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.

Dont worry that can probably be treated

i take critisism of expansion clubs from people that i think arent biased.

out of the people bagging expansion clubs id say 80% are just jealous

weeding out the jealous/biased fans from people with legitimate concerns is the problem

there are people are always negative on expansion. always.

crusaders occupy a SL spot.

so that makes them the envy of every other club not in SL.

even if they dont stand a chance of getting there

Even if that fan has stated many , many times that he doesn't want his club to get into SL until it is ready , and at the moment it is not ready ?

your not too bad as youve said toulose should be in SL.

and you seem to be honest with your views as well.

There are always people who are negative on badly thought out , badly planned , and ultimatley failed expansion , yes

i thought CC was a good risk at the time.

it wasnt the RFLs only mistake. (wakey, salford, widnes)

anytime there is someone who has 1.6 million pounds to invest in an expansion area and a ground ready to go, the RFL should take it.

Not quite right , what I have said is that Toulouse should be in SL rather than be in the Championships , basically because SL can afford to have Toulouse in with them , the Championships cannot

I dont quite think that Toulouse are ready for SL at the moment , but they do have the potential to be a SL club , much more than Celtic had/have

someone else posted here how LC was close to the edge after their first year of SL.

CC are still around so all is not lost.

the RFL just has to try with clubs.

but it seems clear the the south of france is much better than places like ireland, scotland, wales, paris, or virgin RL areas in england

until the games finances are much better it should go to the "easy" expansion areas first.

mainly toulose, and whatever good bids french RL can mount from the south