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.

IF Murdoch decided to "own" London and Wales" Franchise teams, I would have no problem with that....IF Murdoch decided to [upay[/u these clubs more I would. If, as part of the "expansion" programme Murdoch is offering [ufinancial assistance[/u, I would not have a problem so long as the money was being spent according to the reason it was given (marketing, player development etc....but NOT SALARIES)

Bottom line is regardless of if I have a problem or not with the way Murdoch controls the game in the UK, he does. The clubs voted the RFL management in, they agree with the way the RFL are running the game and it is they who are the only ones who can make a stand against Murdoch......not that they ever will as there will always be 14 who will be receiving cash from him.....
The likes of Leigh, Fev, Fax, Barrow will all have to bide their time......if they can grow their smaller businesses without his cash, then it will be harder for him to ignore them.
I would love to see CH games with an average accross the board of 3k+ gates...and I have said many times that the SL clubs and the RFL should be assisting in any way possible. The 100 quid add on to a SL season ticket that allows entry to every CH1 game would be a start.

He was included in the list of examples you dismissed, either you cant read or you did address it.

You mean other than the two have held the position prior to Rod Findlay?

in the Championships and to me that should be the main aim of the clubs and the RFL

No chance , they need supporters of their clubs , not fans of SL clubs with a couple of hours to spare , all that would do would be to artificially inflate the average without the neccessary benifits of building a club

Then it rather makes you wonder why they were speculating about what the make up of Heartland/expansion Super League clubs should look like, if they are still looking at it as a P&R league?

P&R leagues tend to sort themselves out automatically; whoever finishes bottom of SL goes down, and whoever wins the NL1 Grand Final (as it was then known), goes up.

Simples!



We knew in 2006 that the RFL were looking at introducing licensing for 2009. The ‘2005 strategy document’ would, almost certainly, be preliminary activity towards moving in that direction. It was also the year they approached Leighton Samuel with a “three year plan”. Les Catalans were brought in to Super league in 2006 and had a no relegation clause that took them to 2009 – conveniently - having already been preparing for 2 years beforehand.

You can draw your own conclusions and I will draw mine.




This really is the nitty gritty of the matter. Putting a club in SL, on a wing and a prayer, without solid foundations to back it up, is not what I would call a stringent way of doing things.

This is why trying to judge and expansion club against a less preferred heartland club is somewhat disingenuous, as nothing that heartland club can do, or how obvious it is that the heartland club would be a much stronger force, would count in it’s favour; even if the said expansion club was miles behind on every worthwhile and solid metric. Hard facts and the actual reality of what the heartland club has in place becomes completely worthless against the intangible hopes and aims for the expansion club and the game as a whole.

The empirical becomes worthless in the face of the theoretical.

This is why the Celtic Crusaders, and any other expansion club they want to include in SL in the future, should be allotted a ring-fenced place in SL and not have to put a bid in. It is a totally insincere concept, to admit what you have admitted in this last quote, and still claim that the criteria, as laid down by the RFL, was evaluated without prejudice and in a rigorous and fair manner.

The RFL may have analyzed all the documents, but they only took notice of what they wanted to take notice of, in order to get the result they wanted. That is not proper scrutiny - if they have viewed it the way you seem to believe they have. They may have been right to give the Celtic Crusaders a licence, purely on these quixotic aspirations, but to award a licence to them, based on a supposed empirical investigation, is fallacious, imo.

Instead of adding insult to injury (to the rejected clubs) the RFL should have made the case for the expansion club, as you have done so eloquently over the years, as well as here. They then should have awarded them a licence without them needing to put a bid in and simply told the heartland clubs that they will be competing against each other - which was furtively the case anyway, imo.

You think in a P+R league the RFL/SL shouldnt have an expansion strategy?


So you think that is good logical evidence that the RFL had already decided which clubs were in SL 4 years before the franchise decision?

Why? you can admit clubs on potential having 'stringently' looked at their franchise bid with 'detailed analysis'

Remember the 'wing and a prayer' is your subjective analysis of the Crusaders bid.

So how come some heartland clubs were admitted when some expansion clubs werent? Clearly what you have put is nonsense

No, it doesnt, any plan for the future will include some empirical and some theoretical analysis. When you are dealing with something which is unknown like the future, it would be crazy to solely rely on what went before. Thats why you find this disclaimer in most investments. [iPast Performance is not a guide as it does not prove what could happen in the future. The value of these investments can go down as well as up.[/i

Forget Widnes for a moment. Forget they were judged against Crusaders. Look at Crusaders on their own. Even if there was nothing Widnes could do to beat Crusaders bid, even if the RFL had decided they wanted an expansion club in. Even if all your paranoid speculation is true. How would the RFL know it was Crusaders they wanted it, rather than say Toulouse, not before they look at the bids (which would be pretty difficult in and of itself) but 4 years before the process, a year before Crusaders were even formed, in 2005? which is of course when the comments you have decided to read out of context to try and prove your hypothesis were made.

They certainly did conduct their investigation using information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

For the first round, they needed to make sure they had the best heartland clubs. From now, i dont think any clubs should be competing against any other club. If a club can add to SL, that shouldnt be dependent on another not being able to. From now, we should aim to only grow the league in size. Widnes should be admitted this year on their own merits, not because they are better than Fax, but because they themselves can contribute to SL.

I can read again.It's a miracle !
So,has the club in Wrexham,where the owners who take the club into administration and recruit not only players from other Super League clubs but a new Chief Executive while remaining in administration,bought the club again ? [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/9239840.stmLINK[/url ( They did suggest by the end of the week and my reading abilty informs me that time is a wastin'.)
Anyway,your cogent argument with only the salient points put so succinctly has convinced me that the RFL is transparent and a speck of penicillin in a sea of bacteria so evident at English soccer clubs with their dishonest owners and soccer agents,steeped in dishonesty and wallowing in a cesspit of their own making.I am so proud of the honesty and integrity of all those involved in rugby league and the RFL being the vanguard for transparancy.
I am so inspired I shall never pay another bill.

That’s not what I said. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You can indeed have an expansion strategy, but it is difficult to ensure which clubs you have within Super league with a P&R system in place. So it is pointless trying to decide what the ratio of expansion to heartland clubs should be.

What I was obviously saying was that this document was clearly the first step to moving towards a licence system, stating that 14 clubs from the heartlands could not supply enough quality to fill it is premature, if they intended to run a fair and rigorous licence bid process. Therefore, if they had already decided how many heartland and expansion clubs they need, it is a mere formality for them to pick any expansion clubs they have available to fill those ring-fenced positions. In other words, the reality was that the expansion clubs were merely competing against each other the fill the available expansion places and the heartland clubs were competing against each other for the heartland places.

This is not what the RFL has told us happened. Instead they lumped us all together in one process and tried to pretend they were merely picking the most suitable club. As we now know, they had already decided how many expansion clubs they wanted, so this was clearly a load of bollox (as Starbug would say).


Because, in doing so, you are not taking an holistic or balanced view of the licence criteria, as set out by the RFL themselves, but only considered the merits of expansion, rather than the overall metrics of each club. That approach tips the balance overwhelmingly in favour of the expansion clubs. So it wasn’t a fair fight, as I explained to you in my last post. If the merits if expansion is so obvious, why bother having expansion clubs bid at all?

That is my point.


And one which has now been proven beyond doubt, as they no longer exist, in the form they presented themselves to bid process in 2008.



Because they already decided how many expansion clubs, they wanted in 2005, when they decided how many heartland clubs they thought they needed for a 14 club league.



This is what the bid process was suppose to do. It is to show who is the most likely to survive and prosper in Super League, by analyzing the club as a whole, particularly its ability to stay afloat. Once you ignore this for a more quixotic approach, you are taking a greater risk. So, the choice, for the RFL, was to look at the bids holistically and ensure that they have in place a business plan and infrastructure that can cope for three years competing at the highest level. or just come out and say that one of the 2 extra places was negotiated for an expansion club. The more chances you take with an investment the more likely you are to fail. If you have much better options available, you take them. Your musing at the end of the post are poor generalizations, which aren’t necessarily applicable to the situation we are discussing here. The detail is what makes the RFL’s decision making here seem odd.

The criteria wasn’t branded as an attempt to find the club which suited expansion best, but as a way to ascertain which clubs would be able to prosper in SL by examining, and taking into account, [iall[/i of the evidence.


I never mentioned Widnes, and it’s not just Widnes whom were affected. There are more teams here whom would have every right to be angry about the way the RFL conducted the licence bid process.



Because Leighton Samuel himself let the cat out of the bag, in an interview, that he was approached by people from the RFL with an offer of a three year plan to enter them in Super League. It looked clear, from the rest of that interview too, that all he had to do was keep his part of the bargain and get them in to NL1 and a licence would be awarded to his club. He was adamant that this would happen or he would walk away from the club – which he eventually did anyway.


And failed miserably. Because they thought more about the benefits it could bring, should it work, rather than could it actually be viable; we now no the answer to that question.


I agree!



However, this depends of more funding and whether the SL club chairmen would be willing to split the T.V. money with more than 14 clubs.








You see, I just don’t understand this. If Halifax were the better club, why would Widnes be able to contribute more to Super League more than them?

Im not wordws into your mouth, one of those was simply a question. There is no mention of ensuring the league looks like anything, never mind them deciding how to go about it. There is simply a fairly vague set of aims.

They hadnt yet decided it would be 14 clubs, never mind which 14 they would be. It was again, the SL clubs consulting with the RFL who said there wasnt the player depth to have 14 clubs. If everyone with the experience agrees there isnt 14 clubs worth of players in the heartlands, what do you want the RFL to do?

The RFL did pick what they believed to be the 14 most suitable clubs. The fact they considered a fairly important factor in player depth is simply part of that. Surely it would be unsuitable to pick a club from an area which didnt have, and you, along with everyone else 'in the know' didnt expect to have the player pool to support it.

No, it is you who isnt taking a holistic or balanced view of the criteria. And again you are conflating the tick box criteria with the subjective analysis done by the RFL.



they are in pretty much exactly the same position as Widnes at the time the bids were submitted.

they didnt, you are extrapolating massively from a fairly small and pretty vague statement.The RFL didnt decide they were moving to 14 clubs until after the bids were submitted. Until 3 years after this conclusion was made. Your timeline is all wrong.

No, it wasnt. Licensing was brought in to grow the game as a whole and the league specifically. To admit the best bids going forward, not at that specific moment in time.


Which again isnt the same thing as your speculating. It is good the RFL approach people and get them investing in the game with an AIM and a PATHWAY for getting to SL. We know they have done something similar with Steve O'Connor.

It only means they didnt take the safe choice, it doesnt mean they didnt take the right choice.

If the club would add to the league, and grow it. The Sky would be silly not to extend it. It would be in their best interests to bring in another top club.



Well if Halifax could also contribute then both would be admitted. As it is, i personally am not convinced either Widnes or Halifax have the potential to really contribute at the top level of the sport. Im not sure either will come in and do much if i am honest. However if they both could do, both should be in SL.

What a load of utter bollox

Everything the RFL do tends to be vague. It helps with not being pinned down on areas where they say one thing and do another.

Hwoever, this statement:
[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
Seems quite emphatic that they have come to the conclusion of how many clubs, in an expanded league, should be from heartland areas. So, they have pre-judged their own licence process.

There’s just no getting away from this obvious fact, Smokey.


Ooops!

[i“The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs”[/i
I think this shows otherwise.


It is obvious that the whole process of turning Super League from P&R to a licence system began as early as 2004, when Les Catalans were set up, with a view to having a no relegation clause that would take then nicely through to 2009. A year later Leighton Samuel was asked to set up an RL club, which was given a 3 year plan. This would take up to 2008 when the licneces were to be handed out. This document is clearly the blueprint for what was to come for licencing. This seems pretty obvious to me. God knows why you can’t see it.


What, like in Wales where they are almost entirely dependant on Aussies?

You’d think that the heartlands, with it’s well established service areas and amateur clubs would be much better placed.

Unless you are saying they are expanding the player pool by importing them from Australia and NZ?


No I’m looking at what we actually know the clubs had to put forward in their bids. You are the one only concentrating on one aspect of the bid (that of the benefits of expansion). Taking a holistic view of one area of the bid process is a ridiculous thing to say.

Again, I repeat what Starbug has said, ‘what a load of utter bollox’.


Please explain?


Again:
“The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs”


Then the bidding criteria is completely worthless. If they are going to ignore it, ‘for the greater good’ they should have said so, and do what I have been arguing they should have done and ring fenced a certain amount of expansion places and let the heartland clubs fight it out between themselves.


If this is the case, whats the point in any other club, from the Championship bidding for a licence?

To me, it would be a deceitful method to use when you are claiming to be running a fair bid procedure.

I think it would have been a very good idea to set up a Welsh club and given them one of the extra two places available, provided they made that position clear. No heartland club should be groomed by the RFL in the same way an expansion team should be – including Widnes. They should stand on the strength of their bid at the time, as compared to other heartland clubs.


Then this position should be made clear. That is why expansion clubs should not be in the bid process.



I have an opinion on this, but it would lead to a completely different area of disgussion, so I’ll leave it.