10 years on, what have we learned?

Quote: Dico "I'm still not convinced by all these who are saying they knew CC were going to fail.
I remember PLENTY in support, even the phoneins were full of people saying they should be in.

It was a gamble worth taking

Here's a post from me from April 2008 on why I thought they would fail,

Quote: Dico "For me, Celtic Crusaders are harking back to the old days of expansion where we put teams who clearly weren't ready like Gateshead and Paris (and some would say London still) in and hoped they would grow. You've never answered my questions on why you think they failed.

Les Catalans have been a great success, I'm currently watching a team full of French players many of them young not just competing but beating a good Huddersfield side. They get big crowds and have done wonders for the game in France. They were well prepared though. They were given 2 years full time knowing they were in Super League. Perpignan had a great RL history and in the past has got good crowds for both domestic and international games. It is still important to note that as good as they are it is still some way before France will be truly competitive.

This moves me on to Celtic. I've nothing against them, in fact I think they've done very well so far in their 2 years as a semi-pro side. However its foolish to compare their inclusion in 2009 to either Catalans or a team like the NZ Warriors.

One of my main fears, and I go on about it often is that I think they will struggle to draw crowds. There is a presumption that once they are in SL the crowds will come but I honestly don't know if they will. They never came to Gateshead and they are still yet to come to London/Quins. History is not on their side, in National League 2 last year all but 2 of their crowds were less than 1000. This year they have managed only 1003 against Halifax. Then you can add internationals at Bridgend, where a massive 3000 saw Wales play Australia in the first game the two teams played since the heroic Welsh performance in WC2000. They welcomed the Brisbane Bronco's in a game that their own Operations Manager said they hoped could get 14,000. It got 2000. They played Moscow in the Challenge Cup in 2005 and were aiming for 3000 people, they got 600. Maybe they've over-estimated the draw of Super League as well?

This brings me onto the main second point. Its fairly reasonable to suggest that Celtic are going to be looking at an average of maybe 4-5000 next year possibly even less. So the guy who is going to have to make up that difference in funding is Leighton Samuels. Fair enough, other teams have a sugar daddy but most others know what they are getting themselves in for. Steve O'Connor knows he has a side that will get 7,000 and can budget for it, Leighton can't and he's making up a much bigger difference than Steve. If he wants to them fine, but once again nobody knows anything about him. We don't know how much money he has, we don't know how much he's willing to put in and we don't know whether he has overestimated Super League. Yet we're supposed to bite his hand off no questions asked.

My third point is playing strength. I'm a firm believer that a team full of Australians will result in Gateshead mark II. Don't forget they had great sponsorship, they were investing in the youth and look what happened to them. A Welsh team in SL that has no or very few Welsh players no matter how temporary will be a figure of ridicule within RL and especially outside of it. This will hardly be great publicity for a team trying to build momentum and crowds from a very small base. This is a big difference than a team with a massive support base using a few more Antipodeans than they should.

If we are to have a year on year growth then fair enough stick them in but I think theres easily enough doubt about this, look at Quins for godsake. You can twist my words how you like, I never said we should invent a southern national side I was using Quins as an example of a team from outside the heartlands that in 13 years haven't produced enough homegrown players for a national side but Celtic will be expected to and by many a lot quicker than 13 years.

This is why I support 2012. I think by this time with their current rate of growth they could have a few homegrown players in the squad rather than just 13 Australians. They will also have more stability after having been a team for 5 years, they would be more well known and they will have been given more than 7 months to fully prepare. They may have a new stadium further along the way rather than one that has no formal plans.

Many seem to think that Celtic will be given the time to grow and develop and be the franchise we would all want them to be but like it or not Rugby League has a history of not seeing these things through, in my opinion it is only the desperation for a presence in the capital that has saved the London club on occasion. Celtic might not be so vital if after 3 years they are struggling. I don't say 2012 because I'm a flatcapper I say 2012 because it would be giving them the best chance to succeed. Stick them in and hope for the best has never worked and it won't now.

I could go on and on, about their location and stadium etc but I think I've said enough and at least you can't say I haven't bothered arguing. I'm not going over it all again though, theres only so many times you can go over the same points. I still think they'll get the nod but I think we'll all be scratching our heads as to why they failed in 2/3 years time. That would be a much bigger setback for expansion and rugby league, especially pro RL in Wales than them being told to wait ever would.

Like you said we can agree to disagree. I just can't stand the idea that is so often portrayed that anybody against Celtic or even Celtic in 2009 is wrong and has no argument. I think I've often pointed out enough reasons for there to be a lot of doubt about how successful they will be. You have even said yourself you don't think they are ready, not you make out like this is a soundbite. How does that work?

As for my opinions on Franchising and who should be in the 12/14 thats for another day. I don't admit to knowing the answers or who should be in but we're discussing Celtic and whether they should be in not any other team, just Celtic. If we had 13 good franchises, then 5 awful ones and Celtic, I still wouldn't be saying put them in and make it 14 just because the other 5 are awful.'"

RLFANS.COM MERCHANDISE

RLFANS.COM SPONSORS & HELP