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

wrencat1873 wrote:

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 ?

There aren't many times people have said that!
Don't get me wrong, I too think the RFL were desperate to have Crusaders in, I just don't think franchising or the league expansion were related to Crusaders.

I too think there will be some form of Bradford Bulls, whether it's a newco or not. If they do disappear though then yes I'd be happy with Fax taking the empty place for 2013 & 2014.

Him wrote:

It's a far fairer system. It takes the whole club into account over a number of years rather than simply on-field performance in 1 year.
No it wasn't. It was claimed it would help clubs to stop over reaching themselves financially. It has. If, with licensing & a salary cap, clubs are still spending more than they bring in - who's fault is that?
Yes let's look at what happened. Wakey's owner went bust due to his investments outside RL, Crusaders owner buggered off, Bradford -we don't know the full picture yet. Please describe how licensing was to blame for these things.
London haven't gone into admin under licensing, that was under P&R, so well done for successfully sh|tting all over your own argument.

I'm not saying that off field criteria such as ground capacity etc shouldn't count towards promotion, but the main qualification should be on the pitch. Crusaders' owner buggered off - what a recommendation! What about Celtic Crusders owner? Pulled the rug. And the RFL condoning their fielding of ineligible players -all under the franchise. Wakey have been bust twice whilst in SL. But still allowed a licence even with the slum that is now Belle Vue. As for London they may have avoided administration but only by the skin of their teeth. And if anyone can convince me that their crowds or their perfomances on the pitch justify them a place in SL I'll stand the York drop.
There is no way that anyone in their right mind can justify the franchising system. Particularly after they were going let Crusaders continue and nodded through the Bulls licence. The whole thing is a joke. I predicted when it was instituted that there'd be bankruptcies and I've been proved correct. Time to abandon a policy described by fans of many other sports as "bizarrre"
I'm a Fev fan and hope we'll get in eventually. But I reckon for starters drop the Bulls and let 'Fax in. They've got the ground, they've got the record and given a year or so they could be pulling fans from the Bradford area just like the Bulls did when they dropped out of SL.

major hound wrote:

I'm not saying that off field criteria such as ground capacity etc shouldn't count towards promotion, but the main qualification should be on the pitch. Crusaders' owner buggered off - what a recommendation! What about Celtic Crusders owner? Pulled the rug.

Why are these relevant to franchising? surely the Crusaders and Celtic owners could have done the same under P+R

And the RFL condoning their fielding of ineligible players -all under the franchise.

or didnt happen.

Wakey have been bust twice whilst in SL. But still allowed a licence even with the slum that is now Belle Vue.

and now have a great new stadium on the way after years and years of struggling.

As for London they may have avoided administration but only by the skin of their teeth. And if anyone can convince me that their crowds or their perfomances on the pitch justify them a place in SL I'll stand the York drop.

They have never finished bottom, surely that is the only criteria for you?

There is no way that anyone in their right mind can justify the franchising system. Particularly after they were going let Crusaders continue and nodded through the Bulls licence. The whole thing is a joke. I predicted when it was instituted that there'd be bankruptcies and I've been proved correct.

clubs went bust under P+R, Crusaders werent guaranteed to be relegated even under P+R and would have been promoted under P+R

Time to abandon a policy described by fans of many other sports as "bizarrre"

And replace it with what? one which spent thirty years being proved not to work?

I'm a Fev fan and hope we'll get in eventually. But I reckon for starters drop the Bulls and let 'Fax in. They've got the ground, they've got the record and given a year or so they could be pulling fans from the Bradford area just like the Bulls did when they dropped out of SL.

Or they could not be able to survive on their terrible (by SL standards) crowds, struggle to put together a competitive side, get hammered all season, lose all their money, go bankrupt, get relegated and the whole pointless, counterproductive idiocy can start all over again

Smokey, your posts with regards the Celtic fiasco are quire ridiculous, the RFL funded them through the NL s via community development grants, they were advised by the RFL how to circumvent Visa regulations, they were a joke in the lower leagues and lasted exactly how long we said they would

You cant pretend all you want it didnt happen, but it did , and every time you post to the contrary you look more and more stupid

Starbug wrote:

Smokey, your posts with regards the Celtic fiasco are quire ridiculous, the RFL funded them through the NL s via community development grants, they were advised by the RFL how to circumvent Visa regulations, they were a joke in the lower leagues and lasted exactly how long we said they would

You cant pretend all you want it didnt happen, but it did , and every time you post to the contrary you look more and more stupid

You can carry on making up things, and to be fair, you have been corrected so many times it is out right lying, but the only people it convinces are the people who have already made the same idiotic circular conclusion as you already.

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.

You are ok with the RFL ' helping out ' an expansion club with ' potential ' ?

By allowing, encouraging, helping, paying them to Cheat the salary cap and Visa regulations of the country?

Incredible

SmokeyTA wrote:

You can carry on making up things, and to be fair, you have been corrected so many times it is out right lying, but the only people it convinces are the people who have already made the same idiotic circular conclusion as you already.

Nothing I have posted on the Crusaders fiasco has been made up, it happened, the RFL ploughed hundreds of thousands of pounds through Mr Samuels company to finance the Celtic Crusaders, they advised them how to circumvent the Visa rules, the Crusaders lasted 1 year, 1 season, as we all suggested, it was a complete joke, as is your defence of it

Starbug wrote:

Nothing I have posted on the Crusaders fiasco has been made up, it happened, the RFL ploughed hundreds of thousands of pounds through Mr Samuels company to finance the Celtic Crusaders, they advised them how to circumvent the Visa rules, the Crusaders lasted 1 year, 1 season, as we all suggested, it was a complete joke, as is your defence of it

I suppose you have evidence of this? No? What a surprise!

SmokeyTA wrote:

I suppose you have evidence of this?

Personally told to me by RFL employees and former Celtic players

Starbug wrote:

Personally told to me by RFL employees and former Celtic players

Are they the same RFL employees who told you Leigh were banned from running an academy?

Where they the same players who told you the UKBA never reported to the RFL and the RFL never acted on the UKBA's report?

Any of these players or employees made any kind of public comment on these or are they just secrets only you get told in confidence to spread on RL forums when it is convenient for your argument?