You have made far more than 8 Smokey

Far more.



Or do you just mean today?

Of course others club have, just that in the case of the ‘big boys’ they have brought in quality imports, rather than 2nd rate journeymen. Who are the clubs that haven’t, the likes of Huddersfield, Castleford, Widnes & Salford? All clubs who found themselves relegated.





Well, based on the Trophies one, it’s been a bit of a closed shop, wouldn’t you say?

Regarding attendances, I don’t think Wakefield’s attendances have been too bad, considering the lack of success & the dilapidated stadium. As for players brought through, I suggest you look around the league, why, Leeds even took one themselves.




Come on Smokey, you know what I meant, that’s like saying Harlequins didn’t go bust, what’s in a name change!



The collapse of the Crusaders, which one?

The one when they changed their name & location, or the one at the back end of last year, or, if the latest reports are to be believed, the imminent one

You just cannot shove a club into the elite division, in an expansion area and expect it to be viable, so who pays?

Wakefield’s collapse has nothing to do with their proximity to Castleford, there are enough potential spectators for both clubs.

And look at what Hudds and Cas have managed to change. Look at Warrington and even quins movement towards developed players rather than 2nd rate imports. Wakefield have been forced into a similar position, which is a good thing, by overseas players leaving and there not been the opportunity to bring in tons of overseas players.

And even though those clubs were relegated, they are in a better position, right now, that Wakefield are (bar widnes who have yet to prove anything)


Theres not a lot is there. And whilst Wakefields attendances may not be too bad considering the lack of success and the dilapidated stadium, they still have a lack of success, still have a dilapidated stadium and are solely responsible for their lack of success and dilapidated stadium.


They went into administration once. Under all guises they only 'collapsed' once. And when they went bust they blamed historic debts from the previous owners, Debts which wouldnt have existed had they 'gone bust' when they moved to Wrexham.
The only one which actually happened.

Who says? it seems you have chosen a very circular argument. If we start off with that hypothesis being true, then yes we can find evidence that vindicates us. But thats simply poor thinking.

Crusaders collapse doesnt prove SL in wrexham cannot work, any more than Wakefields collapse proves two SL clubs in WMDC cannot work.

Crusaders collapse has nothing to do with them being in an expansion area, there is enough potential spectators for Crusaders.

wakefield have been pretty average throughout SL (quite an achievement on the shoestring they had), however the same can be said of just about all the other teams with the exception of leeds, st helens and before that bradford.

wigan , hull and warrington have had a few good seasons but mainly underachieved and huddersfield were spectacularly bad for years.

at the moment there is no superpower in SL despite the big bucks being thrown down some very deep holes.

.

To further answer your question,

If you mean in pure financial terms then twice (not too bad in in 137 years) both in the last 10 years and both under an old regime which has been replaced by a better more financially stable one.

Ok Smokey, so what do you have to say now? Crusaders beat Huddersfield and Wakefield beat Cas! Wakefield's adjusted league position is now 11th above Salford, Hull KR and Crusaders but apparently they are nothing but a folly! The point is they continue to perform and have never been the bottom side in this competition since being admitted and in actual fact they are a mid-table team with an above average level of home support for SL. Crap ground, yes, poor side, no.

I am disappointed that Crusaders has not really worked, I did support their original inclusion but failing twice (yes, it is twice because if Moss and Roberts had not stepped in they were going under mate... simple as) but the RFL can not continue to justify their inclusion above Wakefield just because they have a nice ground. Nice ground, no fans, no sponsors, no money (even the £700k the RFL gave them has been spent) and seemingly no chance of real long-term future investment under the current ownership. I am a believer in expansion but you this has proved to be too much too early and long term sustainability has to come above just quick expansion for quick expansions sake.

I think my part in this argument has now concluded, I can be bothered having a battle of wits with an unarmed man but I do have one final question for you. Lets postulate that Salford are not building a new stadium and staying at the Willows, and given their record as by far the consistently poorest team in SL by a long way, would they be the team that should go over anyone else?

Go on then, I've a spare half hour.




Surely never being relegated from SL is a small success?

By being responsible, does that mean, unable to get a Sugar Daddy on board, or a Council to allow redevelopment of the said dilapidated stadium, maybe even building a new one, ala Salford / Widnes?






Spin it how you like, they were in South Wales, and had to move north, to keep the show on the road, that’s once, went bust last year, that’s twice.





I’m not saying R.L cannot work in Wrexham, or South Wales for that matter, the fact is, the speed of their inclusion has proved to be a folly.

Idea was rushed, awful, awful implementation, hence the Crusaders have failed in soooo many areas. Which is not fair on their fans, everyone knew that they were rushed into Super League without having a viable club.

Get over yourself Smokey, face facts for once instead of living in your little dream world.

I wouldnt be as idiotic as pretending something as transient as form over 11 games was relevant. I wouldnt be idiotic enough to pretend that 4 wins and 7 losses is form to be proud of.

And if Moss and Roberts had put them into administration when they moved the franchise, they wouldnt have had to go in again last pre-season. They have gone bust, once. Only someone looking to promote an agenda would even consider counting it twice. And the 'nice stadium' issue wouldnt be an issue if Wakefield had built themselves into a club which really added to SL. They didnt. That isnt Crusaders fault. It is Wakefields. really? Crusaders have had the temerity to not only borrow money but spend it? I thought they would have borrowed that 700K and had it sitting around in the bank. Seemingly because of an extrapolation you have taken from an article which specificaly mentions its own irrelevancy to Crusaders.
You say you believe in expansion and you want long term sustainability but you want to kick them out after giving them 2 seasons in SL because they havent already reached the point Wakefield took over 100 years to reach. Its mental

Yes. If Salford werent a club that had invested massively in young british players, hadnt put in place the long-term plans they have done, hadnt succeeded in building new facilities the game could be proud of and didnt have the proven financial stability they have then yes. They would likely also be in trouble. fact is, they did these things.

In the same way not stabbing yourself in the head is a small success. Im not sure we should be celebrating not quite being the worst.

It means you are responsible for the facilities you play in. If they arent good enough then they need to improve them. However they do that is up to Wakefield.

Except that isnt once. Its the moved once, and went bust once. The fact is that when they went bust, historic debts from the south wales effort were publicly stated to be the main reason. These debts are the reason they moved north and went bust. You are counting the same thing twice.



Im not saying that RL cannot work in Wakefield, but lets look at some facts. Even in their 3rd year of SL Wakefield were struggling with attendances around the 4k mark, they were full of mediocre overseas players, and struggling at the bottom of the table. In 2001 they had 5 sub 3k crowds and only one 5k+crowd and the finished 11th. IN 2002 they had only 4 crowds above 4k in the whole season and finished 11th. in 2003 they had only 2 crowds above 5k finishing 11th. here we are talking about Wakefield, a heartland club, with Leeds, Hudds, bradford, and Cas on their doorstep and we are talking about them 4/5/6 years in to SL and it took another 5/6 years for them to build to even this point.

You are trying to compare Wakefield after 12 years to Crusaders after 2.

in 2001 Wakefields 3rd year of SL rugby, they got 1 crowd above 5k. ONE
in 2010 Crusaders 2nd year of SL rugby they got 7 crowds above 5k and one above 10k

Im not arguing Wakefield should go down. Im arguing that A) wishing death on Crusaders because Wakefield have got themselves into a position where they are likely to be demoted is pathetic and B) That Crusaders arent doing too bad for only their 3rd year of SL

' Death Riding ' , now ' Wishing Death ' , FFS grow up will you , one of these days you'll realise that the Emporer is actually naked

How does the ignore button work?

Don't ignore him , it's funnier to actually read his garbage , just don't reply

I like his username - with the TA reference I imagine him to be like Tackleberry in Police Acadamy, except not so smart.