nobody is doubting their impact in Wales,and i'm not anti-welsh ! - Nobby & Iestyn did a great job last season - I personally believe Widnes were really hard done by especially when the events of 2009/10 seasons unfolded - .But you can't judge a team by their international counterparts - I used Wakey & Cas as examples but any other english SL team are included in the list.The Crusaders debarcle was disaster waiting to happen - speaking as a neutral ,SOC had everything in place to make a viable,credible & realistic SL bid but the old farts at the RFL were intent on expanding the game to a vunerable candidate in South Wales.The whole episode has been a farce,let's just hope lessons have been learned .Saying that,good luck to Iestyn & the lads for next season.

Widnes had been out of administration for a matter of weeks when the license applications were submitted. It's alright to look in hindsight but they were in a far, far worse situation than Crusaders are in now, IIRC they actually went into liquidation, all their players were made free agents etc only to be re-signed later when O'Connor bought the club. I agree that international comparisons are by no means an accurate way of judging a club's success, but you stated that Crusaders had done nothing for the game. My opinion is that the RFL should have been more thorough in their investigation of the South Wales club and given them more support, rather than leaving the club in the hands of people like Mike Turner who had no idea how to manage it properly. The reason it failed in the South is through shambolic administration and it's the fault of the people who were running the club at the time, not the RFL for including them. If the club had been administrated properly then there was every chance of it being a success. I don't think there have been any sort of damages to 'credibility' though, other than through the eyes of RL's own paranoid fans. Nobody is laughing at the game, but a lot more people are interested in it now.

People talk about Widnes as if they would be one of the biggest clubs in the game and would take Super League to another level, and there's no evidence to suggest that would be the case at all. They would probably won about the same number of games as Crusaders have in the two years and had average crowds of maybe 1-2000 more than Wrexham had last year, although those fans would almost all be existing RL fans rather than new converts. I would be surprised if they had done significantly better than Crusaders, certainly in the second year. Do they deserve a place? Probably yes, although I still am not convinced that they would be as big a club as Super League should be aspiring to be made up of, although they do have potential for growth. Were they hard done by? I don't feel that they were, and they are almost definitely going to be included this time anyway so it doesn't really make too much difference now. For what it's worth though, despite all their faults, mistakes and the absoulte mass of hatred directed towards them, I think having Crusaders in Super League has been of much more benefit to the game than taking the (in hindsight) safe option of including Widnes would have been. Can anyone say what great benefit Widnes would have provided that the league is currently lacking? That's not to say they don't deserve a place, just when people argue that they would have done so much more for the game, I don't see how that is true. If anything, advocates of Widnes should be arguing for their inclusion ahead of Salford. I think they would probably have performed better than Salford have in the last two years, and would have arguably contributed 'more to the game' than Salford have. To say that they would have contributed more than Crusaders is rubbish.

I disagree, there was a lot of support for a Welsh team from fans, and still is. I think everyone was concerned about the set up, the stadium, not being in a major city etc but majority of fans can see that a well run succesful Welsh SL club will pay off great dividends in the long run. Unfortunately most could see another Quins in the making and were proved right to some degree.

All complete lies. All of it. Even the part about people saying we're one of the biggest clubs in the game. No one in any messageboard is arguing that at all.

You complete liar.

Been on the beer again Chris?

still no-one can explain why 4 points were deducted and not 6.

it's not a case of 'hating' Crusaders - good luck to any venture that will expand the game - lovers of the game will want teams from wherever bringing something positive to the game whether it be from Wales,Widnes or Whitehaven and i'm not blaming Wrexham for this debarcle,the damage has been done long before it reached the north,though the Wrexham experience hasn't ben exactly smooth has it ? - The RFL allowed the franchise to a very 'dodgy' set-up with,apparently some very dodgy business characters at the helm - SOC had done enough IMO to warrant that 14th place on the other hand.
Widnes are a pretty 'big' club,read your history books ! though there is no evidence to say they would have done any better or worse than any other club over the past couple of years but the set-up IS in place and only an idiot would see that the infrastructure ie youth policy,facilities etc is far superior to that of the Crusaders (and probably other SL clubs) so they did warrant the 14th place.That's not being anti-welsh,just practical & realistic.



well said mate,got it in a nutshell - just ask Tony Duggan & friends what they think of the debarcle !

The penalty for the offence was a deduction of upto 6 points.

Not sure what you want explaining, no other decisions get explained, why would this one?

This thread is so full of fail it's unreal. When did it become cool to be a "troll"

Crusaders haven't done anything for the game? I wonder what sky would do, if the RFL wasn't so keen on expansion into different area's. Rugby League is the fastest growing sport in Wales. Over 250 schools have started playing league since the inception of the Crusaders. There are now two teams in Wales that can compete with the rest of their leagues. We have an international team that is not only playing well, but growing incredibly quickly, something that in future years should provide a very good opposition to the english to help you improve. Are Wales not going to be hosting the 2013 Rugby world cup? I thought the crusaders didn't do anything. Well then why is it that Welsh rugby league is growing for the first time since before union went pro?

Oh and starbug, it's not the amount of games that the welsh boys have played for the crusaders, but more around the fact that they had a chance to play league. The following players would not be playing rugby league right now if it was not for the Celtic Crusaders

Lloyd White (union player)
Ben Flower (union player)
Gareth Thomas (union player)
Gil Dudson (union player)
Elliot Kear * not sure
Christiaan Roets (union)

They might not be playing regularly for the saders, but none of them would even be in the game if it was not for them.

You flat cap northerns(or should i call you trolls) are so bitter about a "historic" team in Widnes not being admitted, that you are willing to rag on the crusaders at any oportunity. Widnes were weeks out of admin. There is no knowing what Widnes would of become had they entered superleague. I think personally, being left out of the licences the first time around was the best thing the RL could do for Widnes. They have a supurb stadium, and are chomping at the bit to gain entry into superleague. They have sorted all of their problems off the field, and will be a competative team in superleague.

Oh yeah, It's funny that any mention of the Crusaders and Widnes are mentioned immediatly after. Get over yourselves. Anyway, keep fighting teh good fight. Rugby league would still be in the same place it was 20 years ago, and 20 years into the future if not for expansion.

The expansionist nutters have been rather quiet on trying to justify why the RL have only given Crusaders a four point deduction when Keighley and Whitehaven (Plus others I can't think of) got 9. Obviousley it can't be favouring Crusaders can it, as the RL have never done that, as we keep being told. Maybe we should provide some evidence.

-4 is smaller than -9. Is that enough evidence? Or maybe you will try to say that in fact -4 in Welsh is the same as -6 in english, so there is no favouratism being shown by he RL.

What's that old saying about lies, damn lies and statistics ?

Of the 17 who played against France only 5 are directly attributable to Crusaders, the rest being from other clubs or having been professional RL players long before Crusaders were formed.

This is just another example of the favourtism shown to Cru-Cats and Quinns and therein lies the problem.

Its not that RL fans hate these clubs it is this favoritism shown to them that causes the anger and backlash we see on these forums.

There are numerous other examples of this, here is just one of them- the alledged £700k Cru owe the RFL, where was this for other teams that went into admin or are struggling with debt/going to the wall?

The solution to all of this would be for the RFL to state that the expansionst clubs will be retained whilst the SL franchise is in place even it means they are accorded a different set of rules.

Everyone would know where they stand, there would be none of the mistrust of the RFL and its underhanded ways, but true to RFL form they have not got the wisdom or the bottle to do this.

Apart from Steve O'Connor in a recent newspaper article

I thought the standard was three wins, I've no idea why it was four and not six. To be honest, I don't really care. I'd be astounded if they made the play-offs again, even if they were not handicapped at the start of the year.

What a load of crap

Expansion is one thing, growth is quite another. I'd rather have meaningful growth, in whatever form and whatever area, than meaningless expansion as a 'sticking flags on a map' exercise.

Despite all of this much vaunted 'expansion', according to Sport England the RL participation figures are falling. So, we're apparently 'expanding' while having less people playing the game. Wonderful.

I’m neither surprised nor bothered about how many points the Crusaders get. I just think it’s about time that the RFL dropped the pretence that they are treating everyone the same. I don’t hate the Crusaders, and never have, I welcome them. It looks certain that an extra two places were added to Super League because of their inclusion. Without them, it would probably have remained at 12 and, ironically, that would have given us one less heartland club in Super league.

I think where the problem lies, is in the RFL pretending that they were one of the best 14 clubs, when they couldn’t possibly have been. If they RFL had just been honest, and explained that the extra two places had been negotiated with Sky, in order to accommodate one heartland club and one expansion club and that the Celtic Crusaders were going to be fighting it out with other expansion clubs for that spot, there wouldn’t be so much animosity towards them.

At the end of the day, it’s not the fault of the Celtic Crusaders or their fans. It is the ham-fisted, incompetent and dishonest way the RFL operate – they just can’t be honest. That is where the blame should lie.




Widnes were not in a worse situation than the Crusaders. Unlike the Crusaders, Widnes did not plan a month ahead, with the connivance of the RFL, to go into administration. They did not have the benefit of being able to set up another trading company with the blessing of the RFL and have there players kept on contract and paid for by the RFL.

Widnes did not go into liquidation, this is an outright lie spread about these boards by tb. Once a sporting club enters administration, their playing staff contracts are no longer valid. The players have the option to either stay or leave. Some stayed and some left. Unlike the Crusaders, there was no new trading name and no RFL money to pay the players, while they went through the administration process.

Or maybe the Championship penalties are different from SL penalties, Crusaders couldnt have got a -9 penalty

Now if you had argued why they didnt get the maximum -6 then thats a different ball game

In the context of a league with no relegation 4 points cannot be regarded as a hefty fine. It does not in my opinion reflect the seriousness of going into administration when financial stability is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of the franchise system and hardly acts as a deterrent to financial mismanagement by other clubs in the future. At this stage in the proceedings the apparent disparity between the penalties for going bust owing £1.25million (lose 4 points next season) and not having a shiny new stadium but otherwise being a stable, even profitable club (exclusion from SL for at least 3 years with the consequent loss of support, income etc) are too great.
Its going to be very hard for the RFL to justify any club other than Crusaders losing its franchise next year and unless they simply admit that the expansion clubs are subject to different rules than the heartland clubs I think the only way they will get out of the mess they are creating is to change their minds yet again and have a 15 or 16 team league in 2012.

Pretty much sum's up the whole Crusaders fiasco in my mind. When put into SL the RFL said they were amongs the best 14 CLUBS (i.e. set ups etc) in the European game, that's why they got in, not just as expansion because they were the best suited.

However since then we get talk of a new club, forming foundations, needing to be excempt from the O/S quota, needing assistance, passing the buck on debt elsewhere. Moving location and set for 3rd name in 3 seasons... does that sound like one of the best 14 clubs in Europe? No didn't think so and there in lies the problem.

RFL should just grow a backbone and say look we are giving full support to clubs X, Y & Z due to expansion and that's that. Make them fully excempt from farnchises as let's face it they are anyway and yes we'd all kick off about it initially but at least in the future we'd know were we stand. And if they want to eventually put Toulouse in SL just do it! Don't mess about creating and changing criteria to put them in, making other sides jump through hoops for no apparent reason.

Well said

.... you smelly viking

No. They got in because they were one of the best 14 BIDS.



We do? No. It's the same club.



?

Again no. Different quota rules has always been in place for expansion clubs, for a set and defined period. It's definitely not something that's happened 'since then'




Thank god no established heartland clubs have ever gone into administration.



and?



In your opinion, an opinion based in large on misunderstandings and untruths.




You seem to be mistaking this for the 'should the RFL be more transparent' or 'Crusaders in administration' threads. These discussions are being done to death there … this one's about the points deduction.


On which:

On the face of it, I'd have gone for a six point deduction myself … I'd like to see the reasoning for the four point deduction before I form a judgement on it. Unfortunately, the story on the RFL website gives no reasoning or quote from the RFL, simply comments from the club.

Fair enough if they weren't in liquidation, I think it's still difficult to argue that they weren't in a worse state than Crusaders though. Crusaders entered adminsitration and registered a new trading name to clear a multitude of debts from the previous owners, they are stable, as you say it was a planned administration because it would be impossible for the club to operate properly with the weight of debts that weren't anything to do with them. Presumably that's why the RFL were lenient. Widnes on the other hand were in dire straits, players were leaving and as far as I'm aware the club was going out of existence until O'Connor stepped in. Any amount of help from the RFL would have been pointless as there was no owner and the club couldn't function. It's pretty irrelevant now as Widnes have proven themselves to be stable and will be granted a license this time. But when the initial decision was made, it was only a few weeks after this had happened, there was no guarantee that O'Connor was in for the long haul etc, so I don't feel the RFL were wrong to leave Widnes out until they could prove themselves, which they have. Remember there was no guarantee that Leighton Samuel would turn out to be a crook and Crusaders would have been mismanaged the way they were in the South either, they were in a stronger position off the field than Widnes at the time.

So they are ?

And the number of games they played for the Crusaders last season is ?

Still waiting , or is the truth not quite so positive

Name the players and the number of games they played for the Crusaders IN SL ?

Somebody has already replied to your boring question.