An excellent analogy

There were quotes from two other people

unless they are also you, then it wasnt only you was it

its the level at which they company/product matures, its the payback level, its the level the clubs was intended to reach when the investment was made

i havent said anything at all about whether craven park is acceptable for SL, go read it again. I said your chairman has said the stadium in its current form, with its current capacity isnt enough to keep Hull KR at the level they need to be. I at no stage mentioned its acceptability to SL

have I said they did? No, I thought not.

Hull KR however did receive dispensation in the amount of overseas players they were allowed, this is because they werent a ready-made SL club!
Yes, Hull KR were fortunate to have a manager who kept them in SL first of all. This was a very big challenge and one they could have failed very easily. They were lucky to have investors willing to bail them out from large unsustainable losses. They were lucky to have a good manager and a board willing to invest in them, This im sure any normal HKR fan would admit was true. And any normal person would also not somehow see it as a criticism of Morgan, Crossland or Hudgell. Hull KR have executed well. Good on them. The point i was making was that take away Crossland/Hudgell (whoever is actually picking up these rising debts) and there is nothing intrinsic in Hull KR that makes them a better bet. Right now they are relying on their owners to keep them afloat, and even they admit they need outside investment to move on from there. This isnt a ready made SL club
which is exactly the same thing. Why you were desperate to put a more negative tint on it I don't know.


No,

It just didnt work

your wrong, only if you were working from your on prejudices. There was always a chance a club could fail, whichever format we took. Clubs failed under p+r, clubs failed both before and after Salary Capping.


putting the success/failure of a club down to the time-frame they took to get into SL is stupidly niave. It is one, very small part of a very big and complex package

thats quite funny that, considering the post you point it out in, ignored points that proved you wrong

Yes there was , one of them I pointed out to you was from Pepe , were he pointed out that it was Toulouse's relegation exemption that he was unhappy with , not their inclusion

Sooooooo

are we now accepting that you and one other person isnt just you?

, and one other

So hardly masses of ' flat cappers ' showing displeasure

Come on smokey give us an answer to this one ?



What do you base this comment on ?

lol at the flatcappers all trying to gang up on smokey

bit like dogs trying to hump someones leg for attention

i never said i was going to go and collate every negative quote regarding Toulouse's inclusion. I just simply showed that it wasnt all welcoming, by your admission there are three posts there, whats your issue? do you just want more negative posts? there is a whole archive of it back to february if you want to find it

their success on the field, their success in attracting crowds and visibility, and their success in attracting a tv deal and sponsorship

On field by breaking salary cap and immigration laws , marvelous

Crowds

, you havent a clue

Visibility , they were invisible in Bridgend , never mind South Wales

Tv Deal , yes they got one of those , well done for that

Sponsorship , obviously not enough to support them

Dont talk crap man , you are far too intelligent to believe the ' spin ' , or are you

Your interpretation bears no resemblance as to what he actually said. Neither does your recollection of what you said bear any resemblance to what you actually did say. With bias like yours Smokey you ought to take up bowling.

The case for the prosecution rests.

If you're aligning yourself with Smokey, you really have lost the argument.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/dec/14/crusaders-relocate-wales-rfl-leighton-samuelRugby league needs 'pot of money' to succeed in Wales, says Leighton Samuel[/url

Why is it necessarily a black and white argument.
Debates like this have a hell of a lot of grey, both Smokey and Barnacle have made good points on the topic over the last few weeks as have others. Telling someone they're stupid because they don't agree with you doesn't make you right.
There's good and bad points to both sides of this argument, hence why it's been going on for so long

I've said before, I think there were more serious flaws in the Crusaders' entry than a poorly executed plan. They seemed to make very little attempt to strengthen what was an NL side on entry to SL, and generally seemed to be trying to do everything on the cheap. Just look at where the players sent home last year are now - playing Queensland Cup and similar, because that's their standard.

If the Crusaders were financially strapped then they should not have been allowed in. Samuel and whoever else owned the club should have been tied for 3 years minimum with significant financial guarantees relating to the club's survival and ensuring that if he did pull out that the club was looked after. Without those sort of guarantees - which appear not to exist - they should never have been allowed in.

I do support expansion, and now the Crusaders are here I hope they prosper. They potentially bring far more to SL than any existing NL side. But rather than bag them - some of which they deserve - I think a bit more of a 'please explain' from the RFL is in order.

other than on salary cap or Hull KR, i find i agree with all of what he says

mate theres also a lot of brown coming from the flat cap side too.

sensible post.

Isn't this strange



Very good post

I totally agree. The problem is if you don't subscribe to the rabid expansionist agenda, then you must be a flatcapper and completely anti expansion.

What I would like to be able to do is look back in 20 years time and say those "expansion" clubs (as well as the heartland clubs of course) are going really well aren't they? Not, do you remember Celtic Crusaders?

I really cannot understand anyone who, given the same circumstances as we had with Celtic, would do exactly the same again. It makes no sense.

hey i really cant understand being bitter and jealous about other clubs and not being honest about it.

That's just it, do you really think Crusaders currently constitute a threat to any M62 club or are anything to be jealous about?

I'm not jealous of Cru for the same reason that I wasn't jealous of PSG.

I feel the same way as many of the others who are being called flatcappers for daring to not like the current Crusaders debacle. As a Hull FC fan (basically one of the safest clubs in the SL), what have I got to be bitter and jealous about when it comes to expansion?

Anyone who has to accuse someone of having an agenda is lacking an argument.

The reason the extreme expansionists feel like they are superior is because it is harder to find an agenda, where as it is easier to find an agenda in a more pessimistic viewing person (despite many times it being completely wrong). Being overly optimistic is just as bad as being overly pessimistic.