Take out the bit about expanding to 15 clubs and you'll be a lot closer to what is really happening!

Now that would be completely unfair.

Well that's the RFL for you!

What excactly do you know - are we about to get royally stiffed?

I'm guessing the club who loses out is about to get shafted.

As in, no promoting of a championship club and the league stays as it is, or license applications as normal and lets all ignore the administration (if it happens). I realise that both are equally unfair, and I'm happy with neither, but as a Wakey fan one of those options makes me a hell of a lot more angry than the other!

FWIW, I really quite like the Crusaders fans, and I have a real soft spot for them. The way the club is run is ridiculous, but it's hardly their fault. It's be a shame if they went under.

So it's as we were, but the rules don't apply to the expansion clubs?

Only if they change them!

Hasn't it always been that way? They've never said it, but it's pretty much a given that Crusader, Catalans and Harlequins will never be kicked out of Superleague.

If there is any shred of truth in this then I hope all the clubs under threat of loosing their franchise and Widnes use this damning evidence to ensure that we all are playing in SL in 2012 or legal action will follow.

Before anybody starts with we all signed up not to challenge the decisions, we also all signed up to a set of rules which the RFL keep bending to suit expansion clubs. Therefore in my mind they can't try and enforce
part of the original rules whilst blatantly ignoring certain others.

What are the voting requirements? Would all the clubs have to agree? And if so, are we (or Cas) going to agree?

No doubt it will be a stitch up with the majority who know they are safe agreeing and maybe even Salford being tipped the wink they are safe and should vote for it.

The really annoying thing is you can see the RFL's thinking here - keep the Crusaders in and the other SL clubs will be very angry, especially anyone who gets kicked out. Someone who gets kicked out could possibly mount a legal challenge to the RFL. But get all of the clubs to agree and there's no basis for a legal challenge - you can't complain about getting kicked out if you agreed to let them stay in, and it'd still be difficult if every other club agreed to it. But if you don't agree to keep them in, what's to stop the RFL looking at your franchise application unfavourably? I'm sure that would be enough to make us, Salford and Cas agree to it.

Good point - its another stitch up

See my post on the cas forum

Sorry, not sure I understand the point you are trying to make,

The problem with all of is that the RFL are entirely to blame.

When the franchises were announced, a lot of league fans seemed to be of the view that it was too early for the Crusaders. The Crusaders fans did not seem the greatest of fans of Leighton Samuels, and posted stuff along those lines. A lot of people were of the view that the RFL should not have given in to the Samuels line that it's either now or never.

Here we are, two years down the line. Samuels has jumped ship and seemingly left the club in a right mess. It seems that most people could see it coming except the RFL, and it showed their weakness, that rather than growing a club it is expansion at whatever cost. And who knows, perhaps in twenty years time, they will have matched London's failure to grow.

I want the Welsh thing to work, I've always wanted that, and I suppose the RFL should do what they can to make it work, but the other clubs, and I include the aspiring Championship clubs, are entitled to feel that they will be treated equally, and they are not.

If Newmarket comes off, the Crusaders thing might be an irrelevance for us, but it would just not be right. If they have failed financially, drop down, build again.

bigalf on the Cas forum said that the clubs are being asked to ignore the financial failings of the Crusaders and allow the franchising thing to be considered as normal, with a financially viable club making way for one that it isn't.

I understand all of that, but my question was to TRB (who didn't appear to be referring to this).

You replied to a post that said 15 clubs, i gather TRB thinks it will be 14 clubs.

1 club will go down to save CC

Of course, was reading it completely differently! Excuse my daftness.

Surely though, if it is a "vote" you have to assume these selfish Chairmen will not vote to get rid of basically either us or Cas when we (and Cas probably more so) have a reasonable away following and pump a fair few £k into their respective club coffers rather than the single figure away following of Celtic? Thats of course a big IF over the vote. Now more than ever its about £s&d - so the point still stands, all be it a bit watered down.

It's all in the planning!

Company Name =#FF4040W CRUSADERS LIMITED Company Number 07413385
Company Status Active - Newly Incorporated
Appointment Date 20/10/10=#FF0040 Company Incorporation Date 20/10/10 Turnover - Net Worth -
CCJ Volume 0 CCJ Value -
Credit Rating 51 Credit Limit £1,000
Gearing Ratio 0.00 %

Seems the HMRC winding up order was all a big mistake, and the money owed had already been paid. They're still not debt free, but that's another matter.

Drama over. As you were.

All these problems conveniently vanish after a meeting with the RFL! Just like with the Quins earlier this year!

We could be the only sport in the world where the competitors are treated differently based upon who the ruling body wants to succeed.