Quote ="SmokeyTA"Yes, you have managed to reproduce the tick list, and added a comedy entry as well. What point are you trying to make? That there is nothing else the RFL need to take into account and so the actual bid was pointless?'" A [i'tick list' [/iof exactly the sort of thing the RFL would need to look at, in order to establish suitability for Super league of one club over another. If there is anything else, other than having that certain [i"Je ne sais quoi"[/i, could you give us all a clue to what it might be? On the face of it the Celtic Crusader bid looked no different than Barrow’s does now and, with all due respect to Barrow, few fans outside of that club think they stand a cat in Hell’s chance of getting a licence. In fact, I’d say Barrow looks better. I don’t need to see the whole document in order to get an idea who’s bid is likely to be better. CC looked poor on every metric you could wish to look at. The only area which is none visable, is the financial/marketing and business plan. Well, clearly this area couldn’t have been very good and, if the RFL thought it was, they failed catastrophically on the ‘due diligence’ front. So, what on earth else can they be judged on? Quote ="SmokeyTA"They could, but they didnt know which clubs were the best 14 yet. It seems crazy to make the decision without asking for the information necessary to make that decision. The subjective analysis was done on things like the business plans and marketing strategies. The plans the clubs had to get from where they were, to where they needed to be. Things like that would have been impossible to judge objectively. This link has a good explanation from the RFL. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-le ... 4302787.jp btw. This link, which explains the process, how it wasnt a tick box process, and how they would be subjective analysis was published prior to the franchise decision being known. Which shows up a few people and how they have refused to believe the process or condemned the RFL for not being clear about the process.'" There isn’t even a hint that the RFL were going to use subjectivity in the licence process, from this article. In fact, quite the reverse. It is clearly pointing to a [i‘rigorous’ [/iobjectivity. Here: [i‘The RFL's board of directors met this week to draw up a definitive list of the 14 clubs they feel most meet the stringent criteria needed to secure the licence’[/i [i‘The licence application process was handled by the RFL's staff and took place in three stages: firstly, the clubs were assessed to ensure they meet minimum standards; the clubs were then divided into three categories, A, B and C based on a simple points system; and finally each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.’[/i None of these words and phrases suggests anything but the use of objectivity. Here are the most revealing quotes: [i"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 for Super League which basically said 'This is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like,'” [/iexplained Findlay. Clearly, they knew exactly who they wanted to see in Super league, even before any bid was submitted. It is obvious, from this quote, that they (the RFL) had already decided how many [i‘heartland’[/i clubs would be in a 14 club Super league. [i"The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs and said it was not felt the heartland would be able to sustain that number of Super League clubs.”[/i This doesn’t sit well with the way they are saying the process was to be judged. It is obviously already pre-judged It seemed generally accepted, by the media, that the Celtic Crusaders would be one of the licenced clubs. [i‘On the basis that one will come from outside the heartland, Bridgend-based Celtic look to have a strong chance with Salford or Widnes, whose trump card is the superby-appointed Halton Stadium, fighting it out for the other licence.’[/i Yet the RFL was supposed to be being ‘rigourus’ and using ‘detailed analysis’, but the quotes above, coupled with this informed speculation, clearly pre-judge the result. It is obvious that they wanted the Celtic Crusaders in regardless of any other bids. All they had to do is say so, explaining the very good reasons for it, and let the heartland clubs battle for the heartland place, instead of trying to pass off, as fair, this charade of a licence process where all clubs were supposed to be judged on their own merit. In other words - transparency!

Quote ="SmokeyTA"Yes, you have managed to reproduce the tick list, and added a comedy entry as well. What point are you trying to make? That there is nothing else the RFL need to take into account and so the actual bid was pointless?'" A [i'tick list' [/iof exactly the sort of thing the RFL would need to look at, in order to establish suitability for Super league of one club over another. If there is anything else, other than having that certain [i"Je ne sais quoi"[/i, could you give us all a clue to what it might be? On the face of it the Celtic Crusader bid looked no different than Barrow’s does now and, with all due respect to Barrow, few fans outside of that club think they stand a cat in Hell’s chance of getting a licence. In fact, I’d say Barrow looks better. I don’t need to see the whole document in order to get an idea who’s bid is likely to be better. CC looked poor on every metric you could wish to look at. The only area which is none visable, is the financial/marketing and business plan. Well, clearly this area couldn’t have been very good and, if the RFL thought it was, they failed catastrophically on the ‘due diligence’ front. So, what on earth else can they be judged on? Quote ="SmokeyTA"They could, but they didnt know which clubs were the best 14 yet. It seems crazy to make the decision without asking for the information necessary to make that decision. The subjective analysis was done on things like the business plans and marketing strategies. The plans the clubs had to get from where they were, to where they needed to be. Things like that would have been impossible to judge objectively. This link has a good explanation from the RFL. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-le ... 4302787.jp btw. This link, which explains the process, how it wasnt a tick box process, and how they would be subjective analysis was published prior to the franchise decision being known. Which shows up a few people and how they have refused to believe the process or condemned the RFL for not being clear about the process.'" There isn’t even a hint that the RFL were going to use subjectivity in the licence process, from this article. In fact, quite the reverse. It is clearly pointing to a [i‘rigorous’ [/iobjectivity. Here: [i‘The RFL's board of directors met this week to draw up a definitive list of the 14 clubs they feel most meet the stringent criteria needed to secure the licence’[/i [i‘The licence application process was handled by the RFL's staff and took place in three stages: firstly, the clubs were assessed to ensure they meet minimum standards; the clubs were then divided into three categories, A, B and C based on a simple points system; and finally each club underwent a detailed analysis of their structure and business plan, the results of which were compiled in individual reports submitted to the RFL board for consideration.’[/i None of these words and phrases suggests anything but the use of objectivity. Here are the most revealing quotes: [i"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 for Super League which basically said 'This is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like,'” [/iexplained Findlay. Clearly, they knew exactly who they wanted to see in Super league, even before any bid was submitted. It is obvious, from this quote, that they (the RFL) had already decided how many [i‘heartland’[/i clubs would be in a 14 club Super league. [i"The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs and said it was not felt the heartland would be able to sustain that number of Super League clubs.”[/i This doesn’t sit well with the way they are saying the process was to be judged. It is obviously already pre-judged It seemed generally accepted, by the media, that the Celtic Crusaders would be one of the licenced clubs. [i‘On the basis that one will come from outside the heartland, Bridgend-based Celtic look to have a strong chance with Salford or Widnes, whose trump card is the superby-appointed Halton Stadium, fighting it out for the other licence.’[/i Yet the RFL was supposed to be being ‘rigourus’ and using ‘detailed analysis’, but the quotes above, coupled with this informed speculation, clearly pre-judge the result. It is obvious that they wanted the Celtic Crusaders in regardless of any other bids. All they had to do is say so, explaining the very good reasons for it, and let the heartland clubs battle for the heartland place, instead of trying to pass off, as fair, this charade of a licence process where all clubs were supposed to be judged on their own merit. In other words - transparency!

thanks for proving everything we already knew, that your definition of subjective was simply one defintion, not 'the accepted definition' but one of the accepted definitions.

Thanks for also proving what we all already knew that subjective is the antonym of objective. That you would use subjective to contrast with objective. That it wasnt immediately obvious that the context i used subjectively in was as a contrast of objective says quite a lot about you.

The fact that you have got so precious about your pointless and incorrect pedantry being proved as not only pointless (subjective) but incorrect (objective) says even more.

Why are you separating one sentence? When read as a whole the sentence 'This is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like,'” especially when he immediately goes on to say "We do not have 14 clubs who satisfy all the Super League strategy aims. We do not have 14 clubs who satisfy all the Super League strategy aims" that he was talking about the look of the clubs which make up the league rather than they had a specific aim for which clubs made up the league.

It was generally accepted in the media that it was a simple tick box process despite everything the RFL put out saying the opposite. Im not sure John Ledger setting up a hypothetical premise is really evidence for anything.

thats just an absolute nonsense of a conclusion. John Ledgers speculation is in no way evidence of a pre-judged result. Especially considering the RFL did already know the result

no it isnt. They were judged on their own merit. Whose merit did you think they were judged on?

in other words, paranoid circular arguments.

No, they werent looking for anything. They were looking at which bid was the best. Not which bid could tick this box, and which could tick another. Simply which, in its entirety was the best.

Im presuming you have seen the RFL's detailed reports on why Castlefords bid was deemed better than Toulouse for instance?

Then [i‘this is what we want the clubs to look like’ [/iwould have sufficed, but also saying [i‘This is what we want the league to look like’ [/istrongly suggests that he is also talking about the clubs that will be in Super League; if not the actual clubs, then the relative ratio of heartland to expansion clubs - Although, this effectively means the same thing.

Then when you couple the above statement with this [i“‘it was not felt the heartland would be able to sustain that number of Super League clubs.”’[/i, he is clearly pre-judging the bids put forward by some heartland clubs and saying that Les Catalans and the Harlequins will be better than anything on offer from the heartlands. Even if you believe this to be true – which at face value I don’t - it is definitely pre-judging the bid process. (tb likes to tell us all how no-one has a licence once the three years are up). Don’t confuse that with being subjective about a particular bid. It is not the same thing.

What would he mean by the look of the clubs anyway?


I’m no fan of John Ledger, but he is clearly going by what Nigel Wood said in the interview.

Again, there is nothing there which suggests that they were going to be subjective. It was boldly pronouncing the way they would do it ‘stringently’ and with ‘detailed analysis’, which suggests objectively. Perhaps they should’ve been a bit less boastful about just how rigorous and fair they were going to be.



No it wasn’t. There would always be an element of the quality of that tick, which would not had favoured the Celtic Crusaders, when you look at the quality of bids which were deemed to be failures.

Several chairmen, including Steve O’Connor referring to, and talking about improving on areas where the RFL criticized the club, as ticks we didn’t get. We have a very good idea of what the areas, which were under scrutiny by the RFL, are. Leigh published them. I also have a copy of the Widnes Vikings 2008 bid which, for obvious reasons, did not include sensitive financial data. However, it gave us a good idea what they were looking for and approximated what you call a box ticking exercise. Obviously, the quality of those ticks are what should make the difference, so in that case, it isn't just about ticking boxes, but they must be the starting point.

I could swear I saw Paul Cullen walking around Bloomfield Road carrying a ticked box when we won the NRC.



If that was the case, it is inconceivable that the Celtic Crusaders could have gained a licence. We know what their stadium, infastrucure, youth development and attendances were, and they simply didn’t stack up and, in some areas, exist when compared to several of the competing bids who failed. We now know that they must have been in trouble financially, as within a few months of their first SL season, they needed an RFL team of financial trouble shooters to help keep them going. It’s hardly surprising, given that their own chairman admitted that they were £700k in debt and only had 200 season ticket holders, at a fans forum.


Imo they were not judged at all. The RFL wanted them in, they got them in. It’s a pity that they couldn’t have just told us this, instead of insulting our intelligence with the charade that they called the licence process.

My god, how subjective would they have to have been?

Perhaps you could tell us why you think they got the nod, and what this magical area they got so right is, which enabled them to overcome a bid that could have come from an average CC1 side?


And that’s just a typical cop-out argument. I'm not even arguing that they shouldn't have been given a licence, just that the RFL should have told us the truth.

That's my point...they don't have to explain anything to anyone. They are in charge of the game...they will do as they want.....they are not answerable to anyone except maybe Murdoch.
It's done and dusted.....when they took the money and formed the superleague this process started. There have always been mistakes.......some big ones, some smaller......but the fact remains that the game, in their eyes, is in better health now than it was in 1994 and they will continue to plough ahead with their plans to turn League into a national sport.
The certainly don't need to explain to the fans what's going on and if anyone, only the chairmen of the member clubs have the "potential" right to know what's going on...and even then, I doubt they could do much about it even if they wanted to.....
......

Then you would have to suggest that whoever did the judging should not be allowed to do it again , they are quite obviously incompetant

So why waste potentially millions of pounds having a application process ? , once again that would suggest incompetance on their behalf would it not ?

All they had to say is , these are the clubs , these are the reasons we are having these clubs , if you miss out , tough , we'll have a think about it again in another three years

Now lets play some RL

[size=200You can't handle the truth !![/size

Those who "felt the heartland would be able to sustain that number of Super League clubs.” were the SL clubs. This was not decided by the RFL but the RFL + SL clubs.

Their Stadia, player pathways, youth development, squad make up, marketing strategy and business plan.

It was Rod Findley he was interviewing. But i highly doubt that any indication from Findlay over what specific clubs would be in SL would have been reported so vaguely by Ledger.

Stringent and detailed analysis no more suggest objective than subjective.


Such a crass misunderstanding of the process would be reason enough to reject a club. But winning the NRC was a box Widnes needed to tick to be able to apply for a franchise and have their bid assessed.

If you remember they had big plans for the stadium, like Wakefield, Castleford, Salford and St's. Their youth development and player pathways has already produced results, which considering the excuses we are getting even now from clubs like HKR its far from a stick to beat them with. Im not going to defend them financially, but that isnt solely what they were judged on. Its not outside the process to see that from the acheivements Crusaders had at that time the RFL felt the potential upsides were worth the risk.
firstly, these two things arent mutually exclusive, secondly your conclusion is simply your belief with little to no evidence to support it. Simply conjecture and circular arguments. You have started from your belief and worked backwards, you havent looked at the evidence and come up with the likely conclusion
My god, how subjective would they have to have been?

I think the RFL felt the potential upsides were greater than the potential risks. I think the RFL felt that there was limited potential and limited upsides in a fair few of the clubs. I think the RFL were comparing in the probably 9 clubs who were under threat three possibly huge growth areas with massive potential (Salford, Toulouse and Crusaders) four proven mediocre (and i dont mean that in a pejoritive way, i mean it in a literal sense, i.e they had proved that in SL they would do o.k but werent likely to ever be comparable to the big 5) clubs (Widnes, Halifax,Wakefield, and Castleford) and a couple which werent ever likely to be SL standard clubs (leigh and fev). They took a fairly middling position and took two risky with massive upside clubs in Salford and Crusaders and two steady clubs in Wakefield and Castleford.

They did.

FOR F()X SAKE..........The RFL have no need to be transparent...they run the game in association with Ruperts TV lot......get over it...some teams will get kicked out over the years, some will be allowed in.......that's licencing/franchising for you.
I don't feel sorry for Leigh....and I won't for fax or anyone else who gets bounced this time, although I will feel sorry for the team that gets kicked out....but will add that they/their chairman agreed to the Licence/franchise thing being introduced....

If people on here are FANS of the game, they will see that the game is in better nick than it was pre Lewis/woods/murdoch.....unless you hark back to the days of no f()cker going to games other than a yearly trip to Wembley...., no TV coverage worth talking about and being spoken about in the same conversation as It's a Knockout because we shared commentators


Closed shop.....no need to explain anything...especially to a few fans with too much keyboard time on their hands...

So wait. You want the RFL to be able to do whatever the hell they want with absolutely no justification necessary or element of openness as to their decisions?

It's amazing how all the people who post drivel similar to this are from clubs largely safe from such hard decisions isn't it? This is going to affect the livelihoods of many many people. You are damn right they have a right to answers. Clubs need to know where they stand, and so do their fans. You cant simply say to someone, we're dropping you to the championship, get over it. I mean, under your level of justification, they could drop your club Harlequins to championship one right now, and I suspect you would have absolutely no problem with it because the RFL has decided this and they obviously know what they are doing right?

You wouldn't question that decision, oh no. You would put up with it and "get over it" with grace and politeness.

People are being ing put out. Clubs are being asked to better themselves off the pitch. They need an outline as to what areas they need to improve on. Super league is not, and I repeat this for all the morons who are playing games on here, not a closed shop, and it shouldn't be. As this is the case, transparency is absolutely vital, for the obvious reasons. Teams need to know what they have to do to to better themselves, and teams dropped from SL need to know where they went wrong and where the replacing team was stronger than them. And the RFL needs to be honest about this. They were honest about the Catalans venture, and on the contrary to what has been said before, there was not the level of resentment towards them. There has been a large amount of support for the venture. My club lost out to them, being relegated second from bottom. But as we actually knew that going in to the season, it has not become an issue. People knew they were getting certain slack in order to position themselves as a mainstay in super league. They were not compared favourably to current teams, and given double standards behind closed doors with no sense of openness and honesty, and people understood what they were about.

It's not ing rocket science. Treat your fans, the people paying your ing wages, with respect, don't patronise them, don't expect them to swallow all your bull and "get over it" without justifying things. Who knows, if you treat people with respect the game might move forwards with unity instead of fractured and resentful.

But hey, who am I? Only a fan of 25 ing years.

1. I am the most ardent critic of the club I support....well documented fact that can be researched on these boards.
2. It's only drivel because you disagree........very balanced view
3. The RFL run the game and do a good job IMO. They know where they want the game to move towards.......and it is towards being a national game.
4. Livelyhoods at stake? As I said, the turkeys voted for christmas here...they saw the cash on offer and jumped at it...don't blame the RFL.....Look a tad closer to home.
5. Safe





my lot are about as safer as Wakefield, Cas or crusaders....unless you've spoken to Lewis and wood and haven't told us the news.

I can't understand that anyone who supports Rugby League in this country wouldn't want more transparency from our governing body?

its quite bizzare isn't it?.
its like the smoke filled rooms of yesteryear when people were encourage to 'not' ask questions.
it's like george orwell's 1984.

While I would agree they should just come out and say Crusaders are in for a) b) c) they shouldn't be held to answer to a bunch of internet forum nobodies.
How do we know what's being discussed between clubs and the RFL behind closed doors?

Speak for yourself Dico. Is that how the RFL see Rugby League fans? Oh wait, I've just answered my own question

Well, yes.
Most of the people on here couldn't organise a lay in a brothel so I dont see why the RFL would be held to answer, especially as they'd find some other rubbish to moan about

While not being interested in organising a lay in a brothel,particularly as I am not receiving the salary of people at the RFL, I responded to the question of transparency.
For the RFL [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4047123.stmto adopt the attitude of democratically elected MP's[/url and giving the impression of insouciance while being disingenuous and/or dissembling then the general goodwill of reasonable people will disappear from the sport,even from those who want expansion,like myself.
There appears to be not only a lack of transparency but also a lack of planning,thought and professionalism.
No doubt those at the top,as in other sports who are abject failures,will sail off into the sunset
with golden handshakes and leave the sport in a worse state then when they arrived.

The RFL arent democratically elected MP's. They are members appointed to overseas the growth of the game. They deal, day to day, with private companies, who themselves deal with other private companies. The information you are asking the RFL to provide isnt their information to release in to the public domain. If Sky wanted Crusaders in, then that is Skys prerogative to release that information, It is not the business of the RFL to put at risk the relationship of the sport with one of its biggest benefactors simply to please the paranoid and the delusional.

The level of information asked for simply puts at risk private agreements, makes it more difficult to attract money in to the game, puts businesses off being involved in the game, and is bad for clubs, individuals and businesses in the game. The only upside would be the fools with agendas who infest these boards wouldn't be able to use the absence of evidence directly to the contrary as evidence their weird, generally pointless and ill-thought out assertions are true. Frankly it isnt a price worth paying.

Let the babies have their bottles, if they need to find a bogeyman to distract them from the faillings of their clubs, if they need to blame it on someone else and see crazy conspiracies where there arent any, if they need to scream and shout and stamp their feet and say its not fair because their club is no longer big enough to eat at the top table, if they want to get all precious when people provide evidence, logic and facts to disprove their mental hypothesis. Fine. It is only they who lose out, the rest of us get to enjoy a bigger, faster, stronger, healthier, better attended, better viewed game in better surroundings.

If Richard Lewis and Nigel Wood leave this game in a worse state than when they arrived, then in the next couple of years we are going to see a massive massive downturn in the sport, worse than anything we have experienced ever before.

So you are saying that the RFL couldnt come out and say "we want Celtic in the league due to expansion, and they will be in at the next round of licences" ?

They may not have been able to. Im not party to all discussions at the RFL. But i cant see a reason why they would want to anyway.

So you are in the dark just like the rest of us. Thanks for clearing that up, transparency is the key.

The key to what?

other than stopping the paranoid and delusional using the absence of evidence as evidence of their crazy claims what would 'transparency' in this specific example achieve?