I think you can overcook any "embarrassment to the game" at a time when Dean Richards is being banned for 3 years for orchestrating a fake blood injury in RU. I know which one's getting the most coverage.

Celtic are an embarrassment to themselves, however. Nobody expected great things in Year 1, but they needed to give their fans confidence that they were a stable, professional outfit, and not a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants ramshackle basket-case. Sadly, they're nearer the latter than the former. I fear for their short-term future, let alone their long-term one.

Once again, RL is let down by poor management.

Well, at least i'm safe in the knowledge that you mean Leigh and not my club. Phew.

Personally I just don't understand how anyone can gloat at the humiliating and inglorious exit of six committed players who helped Celtic win promotion from NL2, appeared in an epic NL1 grand final and helped invaluably in the club's formative seasons.

Whether here legally or not, all I know is that Jace Van Dijk, Damien Quinn, Tony Duggan, Mark Dalle Cort, Darren Mapp and Josh Hannay were good rugby league players I enjoyed watching every time.

The poster who mentioned the two disparate camps of RL fans was spot-on.

You miss so much to be thankful for when you're biased and I care more for the game as a whole than any particular team. Just hope Crusaders can recover and prosper from this because we need a competitive, thriving team in union-land.

You're doing it again

In the best traditions of the VT

' Link ' please

Couldnt agree more. When i think of the license awards i get angry at the RFL for making a cockup, YET AGAIN. Not at Celtic, or for that matter Salford, who also should not be in SL.

Since when have the ' haves ' had the same opinion as the ' have nots ' in any situation ' ?

What a load of tosh. There have been many instances of 'moronball' players being refused work permits to play in this country.

And subservience to SKY's interest - namely, 'spreading the game' when it seems clearer by the day that Celtic are a "ramshackle" and rag tag set up.

It is little wonder we isolate many form within our game. Sadly, they are often drowned out by those in some sort of psychosis that expansion can be achieved willy nilly whatever the expense it may occur.

In lots of situations actually.

And if you want a rugby league example I'll give you one...in Dec 1963 Bradford went bust but re-formed and re-started the following season.

Just about every club in Yorkshire, and some further afield, effectively gave them players to help re-form.

It used to happen a lot in rugby league - Leeds aided Bramley endlessly for instance - when all the clubs were regarded as part of a family and not cut-throat jealous neighbours as seems to be the case nowadays.

Was that when we all played in one big league to the same rules ?

As you say there are many cases of clubs helping each other out , and I'm sure there will be times it will happen again , I have posted many times about the need for clubs in the Championship to work together for the common good and I wish Celtic a prosperous future in SL

The RFL however , well that is a different kettle of fish

www.express.co.uk/posts/view/121 ... s-deported Interesting article.

www.express.co.uk/posts/view/121 ... s-deported Interesting article.

This is how you cause the problem you make expansion a black or white issue when it's not. You make it out like Celtic are a guaranteed success and you either support them or don't.

The reality as we have seen is far from different. There was a sizeable number of people against their inclusion because they weren't ready and it looks quite clearly like they weren't.

If Celtic were to fold within the next year they would have done the future expansion of the game [ifar[/i more damage than not taking a gamble on them ever would have done.

If Crusaders now play dumb and virtually everybody was in Britian while the VISA's were sorted out, then I can't see what further action can be taken if it also got past the rfl.

That WILL upset so many posters on here!

Yet were still one of the 14 best licence applications. Which must say something …

It's now been established that they lied. The club must incur some form of a penalty for this. Any establishment surely has a requirement to check if it's workforce is eligible.

Even if it's just poor management and nothing malicious then it should be dealt with.

It certainly does

It has? TBF, media reports "understand" that they hid their intention to play professional or semi professional sports. Not quite the same thing.

And not, incidentally, a charge that can be leveled at their employer, per se, given that they had them out publicly playing semiprofessional sport every week.

Indeed. Though I suspect what it says will depend on the person hearing.

I've no doubt that to some, it says "It just shows that they weren't really one of the 14 best applications and the RFL cheated to get them in".

To me it says: "The stated ambition from 2006 to move from NL2 to SL in three years was always, at best, ambitious. Fortunately or unfortunately, the 2006-7 Widens board then drove a great big, and ultimately fatal, hole through the middle of the most likely NL club's application, pushing the door wide open for Celtic. If you feel the need to find a villain of the piece in Celtic's SL status (and personally I don't) then the Widnes boardroom in 2007 is the place to look."

They pleaded guilty. Dang that's enough for me.

Though we don't know for certain what to (apart from being in the country under false pretences in previous years).

Do they need to be guilty of anything else? jeez, enough already with this incessant devil's advocate garbage....

Maybe you should sue the Daily Express.

Or maybe I should simply stand corrected – I'd copped the "pleaded guilty" but passed by the "to lying" while moving to the "the Express understands this relates to …".

My apologies, carry on …






edit: Though I still don't necessarily see the obvious link between "These employees lied …" and "The club must incur some form of a penalty for this" (especially bearing in mind that it was at the end of last year, iirc, that employers' responsibilities changed to positively checking that anyone they employ has a right to live and work in the UK, as part of the general tightening up of rules). But maybe that's just me.