a new company with no trading history is more of a risk than one that had been trading well for longer

but lets just ignore the facts, it doesnt make you guys look good.

So do I. Good luck!

No it isn't. Not if the one that has been trading longer has been on a knife edge and in actual fact had no sound foundations whatsoever. Don't let facts get in the way of the crap you're spewing on here ..... AGAIN !!! Who's the safer bet now? Widnes or Celtic? Or should i ignore the facts?????

Just because you support expansion doesn't make you close minded. The way you support expansion and the fact that you won't change your position on it no matter how many times you contradict yourself or how many times there are examples of failure show a closed mind to me. You are not open to other ways.

i dont support expansion to moscow, ireland, scotland, barcelona right now.

i supported CC because i thought it was worth a shot.

i thought it would work out

faced with taking a risk with widnes or CC, i was happy the RFL went with CC.

its the same risk taking that saw them gamble on Les Cats when every supposed internet expert said it was a waste of time after PSG failed

if the RFL try 10 expansion clubs and end up with 2 or 3 clubs like Les Cats ill say job well done

id be willing to try again in wales if the plans looked good

Wrong again. Not the same risk at all.
There's more holes in your posts that Big Greame's pikelets !!!

accountacy 1a.

widnes couldnt even sustain an NL1 team without practically going broke and you think 6 months later they are ready for SL?

very logical

I'm giving up with Dally. I don't know why i bite. It's like debating with Rain Man.

mentioning leigh in reply to a post about succesful business would just too much out of whack

when did dustin hoffman become a member of rlfans?

And like magic , it appears

Best laugh of the day that rich

I've been lurking on several threads marvelling at the sheer doggedness of those who try to carry on a reasoned debate with this idiot.

Intellectually it is a complete waste of time and, I imagine, intensely frustrating ... but quite entertaining as a spectator sport.

Only a complete nutter would at the moment.


Were they worth a shot more than, say, Toulouse? And why?


I'd be very surprised if you supported their inclusion and didn't think it would work out!


I don't think Widnes was a risk. £0.5m bond reduces that risk immensely. But I wouldn't have chosen between WV and CC anyway, I'd have gone Salford vs Widnes and CC vs TO, and IMO they picked the weakest of both.


It's not the same at all. Catalans had 4 years preparation before they entered SL. Crusaders had 6 months.
There are a lot of parochial people, but don't exaggerate. There will always be some people for something and against it. I was for Catalans, but very reserved towards Celtic (if I had to say yes or no, I would have said no). There are so so many more people that were of the opinion that it was too soon for Crusaders, and when there are more people against something it tends to be for a reason. It shows the risk was a lot greater, and the risk didn't pay off.


Terrible attitude to expansion. The RFL shouldn't take on clubs that have too great a risk of failure. That's what the criteria is supposed to gage. If they take on 10 expansion clubs and get 2 successful ones, that's a 20% success ratio which is appalling for a business. If they took on 10, you'd hope that only 2-3 failed maximum.


What if they looked the same as the ones they had in 2008?