Given the way some clubs have not fulfilled their promises and the state of some of their grounds, attendances and financial problems, that may not hold up to any real independent scrutiny.



The case against the RFL is building week by week.

the walls are closing in

Here's the get out clause.

RFL:
[i"The Crusaders, who were founded in 2005, have met many of the targets they were set after being awarded a three-year Super League licence 12 months ago but have been experiencing difficulties due to the adverse economic climate."

“However they are in it for the long haul and we are determined to do what we can to help them find additional investors. We are trying to establish a Super League club outside the traditional rugby league heartland, which would have been a tough ask at any time, never mind in the depths of a worldwide recession."

“When their Super League licence was first approved the world was a very different place to what it is now and no-one at Celtic Crusaders could have anticipated many of the difficulties they have faced."[/i

[urlhttp://www.totalrl.com/features/content.php?feat_id=746&featcat_id=49[/url

Looks like the RFL were the only people on earth unaware we were heading into a major recession last July. That will now be the excuse they use to keep all those clubs who promised new stadiums in SL come the next round of licences.

I asked

This is what I was told




So is it all a conspiracy or not

It's not about who asked the question, but on who's behalf was it asked.

Surely that could only be the RFL's?