Transparency

OK, I’m sorry to everyone who is sick of this argument and I will make this my last comment on the matter. Smokey TA can blow smoke through is for the rest of this thread if he wants, but I’ll just ignore it, as we seem to be annoying people.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" lets see some detail then from the 2005 release. The things which had been decided, not things preceeded with uncertain adverbs like if, or maybe, no plans. But you decided detaila.

what was proposed. There doesnt seem a proposal with any meat on the bones at all.'"

Christ, how much flesh do you want on those bones?

Do you think they would say all this, if it wasn’t actually decided that it would be done?

From the 2005 article:

On how many clubs they will expand to:
“The RFL also confirmed plans to expand Super League from 12 to 14 clubs.

On how long P&R would last for, until the licence era began and information about where the new clubs will come from. Presumably, these clubs would be the ones, which the RFL thought would take up the slack, which the heartlands could not supply.
“Promotion and relegation will remain in place for the next four seasons but then potential new clubs are likely to come from London, Wales or France”

On how long each licence period will run and what teams will be judged on.
“Thereafter, the RFL will only consider admitting new teams on a three-yearly franchise system based on clubs' infrastructure, finance and results.”

Names of the actual clubs, which will be setting up as pro RL clubs, with a view to being ready for 2009:
“Toulouse have expressed their desire to join Perpignan, who will join the elite division next February, and an application from a Welsh club to be based in Bridgend will be considered by the RFL Council in July.”

On the chances of ambitious lower league clubs still being able to reach Super League, with the hint that it will not be a closed shop:
“But executive chairman Richard Lewis insists ambitious non-Super League clubs will still be able to reach the top and says the National League clubs have given their backing to the blueprint.”

On when preliminary assessments for SL clubs will take place:
“He added that all 12 Super League clubs will undergo an assessment in 2006”

On how it will affect SL fixtures:
“The increase in the number of teams will lead to a reduction in Super League fixtures, since it will remove the need for additional games and enable clubs to play each other home and away.”

…And there’s more that I could have put up, and that is just from that 2005 article!

I would suggest that the 2005 strategy document for Super League report would probably contain a much more detailed, account. That, which was put to the media was more than enough to show that there was plenty of meat on the bones, which shows that, barring disaster, this would definitely be going ahead in 2009. This was, and is not, some far away whimsical fancy, which may or may not take place.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" well pretty much what i said. That the decision over how many teams were to participate in the franchised league wasnt made until 2008 as Richard Lewis explicitly states, not 2005 as you proposed. Once we get passed that, your time line and theory descends in to bigger nonsense.'"

The decision to go to 14 clubs was clearly made in 2005, as outlined by the Strategy For Super League document. The only proviso was that SL wouldn’t expand to 14 if they didn’t believe there was enough clubs who would have access to enough quality players in order to make them competitive. They had already stated, in the SFSL report, that the heartland clubs would not be able to provide this. That can only lead to one conclusion; they needed the new expansion clubs which, coincidently, they had already begun the process of setting up in 2004.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" shouldnt be too difficult to provide me with evidence then should it.'"

You have me over a barrel on this one, Smokey. I have had a brief scout across the net, but haven’t found it yet. As it means reading every Celtic Crusaders report over the last 18 months or so, I may not find it. I can’t be bothered doing that for the sake of a daft argument. By now, it may even have been removed from whatever website it was on. All I will say, is that what I have said is true. Obviously, you will not believe it. I will keep looking though.

However, I did find this link, while looking for the other, where LS states that:
"I was approached in 2004 to start up a club that was capable of getting into Super League by 2009," said Samuel.
news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 134656.stm

This basically confirms that the RFL wanted them ready to be included in SL by 2009. Not 2007, 2010, 2012 or 2020, but by the year they had planned for SL expansion and licences a year later, in the 2005 report.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" So what you were sarcastically referring to as 'coincidence' didnt actually happen at all. The reason for it not being a coincidence no longer applies but it is just dismissed. I like your circular reasoning, its funny.

And again, there werent 14 places yet to fill. We know this, we were explicitly told this.'"

Here’s the timeline. Coupled with Leighton Samuels admission that the Celtic Crusaders were being set up for the purpose of being placed in SL, even as early as 2004, shows there is something in what I am suggesting. So, it is safe to say that the the RFl had been thinking about the licence process, and whom they want to see in SL, as early as 2004.

2004: The RFL set up two new expansion clubs, telling at least one of them that they need to be capable of getting into Super league in 2009.

2005: they come up with the Strategy For Super league report, which states that “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.” . It also announces that Super League will now be a licenced franchise competition from 2009 onwards. This ties in nicely with the setting up of two new expansion clubs the year before.

2006: The SL clubs go through a dummy run of submitting licence bids, which would allow all parties to assess what is needed for 2008. This seems to be confirmation that the process is a rock solid policy of their intentions to go ahead with a full scale bid process in 2008.

2008: more details are given to the press, which leads to speculation that both the Celtic Crusaders and Les Catalans are both favourites to gain licences. Later on in the year, this is proven to be correct.

2009: the licence era begins as promised. The heartland did not take up all 14 places, and the two new clubs, set up in 2004 were both included.

Again, is it a coincidence that they had these two clubs approached and set up, just a year before announcing their plans in 2004, which states categorically that the heartland clubs could not fill the a 14 club SL?

If you think that this is a coincidence, and these clubs were never destined from the outset to receive a licence in 2009, as long as they were still in business, then I honestly see no further point in arguing with you. It looks as obvious as the nose on my face, to me.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" Yes, maybe that it what they felt, in 2009 when they had viewed the franchise bids. They clearly didnt make this decision in 2005. They have explicitly told us so.

and as such your paranoid hypothesis is shown to be false.'"

No, they clearly felt in the 2005 SFSL report, and, undoubtedly, in 2004, when they decided they needed to set up two new expansion clubs that year to be ready for the 2008 licence process.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" of course it makes a difference, your contention was that the Les Catalans were set up to enter in 2006 with a three year exemption taking them up to 2009 when the already decided 14 club SL including 3 expansion clubs would begin (which was decided in 2005). This is proved to be nonsense as A) the RFL have told us they didnt know how many clubs would be in SL in 2009 until 2008. B) they have told us no expansion plans would be made until 2008, and C) Les Catalans were due to join in 2005 with a three year exemption taking them to 2008, a year before the licences. Your idea that everything was already decided is proved wrong every step of the way.'"

It Makes no difference at all how many years Les Catalans would have a non-relegation clause for. Whether it was for three or four is irrelevant. What matters, is they were approached to be set up, along with the Celtic Crusaders, a year before they released a document which stated they would be extending the league to 14, and that there weren’t enough quality heartland clubs to fill it. The main thing is that Les Catalans were given up until 2009 which took them up nicely to when they would be secure of a place forever. Whether that period started from 2005 or 2006 is irrelevant. My conclusions still stand.

The RFL didn’t decide on SL expansion to 14 in 2008, it was in 2005 when they announced it in the SFSL document and to the media. They stated, at the time (2005), that it would not begin until after 2008, when the current TV contract ends. That is not the same thing as you are saying.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" except they have explicitly told us that they hadnt. They have explicitly told us that this decision hadnt been made. But yes if we ignore all actual evidence and invent our own you do make sense.'"

Where did the RFL ‘explicitly’ tell us in 2005 that they hadn’t had an agreement in place, to begin the process of moving to a licence system with 14 clubs?

They must have had some sort of agreement in place with BskyB in order to begin this process, otherwise it would have been a very expansive waste of time, effort and money, over a 3 year period. I’ve no doubt that they would have had to thrash out the finer detail with them later on, but they must already have come to an initial agreement. RL is one of Sky Sports’ flagship sports and must be in constant touch with the RFL on any changes to the structure of the game, which may be taking place. It would be extremely naive to suggest that they wouldn’t. I would suggest that the whole idea of licencing and league expansion probably came about at a meeting between RFL and BskyB officials sometime in 2003-2004.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" exactly. Why would they? they would likely look at the bids, see if there were 14 which were good enough and if there were let them in. If not dont. I.E they hadnt made any decision until they had viewed the bids'"

…Or, which is more likely in my opinion, they had decided that the heartlands wouldn’t be able to sustain 14 SL clubs and they needed a couple more expansion clubs, as early as 2004, when they went about setting them up. From then on, providing they were still around, both of these clubs would be licenced for 2009. It is probable, imo, that this made negotiations with people like Leighton Samuel and the LC officials easier, if they were promised a licence in 2009. There is no way LS would have bought into RL without that promise, imo.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" no, you either look at the evidence or you make it up. The fact is you are making it up, Thats why you are dismissed as paranoid.'"

I’m not paranoid and I’m not making things up. I am commenting on what we know to have happened and on statements given to the press by those involved. I am clearly stating what I ‘m saying as merely being my opinion. As neither of us know the exact details of what went on, we can only use the timelines and history of events which took place, along with all the strange decisions made by the RFL, and draw our own conclusions.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" well yes it does. It is kind of the point of potential. It is unknown whether or not you can fulfil it.'"

Correct!

Therefore, it’s not the best way to judge if a club is suitable for a 3 year licence in SL, as you are suggesting. If it was, all those clubs with potential like Paris, Celtic Crusaders, Gateshead and Fulham or the London Broncos would still be around in SL and thriving. They’re not though, are they?

This is because the RFL just looked at what they thought was their potential and threw them in at the deep end, while trying to pretend that they were as good as some of the best lower league clubs, when they clearly weren’t.

I think the RFL need to take a broader look at the way they are trying to expand the game in non heartland areas.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" im not ignoring it. I understand it. You still havent put forward any kind of argument that explains why a small town with a low population with plenty of bigger RL clubs in the immediate area has more potential for growth than a large area with a large population, and no RL clubs.
Then there’s the North, where no infrastructure for playing the game exists yet. There’s no proper service area or amateur game there. Even if none of this were true, they’d still have to have the right set up to make the most of it. '"

I did explain it, it’s just that you won’t accept that you are wrong.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" Part of the reason of bringing in a welsh club is to get that infrastructure in place '"

Then they are putting the cart before the horse.

To be fair, I think that the RFL wouldn’t have done this, if they intended to put the club in Wrxham in the first place. Because they were to go to South Wales, they did put in some amateur clubs in the area.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" good for you. Would all have those been missed if it werent for Widnes?'"

Evidently, or they would have been in someone else’s academies and not at Widnes.
There is only so many places for young players, and there is only a finite number of places for each position available at those local SL clubs, yet there is an abundance of talent which will miss out. This area, in particular, is not as saturated with RL clubs as it is in Yorkshire, and there is plenty of room for the three local clubs outside of their boundaries to find young talent and bring in more fans.

There is also the question of how much effort the other SL clubs are willing to put into bringing through youngsters, particularly from outside there boundaries. If the other clubs don’t bother, then all that potential goes to waste.

Then there’s the quality of coaching and the support given to these youngsters as well as the infrastructure and environment in which they are learning. This is all top notch now at Widnes. They are trying new things too, with some of our young players being put in positions with NRL clubs and learning from the best youth coaches in the sport. We have already started this process, with Anthony Mullally now in the Brisbane Broncos youth set up.

There’s far more to than just how many people you have within a clubs boundaries. None of this suits you simplistic argument though.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" But they would Widnes for some reason?'"

Yes, because they are the most local team and one which they are very aware of. Many people already come to watch Widnes from these areas, and as a percentage, I would bet it is more than any club in this area, except maybe St Helens. You only have to spen a short while on the TIW board to find out where many of the fans come from. Runcorn, Liverpool, West Cheshire and the The Wirral, even parts of Warrington and Wales!

This is before a concerted attempt to woo them begins in earnest. They’re already here and more of them will be coming shortly. This is a stated aim of Steve O’Connor.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" who cares what you believe, you have shown you are happy to simply making things up. Show some evidence or this is simply put with the rest of your delusions.'"

You apparently.

I’m not telling lies or making things up. I am putting over my point of view. I am stating what I think is has happened from the events which have actually taken place and the things which, those people in the know, have said. Unlike you, I am not willing to take the RFL’s word on everything they say.

If Richard Lewis was caught red handed humping a live chicken, and he said that he was merely checking for eggs, you’d believe him.

neither wrexham nor scorpions existed or had any interest prior to Crusaders. You do realise time is linear dont you?
Did either the people who run the Scorpions or the people at Wrexham actually approach the RFL, or did the RFL approach them?

It is my contention that the RFL made enquiries with the people concerned, only in desperation and as it was clear that the Celtic Crusaders were heading for the rocks. I wish they had done it sooner rather than later.

Quote ="SmokeyTA" yet you have continued to have faith in a system like P+R despite its years of proven failure. Weird'"

I love the concept of P&R and I think the RFL could have still moved the game forward using it. The only thing I think is an advantage with this system is the fact it helps protect expansion clubs from relegation. Now that is a very good reason for having it in place, but I find the concept a tad sterile. I like the end of season relegation battles and I like to see fresh blood in Super League every year. I am at odds with the chairman of my own club on this one. He thinks the licence system is a great idea.

For what it’s worth, I regard expansion as necessary if the game is to remain fully pro and with a lucrative TV deal as well as attracting top sponsorship money. The world has changed and it’s not 1960 anymore. There’s a million TV channels to choose from and we have many other avenues of pleasure we can pursue, which were just not available in those days.

TV companies need lots of advertising revenue to make their broadcasts pay. A better demographic, that would come with a national footprint would help the RFL negotiate a better deal and help keep our sport on the air. It would also help its profile in the media which, in turn, gives the game a higher profile which is what potential sponsors want. It is just the way that I believe the RFL go about the business of expanding the game that I take issue with.

I wish all the expansion clubs well, and hope they prosper.