I heard the North Korean Football League are very interested in forging links with Red Hall.

Fairly typical of the RFL. Just looking at the web site of www.superleague.co.uk/headlines. ... =Wakefield there is plenty of promotion of Cas and Saints new playing shirts yet none of ours when we made an announcement with picture this week. Also, little if any mention of Crusaders difficulties coming to a conclusion. Oh hum.

Fairly typical of the RFL. Just looking at the web site of www.superleague.co.uk/headlines. ... =Wakefield there is plenty of promotion of Cas and Saints new playing shirts yet none of ours when we made an announcement with picture this week. Also, little if any mention of Crusaders difficulties coming to a conclusion. Oh hum.

Quote ="wildshot"Fairly typical of the RFL. Just looking at the web site of www.superleague.co.uk/headlines. ... =Wakefield there is plenty of promotion of Cas and Saints new playing shirts yet none of ours when we made an announcement with picture this week.'" That could be down to nobody sending the super league website any PR guff, especially as there's no one at the club to do that job any more.

Quote ="wildshot"Fairly typical of the RFL. Just looking at the web site of www.superleague.co.uk/headlines. ... =Wakefield there is plenty of promotion of Cas and Saints new playing shirts yet none of ours when we made an announcement with picture this week.'" That could be down to nobody sending the super league website any PR guff, especially as there's no one at the club to do that job any more.

I've only seen pictures of the museum shirt, not the actual shirt.

Quote ="wildshot"Fairly typical of the RFL. Just looking at the web site of www.superleague.co.uk/headlines. ... =Wakefield there is plenty of promotion of Cas and Saints new playing shirts yet none of ours when we made an announcement with picture this week. Also, little if any mention of Crusaders difficulties coming to a conclusion. Oh hum.'" They will when the actual shirt comes out. We do have people who do this job - we just don't have a John Huxley no more!

Quote ="wildshot"Fairly typical of the RFL. Just looking at the web site of www.superleague.co.uk/headlines. ... =Wakefield there is plenty of promotion of Cas and Saints new playing shirts yet none of ours when we made an announcement with picture this week. Also, little if any mention of Crusaders difficulties coming to a conclusion. Oh hum.'" They will when the actual shirt comes out. We do have people who do this job - we just don't have a John Huxley no more!

Look I know that the RFL can be sneaky bastar*** but i'm sorry there is no way the HMRC are in a habit of stating that they have 'made a mistake' due to pressure from a small sports governing body being put on them.
If you think that you are deluded.

Latest forum rumour or truth?

Word on the street is that with Lewis and Wood in Aus,Rimmer is in charge. Rumour is that Rimmer contacted all 13 shareholders of our SL ( ie all the clubs except Crusaders ) and informed them that Crusaders would be going into adminstration, but that a new company was set up to carry on the franchise in Wales, debt free. ( gets rid of the image rights tax bill that all other clubs will have to pay sooner or later ). Rimmer asked for feed back 11 clubs responded in a negative manner ( Leeds and Hull , the two Hetheringtons are guests of RL in Aus ). Rimmer apparently ignored the feed back and is forcing it through. The 11 clubs wanted an EGM, Rimmer apparently refused this request.

I am also told that expansion clubs do not have to re apply for a SL licence so there is no way that Quins, Catalans or Crusaders : in what ever guise, will be refused a licence.

The peasants ( heartland clubs ) are in the mood for revolt.

Am also told that Widnes have attended all SL meetings this year, suggests they have been given the nod.

Wouldn't surprise me, the pressures on for us and you!

Don't know if there is any truth in this but it would not surprise me.

If true surely it opens up the chance of a legal challenge if am existing club loses its licence. I thought if any club went into administration they could not apply for a licence. In this case they are not but I wonder if a brand new club can legally just replace an existinfg club without the consensus of the exising clubs and if this rumour is true they appear to be doing that.

If true it absolutely discraceful. London/Harlequins have done this and now (if true) Crucaders. I know what the outcome would be if either Castleford, Salford or us went into administration.

And this is the idiocy of franchising. Or at least the way the RFL run it, because the more you make rules, the more you have to break them yourself.

Announce that the 14 best applicants get a licence, and then a breath later announce that a Championship club is coming up; ie, the 13 best applicants plus the best from the lower league.

Announce that financial stability is important, and then when one of the pet favourites becomes unstable, say that it doesn't matter anymore.

And the reason why the RFL are stupid is because they just store up trouble for themselves. Let's say Cas doesn't get a franchise. But what if they are financially stable and get a top eight finish? It would be a nonsense. And then what do they do for the rest of the season after the franchise announcements? If I was Cas, I would spend the entire rest of the season making as much trouble as I could for the RFL. Or it could be us. Or Salford.

What I'm saying is that the payment to get the HMRC of there backs looks like it's been payed during this period. All very convenient!

Then that would mean that the HMRC hadn't made a mistake which leads directly back to my previous point.

I agree that the tax bill is a red herring, in that there wasn't one. But there are the still the other things that dog them, and as Klav Kalash has posted, a new company has been formed to carry on in the Super League next year, which fits in with the rumour that bigalf posted. The corners at Odsal are more level than the playing field that the RFL operate.

I agree that it would be bad for the RFL if the Crusaders went bang, but they are the ones who set the rules, and they seem ready to ignore them whenever the rules become inconvenient. To some extent, they are gambling with the future of the game. This is not to denigrate the expansion clubs, but they are never going to bring as much to the game as the area around Wakefield and Castleford in terms of support for the game and grass roots growth, and there is a risk that they will slowly kill off one part to grow a less fruitful plant somewhere else.

Just keep it fair. Let the RFL take up some of the slack for development, but have everyone competing on a level playing field, where the 14 teams in Super League are the best 14 teams at rugby.

Yes they have problems I agree.
I never stated otherwise but when someone starts saying that even the HMRC are in on the RFL's games then that is the time to start asking if the medication is high enough IMHO.
I dont mind DeeHell but if he had posted that on the VT he would have been torn to shreads IMHO.

Despite ALL the other MATters we disagree on - on this one you are pretty much spot on - the only thing I'm not sure of is whether there are 11 clubs against it.

Ralph Rimmer = egotistical maniac - that's IMO, but at a recent conference he confirmed that he believes in expansion - at whatever cost.

IMO there are two ways to decide on SL membership:

The first is a selection policy - i.e., someone (the major funder or the ruling body) gets a list of all the suitable applicants and they choose who they like.

The second one is to have a wholly transparent process of clubs applying and being scored openly on the criteria set.

What we now have is supposed to be option 2, but because the result is not what is wanted, what we really have is option 1, hiding behind option 2. It's all wrong!



In this instance though - we are better off with Lewis and Wood than the pratt left in charge in their absence!

The game is shagged, with that tennis loving clown is in charge nothing will change, apart from mebbe a team from italy getting in at our (or your expense).
Whoever gets to stay in Superleague will do so for only 3 years , then will be the target for relegation once again, whatever they achieve.
You have to face facts , neither Cas or Wakey fit in the Superleagues grand design .

GOD HELP RUGBY LEAGUE

But surely the clubs who objected aren't just going to sit back and let him do what he wants?

Is there anything official regarding the Crusaders doing what London did a few years ago?

I know, last year, they relocated the Franchise to North Wales, but I presume the new company also took on the liabilities.

If they have now changed their name again, only this time, writing off their debts, surely there has to be an agreement with the other clubs, as there was when London did it.

But, in a few years, ala London, they will be facing the same problem, only they (Harlequins) have a superb benefactor, who keeps taking the hits.

What you have to remember people was Redhall's original statement...

[iThe RFL has confirmed that, subject to fulfilling their minimum criteria, at least one Championship club will be awarded a Super League spot next March.The RFL has also confirmed Super League will stay at 14 clubs - leaving the current teams facing an anxious wait. [/i

The weasal words are "at least," which to my mind indicates that they are not adverse to promoting two, with Widnes clear favourites and possibly another. And whilst the smart money was on Salford/Wakie/Cas as the obvious candidates for the drop, there is another who is on the fringes.

That is of course Bradford Bulls, and their ground breaking £60 season ticket offer. Now, the more cynical amongst us may ponder that they only managed 7000 plus sales in the weeks up to the pledge counter being removed, and yet miraculously acheived 3000 in the last week prior to the announcement before the adoring masses at Odsal!

What can't be denied is that by sacrificing some short term financial revenue, the Bulls management team have played a blinder. By announcing 10000 plus sales, they have effectively removed their Club from the forthcoming shenanigans. Not even the clowns at Redhall will relegate a SL team that can show that level of sales. And if they can convert their loosing 12 match end of the season run into a winning one, they will be up there competing for honours once again.

Job done.

Unlike Salford/Wakie/Cas who have still to pour the first metre of concrete....

What are you talking about

I don't even know why you bothered bringing the subject of Bradford Bulls up. They were never in jeopardy of not getting a franchise. They were the glory boys a few seasons ago, and have the potential to get decent crowds. So I don't really see why you bothered raising their name as an issue / non issue. Anyway...

This Crusaders business doesn't really concern our bid anyway, we don't need to rely on other clubs shortcomings. Full steam ahead with Newmarket!

Exactly, Newmarket is our future. When that gets the go ahead we have no need to worry and I know the club are doing everthing to make sure this happens.
We have to worry and look after ourselves and not anybody else, with the new stadium we will be a strong club we have been in the past and this Citys only pro sports team will be in the future.

So what is wrong with a North Welsh Crusaders club in the Championship?Is that not expansion just the same?Oh no,silly me.It's got to be SL or nothing.

funny you should say that? Concrete pillers are being made as we speak on our site should'nt be to long before the steel is erected.

Interestingly... originally their were 5 minimum criteria for a championship club...
1) 2,500 crowds
2) Win NRC / Reach GF
3) 10,000 Capacity stadium (operational)
4) £1million turnover
5) Solvent since 2008....

However in the press release on the teams who can apply number 5 Solvency wasn't on there

the RFL certainly seem to have a habit of late of missing info off releases and things going missing from their site when scenario's change elsewhere somewhat!

Not on thread topic I know, but does No. 2 imply that Batley, Fev and Fax are ahead of Widnes there, so Widnes therefore do not fulfil all the criteria ?
I merely ask the question, and am not wishing ill on any team.