I've not decided who is big enough. But barring a miracle like Abramovich taking over, certain clubs will never be big enough, that's just the way it is, and debating that as if it's a realistic and likely possibility just seems like a waste of time.

If a millionaire walked away because there were no guarantees that Wakefield would be in Super League regardless of whether they were good enough of not, then he was probably another Leighton Samuel character and the type we don't want in our game. Do you honestly think that the RFL would simply ignore a Championship club that was owned and properly run by a man worth hundreds of millions? Of course they would be a strong contender for a Super League place, providing the owner was in it for the right reasons. Are you trying to argue that they should have guaranteed him a Super League place for 2015, and isn't that exactly what you criticised them for doing with Samuel and Celtic Crusaders? Or is this different because Wakefield are a 'traditional' club and Celtic were not?

I'm not sure how you can blame licensing for a lack of investment in Championship clubs. As you constantly remind us, most of the Championship clubs aren't very attractive prospects for investors. I can't remember people queueing up to invest in these clubs before licensing was brought in, and certainly it hasn't hindered the likes of Widnes and Barrow, both of whom have attracted investment in recent years.

So what are the ' right reasons ' ?

Yes Championship clubs are not as attractive as a SL club , they never were and I havent ever suggested any different , however licencing has taken away the very last chance most clubs have of ever attracting that investement , and also at the other end , there is little to attract your average fan with no future outside the Championships

Yes Steve O Connor has got Widnes into SL , then again there are those among us who would suggest he was promised a SL spot 3 years ago , as for Mr Johnson at Barrow , lets see how long he is around after this licence application fails and there is no guarantees afterwards

Much like Mr Samuel was. IMO our game is on borrowed time

Because they want to invest in the sport and club long-term, rather than making a profit or having a bit of limelight and a plaything for a few years and then dumping it. I think it's pretty obvious what the right and wrong reasons for investing in a club would be.
As Widnes and Barrow have shown, no it hasn't. Just because your club doesn't currently have anyone wanting to invest in it, doesn't mean that no club will ever attract investment. I don't know why you are pushing this point when I have already illustrated two examples of clubs that have attracted significant investment during licensing, and also when there was hardly a flurry of investment before licensing.
It's funny that you are now making the same paranoid claims about Widnes as you were doing about Celtic Crusaders when Widnes were denied the first time. Why would the RFL have promised him a Super League place 3 years ago? What would the logic in that be? If Johnston sticks around at Barrow or not remains to be seen, but you can't use something that hasn't happened yet to try and back up your argument, they weren't a club with SL ambitions when he took them over and there's no evidence to suggest he will walk away if Barrow aren't accepted this time. I don't know where you have got the idea from that Super League will forever be a closed shop after 2012. There are no 'guarantees' that any team will get into Super League, nor were there any with P&R. Licensing provides a much safer environment for investors to put money into Championship clubs, since if they are run properly there is no risk of the team not performing on the field and the money and development going to waste. I don't know how you can argue that P&R was a more attractive system for investors, it clearly was much worse.

A profit



Why would they have promised Widnes a SL spot ? , clearly because it was a total disgrace that they told Widnes that the administration would not prelude them from applying , and then use that very reason to refuse them

This time there was a guarantee , there has been since SL was started , that now ends

Investors dont want ' safety ' they want glory , do you think Simon Moran wants ' safety ' ? , did he bring Andrew Johns for safety ?

Yes when we had P and R an invgestor knew exactly where they stood when they got involved , they knew if the stadium was good enough as the rules were plain , then they knew if they won the GF they were up , simple as

SL will become a closed shop unless a club implodes financially , unfortunatley the clubs below will be that weak there will be nobody to move up , therefore the whole game will suffer

Have you got anything to convince anyone that you haven't completely made this up?

The 'guarantee' is that if a club is good enough it will go up. It would be completely stupid if that wasn't the case and the strongest clubs weren't in the top league. There is now no guarantee that clubs that are not good enough will go up, no. And that's a good thing.

I think you have misunderstood my post, or the English language, or both. Warrington are a safe investment because the owner has a degree of control over what happens. Investing in a club where the entire sum of the investment and all the work done rests solely on one game, is not a safe investment.

Investors know where they stand now, rather than trying to build a team for one season on shaky foundations they now need to build a strong club from top to bottom. Why do you think that clubs will not be allowed into Super League if they are good enough? You are yet to point to any high-profile cases of investment before licensing. As far as I can tell, licensing hasn't really had any effect on the levels of investment, and indeed it provides a safer environment for potential investors to put in their money. If you think that a boom-and-bust mentality where clubs are expected to sign a bunch of players to compete for a single season is more secure than a system of sustainable growth, then you are a clown.

Why would sky ever pull the Plug? Unless the ratings decline sky have no reason to ditch Rugby League.

thats all ive got to add really.

Celtic Crusaders

The salary cap as long as it is properly administered ( unfortunatly the RFL have shown they apply this rule selectively ) prevents boom and bust

This sustainable growth you talk about , have you evidence of that ?

No I haven't got evidence, you don't need evidence for something like that, you can tell just by looking at the nature of it. Your argument is like trying to argue that black is white. The salary cap doesn't prevent the fact that you can build and invest for years and it still all comes down to one on-field performance, whereas with licensing you can build and invest for years and if you build to a high enough standard you will be rewarded with a SL place. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Celtic Crusaders tell you that if you are in the right place it doesn't matter how crap you are or how much you have been allowed to cheat several rules you will get in SL before other clubs that have strong foundations and potential for sustainable SL occupation

And sorry to remind you , but we are actually a sport , we don't go to look at the stands , we go to stand in the stands and watch what happens ON the pitch , maybe Hull FC should get the SL trophy now for having the best stadium , or Leeds for the biggest crowds , or W1 g4 n for producing the most players , or Quins for having the most cockneys , then we could not bother with the sport , it would save a fortune , it seems to me that is something you find difficult to grasp

You're right, despite it making absolutely no sense whatsoever, the RFL are going to adopt a system of putting weak clubs in the top division ahead of stronger ones. Get them out and let's have Mark Rowley in charge.
We are talking about encouraging a situation in which clubs can develop and compete realistically. Every sport needs good and appropriate administration for it to be successful. Your bizarre rant has nothing to do with anything and I don't really know why I bothered replying.

Who is Mark Rowley

I don't know why you bothered either

1. Any sport which allows the decisions for competition placings to be decided behind closed doors in a boardroom instead of on the pitch has lost all legitimacy as a sport.

2. It is not up to the governing body to 'protect' clubs from themselves, nor should they try - this argument is nonsense. Sport is business - clubs need to only spend what they have. The salary cap (properly enforced) can ensure this, as a protective measure & promote a healthy & entertaining competition.

3. Investment and promotion of the Championship will ensure the long term health of the game. But with no chance of promotion, investment (other than by along term fan done good) becomes nigh on impossible.

4. And no, before the kids start, I don't support a Championship team

Allan Rowley's alter-ego

I really do find it bizarre that people really do think that regarding what is on the field of play is secondary or tertiary to everything else.

In fact the ONLY thing that prevents the game being played anywhere is something that can be called a "ball".

It really is that simple.

The GAME is the key to everything else not the other way round.

Soccer, boxing, american football, tennis..or all raquet sports. In fact, I can't think of any sport that doesn't have an element of it's competition membership decided off the field of play.
In our sport, the NCL has been doing it since it started.

Especially so considering no one has given the impression that's what they think.

You mean ' minimum standards ' , but the thing is , our sport then selectively ignores it's own ' minimum standards '

Some sports use "minimum standards" and those minimum standards will cover a range of different criteria in different sports. Some decide the ranking of their competitors behind closed doors. The point being, that in all sports there is more to it that what happens on the field of play.

Where and when do you feel our sport selectively ignored which minimum standards?

In American sport, this has always been part of the culture. But so is the unique & fantastic draft system, & the university sport scholarship scheme which underpins it. Unfortunately, no such culture exists in Europe, or ever will.

Tennis? Boxing? As individual sports, no such rules exist. You are simply good enough to reach the level of professionalism, or not. How you do on the court/ring determines your next opponent, not your business plan.

PS Pardon the ignorance, but what is the NCL?

Yet according to White Rose Red, all those american sports have no legitimicy as sports.

Tell me how the top 100 rankings are decided in boxing and tennis then?
How did Lennox Lewis win his first heavy weight belt?

National Conference League - the next step up in standards, although not necessarily playing standards, in amateur RL.

Not at all Richie. As I clearly stated, I am a big fan of the American system. But it does not exist here. And never will. And the system in the US does not prevent other teams from progressing, as is the case here.

And there is no closed door policy at all in boxing & tennis. Unless you know of some secret society the rest of us don't.

everyone knows the secret society which controls the top levels of boxing, its called HBO and Showtime.