Board index ‹ RLFANS MAIN ‹ The Virtual Terrace ‹ Fax in SL next season?

Him wrote:

For exactly the reasons I stated. It takes into account the club over a number of years rather than the team in 1 year. If you are so opposed to the strength of the team being the deciding factor then why are you annoyed that Crusaders were brought into Super League?
SL was expanded by 2 places and it took the top 2 teams in the NL. If there had been P&R that year then Crusaders would have been promoted anyway.

Because the RFL were funding the Celtic Crusaders by filtering large amounts of money through Leighton Samuels company disguised as ' Community Development Grants ' , the Celtic Crusaders were operating as a full time squad , even the 17 players cars would have taken up half the salary cap in NL 1 , let alone NL 2

And lets not bring up the ' Visa ' issue again shall we , there were some very twitchy bums at Red Hall when that broke

wrencat1873 wrote:

Did they not finish second in that season ?
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but even myself as an advocate of P/R wouldn't suggest 2 up 2 down.

The league was expanded by 2 teams, so naturally the top 2 "teams" in the NL would be promoted to SL.

Starbug wrote:

Him wrote:

For exactly the reasons I stated. It takes into account the club over a number of years rather than the team in 1 year. If you are so opposed to the strength of the team being the deciding factor then why are you annoyed that Crusaders were brought into Super League?
SL was expanded by 2 places and it took the top 2 teams in the NL. If there had been P&R that year then Crusaders would have been promoted anyway.

Because the RFL were funding the Celtic Crusaders by filtering large amounts of money through Leighton Samuels company disguised as ' Community Development Grants ' , the Celtic Crusaders were operating as a full time squad , even the 17 players cars would have taken up half the salary cap in NL 1 , let alone NL 2

And lets not bring up the ' Visa ' issue again shall we , there were some very twitchy bums at Red Hall when that broke

So what would have stopped that happening under P&R? Crusaders would still have been in SL regardless of whether there was licensing or not as they finished 2nd in the NL.

Him wrote:

The league was expanded by 2 teams, so naturally the top 2 "teams" in the NL would be promoted to SL.

So what would have stopped that happening under P&R? Crusaders would still have been in SL regardless of whether there was licensing or not as they finished 2nd in the NL.

So you are ' OK ' with this ?

Because the RFL were funding the Celtic Crusaders by filtering large amounts of money through Leighton Samuels company disguised as ' Community Development Grants ' , the Celtic Crusaders were operating as a full time squad , even the 17 players cars would have taken up half the salary cap in NL 1 , let alone NL 2

You dont think it was a ' tad ' unfair ?

Him wrote:

The league was expanded by 2 teams, so naturally the top 2 "teams" in the NL would be promoted to SL.

So what would have stopped that happening under P&R? Crusaders would still have been in SL regardless of whether there was licensing or not as they finished 2nd in the NL.

You've just completed a full lap there.
I said earlier that SL was expanded and that franchising was brought in to expand the game and allow the Crusaders to come in and although they would have been promoted IF we had 2 up 2 down, at the time this was not the case.

rhinos21 wrote:

2 leagues of 10 would be the best way to with 1 up down

What??!!!

No Franchises? no Licenses?!?!?

Then what are we all going to talk about?!

..........On field performance?

...dont be daft!

Starbug wrote:

So you are ' OK ' with this ?

You dont think it was a ' tad ' unfair ?

I'm not ok with P&R based only on team performance, no. That only works when there is a far smaller gap between leagues.
Am I ok with the RFL helping out a new club with the potential Crusaders had, in an expansion area, yes. In the same way you think the RFL should run and provide financial assistance to London Broncos.

wrencat1873 wrote:

Him wrote:

The league was expanded by 2 teams, so naturally the top 2 "teams" in the NL would be promoted to SL.

So what would have stopped that happening under P&R? Crusaders would still have been in SL regardless of whether there was licensing or not as they finished 2nd in the NL.

You've just completed a full lap there.
I said earlier that SL was expanded and that franchising was brought in to expand the game and allow the Crusaders to come in and although they would have been promoted IF we had 2 up 2 down, at the time this was not the case.

No I haven't, I was meaning if there had been no licensing and under a normal P&R system, with an expansion of SL the top 2 NL teams would have been promoted at the end of the 2008 season. Crusaders were the 2nd best NL team.
So the argument that licensing was either designed purely to admit Crusaders, that somehow Widnes or Fev would have been in SL if it weren't for licensing or that licensing led to Crusaders problems is just wrong.

Him wrote:

I'm not ok with P&R based only on team performance, no. That only works when there is a far smaller gap between leagues.
Am I ok with the RFL helping out a new club with the potential Crusaders had, in an expansion area, yes. In the same way you think the RFL should run and provide financial assistance to London Broncos.

No I haven't, I was meaning if there had been no licensing and under a normal P&R system, with an expansion of SL the top 2 NL teams would have been promoted at the end of the 2008 season. Crusaders were the 2nd best NL team.
So the argument that licensing was either designed purely to admit Crusaders, that somehow Widnes or Fev would have been in SL if it weren't for licensing or that licensing led to Crusaders problems is just wrong.

Do you honestly think that SL was expanded for it's own sake ?
Sorry, but that just isn't the case.
The Crusaders were without doubt fast tracked into the top flight and as time as proved this was a mistake, although had thier progression been more patient, they would have come in as a much stronger team and this would have no doubt increased theeir value to the competition.
I may well be a luddite, but if only we could revet to a meaningful P/R system where the bottom club is reklegated and the3 top team promoted, there would certainly be less bad feeling between the clubs and thier supporters.
I fully realise that the gulf between the top 2 divisions in now too wide for this to happen, but thats life...............

[Kosh]

wrencat1873 wrote:

I may well be a luddite, but if only we could revet to a meaningful P/R system where the bottom club is reklegated and the3 top team promoted, there would certainly be less bad feeling between the clubs and thier supporters.

No. There might be less bad feeling between some clubs and some supporters. And remember that the majority of SL club chairmen supported franchising or it would never have happened.

wrencat1873 wrote:

Do you honestly think that SL was expanded for it's own sake ?
Sorry, but that just isn't the case.
The Crusaders were without doubt fast tracked into the top flight and as time as proved this was a mistake, although had thier progression been more patient, they would have come in as a much stronger team and this would have no doubt increased theeir value to the competition.
I may well be a luddite, but if only we could revet to a meaningful P/R system where the bottom club is reklegated and the3 top team promoted, there would certainly be less bad feeling between the clubs and thier supporters.
I fully realise that the gulf between the top 2 divisions in now too wide for this to happen, but thats life...............

Yes I do. For 2 reasons - that it stopped clubs having to play the same team 3 or 4 times whilst retaining the same number of games. And because the decision was made several years before -
"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document"
"The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs"
That's a statement by the RFL's lawyer in 2008, showing that the decision to expand to 14 clubs was not only made 3 years earlier but also by the clubs themselves.

It wouldn't have mattered if Crusaders were given more time, without a financial backer they would still have folded, in the same way that a lot of heartland clubs rely upon their financial backer to fund their losses.

I too want P&R, because it's the best way. But it's only the best way when clubs are relatively equal off-the field and there isn't as big a gap between the leagues. When we have that situation I'd be perfectly happy to revert back to P&R.

Him wrote:

Yes I do. For 2 reasons - that it stopped clubs having to play the same team 3 or 4 times whilst retaining the same number of games. And because the decision was made several years before -
"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document"
"The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs"
That's a statement by the RFL's lawyer in 2008, showing that the decision to expand to 14 clubs was not only made 3 years earlier but also by the clubs themselves.

It wouldn't have mattered if Crusaders were given more time, without a financial backer they would still have folded, in the same way that a lot of heartland clubs rely upon their financial backer to fund their losses.

I too want P&R, because it's the best way. But it's only the best way when clubs are relatively equal off-the field and there isn't as big a gap between the leagues. When we have that situation I'd be perfectly happy to revert back to P&R.

Fair comment, I yeild to your superior knowledge but this does coincide with the formation of the Crusaders, so perhaps there was a different agenda ?

Btw, IF the Bulls dont get through this, although I think they probably will, would you advocate Halifax taking their place ?