The thing is we can all argue hard and long about how this system or that system has failed to expand the game , the point now is given what we currently have , how do we keep it

What should happen with regard the Crusaders now , if the reports in the sun are to be believed then the sport doesn't have the money to finance expansion , so do we have no choice but to take whatever deal is offered , even if that means they move to Wrexham ?

The problem I have with expansion (such as it is) is the cack handed, amateur and stupid, utterly stupid, way in which it is managed.

The costs of such inept management are not solely borne by the imploded expansion club, but also by the viable clubs ommitted to accomodate them, the sport as a whole and future expansion clubs.

If it's going to be done, at least let's have it done right.

I am almost certain someone said this in 1896. Except they were probably talking about such new fangled places as Brighouse. We haven't done alot better since, so 'appen they were right. Keep RL local!

So what explains: Bowls, Table Tennis, Squash, Badminton, Netball, for instance, being played everywhere? did they have loads of money? I bet they have generated far far less than RL but are pretty widely spread out.

Perhaps they were magicians? Or all millionaires?

Or, how about this one for a crazy, off the wall idea, let's give the expansion club the best possible chance to succeed! I know it's wacky but maybe we could give it a go?

By the way, which clubs have been excluded by the RFL?

Do they have full time 25 man squads? and running costs of a stadium? Marketing and admin departments? Ground staff? full time coaching teams? Finance departments?

How much does a table tennis bat cost?

Not even sure what you are saying mate?

You agreeing or disagreeing here?

With what?

Never said they were going to take over the world, only that they exist and that's [iexactly[/i the point, how much is a rugby ball and 13 volunteers?

I think on that basis RL is a world wide sport then.

Can't be, because when it comes to RL, this level is called a 'joke' or a 'farce' or 'just 13 blokes running round a pitch'.

We are talking F/T proper team sport here , not hobbies

Some of that, I agree with. It's unbelievable that after the disaster of the PSG visa/registration cock-up, the RFL have allowed it to happen in another attempted expansion club. It's also gutting that they've managed to once again be taken in by a financial backer who talks long-term but acts short-term. But then, when you're as desperate for any sort of wealthy backers as our sport is, I guess you become wilfully blind.

What I don't agree with is the idea, which has tremendous staying power on these forums, that somehow Celtic are occupying a seat previously labelled "Widnes", or Catalans are occupying a similar chair labelled "Leigh" (which was argued by many opponents of Catalans at the time). They're not. There were 14 places up for grabs, some of them were dead certs, and there was a dogfight for the last 3 or 4. Crusaders no more replaced Widnes in the licensing application than Wakefield or Salford did. Yet Wakefield and Salford attract no fraction of the vitriol which pours onto the Welsh. I also think that it's no small leap of faith for anyone who is currently saying that they knew Celtic wouldn't be viable to suggest that there are viable certainties waiting in the wings up north. After all, when the license decisions were taken, Widnes were a financial basket case, and that's not the only time they have been. Doncaster also put in a bid, and they weren't so much building on sand as on thin air. The decision to award a license to Celtic was no more barking than it would have been to award one to Widnes, or Salford, for that matter. It may have been a risk, but it didn't at the time seem like much more of a risk than a number of other options, so let's not get carried away suggesting that there were rock solid alternatives - there weren't, and still aren't, although I hope Widnes do now have the solidity they've lacked since the late eighties, and Salford's stadium does eventually get built.




Trolls ?

You are the person who on this (and other unmentioned message boards) is reknowned for being a Cassandra of biblical proportions with your endless whining about how grim a failure everything is, are repeatedly slapped down by people who actual know something about RL outside the M62, and you call [ime [/ia troll ?

Don't make me point out again, as I have done repeatedly in other places, that what I have forgotten about RL in the south east, both professional and amateur, is far more than you will ever know with your pretence that because your dad used to take you to watch Coventry you are the fountain of knowledge on all things outside the M62.

I know exactly what state London was in 1995, because I was playing in an amateur club and going to the pro club as a fan. Both the amateur league and the pro club were dying on their s. What happened in 1995 when London were parachuted into SL, top-down, which they were by Maurice Lindsey, without winning promotion and without bidding for a license, was the saving of RL in London at all levels. Since that time, despite the difficulties of the Broncos/Quins, the picture has improved beyond all recognition, and I doubt there'd be anyone involved in running the game down here who thinks that the improvement in London RL at all levels would have happened had London Broncos not been created and placed in SL. London are only in SL because they were put there to give the game a presence in the national capital, just as Crusaders were created to give the game presence in Wales, and Catalans in France. To say that the current Quins are some sort of organic growth from what was created in Fulham in 1980 is utter cock, and merely demonstrates the innacurate drivel you regularly spew from your smelly bedroom of gloom.

And while I'm at it, how dare you misrepresent my views, you snivelling little toerag ? I in no way want the semi-pro leagues "shut down", although I do believe the should operate prudently at a level they can afford. I do think NL3 is not the best model for the amateur game, but that makes me one of hundreds involved in the amateur sport who think likewise. Despite that, I'm also on record as saying that as long as the clubs in NL3 want to play there then that's up to them, because ultimately as amateurs not taking the game's shilling they're entitled to make their own path. If you're so bitter about being continually shown up as a know-nothing no-mark on these and other boards, that you have to try and lie to discredit those who regularly show you up for the bird you are, then go find something else to do. Like get your hand out of your trousers and find a sport you can follow whose other fans don't move away when you sit in the stands near them.

Now there's a discussion going on here between those who actually know things, rather than just make them up like yourself. So run along and go take some ecstasy to cheer up, or have sex if you're old enough, and if the lasses haven't all run away from your miserable whinging. But don't try and lie about what I believe again or you'll make me really cross, and then I may just have to tell your mum you're irritating the grown-ups and she'll take your pocket money supply away.

Great, great post Roy

I take your point and perhaps I should have described the ommitted club as "more immediately viable" rather than "viable.

However, if for some reason Celtic withdrew their bid do you suppose that no other team would have had that place?

Geographical expansion, if it is so vital to the sport should not be included in the bidding process. The RFL should map out their strategy for expansion and explain it to the clubs and the fans, justifying why it is so important, how it will benefit the game, how much will be invested and so on.

Why can the RFL not market this idea in carefully selected regions, where expansion is desireable and build a database of interested parties. Perhaps there are organisations with facilities that they would like additional useage from, perhaps there are investors that the RFL could match up with these organisations to see if we can get a meeting of minds so that we are working to a plan which everyone can understand and support.

As a candidate for expansion, which fits into the plan, becomes apparent then that club should be given all the support it needs, over a sustained period of time to make it work. Building the infrastructure and competence to run a full time RL club in SL (adopting best practice from the existing clubs and the RFL), so that we don't get such things as players deported and teams playing 120 miles away from the area where all the effort has gone into.

I would like to see expansion at a slower geographical rate, as explained before. I think that (depending what happens to Celtic) we should be targeting the midlands and joining the dots between Yorkshire and London.

This would maximise travelling supporters (helping the finances of the new club(s)), give an opportunity of something approaching a derby match for the new club and for the same reasons provide Quins with some "local" games. Perhaps that might create a bit more interest darn sarf too.

The past is the past and irrelevent. If hypothetically speaking it takes 20 years of a Welsh domestic league for a Welsh SL team to be ready (I know other variables have an effect) then the 108 years they didn't have one is irrelevent. Likewise if it teakes 9 years of increases juniors from having one French SL to support another one then the 111 years beforehand are irrelevent. The game has done lots of wrong in the past but that doesn't mean we need to recklessly overcompensate now. Slowly is better

We agree


The only team there that would be a worse idea than Crusaders is Doncaster. Crusaders were always going to fail and Widnes while you can never prove things 100% were far more likely to. The only debate is whether a 12 team SL would be better and I am uncertain. I agree the only reason people opposed Catalans is from their clubs point of view or the way it was carried out, though Crusaders this wasn't the case as they were terrible. I have always been very pro-Catalans, though what were your views on Crusaders before they came in (legitimate question) as most of the aggressive expansionists were rabidly pro them and have pretended they never were


Actually this is not entirely fair as while some of your views on the pro game are similar to those of the trolls and very aggressively put like one, you aren't the same as you have contributed to developing the game at an amateur level a lot, so for that you aren't in the same bracket as SmokeyTA who cares nothing for the game below SL, you just happen to share his views on the pro game


A lot of it was money from SL and there was more going round and yes it wouldn't have happened organically (though they had been close to promotion to the 1st division for a couple of years so they would have likely gone up soon anyway if they got the backing they got later). They weren't necessarily completely ready but they were far more ready than Crusaders


Championship 1 needs to look at where it is I agree, but a franchised Championship could stay at this level (or the slightly lower one it is at next yeat due to the economic climate at least). yiu have very often said you see the Championship as worthless and doing nothing for the game, not the same as saying it should be shut down granted, but pretty aggressive views all the same. RLCN I would support removing if there were something better to replace it with, but seems there is no viable alternative for some of the clubs (the RLCP South has expanded too fast and is in a mess so a RLCN South is out of the question). I do think it was too much too soon at the time, but now while it needs looking at I'm not sure what they can do to improve it, aside from exchange the odd clubs now and again. I'd like to see the old semi-regional set up back again but not sure where they'd get the teams from. I guess your views have softened to it over time, though I guess so have mine as I realised separate RLCN North and South aren't a viable alternative (though if they found the better clubs somewhere else to play I wouldn't object to the rest being spread in the RLCP divisions


I suggest you read the AUP, it is rants like this that make you look like one of the trolls (in fact very similar to Smokey TA only much more aggressive)

For the record of the rest of the site, me and Roy Haggerty had an argument on either this forum or another one years ago about whether the RLC should aim to lengthen the season so as not to rely on RU players (which I agreed with) or whether it didn't matter (which he said) and somehow he still has a grudge against me. It doesn't matter if we agree on more than we disagree it will always be an argument because we don't get on, so no point continuing it really

Have heard today that the Crusaders look like moving lock stock and barrel to Wrexham where the money man there is Geoff Moss who heads up Elegant Resorts in Chester.
Newport could not raise the cash however they are looking to play three or four games in South Wales however it stills needs Leighton Samuels to sell the shares and the problem is Wrexham are willing to take most of the debt but not pay for doing so
Two are in the frame for a new Championship 1 side in South Wales one being a former director of the Ospreys who has fallen out with them.

That's good news, although always got to be wary of people that have fallen out, though multiple interest is good news. Do you know where they're likely to be based? Assume it's just one club for now, but 2 at that level would be a possibility in the future.

Is this for next year or 2011?

Very true. Samuels fell out with the the Welsh rugby union over the Warriors rugby union set up didn't he?
Not sure when any news teams would be looking to enter the Championship (1). 2011 would seem a sensible idea.

This is possibly one of the most ignorant posts I have read on here from someone who claims to be knowledgable about the game's history.

The only reason you are questioning an "inclusive nature" is because it would fit in nicely with your theory that the vast majority of rugby fans don't agree with plonking a rugby team in a new area with no planning but a rich backer (for now) which somehow makes them inclusive flatcappers. My whole theory behind the continuum and how anyone to the otherside of someone's place on it is a flatcapper seems to be working rather well again here!

Why is it so geographically limited? You have to look at the obstacles to answer that question. You blame RL's inclusive nature, but if it was inclusive, would we try and set up teams in South Wales, etc? And how does us being inclusive stop them from supporting these ventures? Did you ever stop to think that maybe the lack of a free gangway between rugby league and rugby union might have had something to do with it? How many people would want to come and try this new and unproven game at the risk of not being able to go back to their old game due to restrictions? Then there is the lack of a media presence, lack of finance, lack of a decent administration, and it soon seems to make more sense as to the reasons why RL has struggled to grow up until the 90s. 114 years becomes 22 years.

Considering people are saying it can take about that long for a club to become established anyway in the bottom-up fashion, and the amount of times we've squandered money on quick fix top-down expansion, maybe the teams might have been coming through by now. If we'd have layed that money into the foundations from DAY ONE, we might start to see the rewards coming through. As it is, we've never really gone all out on grassroots but instead gone for the top-down rushed methods that have continually failed.

So basically, my answer to the ignorant question is that it is because we as a sport have had more obstacles to overcome than most other sports in our 114 year history, and now that we finally have a good position to expand, we blow it on trying to rush things.

People that oppose the top-down method of expansion don't oppose expansion. This is another case of the "if you don't agree with the super rushed expansion*zi type expansion-at-all-costs method then you oppose expansion/are a flatcapper" that goes along with my continuum theory.

And the myth about "there isn't a single example of the bottom-up method working" is back. Bradford, Castleford, Huddersfield, Hull FC, Hull KR, Leeds, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington and Wigan. 10 teams out of 14 that went from amateur to semi-pro to full time rugby clubs and are still here. They certainly weren't top-down.

And the fact that you are trying to compare Celtic with Catalans is an absolute joke. It really is embarrassing that you are trying to say that adding Celtic, a club formed 4 years ago that dominated the lower leagues on the back of a rich-backer and no local players, is the same as Catalans, a club formed by the merger 8 years ago between a club 74 years old and a club 44 years old and joined a year later by another club in an area steeped in rugby league tradition and already has a fairly large talent pool to pull from that just needed to step up to full-time training.

Celtic joining SL is in NO WAY the same as Catalans. They are not even nearly identical. Catalans is in a well established rugby league area of France. Celtic was located in a pretty baron area of rugby league in Britain.

I want rugby league to expand. This is why I oppose views such as plonking teams in areas and hoping for the best. I think top-down can work in some instances. But not in the way the RFL has continued to progress with it. It has NEVER worked, so why not look for new ways?

Catalancs, REALLY? Say it ain't so!

The former director of the Arsepreys would be Mike Cuddy and he is a FAR bigger p*r*i*c*k than Leighton Samuel. ABSOLUTELY loathed by everyone in Bridgend.

Samuel screwed up the Warriors by selling them to the WRU. Cuddy part funded the buy-out (along with all the Union "regional" "benefactors"icon_wink.gif on the assumption that against all WRU promises, the club would be shut down and their resources shared out amongst all the conspirators. Bridgend Ravens then became part of the Arsepreys "region" and were ignored by our new "masters" apart from harvesting all our best players. Bridgend were relegated last year.

I can tell you ocnfidently that NO RL pro club will succeed in S Wales unless Bridgend supports it. And Bridgend f*u*c*k*i*n*g HATES Jabba Cuddy.

Personally I'd like to beat Mike Cuddy to death using Leighton Samuel as a weapon.

So that's it then. The insular parochial flatcappers have won! There is NO future for RL in Wales.

With the exceptions of Dragons and Quins, the triumphant flatcappers can now comfortably walk to all away fixtures, without distrurbing the ferrets in their trousers, release their homing pigeons and walk home again before their clogs start to spark.

So you don't like him then?




Nobody has won. If anyone is that insular that they'd want a RL club to die or an area to not have RL, then they will never win. I have never seen anyone post such things about RL in South Wales though.

I wish people would stop all this nonsesense that when it comes to expansion, if you disagree with a method of it you are a flatcapper. I don't see what it is proving other than you are just as bad as the group of people you are stereotyping others to be like, only the opposite way around.

Quote ="Wellsy13"People that oppose the top-down method of expansion don't oppose expansion. This is another case of the "if you don't agree with the super rushed expansion*zi type expansion-at-all-costs method then you oppose expansion/are a flatcapper" that goes along with my continuum theory. And the myth about "there isn't a single example of the bottom-up method working" is back. Bradford, Castleford, Huddersfield, Hull FC, Hull KR, Leeds, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington and Wigan. 10 teams out of 14 that went from amateur to semi-pro to full time rugby clubs and are still here. They certainly weren't top-down. And the fact that you are trying to compare Celtic with Catalans is an absolute joke. It really is embarrassing that you are trying to say that adding Celtic, a club formed 4 years ago that dominated the lower leagues on the back of a rich-backer and no local players, is the same as Catalans, a club formed by the merger 8 years ago between a club 74 years old and a club 44 years old and joined a year later by another club in an area steeped in rugby league tradition and already has a fairly large talent pool to pull from that just needed to step up to full-time training. Celtic joining SL is in NO WAY the same as Catalans. They are not even nearly identical. Catalans is in a well established rugby league area of France. Celtic was located in a pretty baron area of rugby league in Britain. I want rugby league to expand. This is why I oppose views such as plonking teams in areas and hoping for the best. I think top-down can work in some instances. But not in the way the RFL has continued to progress with it. It has NEVER worked, so why not look for new ways?'" Again, as on the other thread, you are misreading what I am writing. I'm not in favour of inventing teams and plonking them down willy nilly. I do, on the other hand think that the idea that a pro side can be built up from amateur beginnings is something that is often cited as an alternative to franchise/licensing expansion, and yet has never provided us with a new pro side. I also - again - did not say that anyoen who was lukewarm or negative about Crusaders opposed expansion full stop. I said "Opponents of expansion should be honest...". If you really think there are no opponents of expansion in our sport then you need to pull your head out of the sand, because there are. There are also those who pay lip-service to the idea that the game should expand, but then cover that with so many caveats about "what needs to be done first", that they're clearly not in the business of actually alowing it to happen in the lifetime of anyone who reads this mesageboard. And there's a range of other opinions. It is not me, who is grouping these into two monolithic camps of expansionists and flat-cappers. You need to read what I write, and not what you think I write, or there is no point to this. For example, I did not say that Catalans and Celtic were identical cases. Yet you devote a paragraph to suggesting that I did. There are similarities. There are differences. But the point stands - both were effectively created solely to occupy a SL place which would be awarded to them on the basis of their potential. Neither was a case of organic growth of the sort usually advocated by those who oppose any such venture. There are people on these boards who were absolutely implacable in their opposition to Catalans, and who said that as an artificial construct it would never work, and as France didn't have the players it would never work, and as they were being given a place in SL without winning promotion, then it was unfair/bogus/doomed to failure/precisely how expansion shouldn't happen, etc etc etc. Some of those same people are now pontificating that Les Cats was exactly the sort of model they had in mind because of history/playing resources/heritage blah blah blah, while saying the same thing about Crusaders as they did about Cats. I have no doubt that had Crusaders been an outstanding success then those people would have been telling us how they were a based on a thriving amateur Welsh conference, and "rugby" heritage, and how coming through the lower leagues helped prepare them etc etc. By the way, I'm not sure that you can decry anything that anyone else says as ridiculous if you cite as evidence of successful bottom up "expansion" : Bradford, Castleford, Huddersfield, Hull FC, Hull KR, Leeds, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington and Wigan. I don't think you meant that, but then maybe that's how important it is to read carefully what people say. By the way, if you're still in any doubt about whether Catalans were viewed in the same way as Crusaders by similar people, I've dredged up a thread for you : viewtopic.php? ... sc&start=0 That's only one which I found after about 5 minutes looking. The site doesn't seem to have much before then, and I didn't want to spend too much of my Saturday digging it all out, but anyone who was knocking around the boards in 2003-2006 can recall how Catalans would never work because of all the reasons which are currently being cited as to why Crusaders could never work. Never assume that just because you are consistent, that other people cannot be hypocritical.

Quote ="Wellsy13"People that oppose the top-down method of expansion don't oppose expansion. This is another case of the "if you don't agree with the super rushed expansion*zi type expansion-at-all-costs method then you oppose expansion/are a flatcapper" that goes along with my continuum theory. And the myth about "there isn't a single example of the bottom-up method working" is back. Bradford, Castleford, Huddersfield, Hull FC, Hull KR, Leeds, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington and Wigan. 10 teams out of 14 that went from amateur to semi-pro to full time rugby clubs and are still here. They certainly weren't top-down. And the fact that you are trying to compare Celtic with Catalans is an absolute joke. It really is embarrassing that you are trying to say that adding Celtic, a club formed 4 years ago that dominated the lower leagues on the back of a rich-backer and no local players, is the same as Catalans, a club formed by the merger 8 years ago between a club 74 years old and a club 44 years old and joined a year later by another club in an area steeped in rugby league tradition and already has a fairly large talent pool to pull from that just needed to step up to full-time training. Celtic joining SL is in NO WAY the same as Catalans. They are not even nearly identical. Catalans is in a well established rugby league area of France. Celtic was located in a pretty baron area of rugby league in Britain. I want rugby league to expand. This is why I oppose views such as plonking teams in areas and hoping for the best. I think top-down can work in some instances. But not in the way the RFL has continued to progress with it. It has NEVER worked, so why not look for new ways?'" Again, as on the other thread, you are misreading what I am writing. I'm not in favour of inventing teams and plonking them down willy nilly. I do, on the other hand think that the idea that a pro side can be built up from amateur beginnings is something that is often cited as an alternative to franchise/licensing expansion, and yet has never provided us with a new pro side. I also - again - did not say that anyoen who was lukewarm or negative about Crusaders opposed expansion full stop. I said "Opponents of expansion should be honest...". If you really think there are no opponents of expansion in our sport then you need to pull your head out of the sand, because there are. There are also those who pay lip-service to the idea that the game should expand, but then cover that with so many caveats about "what needs to be done first", that they're clearly not in the business of actually alowing it to happen in the lifetime of anyone who reads this mesageboard. And there's a range of other opinions. It is not me, who is grouping these into two monolithic camps of expansionists and flat-cappers. You need to read what I write, and not what you think I write, or there is no point to this. For example, I did not say that Catalans and Celtic were identical cases. Yet you devote a paragraph to suggesting that I did. There are similarities. There are differences. But the point stands - both were effectively created solely to occupy a SL place which would be awarded to them on the basis of their potential. Neither was a case of organic growth of the sort usually advocated by those who oppose any such venture. There are people on these boards who were absolutely implacable in their opposition to Catalans, and who said that as an artificial construct it would never work, and as France didn't have the players it would never work, and as they were being given a place in SL without winning promotion, then it was unfair/bogus/doomed to failure/precisely how expansion shouldn't happen, etc etc etc. Some of those same people are now pontificating that Les Cats was exactly the sort of model they had in mind because of history/playing resources/heritage blah blah blah, while saying the same thing about Crusaders as they did about Cats. I have no doubt that had Crusaders been an outstanding success then those people would have been telling us how they were a based on a thriving amateur Welsh conference, and "rugby" heritage, and how coming through the lower leagues helped prepare them etc etc. By the way, I'm not sure that you can decry anything that anyone else says as ridiculous if you cite as evidence of successful bottom up "expansion" : Bradford, Castleford, Huddersfield, Hull FC, Hull KR, Leeds, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington and Wigan. I don't think you meant that, but then maybe that's how important it is to read carefully what people say. By the way, if you're still in any doubt about whether Catalans were viewed in the same way as Crusaders by similar people, I've dredged up a thread for you : viewtopic.php? ... sc&start=0 That's only one which I found after about 5 minutes looking. The site doesn't seem to have much before then, and I didn't want to spend too much of my Saturday digging it all out, but anyone who was knocking around the boards in 2003-2006 can recall how Catalans would never work because of all the reasons which are currently being cited as to why Crusaders could never work. Never assume that just because you are consistent, that other people cannot be hypocritical.