Expansion ...a sensible approach?

Quote: Roy Haggerty "I think there's some double-think going on which suits the prejudices of those who are ultimately opposed to any expansion because they fear that it threatens the place of smaller "traditional" clubs.'"

This is rubbish. Anyone that opposes the Celtic way of expansion is not against expansion. You are stereotyping people, which is a form of prejudice. It is complete nonsense based on nothing other than a factless little theory that fits in nicely with why you think people oppose your views. "Well they're just selfish and are wanting to look after their own. They don't know what's best for the game, just themselves" and the like.

Quote: Roy Haggerty "There are people on these boards who were implacable in their opposition to Catalans, for example (just as they were to Crusaders, and as they are to Quins), who argued that Catalans needed to be "built up from the bottom" and start in the lower divisions and not be "parachuted in" too soon etc etc. All the objections raised to Crusaders, Quins and indeed any attempt to create a new club. '"

Again, utter rubbish. Some may have been opposed to both Celtic and Catalans. Many weren't. You are always going to get people that are against one thing or another thing. That's called divided opinion. But just because some people are against Celtic and some are against Catalans doesn't mean they are the same people. There were (and still are) significantly more people that were against Celtic compared to Catalans, for entirely different reasons. They are not one in the same and to suggest they are is ludicrous. It just fits in nicer with your theory of people who oppose Celtic.

Quote: Roy Haggerty "Yet now that Catalans have been a success, those same people claim that actually Les Cats were really a heartlands club who were developed in a bottom-up way. '"

Or, perhaps the ones that did oppose them have now shut up, and the ones that didn't are singing their praises?
Do you think had Celtic been a success in the same way as Catalans people would try and claim them as a heartland club? Because it would be very difficult seeing as there was no semi-pro league down there for decades or a team there for decades like Catalans; rather just a team made up four years ago?
They are in no way the same.

Quote: Roy Haggerty "Yet that's clearly not true. Catalans combine some of the things most hated by anti-expansionists
Again, you are stereo-typing that everyone who is against this kind of expansion is an anti-expansionist. And you've gone a step further and suggested what else they also oppose. You'll never win an argument with a stereotype.

Let's look at both sides of the coin rather than just the one that makes everyone that makes everyone with a different opinion to you fir into a stereotypeMergers - not everyone that opposes this kind of expansion is opposed to mergers as well. They are totally different things. It is ridiculous that you even bring this up. Even the hypocrit that is dally messenger, who claims to be super expansionist for SL, hates mergers. It doesn't matter what your opinions are on expansion, mergers are a different issue. Mutually exclusive.
Lower leagues - yes they did. The teams that formed them had done for decades. How many times had French teams beaten top NFP/NL teams in the Cup? Plenty. They did come through the lower leagues, just a different country's. Their next logical step was SL, not NL1. It was a poor argument not held by many (and certainly not held by everyone that opposes Celtic).
They never won promotion - no, they did not. You are right. The only mainly controversial thing about it. They were the first real franchise. But this isn't an argument about expansion, it is an argument about the structure of the sport and it's ladder. Had another club from the heartlands come in in a similar fashion, do you think that people would be OK with it? No, of course not. Which means it isn't an anti-expansion thing.
Based on a heartland the equivalent of Humberside or West Yorks - What a load of bull. No-one ever said that. No-one compared Catalonia to West Yorkshire. They are a heartland for the game in the sense that they have a professional structure of their own down their with many semi-pro clubs running for many years with an identity of their own, rather than something made up over night. The game is not alien to them.
And RU has nothing to do with anything. We are entirely overlapped by football. So what? We are a junior partner to football. Doesn't make us not a heartland, does it?

Quote: Roy Haggerty "In many ways, Crusaders followed a much more traditionalist-friendly method of entering SL - a lower league campaign, building local roots, and then applying for a license alongside every other club (Catalans were given special treatment without a formal licensing process). To suggest that they represent the failure of top-down franchising compared to the success of Les Cats bottom-up development is just plain wrong.'"

Crusaders ploughed their way through the lower leagues with a rich backer and few juniors. Technically, had their been no licensing and the league expanded to 14 teams, they'd be up there. But they'd also have been relegated straight after. I would not call Les Catalans bottom-up in the strictest sense as they came through a different path, but they certainly aren't top-down. You're trying to make excuses for Celtic by comparing them to Catalans and now gone a step further saying that their entry is on a better basis than Catalans. So why aren't they working?!

Your whole argument is based on a stereotype that whoever doesn't agree with top-down expansion is an anti-expansionist. Fortunately, stereotypes rarely fit, and your whole argument is based on something that is not: that being everyone that opposes Celtic's inclusion to SL having the same thoughts.

RLFANS.COM MERCHANDISE

RLFANS.COM SPONSORS & HELP

RLFANS.COM MERCHANDISE

RLFANS.COM SPONSORS & HELP