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.

The RFL arent like any other business though are they? Just like the clubs arent like any other business. This is sport, not selling beans. If you dont think that the RFL should be more transparent when it comes to the licence issues and expansion clubs, then your entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

Who has suggested this ?, apart from you of course

They wouldnt, they may simply wish, like most normal business that their negoatiations are privae rather than having 'the buck passed' to them by justifying anything by saying 'sky wanted it'

but that would justify the inclusion of X club, it wouldnt provide you with any further information than saying "As with any new venture, financial projections are more subjective but the club has demonstrated financial stability during its progress through the National Leagues. The club has built good relationships with commercial partners and TV channel S4C offers exciting opportunities. There is supportive independent market research for Super League in South Wales, although inevitably this can only be fully tested by the club’s actual participation in the competition"

I dont think there is a need for any more information to be released, to be honest the more i hear from you the less i think you actually do.

You know this as a fact , or is it because Smokey says so ? ,

Who owns SKY ?

Who owns News corp in OZ ?

Who owns the Melbourne Storm ?

Why would the RFL have to mention anything about "Sky wanting it"? If the RFL decide to expand the game, as they would get more TV money, then thats the RFL's decision isnt it? The RFL could say " we want to expand the game"


Thats doesnt really say anything does it? The have built up good partners with a tv station that they wont be able to get there games shown on, their financial projections are subjective due to not being in business that long, and there has been independant market research done to show that SL might have an audience so they are going to take a chance.

The assessment of their bid doesnt really stack up that great does it?

Worrying ain't it.

However the meeting in 2005 which "felt the heartland wouldnt be able to sustain that number of Super League clubs" was the SL clubs, in 2005. Which makes the rest of this statement nonsense. You are trying to attrribute a conclusion from SL clubs in may 2005 to the RFL in July 2008.

really? their player pathways and youth development have proved on a par with any club promoted to SL. More Crusaders developed welsh players represented Crusaders last year than Hull KR developed players represented Hull KR. The Stadia like Cas, Wakefield, St's, Salford and HKR was accepted on their plans.


what the Hell, no it clearly doesnt, simply put subjective is personal opinion and objective is the opposite, i.e not influenced by personal opinion. It is a nonsense to say that you couldnt come to a personal subjective conclusion through stringent and detailed analysis of the facts presented any more that you could come to an objective conclusion in the same way. Stringent and detailed simply describe the depth of the analysis, it doesnt infer the objectivity or subjectivity of the analysis either way. Especially when the stringent and detailed analysis applies to a business plan which by definition is subjective.

im sure steve o'connor fully understands the box they ticked was the box which allowed them to apply. Not part of the decision over the best of those who applied. Part of a PQQ if you will.

Really? Wakefield have struggled from pillar to post since they got a franchise, havent yet got their stadium sorted and have been subject to two winding up orders, and have introduced a similar amount of developed players to SL.

no, it is crazy to suggest that a stringent and detailed analysis would prevent the RFL from admitting the club they thought had the best potential.


Because they didnt do this, and had no reason to do this, and even less to commit themselves to doing this.

I completely agree that the expansion of the league should be based on the strength of the clubs applying. That if we had a club like Crusaders looking to move up, they should spend 2/3 years in the lower leagues preparing for SL rather than pratting about pretending they are earning promotion through the lower leagues. That should have applied to Widnes over the last three years in the same way.

We shouldnt be aiming to replace clubs, we should be aiming to grow the league, when a club is in a position to compete, grow and expand the league they are admitted. Thats it.

What I cant agree on, and what i think is a very strange conclusion you have drawn, is that strategic importance shouldnt have been part of the judgement on the 14 clubs who should have been admitted. Because that is what it was, a part, not the entirety,

They already have.

It tells you the basis on which the RFL made its decision doesnt it? which is what you wanted isnt it?

Or are you simply arguing the RFL should just confirm your speculation regardless?

Its ok, they already have, The RFL runs the sport, on their high salarys. Sky however are by a massive, massive amount the biggest customer of the sport. To expect them not to hold a massive sway is, im afraid, delusional.


And Paul Caddick, Garry Hetherington, Eammon McManus, Ian Lenegan, David Hughes, Bernard Gausch, Simon Moran


At club level, all bar two sports. RU and Football. As a whole all bar three sports, RU, Football and Cricket. Its not worrying at all.
Ten years ago when the old blazers were still running the sport it was, since then we have had pretty much uninterrupted growth. Im not too worried about that.

No, of course im not suggesting they are a team of 15 year olds. I leave that sort of nonsense to you. Are you suggesting the likes of Elliot Kear, Lloyd White, Gil Dudson et al didnt come through the crusaders player pathways? were they just magicked into existance?

Have they? Then why have you posted the assessment of the Cetic bid and not just posted a link to the RFL announcing that Celtic were in as they wanted to expand the game - this thread would be much shorter if you had.



Where's the conclusion to the assessment? Other than - Yup you are in, which they could have done without releasing anything or, going through the bid process.