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?

Nope for people to be able to understand exactly what the RFL are thinking when they make certain decision. People may not agree with them. But at least they will understand the thinking behind it.

There are many agreements and contracts that the RFL couldnt publish, and i can accept that. However, when it comes to licences, they should be able to say, We want X club in as it meets our expansion ideals. What problem would you have with that TA?

I just dont see any upside to them releasing more information than they already have. They have given a short summary as to why clubs where admitted and others werent. Its available on their website even now. I have no problem with that, i agree with it.

But that clearly isnt what you are asking for.

So, the problem you have with it, is that you dont see any "upside" to it. I cant see ant "downside" to it. The clubs that need stability the most can plan ahead rather than having to re-apply evey 3 years, they can target business and sponsors, create long term busniess plans based on their continued entry into the flagship competition. The supporters of other clubs, will understand that this club is in the top league as it is helping the development of the game and maybe the international game. But yeah you might be right, why bother eh? a few paragrahs that summaries the assessment of an application will do.

Other than it maybe not being the RFL's information to give away, other than it being, in a lot of cases, proprietary information, other than it putting at risk the games relationship with its greatest benefactor and probably the relationships clubs have with their sponsors, banks, investors and staff.
The information available to clubs and that available to the general public is rightly different. would they buggery, we have seen with Quins that even when the RFL arent protecting them, when there is no reason to chuck them out people will make things up and pretend to belittle an expansion club, the idea they would be supportive if it actually happened is laughable

So, let me get this straight, you are claiming that information about the RFL's game and expansion plans, "may not be the RFL's to give away"? Who's is it then? Surely expansion and licence acceptence is down to them alone? What risk would their be to sponsors and banks?


How do you know? Is it your paranoia about the reaction of people finding out why the RFL's decision making process getting the better of you? You are just as bad as the people you are mocking.

The clubs, Sky's, the clubs investors, the clubs sponsors, the clubs banks. making public financial details would be making public informaion regarding the clubs relationship with their sponsors and banks, information the sponsors and banks would understandably like to keep secret.

I don't know, it is simply my opinion, based on the previous and continued behaviour of certain sections of the game.

Im not paranoid about the RFL's decision making process being 'found out' it is rightly publicly available.

Why would they have any problem being linked with the expansion of the game?



I agree - but i havent mentioned anything about making financial details public. I have said, that there would be nothing stoping them from saying club x is in due to our strategic expansion plans for the game.


IMO your comments on this thread make you appear that way or it could be you are just playing devils advocate and dont really think there is any reason why the RFL couldnt be more transparent on expansion clubs when it comes to Licencing.

The decision to grant licences was the responsibility of an RFL appointed body, and was not in the purview of SL clubs. Either way, it is not wise to say that each bid would be judged on its own merits while also pre-judging outcomes of the bidding process as a whole. As it clearly shows a bias which is inconsistent with running an honest assessment of each club. It is also very symptomatic of the way the RFL, and indeed, Super League clubs, do business.



Then it should be looked on even more incredulously, that the Celtic Crusaders ever got a licence, because they were poor on all counts.



Yes, it was Rod Findley. I don’t know why I wrote Nigel Wood. I was rushed and distracted and had little opportunity other than to type what was immediately in my mind and post as soon as complete. Mistakes are generally made that way. I suppose that’s why, when I now read it back, it looks a complete mess of a post.


Errr…no it doesn’t.

One is based solely on personal bias within ones own mind, rather than the, hard, facts outside of it.

The other is a conclusion wrought by the ‘Stringent and detailed analysis’ of the facts presented.

You are actually now trying to change the meaning of words in order to suit your argument.


I’ll ring Steve O’Connor right away!!!



The Crusaders had everything planned for the future. Some clubs already had stadiums as well as nearly everything else. I’m not going to get into an argument about Wakey, Cas, Salford and Saints. They had other areas where they were much stronger than the Crusaders, and you know it.


So, you are now admitting that the RFL just picked who they wanted, regardless of the bid process, and all the talk of ‘Stringent and detailed analysis’ was just so much bullsh*t.

I agree.


Whilst I disagree with some of this, a lot may well be true. So, why not have the strength of thier own convictions and ring fence 3 or 4 SL places for expansion clubs, and say so?

Wouldn’t this make sense?

In my opinion, the RFL should have set up a club somewhere in Wales, in 2005-2006, and run them in the same way we are now seeing the SW Scorpions run, and then they could have told us all that they have negotiated an extension of SL to 14 clubs, in order to allow places for one extra heartland club and one expansion club, and the new Welsh club would be the expansion club concerned.

There would have been no need to break the bank, in order to get out of NL2, no need to employ a team full of Aussies here illegally, no need to depend on an idiot like Leighton Samuel, no need to up-root it after one season and no need to take us all for fools.

The RFL would keep their integrity and the game would have taken a much better shot at expanding in Wales. There would have been no guarantee that it would succeed, but the roots of their current failure is clearly at its birth and struggle gain promotion to NL1 and subsequent need to impress on the pitch in that league and up their attendance metrics with free admissions which they clearly couldn’t afford to do.

I hope the RFL come out this time and say that the Welsh Crusaders, Harlequins and Les Catalans will take no part in the bidding because, regardless of their metrics, they are strategically important to the future of the game. I could at least agree on that, and I suspect the majority would too.

Viva the Wales Crusaders!

No they wouldnt according to Smokey TA

He can read peoples minds - even o'er t'internet.

He also has the power to change definitions and the meaning of sentances.

Good isn't he?

That must be why the RFL employ him.

Dear Lord Sainsbury,
I don't like the type of baked beans you sell or their price. Please explain why you only stock 4 brands and why you charge more than Tesco. Please include all your calculations and costings for Baked Beans in your reply!

Fire that off to Sainsbury's head office and see what response you get



As I say, the Turkeys voted knowing that one or more of them was for the "pot" sooner or later......if you want to blame anyone or cry out for transparency, then ask your club.
The RFL are running a business and the biggest single financial backer has some conditions to the continued provision of the funds that keep the game alive..... I can't understand that anyone who supports Rugby League in this country CAN'T GET THEIR HEAD AROUND THIS FACT



At no point would any other business disclose any information they didn't need to and the RFL don't need to....they are making money, the clubs get their share, the fans get their Superleague/Championship Rugby and like any consumer, always have a choice...they can shop elsewhere if they don't like the way the business is being run or the ethics behind it.

Nestlé foray into milk for African Kids being a good example......they were morally wrong, but still sell a hell of a lot of coffee. Market economies are such that even if 1,000 people stopped going to SL games every week, BSkyB will still pay the RFL, the RFL will pay the clubs and the game will survive....no amount of keyboard demands for transparency will ever change that. Get over it.