Trolling message boards is all Dally Messenger has to do with his pitiful existence.

they could surely guarantee it themselves, im pretty sure Gauzini and the Patauche have more than £10m (or any other arbitrary amount we decide) in assets

expansion failure = dont try RL again
heartland failure = various reasonable excuses

time and again the same method

So they should have no problem borrowing said amount and using it as a cash bond then , which would show a solid commitment to seeing the venture through a 6 year period which is the minimum amount of time needed to get anywhere near to a break even scenario

but again, THIS WOULD INVOLVE THEM WASTING HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY

im not sure that makes sense

im also not sure that you can describe your view as [ithe impartial view [/ion the basis it is your view, there is nothing impartial about it, and it is certainly no more impartial than anyone elses

So are you suggesting they could run in SL without wasting huge amounts of money at the begining ?

Are you suggesting they would be self sustaining from day one ?

What exactly are you suggesting ? , we just let anybody in , even somebody that does not at the moment have a RL club/team/coach/fans,history of playing RL ?

Are you really that stupid ?

i would hope they wouldnt be wasting any money,

and i certainly expect them not give a few thousand if not hundreds of thousands of pounds to a bank for no real reason,

depends what you mean by self-sustaining


if, the backing, skill, comittment and guarantees are there, yes,

the game is never going to spread throughout the world at amateur level, then to semi-pro, then to pro, if we are demanding they do we are demanding the game doesnt grow,

The impartial view is that of judging all clubs by the same standards not making excuses for one set of clubs on an arbitrary notion

no it isnt, an impartial view is one based on objective criteria,

and that would be criteria that wouldnt be biased in favour of English heartland clubs or objective criteria that allowed for the intrinsic bias for English heartland clubs,

if you want to pretend all clubs are in the same position, face the same issues, have the same opportunities and challenges go ahead, but it does make you look like an idiot

You sad get

Self sustaining as in Breaking even , you know , like a REAL ' business , you pay money to your employee's , they provide a product , your customers pay for that product and your business doesn't lose money

Stop acting thick , you have no need to

For once in your sad boring life , answer a simple bloody question

no, i dont expect them to have to break even i their first year, or even second year,

i would fully expect that the first couple of years at least would be loss making

i dont expect any club promoted to be breaking even or making a profit within its first couple of years

had you meant the club were in a position where that loss comes from internal rather than external sources, then yes, i woudl expect the club to budget to make a loss, and already had this covered with comfortable wiggle room

Excellent , have you got that from the RFL 's Franchise section

You can't really expect a sport club to be breaking even in their first year (some in 10 years) of a higher division. It's not important that they break even straight away. What is important is whether they have plans in place to eventually break even, when that will be, and how much investment it would need up until that point.

What I would also find important is how attractive that business would be to be taken over should the current owner decide enough is enough (i.e. what is rumoured to be happening at Crusaders). If they're losing too much and don't look like they'll ever see a return, no-one will take it, and hence the plug is gone. At least Harlequins have attracted backers.

If there is a high risk at a club, maybe a guarantee of some sort would be a good idea? We can't take a risk too big with nothing to come out of it if something goes wrong. If Crusaders go under it would be awful, and the RFL would be foolish to take a similar risk again.