You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just had that as the main crux of your argument, rather than trying to dress it up in "player development" clothes.

I have Salford as 4,214 and Wakefield as 3,642 not that that makes much difference overall.

You got that wrong mate, the Districts of Bridgend and Wrexham have roughly equally 130,000 populations. However, Bridgend is surrounded by districts of the largest urban and semi-urban populations in Wales... you do get that do you not?

You are right Andy, but that was never my main argument if you looks back in this thread, it is Smokey who took this things off down this route and this his argument.

The issues and my argument is that I don't see how you currently expanded, develop and strengthen the game overall by kicking out Wakefield or Castleford over the current incarnation and location of Crusaders. By all means keep Crusaders in SL, even though I am not sure the RFL should just not cut their loses and 'invest' in South Wales again, because it looks like they will struggle financially and might not last the next three years under the current ownership. There is the argument that maybe someone could come in and see them as an opportunity because they are in the shop window, but I doubt it. Also, it looks likley that Wakefield and Castleford will both (at long last) build new stadiums in the next three years and are likley to both increases their averages by 2k/3k easily, as Warrington did and have since done even better with a winning side.

Lets face it, Salford are staying because the RFL could not now kick them out, because Peel and Salford council would have them down the High Court in a heart-beat... and win! I actually support the RFL in keeping Salford BTW, they have delivered on the ground, despite being the poorest on-field side, you told them to go and build it and they did.

Lets say that Salford were not moving to a new stadium yet and Wakefield were, what do think then? They would be favourites for the drop but I am still struggling to justify keeping Crusaders, in their current position, over Salford, I really am.

Please tvoc, I think that it would make interesting reading and that is what I want to see. I think Wakefield don't come out of this looking too bad.

Also, Wakefield didn't get any Sky money in their first two seasons in SL I understand... just add some perspective!

Will do when you let me know the specific teams - Castleford, Salford, Wakefield and Warrington have been cited higher up - will they do?

And which years are you looking at? (just trying to save me some time you understand.)

Firstly, don't call me a moron just because we disagree. I have been civil to you despite what I consider to be a poor argument. I don't consider you to be a moron, mis-informed yes, moron no! Grow up or get lost?

"and more sponsorship, and bigger attendances, and more assets, and more visibility, and they play in a higher league an a stadium owned by their owners"

Err, no shirt sponsor, never mind a major sponsor, until a week ago and then I bet you that Real Radio paid bugger all to go on that shirt, in fact it might just have cost them the cost of ironing on the patches. As and aside, because you are talking about the move to Wrexham, I know that Wakefield have the best overall sponsorship income outside of the 'big' clubs.

Bigger attendances... not much bigger, once things settled down!

As for the Stadium owned by the owners... probably not for long!

tvoc is going to show the better longer term crowd averages picture, so your small sample is no longer needed!

Yep, Cas, Salford, Wakefield and Warrington would be great from 2000 to last season please? Obviously, Cas and Salford will have gaps of course, =#BF0000what with Wakefield have never been relegated from SL since their inclusion... sorry, had to get that one in!

Year ... Castleford - =#FF0000Salford - Wakefield - =#0000BFWarrington
2000 ….. 7,824 ….. =#FF00004,454 ….. 4,621 ….. =#0000BF6,872
2001 ….. 7,234 ….. =#FF00004,214 ….. 3,642 ….. =#0000BF6,363
2002 ….. 6,837 ….. =#FF00004,199 ….. 3,889 ….. =#0000BF6,189
2003 ….. 7,199 ….. =#FF0000N/A ….. 4,016 ….. =#0000BF6,978
2004 ….. 7,040 ….. =#FF00003,994 ….. 4,814 ….. =#0000BF9,880
2005 ….. N/A ….. =#FF00004,093 ….. 5,101 ….. =#0000BF10,994
2006 ….. 7,098 ….. =#FF00004,820 ….. 5,448 ….. =#0000BF10,407
2007 ….. N/A ….. =#FF00005,188 ….. 6,782 ….. =#0000BF10,517
2008 ….. 7,501 ….. =#FF0000N/A ….. 6,962 ….. =#0000BF9,503
2009 ….. 7,490 ….. =#FF00004,467 ….. 6,037 ….. =#0000BF9,221
2010 ….. 6,616 ….. =#FF00004,166 ….. 5,983 ….. =#0000BF10,483

So what was IA's argument again?

Not one season have Wakefield averaged above Cas or Warrington, so therefore any comparison with those is a non starter. He's correct on Salford, and the only difference for why Salford have the edge is because they are actually having the new stadium before the next franchises start, whilst Wakey are not.

Then it took Wakey until the 8th Season of Super League before they achieved above a 6k average attendance and then went back below again last year.

I would think Crusaders surely deserve at least the next round of franchises to determine where their crowds are, when comparing.

I have told you that before, if you insist on using arguments you know to be incorrect, i reserve the right to call you a moron.

Yes, all this is true. But you seem to have singularly failed to answer the question and simple tried, in vain, to attack the premise of the question so you dont have to address your ridiculous logic.

They still have more sponsorship than a club playing in south wales, in front of a couple of hundred fans, in a non-televised semi-pro league.No you dont.

Much much bigger attendances. The fact you are even trying to compare Crusaders attendances to SWS attendances is laughable.
you hope
That worked out well for you didnt it



But why the strange insistence that a comparison between Wakefield in their early years of SL to Crusaders early years of SL has anything to do with Warringtons attendance last year.

The sample size was small because we were comparing Wakefields early years to Crusaders early years, the early years only lasted a relatively small amount of time. This again is something you have failed to address.

and just to get back to the original comparison before IA's fog knitting, Crusaders average last year was 4643 which includes the two games they moved to South Wales (where IA thinks they should play), if we remove them the average moves up to 5250.

The fact that Salford have never to my knowledge gone into adminstration or liquidation may also be a significant reason to support them. Or that they are the only SL team in the Manchester conurbation & I do know that Salford is a city in its own right.

Technically 9th season but the requested years started at 2000 rather than with Wakefield's promotion to SL in 1999.

I was very narked by this at the game.
But later, when I watched the recording at home, I realised the fault lay with Ganson, he was very slow indeed in shouting Move.

Only an idiot would think we've been trying to develop an RL team in Wales for just 6 years..

Which idiot said we had?

The Welsh RFU have said if any Welsh based players do stand out in league they would be ready to offer big money to tempt them to league. With Crusaders not exactly been a rich club this is also another obstacle they are going to encounter along their ways. Any players already mentioned that are welsh based players are not any good if they were any other team would have noticed and signed them by now.

Where have they said this or was it just to you?

So they are talking the same route as the English RFU then.

Quote ="boost"There is no rule to prevent a player grabbing hold of the oppositions shirt. Get rid your players baggy shirts. Try one of these "skin tight" shirts instead yfrog.com/hsoudhmj '"

Quote ="boost"There is no rule to prevent a player grabbing hold of the oppositions shirt. Get rid your players baggy shirts. Try one of these "skin tight" shirts instead yfrog.com/hsoudhmj '"

Why would they do that. Never mind it's still a win/win for the Crusaders.

This was in a interview with both members of the Welsh RFU and also the coaching staff of Wales RU. I follow league mainly but also keep an eye on Union. This was said when Crusaders first come on the seen. You have seen what has happen to star players at other teams and it will be no different for your team. The only thing is it's not as easy to replace players locally bred for you as it is for other teams. More development work needed doing at Crusaders before they entered Superleague hence the problems they have encountered. The phrase trying to run before you can walk springs to mind.

Priceless from a whinos supporter.

Thanks tvoc, that is useful.

For those asking why I wanted these figures in particular is was to show what I think are important trends and information. It was not about direct comparison between the sides.

Lets start with Warrington figures. The reason I wanted to show them is to show the where they have come from and also the impact modern facilities has on attendances. Warrington final year at Wilderspool and first season at the Halliwell Jones show just how much impact new stadium have on attendances with an uplift in Average crowd of just short of 3k! Of course, the people with longer memories will know that Warrington first season at their new home was not great and they finished in 8th, while Wakefield had their best season in SL since being admitted in 1999 and finished in 6th! Also in 2004 Wakefield started on an upward trend in crowd numbers and the figures show Wakefield are not a club in decline as people would have you believe, they are a club on the up. Warrington managed to hang on to their good crowd numbers and while they jumped to 4th in 2005 but then hung around mid table and and did not better 6th and of course in 2009 were 10th, while Wakefield were 5th!

So, Stadiums are important and look to be good for a rise of 2k to 3k almost irrespective of the on-field success. I think that both Wakefield and Cas will, if they are allowed to still be around in SL, put this sort of figure on their crowds. I would argue that Cas's figures also show that they probably will not be able to grow their crowds quite as much as Wakefield from just a stadium alone because they enjoy such good current support in a smaller town with a smaller demographic. However, I would expect both Cas and Wakey to be posting average crowds of 9k + irrespective of their on-field performances and 10k plus if they do well on the field. These are clubs on the up and are also in THE hot-bed amateur RL district in Yorkshire, the Wakefield District.

I wanted Salford's numbers to show that they have not really progressed as much as Wakefield or Castleford in terms of attracting to people to watch the game live, in fact they have been fairly static. Now, Salford should stay because they are moving into a new stadium and I would say that they would also add 2k to 3k to their crowd numbers, but that leaves them still potentially 1k to 2k behind both Wakey and Cas if this formula transposes. I would say that Salford will need more success on the field to be in a position to start to overtake Wakey or Cas because they have a rather successful football team just down the road, BUT if they start to do well I think the potential to pull in 12 to 13k crowds because it is such a populous area are there for Salford.

Now, it would appear that I want rid of Crusaders and that is not strictly true. I am happy with them staying if the RFL really want them to, although I do have doubts over their financial future for lots of reason and feel that they will struggle to survive the next three years. I however I am totally against the RFL removing Cas, Wakefield or Salford at the expense of Crusaders, because the idea of franchising is to improve the game as whole, both on and off the field. In the much longer term will Wakefield or Cas be able to keep a SL place if we are able to launch successful big city clubs in the North East, South Wales, West Midlands etc... I don't know, but if they are playing in front of good crowds in good stadium then that is for the good of the whole game as well, because this will always be the heart-land of RL in my life time I bet!

Before Smokey comes out with the line, they have had their chance to build a new ground, blah, blah... I don't think they have! The only clubs that has not received substantial local authority financial assistance in building or improving their facilities are Leeds, Wakefield, Castleford and Bradford. Leeds of course are fortunate that they been under very good management and are pretty much the only club to be in this position to do things on their own, but even so Gary has to put the club in £10m of debt (even more than St Helens £8 debt) to do this now and has a £2m bomb in his pocket that potentially may go off at any time.

This is my case, give Wakefield and Cas another three years to get their new grounds, I don't think they have anything else to prove, they both contribute to SL and have competed well in the SL era and now that Wakefield have a clean slate and a stable financial future (no big tax bill surprise for them any more!) the future looks good. If they RFL want Crusaders to stay and in part that will be to get their £700k back, great but don't throw the baby out with the bath water!