: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:22 pm  

Widnes would have gotten in before Salford it was only due to the fact that they had gone into liquidation a few months earlier so when the new bloke took over it and bought the club they were classed as a new company so to speak so therefore had only started trading a short time.......

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:36 pm  

Absolutely spot on W71.

Re: Celtic lose again... : Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:18 pm  

Wembley71 wrote:

Here's the thing:

If the RFL had said: NL Champions (if they meet SL criteria) plus the Welsh team for expansion reasons get franchises, that would have been fine (arguable, but clear-cut).

If the RFL had said: Both NL Grand Finalists get franchises (if they meet SL criteria), that would have been fine, too (and very clear-cut).

If the RFL had said: screw this, we want a big city club and a welsh club, so its Salford and CC... Leigh and Widnes are too near to Wire and Wiggin and Saints... that would have at least been up-front (if b0ll0cks, IMHO).

But the RFL said there'd be a points-based criteria... and then had to deny the existence of Leigh's new ground, of Easts & Miners Junior Academy, and of Widnes' multi-millionaire new backer, in order to claim that the CC bid was better on the terms they'd laid out.

It seemed very clear to the world that Widnes and Leigh had better bids than CC, and probably as good or better than Wakey and Cas. To add to this perception, the RFL refused to publish detailed evaluations of the differing bids, and then Rrchard Lewis lied on telly.

The bitterness (as opposed to disappointment) from Leigh and Widnes fans comes not from the outcome of the franchise process, but from the deceit and hypocrisy that accompanied it.

What this thread represents is the tag to that deceit.... it seems very likely that CC weren't ready for SL. Widnes or Leigh would have been better placed... which should have been obvious as their bids were, as far as we've been allowed to see, stronger than that of CC. So, the RFL's deceitful error in ignoring their own criteria is in danger of biting them on the @rse if CC lose everything and don't pull much of a crowd.

Absolutely bang on my friend, and certainly put down in a better way than I would have put it

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:22 pm  

For me, CC in SL is like finding out your 15 year old daughter is pregnant.

You're not exactly happy it has happened a good few years before everyone is ready, but, for the greater good hope the best is made out of an awkward situation.

Re: Celtic lose again... : Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:50 pm  

Wembley71 wrote:

Here's the thing:

If the RFL had said: NL Champions (if they meet SL criteria) plus the Welsh team for expansion reasons get franchises, that would have been fine (arguable, but clear-cut).

If the RFL had said: Both NL Grand Finalists get franchises (if they meet SL criteria), that would have been fine, too (and very clear-cut).

If the RFL had said: screw this, we want a big city club and a welsh club, so its Salford and CC... Leigh and Widnes are too near to Wire and Wiggin and Saints... that would have at least been up-front (if b0ll0cks, IMHO).

But the RFL said there'd be a points-based criteria... and then had to deny the existence of Leigh's new ground, of Easts & Miners Junior Academy, and of Widnes' multi-millionaire new backer, in order to claim that the CC bid was better on the terms they'd laid out.

It seemed very clear to the world that Widnes and Leigh had better bids than CC, and probably as good or better than Wakey and Cas. To add to this perception, the RFL refused to publish detailed evaluations of the differing bids, and then Rrchard Lewis lied on telly.

The bitterness (as opposed to disappointment) from Leigh and Widnes fans comes not from the outcome of the franchise process, but from the deceit and hypocrisy that accompanied it.

What this thread represents is the tag to that deceit.... it seems very likely that CC weren't ready for SL. Widnes or Leigh would have been better placed... which should have been obvious as their bids were, as far as we've been allowed to see, stronger than that of CC. So, the RFL's deceitful error in ignoring their own criteria is in danger of biting them on the @rse if CC lose everything and don't pull much of a crowd.

What he said!!

Re: Celtic lose again... : Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:19 pm  

Young Danny wrote:

Oh, I suppose you would be doing better if you were in Super Leauge, you really think you could have played; Leeds, Salford and Hull FC and got anything from them? Your first ever game in SL you got....4,043. You only went over a 5,534 attendance twice, and you were playing Wigan and Warrington who I assume will have brought a few thousand to pump up that attendance. WOW!!
I personally think over 5,000 is a decent attendance for Celtic. If they were playing in Lancashire or Yorkshire they will prob have got arund 6,000 with more Hull FC fans going, give them a chance, I guarentee they will be getting 7,000 when they play Hull FC in 2011.

Well I personally think 5000 for the FIRST EVER SL GAME is pretty average. You're missing my point. If they wanted this so badly there should have been 10000 plus (if the ground holds that many). Who knows whether we could do better, one things for sure we couldn't do any worse! As for your 'guarantee', I'll have a tenner says they don't get more than 7000 against Hull FC in 2011.

Re: Celtic lose again... : Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:40 pm  

[quote="Great King Rat"]Well I personally think 5000 for the FIRST EVER SL GAME is pretty average. You're missing my point. If they wanted this so badly there should have been 10000 plus (if the ground holds that many). Who knows whether we could do better, one things for sure we couldn't do any worse! As for your 'guarantee', I'll have a tenner says they don't get more than 7000 against Hull FC in 2011.[/quote

Very unlikely that Hull FC will still be in Non Relegation League by then ? Or do you mean CC will fail to attract crowds by then ? Or perhaps you think they,ll fold and be replaced by Toulouse irrespective of how they do between now and then ?

For the sake of the game in general and Mr Lewis in particular they better be getting decent crowds by then. I mean CC of course not Hull FC.

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:59 pm  

Great King Rat wrote:

Well I personally think 5000 for the FIRST EVER SL GAME is pretty average. You're missing my point. If they wanted this so badly there should have been 10000 plus (if the ground holds that many). Who knows whether we could do better, one things for sure we couldn't do any worse! As for your 'guarantee', I'll have a tenner says they don't get more than 7000 against Hull FC in 2011.

5000 for 1st ever game in a area "that will never take to RL", during this financial climate is a very good effort.
Hopefully this will continue. But as pointed out they need to get some scalps to help them do this.
Leigh in SL, in a new stadium would have beaten 5000 of course. Of that I have no doubt, and got a good average - considering the number of derbies on our doorstep it would have been a big let down if we didn't. using our SL2005 season as example, we would have got more fans going to LSV than we got last season without a single Leigh fan going. Just one of the pro's of being in the heartland.
What I would like to know is why did we get less home fans going to W1gan game than against Salford (or at best similar), when historically we have had much better in the past ? Those are better questions to start a thread rather than starting one that has another go at a new club that is trying to get a foothold down there.
I think W71 is correct in most of what he said, because the final decision was a farce (and I said it at the time). But I do think we had lucky escape by not being put in with benefit of hindsight. Celtic in SL is correct decision
(IMO), and had to be done. It was the reasoning given that stunk and conned us into thinking a genuine process was in place and teams in SL where at a threat etc.

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:49 pm  

I think I should stop you all right there... the entire reason that celtic were brought into SL was so that they could capture local talent to bolster the welsh international side, which from the article below they clearly are doing..... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/7903496.stm

I think I should stop you all right there... the entire reason that celtic were brought into SL was so that they could capture local talent to bolster the welsh international side, which from the article below they clearly are doing..... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/7903496.stm

: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:54 pm  

Celtic Who