Re: Crusaders Demise? : Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:32 am  

tb wrote:

only on here and in the media gossip. No serious suggestion or proposals was around that I now of.

If I ask a question - ie how did we vote? (or Wakey or Salford or anyone else for that matter) - it's more likely to be an indication that I don't know the answer, than that I do … and a suggestion that before slagging off the RFL for some imagined conspiracy against us, we should find out how our club actually voted on those issues.

It doesn't alter the fact, though, that while some people are imagining some Lewis-Woods conspiracy, it was the clubs that voted (by whatever margin) to change the administration/ insolvency rule or that it was the clubs that voted (by whatever margin) for one of their number to be guaranteed Championship rugby in 2012. It also doesn't alter the fact that whichever current SL cub is unsuccessful in its licence bid, it will be making way for a club from the Championship, not making way for a club already in SL.

Personally I find it sad (if perhaps understandable) to see fans of rugby league rejoicing in the troubles of another club and wishing - nay demanding - that it be kicked out of the comp.

My own opinion fwiw, is that,

a) the RFL and SLE (ie the clubs) made a mistake in promising that one club would be promoted from the championship even if it wasn't one of the best 14 applicants,

b) they made a mistake in religiously sticking to 14 clubs and should have left the number flexible if enough clubs reached a satisfactory standard

c) we should concentrate on making our won licence bid as strong as possible, rather than wishing ill on other clubs to save our skin

d) the ruling body of the sport should offer help to any club, in any league, facing going out of business and work with them to try and secure their continued participation in the league they're in (and tbh I've no reason to believe it doesn't)

e) I hope Crusaders pull through this and continue to help spread the game, just as I hope our next Super League licence bid is successful.

I hope that fence you are sitting on doesnt give you piles, the clubs were under pressure to vote the way that tennis loving idiot wanted, and to make a statement that the rfl are not bias against cas, wakey and salford and in favour of the expansion clubs is niaeve to say the least.
They want 1122 supporters watching in some dark corner of wales instead of a full house at a cas v wakey derby, just to say ' look at us , expansion is working'.
The game has been around for over 100 years and the welsh havent wanted it all that time, why should they want it now just to suit mr Lewis

Superleagues bent

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:18 am  

TB is trying to put a balanced view on this however like everyone else he does not know the full extent of the debt however having worked within the financial sector I would be very surprised if the only creditors were the tax man, previous owner and players pensions, normally the debts would included suppliers, service providers, etc etc etc.

Regarding the RFL is it good business practice to turn a blind eye to clubs who go into administration leaving creditors high and dry whilst they are allowed to start all over again, surely they would be better off ensuring that the clubs have good financial grounding and if the issue is image rights then the RFL should be working with clubs to either ensure they are aware of their obligation or as has been suggested on other forums challenging the ruling with HMRC.

I have no wish to see the demise of Crusaders but the RFL need to ensure that in wanting to expand the game that we ensure solid foundations of those teams who join - the crusaders project was rushed and ill thought out, the game should have brought them through steadily building on success, attracting interest, becoming part of the community, and eventually having a team that could stand on its own without having to amass debt chasing the superleague dream.

I agree that we sould be looking after our own interests and making sure that we gain a license on our own merits but a level playing field is required for all

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:36 am  

tb I was under the impression your questions as to how Cas voted were rhetorical and that you knew more about it than I did. Clearly I was wrong and apologise accordingly.

I agree with your opinions (a-d). I would like to agree with e) but we find ourselves in the position of the man running away from the hungry tiger. ('Why are you running?' asks a second man, 'You can't out run a tiger.' 'True,' he replies, 'but I can out run you.')
However strong our bid we are at risk of getting the boot because of the ridiculous rule that one club is going come what may. If every club has a new stadium by 2012 someone is still going to go. If we all have 10k crowds one of us is still going to go. If we are all making a profit one of us is still going to go. Given the position in which we find ourselves someone HAS to go and given that Crusaders are clearly the weakest club in the competition I would pick them to be the fall guys. Not a situation I am happy about but rather them than us.

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:29 pm  

ExiledTiger wrote:

tb I was under the impression your questions as to how Cas voted were rhetorical and that you knew more about it than I did. Clearly I was wrong and apologise accordingly.

I agree with your opinions (a-d). I would like to agree with e) but we find ourselves in the position of the man running away from the hungry tiger. ('Why are you running?' asks a second man, 'You can't out run a tiger.' 'True,' he replies, 'but I can out run you.')
However strong our bid we are at risk of getting the boot because of the ridiculous rule that one club is going come what may. If every club has a new stadium by 2012 someone is still going to go. If we all have 10k crowds one of us is still going to go. If we are all making a profit one of us is still going to go. Given the position in which we find ourselves someone HAS to go and given that Crusaders are clearly the weakest club in the competition I would pick them to be the fall guys. Not a situation I am happy about but rather them than us.

If the RFL had not changed their own rules for your benifit in 2005 , you would quite possibly be languishing in the Championships , would you then think it was rediculous rule ?

They havent

They dont

They dont

You probably will still be in SL in 2012 , giving you another 3 years to achieve the standards you mention , you are not being hard done to

But it still stinks doesn't it , because we all understand P and R

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:05 am  

Starbug wrote:

If the RFL had not changed their own rules for your benifit in 2005 , you would quite possibly be languishing in the Championships , would you then think it was rediculous rule ?

They havent

They dont

They dont

You probably will still be in SL in 2012 , giving you another 3 years to achieve the standards you mention , you are not being hard done to

But it still stinks doesn't it , because we all understand P and R

Starbug excuse my ignorance but can you (or anyone else) please enlighten me regarding this 2005 rule change that keeps cropping up....oh, and also how it prevented us from still being in the championship when we've actually been back there since?

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:51 am  

Starbug wrote:

If the RFL had not changed their own rules for your benifit in 2005 [/size[size=200]]How did they do that ?, you would quite possibly be languishing in the Championships , would you then think it was rediculous rule ?
Aye and if my auntie would have had ballocks she'd have been my uncle, what a load of crap you talk,
They havent

They dont

They dont

You probably will still be in SL in 2012 , giving you another 3 years to achieve the standards you mention , you are not being hard done to

But it still stinks doesn't it , because we all understand P and R

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:43 pm  

Amount of covered seating criteria, if my memory serves me right

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:51 pm  

smoking monkey wrote:

Starbug excuse my ignorance but can you (or anyone else) please enlighten me regarding this 2005 rule change that keeps cropping up....oh, and also how it prevented us from still being in the championship when we've actually been back there since?

tb could explain in his RFL gobblydigook fashon , but I'll do it so you can understand

Basically the stadium criteria set in the framing the future document around 2000 stated that to enter SL you had to have

8,000 capacity

4,000 covered

2,000 seats

So we at leigh paid for another 450 seats to be added to the Tommy Sale stand , giving us around 2,200 in total

The stand at Wheldon road has around 1,500 seats , now conveniently the Stadium criteria was changed in 2005 , just before your GF win to , wait for it

1,500

Now at the end of the day , I couldn't care less how many seats you have , it would have been stupid for the RFL to make you find somewhere to throw thousands of pounds putting in more seats that would never have been used

But the fact does stand , the rules were changed

But as we know , ' rules ' in RL dont mean a thing , depending on which club they are affecting

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:54 pm  

tb wrote:

only on here and in the media gossip. No serious suggestion or proposals was around that I now of.

If I ask a question - ie how did we vote? (or Wakey or Salford or anyone else for that matter) - it's more likely to be an indication that I don't know the answer, than that I do … and a suggestion that before slagging off the RFL for some imagined conspiracy against us, we should find out how our club actually voted on those issues.

It doesn't alter the fact, though, that while some people are imagining some Lewis-Woods conspiracy, it was the clubs that voted (by whatever margin) to change the administration/ insolvency rule or that it was the clubs that voted (by whatever margin) for one of their number to be guaranteed Championship rugby in 2012. It also doesn't alter the fact that whichever current SL cub is unsuccessful in its licence bid, it will be making way for a club from the Championship, not making way for a club already in SL.

Personally I find it sad (if perhaps understandable) to see fans of rugby league rejoicing in the troubles of another club and wishing - nay demanding - that it be kicked out of the comp.

My own opinion fwiw, is that,

a) the RFL and SLE (ie the clubs) made a mistake in promising that one club would be promoted from the championship even if it wasn't one of the best 14 applicants,

b) they made a mistake in religiously sticking to 14 clubs and should have left the number flexible if enough clubs reached a satisfactory standard
c) we should concentrate on making our won licence bid as strong as possible, rather than wishing ill on other clubs to save our skin

d) the ruling body of the sport should offer help to any club, in any league, facing going out of business and work with them to try and secure their continued participation in the league they're in (and tbh I've no reason to believe it doesn't)

e) I hope Crusaders pull through this and continue to help spread the game, just as I hope our next Super League licence bid is successful.

The opinion on this is obviously affected on where you are in the league ladder at any given time , isn't it ?

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:57 pm  

[quote="Speedy"][/quote]



Look above you Speedy , the answer is out there