Its a bit different now though isnt it, the same with everything in RL is a bit different and its why there's an issue with everyone stuck in the past. I had Satellite telly as soon as RL went to it iirc, very early 90's but even then there wasnt more than 20 channels I bet. Unlike now with 500 channels and options.

Would I be right in saying that more people watch darts on Sky than rugby league?

The club Bernard Gausch is Chief Exec of didnt even exist prior to the RFL led SL expansion of the game, yet you want to pretend they had no part in it? idiocy

But you have missed the point, the RFL have put in place a structure which allowed and attracted these people to be involved. You argued they werent doing that. Clearly you were wrong.

Given that terrestrial subscribers have shown little interest in showing Super League nationally (either as highlights or live broadcasts), you can forgive me for being sceptical that broadcasters would still be interested in second and third rate knock-out competitions that, after the ban on tobacco advertising, would probably have died off anyway.

i think your probably right in what your saying,but thats not what i was answering to.

do you think more people watched RL on tv in the horrendously bad old days,or do you think more people watch rl now,in the sooper dooper days of sky ?.

Virtually a Sky monopoly though Bramley, can't see terrestrial free to air channels wanting to line a competitors pockets, because thats what they would have to do.

I'm not privy to the negotiations between the RFL, IMG and the broadcasters but I don't remember reading that the BBC, ITV, C4 or C5 were showing that much of an interest in showing two SL games every week. That's why we have a Sky TV contract.

The only thing the BBC have shown a real interest in is the CC and internationals - and they have contracts for both.

Probably not, but TV viewer-ship of most sports has fallen since the 90s. Part of that is because of satellite TV but another, arguably bigger, aspect is that people have a much greater choice of things to do on Saturday afternoons.

Seriously, are you asking people to compare viewing figures from the days when the sport was shown on a free-to-air channel which had only two other channels for competition, before the days when Premier League football became the behemoth it is now, with current viewing figures on a pay-to-view channel?

You may as well be comparing the aardvark to the zebra.

i didn't begin this passage of posts.

i agree with you.but for people to make out that more people watch rl on tv now rather than then,dosen,t make sense to me ,thats all i was asking.

which do you think would get better veiwing figures,a RL game on the beeb or sky kicking off at 6.30pm on a saturday evening ?.

As far as viewing figures go it wouldn't matter what day or what time jc. Plus, you know the answer as does anyone else.

BUMP




Or not as the case may be

If you want to look at it that simplisticly, then it would be the match shown on the BBC. There's no question about that.

But then, is the BBC going to show live RL at 6:30 on a Saturday (against something like Strictly Come Dancing) and can we, as a sport, afford the reduced revenue? Yeah, we might sell a few more pitch-side hoardings if we're on BBC1 but it pales into insignificance to a cheque from Rupert.

And that's the issue. I'm sure the RFL would love to get the game more exposure on terrestrial TV, but no terrestrial broadcasters have made any sort of commitment towards showing RL. The only one that has made any sort of commitment has got much of what it has asked for.

Just to check: Starry thinks Sky gave money to Crusaders over and above their TV fees*, via the RFL, and the fact that they don't admit to this (despite there being no evidence of it happening) proves that we need greater transparency (along with his accusation that the RFL colluded in breaking the law and won't admit to it, despite it not happening, is also evidence of the need for greater transparency)? Is that roughly what he's saying? Unless and until the RFL pleads guilty and goes "mea culpa" over random unfounded accusations, they're not being transparent?


* something that he's so fixated about this week that he shoehorns it onto a comment about the BBC.

No , I think they should give them money over and above the normal SKY money , so that we can guarantee their survival and growth , its called doing the job properly , an underfinaced business will fail in most situations

That is why I pointed out the situation with Melbourne , it is financed by the main broadcaster without a problem , I suggest something similar with the Crusaders

HTH

can't argue when you start talking money,sky rules.

It said that they (the RFL) had come to the conclusion, that the heartland would’nt be able to sustain that number of Super League clubs,.after ‘consultation with member clubs’.

This conclusion should not have been arrived at until all the licence bids had been received. What the clubs’ themselves feel, and want to publish, is up to them. They are – for obvious reasons – not actually deciding who gets a licence. If you are now saying that they are, then it is an even more farcical process than I thought. I think it is unlikely that the clubs would have had the say on the actual ratio of heartland clubs to expansion clubs.

It is quite another thing for the RFL to publish such a statement, after ‘consultation with member clubs’, or not. They are supposed to be impartial, yet were already drawing conclusions as to how SL would look and the make up of the clubs within it, before a bid is looked at. It doesn’t say much for licence process’s credibility.



As has been pointed out to you, their player pathway seems to be bringing 19 year-old RU players in. That’s all well and good, and partly why they were picked, but that isn’t likely to be as successful as getting those players young and bringing them through a proper Scholarship and academy system – as long as their coaching is good.

If that was the case, we should all drop our scholarship and academy systems in favour of setting up amateur team to use as a feeder club. It would be a lot cheeper!


And here you are trying the very same thing. You’re pointing out a few players of , as yet, dubious ability and a long way to go to before we know if they’ll make it or not, who were playing in 2010, when all they had to offer in 2008 was a youth system that consisted of an amateur club in the National Conference. This is the system the Swinton Lions adopt. I don’t know what they have in place now, other than the Scorpions – which is a huge step forward – but that set-up was pretty poor.


My bad. It should have read but, for some reason, I put a full stop instead of a question mark.



Yes I’ve already outlined this in my last post. I don’t need the English lesson. It is how you apply that definition to each happenstance and situation that truly defines it, and whether or not you actually understand the meaning of the word. Because you are under the impression that CC would have had one of the best 14 bids, despite playing in a dilapidated old ground, having no proper scholarship or academy structure, poor infrastructure, poor attendances (only managing to sell 200 season tickets in the their first SL season shows this) and, as we now know, they must have been struggling financially. Whereas I, for the above reasons, think that had their application been truly been scrutinized, with detailed analysis, in a stringent manner, then they wouldn’t have had a prayer. When you look at what we see can actually see and what we now know of their financial state, the finer detail isn’t even necessary, any more than it would be if Batley applied for a licence, and the same reason we know that it is very unlikely that Barrow will get one. How could they have been suitable?

Therefore, it could only have been though a personal opinion, based entirely on location, that they were awarded a licence. As location was only supposed to be a small part of the licence criteria, I’d have to say that it was purely a subjective decision, with little or no imput from the rest of the criteria. Being objective, as defined by actually taking due notice of all of the bid criteria, as a whole, and thus being a guide to worthiness, could not have been used, imo.


We can argue about the definition and semantics of the two words until we are blue in the face, but we are dealing with a particular issue in point and, when applied to that, I am perfectly correct. There is no way, without completely ignoring what was on offer from some of the other competing clubs, that the Celtic Crusaders should have earned a licence. I do not need to see the their licence bid because they were light years behind on all the visible metrics, which would make up the criteria – it’s not too difficult to know what’s needed – and their business plan was only good enough to last half a season before they had to call in and RFL financial team. There must have been financial problems at the time of assessment, to receive over £1Million of TV monies, extra gate revenue and sponsorships, &c, and be down at least £700k – probably more - within a few months of setting up in Super League.

So I would suggest that due diligence was not applied because, as you say, the RL was willing to take the risk of granting them a licence, rather than give one to another heartland club from the Championship, despite the quality of it’s bid. This would be because expansion out-weighs everything. Therefore, CC submitting a detailed bid was just a waste of time and money, as it was probably thrown straight in the bin next to Widnes’.


If they are going to go purely on potential, with little to back it up, then there is little need for detailed analysis. It doesn’t matter how poor or how good a club may look at the time of the bid under those circumstances, so submitting a much better bid which shows real potential, but from a club isn’t in an area they want, is a perfect example of being purely subjective, and why the RFL should have come clean and told us that the Celtic Crusaders would be in SL and don’t have to make a bid.



No, the word stringent doesn’t just refer to any particular criterion, but to the criteria in general:
[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 that will guarantee them a place in Super League for the next three years.’
[/i
Detailed analysis was suggested would be used for the business plan. Well, they had a team there for months, and still didn’t get that right. They were either totally incompetent, or they simply ignored the problem, in the hope it would go away. There was no way that due diligence was used. It just re-enforces what I’m saying, and why many people feel the same way about the whole process.


But they’re still here, didn’t require an emergency team of RFL financial trouble shooters in the first season of their licence and, so far, have not entered administration after just two seasons. Perhaps the RFL should have kicked them out in the last round of licences, and it is another sign of their inability to analyze properly, their own so called ‘stringent’ criteria. Imo the decision to keep certain heartland clubs, who were already in SL, was more to do with the politics of setting up the new system of licencing. Either way, I bet they had a better bid than the Celtic Crusaders.

FRAGMENTATION OF TELEVISION.
1990 I believe there were 20 programmes on English TV that attracted a 20,000,000 audience all year. These included Italia '90 Fifa WC and episodes of Corrie and Eastenders.
2010, including the SA Fifa WC will not see one programme attracting 20,000,000....in fact, 2009 didn't see 1 programme attract 10,000,000........
Reason....Choice! 999 channels of s**t available......the audience used to have 3 channels back in the good old days....there was nothing else worth watching back in the day, so League got millions. Grandstand used to battle with world of sport......ITV even started the midweek televised comp because they were losing to Grandstand.....but it wasn't because it was League was more popular....it was because League on the BBC was up against 3 races from Haydock and racing wasn't a TV sport back in the day.

You are quite correct , as you say the choice now of TV to watch is emormous , and that is also ignoring computer games,facebook and ' discussions '

on internet message boards

Right so thats that one sorted

Now you answer my post earlier

Again, you are making a massive, frankly a little ridiculous leap from the conclusions of a 2005 strategy document for SL that came from the SL clubs and the RFL, before the franchise system had even been proposed, let alone agreed. To the practical implementation and conclusions of the franchise strategy three years later.

You are also for some reason reading [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,'" explained Findlay.

"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 as, [iWe have decided prior to looking at the applications which clubs we want in[/i

these statements clearly arent the same

as you say, it is all well and good. It really isnt something you can criticise them for, especially considering what other clubs have achieved in the same time-frame starting from a much better position than Crusaders.

A system which has produced more than the likes of Hull KR. It is an area of relative success.

But it isnt is it. You are highly simplifying the 'location' part of the decision. Is it inconceivable that the RFL having looked at the bids, saw the upsides to the international game, the higher visibility, the preference of its media partners and the affect that would have on the league as a whole, the growth potential not only for an SL club which managed to tap into a market in Wales, but for the international/amateur game in Wales and England? and a million other tangible and intangible benefits THAT WERE INCLUDED IN CRUSADERS BID the RFL thought in their subjective opinion Crusaders offered more that other clubs who didnt INCLUDE THESE THINGS, OR NOT TO THE SAME LEVEL IN THEIR BIDS?

You seem to be saying that A) These benefits shouldnt have been considered and B) that we should be able to know the ins and outs of these benefits, their chances, the potential pit falls and potential growth areas without asking for information from the clubs.

You couldnt be more wrong, going on potential (which is entirely right) requires more detailed analysis, and more information because it is much harder to predict.

This seems to be the decisive point. Potential (which always had a chance of not succeeding) and strategic aims (and their benefits) need to be taken out of the process for your conspiracy theory to stay alive. Once you get passed that the conspiracy becomes nonsense. Once we get into subjective decision making, the fact Widnes ticked more boxes becomes irrelevant and the my club is better than your club penis measuring loses all importance

Thats John Ledger again.
[/i
Nobody said it would be easy.

Maybe the RFL felt this was an acceptable risk considering the potential upsides to their admission and potential downsides of them not being admitted.

yet they still dont have a stadium, wont have a home in 2013 if they dont get their stadium and relied on a cash handout from an outside part to stop them being wound up. Its hardly a damning endorsement of Crusaders.

Whatever the questions and I can't be bothered trawling 19 pages of repetative conspiracy theories......there is only one answer.
[size=200Rupert Murdoch![/size"Lock It"

own the Melbourne Storm , a club that although has come under recent scrutiny is an expansion club , and has progressed in a similar way that Myself and others would be happy with the Crusaders to do the same , it has been properly financed all out in the open

I have no doubt some will now provide evidence to the contrary

I've saved you looking

As I didn't address the French situation your suggesting of idiocy seems unnecessary.

The RFL don't seem to have put in place a structure that would attract Chief Executives to a little place in North Wales.The job was advertised wasn't it ? Perhaps it's just jobs for the boys
and no longer any requirement for transparency as all is clear,now.