How many times , sport has nothing to do with successful business or successful businessmen , add to that a reccession like the one we are currently in and all rules go out the window , it can take years to make a fortune , but one second to lose one , as soon as the decision to get involved in proffessional sport is made all is at risk

And where did you get the 100 figure from?

When it comes down to it we would have had the same as any other club with regards to away fans. In fact heartland clubs, you could argue, will see more fans travelling as it is easier and quicker to get to and from away games.

If the management is as bad as you claim it to be, and circumstantial evidence supports your view, it does make me wonder what the "auditors" of the license applications actually did.

To be fair the bad management of the club wasn't so as glaringly obvious in the lower leagues.

That is one shining light of Leighton Samuel wanting out. If he does go the new people should bring in their own staff who will have to go some to get anywhere near as bad as the current lot.

i actually think the forum is becomming more expansion orientated.

i used to write it off as populated by people with closed minds, and small towns with no vision of the future

ive been happily surprised lately to see so many people who think about whats good for RL, not just their own little failed club

so widnes werent more of a risk at the time






the bias of these guys is just so strong

when did Premier LEague soccer stop being a sport.

to show how hypocritical these people are, starbag above says sport should have nothing to do with succesful businessmen

yet previously when asked the difference between heartland and expansion clubs said at least heartland clubs always had succesful businessmen to bail them out

Stop and think, for a moment.

At the time. They weren't more of a risk.

However, I concede that politically, it would have been hard to put them in - it would have sent the wrong message. It would have made adminstration inconsequential.

BUT

At the time (ie, 6 months after coming out of administration) they were so far ahead of Celtic that Samuels would have needed the hubble telescope to see the Super League ready Widnes stadium and O'Connor's money seeping out of it's walls.

a new company with no trading history is more of a risk than one that had been trading well for longer

but lets just ignore the facts, it doesnt make you guys look good.

So do I. Good luck!

No it isn't. Not if the one that has been trading longer has been on a knife edge and in actual fact had no sound foundations whatsoever. Don't let facts get in the way of the crap you're spewing on here ..... AGAIN !!! Who's the safer bet now? Widnes or Celtic? Or should i ignore the facts?????

Just because you support expansion doesn't make you close minded. The way you support expansion and the fact that you won't change your position on it no matter how many times you contradict yourself or how many times there are examples of failure show a closed mind to me. You are not open to other ways.

i dont support expansion to moscow, ireland, scotland, barcelona right now.

i supported CC because i thought it was worth a shot.

i thought it would work out

faced with taking a risk with widnes or CC, i was happy the RFL went with CC.

its the same risk taking that saw them gamble on Les Cats when every supposed internet expert said it was a waste of time after PSG failed

if the RFL try 10 expansion clubs and end up with 2 or 3 clubs like Les Cats ill say job well done

id be willing to try again in wales if the plans looked good

Wrong again. Not the same risk at all.
There's more holes in your posts that Big Greame's pikelets !!!

accountacy 1a.

widnes couldnt even sustain an NL1 team without practically going broke and you think 6 months later they are ready for SL?

very logical

No that is nothing like what I was suggesting was it , what I was pointing out that if a successful businessman followed the rules he has built his business on , he would have nothing to do with a sports business .


But what happens is successful businessmen do get involved with proffesional sport , unfortunatley they then dont run them like businesses

Because you can have the most successful sports business in the world and lose millions , because the success of a sports business is measured differently to a normal business

A normal business can be the worst performing in it's field but still be a success

You obviously will not understand this post and will reply with some inane comment about Leigh rlfc and 100 years

I'm giving up with Dally. I don't know why i bite. It's like debating with Rain Man.

mentioning leigh in reply to a post about succesful business would just too much out of whack

when did dustin hoffman become a member of rlfans?

And like magic , it appears

Best laugh of the day that rich



I've been lurking on several threads marvelling at the sheer doggedness of those who try to carry on a reasoned debate with this idiot.

Intellectually it is a complete waste of time and, I imagine, intensely frustrating ... but quite entertaining as a spectator sport.

nowt ont telly

Only a complete nutter would at the moment.


Were they worth a shot more than, say, Toulouse? And why?


I'd be very surprised if you supported their inclusion and didn't think it would work out!


I don't think Widnes was a risk. £0.5m bond reduces that risk immensely. But I wouldn't have chosen between WV and CC anyway, I'd have gone Salford vs Widnes and CC vs TO, and IMO they picked the weakest of both.


It's not the same at all. Catalans had 4 years preparation before they entered SL. Crusaders had 6 months.
There are a lot of parochial people, but don't exaggerate. There will always be some people for something and against it. I was for Catalans, but very reserved towards Celtic (if I had to say yes or no, I would have said no). There are so so many more people that were of the opinion that it was too soon for Crusaders, and when there are more people against something it tends to be for a reason. It shows the risk was a lot greater, and the risk didn't pay off.


Terrible attitude to expansion. The RFL shouldn't take on clubs that have too great a risk of failure. That's what the criteria is supposed to gage. If they take on 10 expansion clubs and get 2 successful ones, that's a 20% success ratio which is appalling for a business. If they took on 10, you'd hope that only 2-3 failed maximum.


What if they looked the same as the ones they had in 2008?