Quote ="headhunter"For the umpteenth time, I am not a Crusaders fan. The club obviously has a business plan of some sort, I personally have no interest in it because it doesn't concern me at all, =#400000just as it doesn't concern you. =#BF4000If the home attendances aren't good enough to survive then the club will go bust, I don't understand why you are getting so wound up about the fact that they are not. =#FFFF00The club weren't 'fast tracked', they were in the NL1 final in the year that they were promoted and so would have gone up even with automatic promotion and relegation. =#00FFFFThe club that year also had one of the highest average crowds in that league, they averaged more than Leigh. I would like to know how you feel Wakefield are performing '100% better' than Crusaders. Last year Wakefield's average crowd was only 1,300 higher than Crusaders' even with the games in Neath included. The club is far weaker on the field, has far poorer facilities and certainly are not in a stronger position financially. You could not argue that any 'NL1' clubs are better than Crusaders, because it's clear that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and are desperately looking for someone else to blame for the failure of your club. And I'll state it again in case you missed it: I am not a Crusaders fan, and I don't have anything against Wakefield. But your posts are not only ill-informed, they are extremely petty too.
No, 4 Welsh players played without including Jordan James. That's four that otherwise wouldn't be playing, and certainly goes against your theory of a 'team of antipodeans'. There were 8 Australians and 1 PNG player in the Crusaders team on Saturday, that's no worse than other clubs like Hull KR and it's not long since Wakefield were looking at those numbers of imports. I don't know if all the Welsh players will play in every game, there are others that will get a run too but I don't think that's really relevant, your argument was completely wrong as you suggested there were none.'"
1) please god let it be of interest to the RFL.
2) unless their bailed out by the RFL.
3) they were allowed more overseas players, their travel expenses were met by the RFL, because it suited the current RFL mandate of expansion at all costs.
4) how many paid?
As for us being 100% stronger,
Gates higher TICK
Our supporters spend more at away grounds adding value TICK
Our SL record is better overall TICK
We have award winning Community Dept TICK
We have league winning Academy Team TICK
for SL 2012 we have probably one of the best stadiums in SL TICK
and if Crusaders were declined they help received from the RFL they would have gone bust, we weren't offered any help and still survived so i would assume that must make us stronger financially if only because we didn't run up crusaders massive debt TICK
Featherstone Rovers are a better bet as are Batley and Halifax, all have won the necessary trophy'
s, all have better business plans and i would suspect all have more paying supporters.
It will be interesting to see by decision time the respective attendances for both clubs because i would wager there will be more than 1300 average difference.
Don't take this as being petty, its just applying logic, and its not personally aimed at Crusaders, as most of these are points are applicable to London also.
Am i bitter? if we go down because a poorer team is wanted more than us, you bet.
Out of interest, who do you support?
'"
