Crusaders and Super League licensing – club statement

Crusaders Rl Tuesday 26 Jul 2011 11:42am

The Board of Directors at Crusaders have today confirmed that the club has not sought to renew its Super League licence for the seasons 2012 to 2014.

It is with regret that Crusaders have had to withdraw their application to the Rugby Football League for a three-year extension to their licence.

The club’s directors will now meet with Rugby Football League officials to discuss the future of rugby league in Wrexham and North Wales following the end of this season.

Crusaders Chief Executive, Rod Findlay, said: “This has not been an easy decision but after a lengthy and exhaustive examination of the club’s finances, our view is that Crusaders is not sustainable as a Super League club at this stage. Every other aspect of the application was strong and we now need to work to ensure that we retain those elements, particularly the community and player pathway programmes in North Walesd, an area where no rugby league was played 2 years ago.



Seems not to me.

It matters not that Cru withdrew the application it was weaker than another clubs, of course thats just my opinion and Cassandra disagrees.


The point is that just because they bailed out does not mean they would have been in.

No offence the Cru but the RFL got this one right.

So they were skint and had very few fans then, that stacks up against Wakeys bid just how.

Jeez they walked before being pushed, and i for one hope they become strong again.

Thats part of the problem though isnt it, they were never strong to begin with, revenue and attendances were never aligned or sustainable, getting people through the door is not the same as having full paying customers.
Its why people find it frustrating that the RFL prefer clubs to have benefactors rather than realistic sustainable business models. Bradfords problems are highlighted more than others because the profile is bigger and so are the numbers, but there is a wider issue for the RFL to try and grasp. They seem to skim over questionable business plans as long as someone picks up the tab each year.

________________________________________________________________________________________________


Every other aspect of the application was strong and we now need to work to ensure that we retain those elements, particularly the community and player pathway programmes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The BoD seemed to think they had a good chance of getting a licence IMO.
It's good to know they were going to be pushed before they told the RFL they were not going to re-apply . London was skint Bradford are skint they will stay. The Crusaders did the right thing and got demoted two divisions.

Sadly Wakey have been skint far too often but at the time of the last franchise Wakey presented a strong case, it would have been a nightmare for the RFL if they refused us entry only for Cru to fold in a matter of months, they already gambled with London and Bradford and possibly a few others.

Anyway its been a pleasure to discuss this with you and i think i'm guilty of de-railing a Bradford thread

No problem, always nice to have a bit of banter. That's what makes the world go around.

No, they got it wrong, right from the start

you should know better



London are assured a bankroll up to 2014.....there was no gamble involved.

P&R failed for many more years than franchising has been in place. It will fail again if reintroduced now. Probably best to give franchising a chance before going back to a system that we know doesn't work.

We are in the world of licenses, the RFL should have the power to transfer the license from one club to another. Meaning either Bradford get bought out and the Bulls wound up, if the RFL think the new club will add to SL they get the old Bulls license or scenario B they don't like the new owners, think the new Bradford club needs time to build and the license is either suspended or given to another club to come into SL next year. Isn;t that the point of licenses?

The RFL have a fairly simple question to deal with

Which is more important

The short term future of Bradford Bulls

The credibilty of the franchise system

A simple question, but a very difficult one to answer, either way they will upset a large part of the RL community

Good piece on RL from the BBC Website...

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/georgeriley/2012/07/bradford_bulls_cloud_hangs_ove.html[/url

Depressing. They shouldn't use the word "invest" though. No-one "invests" in a sporting club (well, not many in this country anyway). The "money men" are benefactors or hobbyists.

Bradford need to get back to basics and build up slowly again. Charge the going rate for their matches and cut their cloth accordingly. After this meltdown no-one expects them to be billy big-balls anymore so the pressure to be a top club is off.

For the RFL - they're going to have to take a hit unfortunately. The last two years have been pretty costly on the central funds, what with Crusaders and now the Bulls. Ah well, you live and learn .......

Because they don't get to gloat at Bradford fans if the Bulls aren't kicked out of the league.

If the Bulls are bought, then why is there a problem with them continuing their franchise? Newco or not, it's fundamentally the same club.

Far from a good piece. Don't talk about a cloud hanging over the semis, talk about the semis! There's enough Bulls articles out there without another adding nothing new to the story. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

The inevitable result of living in the fantasy world where our game, uniquely, can manage without wealthy backers. We introduced a crude system to deliberatley shut money out of the game with the idea that Wakefield would become Wigan, if only given a level playing field. Nonsense then, and nonsense now. Before i get flamed, i'm not saying scrap the cap, i'm saying design a much more intelligent system that lets rich people come in. Squad limits and debt limits is all you need. Yes, some clubs will dominate. Tough. Concentrate on what you can do to get your club into the 'elite' instead of asking for others to be handicapped.

It isnt a problem , but it does then mean that financial issues will never see a club have its licence removed, and the licence process is a complete sham, not that we didnt already know it

Is this the same standard that saw your club go bust whilst holding a license? The same standard that Bradford are currently setting? I have no doubts that Halifax are NOT up to a good enough standard to be able to compete in a "proper" Super League but there's some clubs up there that have frantically polished themselves, but as the saying goes . . . . .

Why can't you do both things at the same time? Who said that it has to be one or the other? The important thing is to safeguard the future of the game. The licencing issue is key but we can't just pretend this is as simple as "somebody broke a rule and now we must crush them".

Part of safeguarding the future of the sport is having credibility , and part of that is punishing things that damage the sport, now either the RFL didnt do their job when assessing the Bulls last licence aplication, or the bulls told huge lies

Somebody has to be punished, and as we know, a points deduction means absolutely nothing in a franchised comp, so what punishment do you suggest, financial?

Our credibility will be determined by what rules we put in place to stop it happening again during the next licencing phase. That may not be quick enough for some but it gives us time to get it right rather than trying to rush things through as we reach the climax of our season. I'm not suggesting we do nothing but the priority at the moment has to be assisting with getting new owners for the Bulls and completing their season. That may also mean apply a penalty either during this season or next.



I don't know what should be a reasonable penalty but I don't think relegation is one of them. Would the NRL just demote a club? Would the NFL? The MLB? These are sports that are similar in that they have franchised systems in which teams are not instantly replaceable. All three of these sports have dealt with issues far worse than ours yet they continue to grow because of the commitment to the bigger vision of improving their sport. I'm not sure that effectively consigning one of the sports strongholds to the outer wastes fits with that ambition and that should be something fans whose teams have been cast aside should be able to relate to.

How many times do we have to see a situation where we dont have rules to deal with misdemeanours that are not hard to imagine ? , when licencing was first brought in the RFL had several years to prepare, surely they could have had somebody coming up with various scenarios, and the punishments decided

So what penalty do you suggest? Points deductions mean nothing

It seems to me that the current favourites, like others are blackmailing the RFL , so should the RFL be blackmailed?

I'm glad to see your opinion of the Championships matches mine

That's fair enough but we haven't so we have to fix it correctly which will take time and can't be resolved in a few weeks.



I don't know because I'm not privvy to the precise internal workings of what's happened.



One person's blackmail is another's negotiating from a position of strength. We, as a sport, are not strong enough to force clubs into line because we do not have the same financial resources. I hate to keep mentioning American sports because some people have an aversion to them and think that they have nothing to teach us, which makes little sense. They have enough financial power to dictate what happens with the clubs. Our sport isn't in such a position and it requires movement from both the clubs and the RFL. I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself but if we had ten clubs outside Super League with successful business plans, stadiums and average attendances, chomping at the bit then the RFL are in a strong position. At best we have, what? Two to three teams who might meet a few of the criteria?

I don't think we have such a luxury of choice that we can afford to do without the Bulls. That viewpoint may afford more weight to bigger clubs than it does smaller clubs but that's life. When businesses go to the wall you're far more likely to find interest and investment saving a bigger one than you would a smaller one e.g. banking crisis. That may not be morally or politically correct but not everything is and occasionally we need to compromise those values in order to progress e.g. signing with Murdoch owned SKY.