No, I'm not arguing that at all. London Broncos/Quins/whoever were formed in 1980, therefore had been playing RL for 15 years prior to entry into Super League. I'm not interested in the manner of their promotion, they were already an established club, which is exactly what you were arguing for.

Again, irrelevant. We could debate for days the circumstances behind Crusaders entry into Super League. The fact is that the club was founded in 2005, they were not created specifically for a Super League berth.

Why do you think I, or anyone else, should have any interest in something that happened in 1995? Do you think that the PSG case is somehow equitable to the current day, and is indicative of how the current administration go about things? You're completely deluded if so.

Very nice. It's quite clear that the 'past' element only refers to the recent past and not irrelevant examples from 15 years ago. What you are doing is akin to blaming the RFL for mergers and the failure of the 2000 World Cup. It doesn't make any sense, and certainly doesn't constitute a good argument. In fact I think you have lost track of what you are actually arguing about. We agreed on the initial point.

Does this apply when reference is made to ' 100 years to make something of your club ' that we frequently see posted ?

It would appear in this interview Samuels was approached to create a team that was capable to entering SL in 2009

rlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/8134656.stmrl

Which he obviously did.

Can't recall the number of times I have posted that little nugget Mr Other

Err no, it wasn't. I certainly don't recall arguing that struggling lower division sides should be promoted to SL if they just happen to be expansion clubs.



See post above. This simply isn't true.



I think before you go down the tb line of implying that anyone who disagrees with you is merely ignorant, you ought to know a few basic things the history of RL. Unfortunately that you know very little is evident. You clearly hadn't heard of PSG which is no crime but absurd given the tone of your posts.



It might be if you hadn't included the "12 years ago" reference. I don't know why you think 15 years ago is irrelevant but 15 years is relevant.



No, it is not. You argued that the RFL only ever put a side in SL on the basis of geography once. We've counted four (PSG, Bronquins, Crusaders, Gateshead). It would be five if you include Catalans but I will be generous and say that they alone probably deserved their chance.

Mergers and the rest have absolutely nothing to do with RFL policy on licence decisions.

Nobody has argued for struggling lower division sides to be promoted, quite the opposite. In my original post I was agreeing with the point that clubs should be competitive at Championship level before moving into Super League. Crusaders clearly were competitive at Championship level, they very nearly won the Grand Final in their final season and had above average crowds for the division. London Broncos competed in the First Division prior to the first season of Super League. As the cases of London and PSG involved completely different circumstances in a different era, they have no more than a trivial relevance to this thread and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

You are mistaking a lack of knowledge for a lack of interest in irrelevant information. I'll ask again, do you honestly believe that the PSG case is an accurate reflection of the way the current RFL administration operate? And if not, why do you continue to refer to it so much?

The '12 years' comment was clearly an indication of how irrelevant the only real example to support your argument was. Given your self-proclaimed mastery of the English language, it's surprising how often you appear to misinterpret simple statements.

No, again you are making up something that you can argue against and attributing it to me. My post was arguing against new clubs being made up and placed in Super League in areas with little or no RL played. I stated that on only one occasion had a club been placed into Super League on the basis of geography [ialone[/i, and the fact that more than one expansion club has played in Super League doesn't invalidate that. Crusaders were a top Championship club, London Broncos were a club with 15 years of history. I'll give you PSG but I'm sure you can forgive me for discounting them from any sensible argument.

Neither do the events of 15 years ago or perceived linguistic inaccuracies, but that hasn't stopped you from attempting to base your entire argument on them. If you have anything to say about current 'RFL policy' which you can back up using [irelevant[/i examples then please go ahead.

Indeed they did but they were Fulham in those days and a very different outfit from the London RLFC who IIRC finished second bottom in the second division in 1994.



Completely different?

I don't think so. We had four examples. Given that the norm is one-up, it has hardly surprising that you have to go back 15 years to get so many examples. But what you suggest is a highly improbable event is actually not that unusual.



If you don't know the early history of SL then why make yourself out to be an expert on RL history. You are clearly anything but.

Yes, I do think the RFL hasn't changed much since 1995. They are probably no longer stupid enough to put a side into SL without playing a single competitive game anymore but they certainly aren't above selectively ignoring rules to achieve "expansion". And their success rate at a pro level is about the same as it ever was - virtually nil.



Four examples not one.



Crusaders were not a "top Championship" club. They'd had one good season in NL1 funded by not paying their bills (CCJs), employing illegal immigrants and forgetting to pay into pension funds.

Broncos had 15 years of history but little else at that point. No fixed home, few fans, limited on-field success, no youth policy to speak of. Judged on merit they were never going to get anywhere near SL. They got in because Murdoch wanted it that way. If SL had come along in 1981-2 then Fulham would have deserved their place but in 1995 they did not.



The last time there was an expansion team that entered SL was Crusaders. I can give you chapter and verse on RFL policy towards Crusaders if you like but we have all heard it before.

It hadn't happened for many years because one by one the likes of Cardiff / Bridgend / South Wales, Nottingham / Mansfield, Southend / Kent, Carlisle had all died off. Before Crusaders came along the one and only new side to enter in recent years was Skolars.

On that one point, if that is your true feelings, you are either an Idiot or Ill-informed, the game was on its and run by idiots in 95, it was nearly dead in 2000. Compared the pre and immediately post 2000 administrations this RFL is as different as is possible. A million times improved.

They are in many regards. They've done a good jobs on finances, expanding the game at a grass roots level and getting government money (and quite a few other things). But with regard to planning expansion at a pro level, they are not so very different.

except out of the 5 'expansion' clubs admitted, they have admitted one unmitigated success in Les Catalans, and one club who did exactly as was asked and came up through the leagues and challenged in all of them in Crusaders.

Your whole argument regarding this administrations relationship with expansion is based purely and solely on Crusaders, nothing else, It cant be. you have chosen to ignore Les Catalans, ignore them leaving out Toulouse when many said they were ready, ignored the work done to expand at the very lowest levels of the game and decided we should judge this administrations relationship with expansion on the Crusaders and nothing else, other than PSG, Quins and Gateshead who were admitted under previous administrations when it suits.

Mainly because I don't consider North Catalonia to be an expansion area for much the same reasons that I don't consider North Queensland Cowboys to be an expansion side. Or a hypothetical Cumbria side for that matter.



I'd rather have had Toulouse than Crusaders FWIW.

Then you are nuts, or rewriting history to suit your point. UTC prior to Les Catalans admission to SL were acheiving crowds not dissimilar to Crusaders.


Shall we just take that as your admission your argument was based entirely on Crusaders who were promoted ahead of Widnes then?

In what way was it 'strong'? other than it fits better to your agenda?