give you the benefit of the doubt that you just believe trolls as opposed to being one and juts lack the intelligence to argue without the word flatcapper but I'm not certain)

Answer my point about your double standards though rather than typing illogical comments. I apply the same standards to all clubs, I didn't defend Doncaster's or Oldham's failings, not did I defend Gateshead's or Crusaders' failings this year thus I am consistent. I don't want special treatment for unviable clubs based on their age like you do (beyond maybe a few extra players in the overseas quota, unlimited is too many) and the 'failings' in heartland clubs you suggest we compare to PSG or Crusaders are trivial at best, a better comparison is Oldham or Doncaster and noone proclaims them for SL (though you used to for Doncaster)

Now i know you dont have any credibility on here anyway, but that comment is absolute rubbish. Even for you.

Oh and you really shouldnt comment on expansion when your not interested in doing it in your own country. Let us worry about our competition and you worry about yours.

Quote ="dally messenger"so what the AFL has been doing in nsw and queensland is the wrong way to go. and forcing more clubs down peoples throats who dont care wont work? it shows that top down expansion can work if its well funded. that was my original comment.'" If we could afford it then under very special circumstances it could be justified. However, the game can't www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... -mess.html If anything we might have to go back to 12 and cut the salary cap at some point. We don't have money to bail out a club like Crusaders, though I would hope to see something done to ensure a Championship or Championship 1 club stays around in South Wales. Before you say anything the same goes if a heartland club (or Harlequins) folds, just Crusaders are the one most at risk. The real problem is the removal of the 50% of turnover rule to just have a flat salary cap. That is the only flat cap harming the game and it causes clubs (like Hull KR) to recklessly overspend in the name of success when they couldn't before

Quote ="dally messenger"so what the AFL has been doing in nsw and queensland is the wrong way to go. and forcing more clubs down peoples throats who dont care wont work? it shows that top down expansion can work if its well funded. that was my original comment.'" If we could afford it then under very special circumstances it could be justified. However, the game can't www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... -mess.html If anything we might have to go back to 12 and cut the salary cap at some point. We don't have money to bail out a club like Crusaders, though I would hope to see something done to ensure a Championship or Championship 1 club stays around in South Wales. Before you say anything the same goes if a heartland club (or Harlequins) folds, just Crusaders are the one most at risk. The real problem is the removal of the 50% of turnover rule to just have a flat salary cap. That is the only flat cap harming the game and it causes clubs (like Hull KR) to recklessly overspend in the name of success when they couldn't before

This is rubbish. Anyone that opposes the Celtic way of expansion is not against expansion. You are stereotyping people, which is a form of prejudice. It is complete nonsense based on nothing other than a factless little theory that fits in nicely with why you think people oppose your views. "Well they're just selfish and are wanting to look after their own. They don't know what's best for the game, just themselves" and the like.


Again, utter rubbish. Some may have been opposed to both Celtic and Catalans. Many weren't. You are always going to get people that are against one thing or another thing. That's called divided opinion. But just because some people are against Celtic and some are against Catalans doesn't mean they are the same people. There were (and still are) significantly more people that were against Celtic compared to Catalans, for entirely different reasons. They are not one in the same and to suggest they are is ludicrous. It just fits in nicer with your theory of people who oppose Celtic.


Or, perhaps the ones that did oppose them have now shut up, and the ones that didn't are singing their praises?
Do you think had Celtic been a success in the same way as Catalans people would try and claim them as a heartland club? Because it would be very difficult seeing as there was no semi-pro league down there for decades or a team there for decades like Catalans; rather just a team made up four years ago?
They are in no way the same.


Again, you are stereo-typing that everyone who is against this kind of expansion is an anti-expansionist. And you've gone a step further and suggested what else they also oppose. You'll never win an argument with a stereotype.

Let's look at both sides of the coin rather than just the one that makes everyone that makes everyone with a different opinion to you fir into a stereotype:
Mergers - not everyone that opposes this kind of expansion is opposed to mergers as well. They are totally different things. It is ridiculous that you even bring this up. Even the hypocrit that is dally messenger, who claims to be super expansionist for SL, hates mergers. It doesn't matter what your opinions are on expansion, mergers are a different issue. Mutually exclusive.
Lower leagues - yes they did. The teams that formed them had done for decades. How many times had French teams beaten top NFP/NL teams in the Cup? Plenty. They did come through the lower leagues, just a different country's. Their next logical step was SL, not NL1. It was a poor argument not held by many (and certainly not held by everyone that opposes Celtic).
They never won promotion - no, they did not. You are right. The only mainly controversial thing about it. They were the first real franchise. But this isn't an argument about expansion, it is an argument about the structure of the sport and it's ladder. Had another club from the heartlands come in in a similar fashion, do you think that people would be OK with it? No, of course not. Which means it isn't an anti-expansion thing.
Based on a heartland the equivalent of Humberside or West Yorks - What a load of bull. No-one ever said that. No-one compared Catalonia to West Yorkshire. They are a heartland for the game in the sense that they have a professional structure of their own down their with many semi-pro clubs running for many years with an identity of their own, rather than something made up over night. The game is not alien to them.
And RU has nothing to do with anything. We are entirely overlapped by football. So what? We are a junior partner to football. Doesn't make us not a heartland, does it?



Crusaders ploughed their way through the lower leagues with a rich backer and few juniors. Technically, had their been no licensing and the league expanded to 14 teams, they'd be up there. But they'd also have been relegated straight after. I would not call Les Catalans bottom-up in the strictest sense as they came through a different path, but they certainly aren't top-down. You're trying to make excuses for Celtic by comparing them to Catalans and now gone a step further saying that their entry is on a better basis than Catalans. So why aren't they working?!

Your whole argument is based on a stereotype that whoever doesn't agree with top-down expansion is an anti-expansionist. Fortunately, stereotypes rarely fit, and your whole argument is based on something that is not: that being everyone that opposes Celtic's inclusion to SL having the same thoughts.

So no it doesnt then, it was a much inferior competition which you just said was superior even though it wasnt because as well as being an idiot, and hypocrite your also a liar, glad we have that cleared up then dally.



And i know where rl is played in aus i was just trying to draw you into making yourself look like an idiot again (for about the 20th time in the last fortnight).

When did wigan and leeds develop rl outside there own area? come on dally i want examples

you couldnt make it up

You couldn't, which is why we should leave the discussing for people who aren't complete idiots who contradict themselves time and time again.

Dally-free zone remember.

A wonderful rant. And entirely based on the premise that I argued that everyone who opposed Celtic opposed them for the same reason, and all opposed Catalans as well. Yet sadly, if you are able to read English, it's quite clear that's not what I said at all. Try reading again. I don't do blanket stereotypes. That's why I used the phrase :

"there's some double-think going on which suits the [iprejudices of those who are ultimately opposed to any expansion [/ibecause they fear that it threatens the place of smaller "traditional" clubs"

Your assumption is that this means anyone who was lukewarm on Celtic. Yet it clearly does not say that. Which makes the rest of what you wrote ultimately irrlevant.

I also used the phrase : "There are people on these boards who were implacable in their opposition to Catalans". Note that I didn't claim, at any point, that all those who opposed the Celtic move opposed Catalans.

So your rant about generalising is, I'm afraid, based on a mistaken reading on your part of what I said. Which is a shame, because you clearly put some effort into it.